Scotland: Is the 'No' verdict a real No?

In the end, most of Scotland’s four million voters chose to ignore what their heart had been telling them and went, instead, with the head to save the United Kingdom from breaking up in last week's cliff-hanger of a referendum. But it was a nightmarishly close shave, and knocked the daylights out of the complacent and often arrogant Unionists who had initially thought that it would be a walkover. 

When the Scottish National Party (SNP) leader and Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond, who has since decided to step down, first mooted the idea of a referendum he was mocked in London and told to "dream on". In the event, he nearly pulled it off. Barely days before the polling day, there was an unexpected Nationalist surge, giving the “Yes” camp a narrow lead over the “No” campaign. For the latter to have survived the scare and rescue the 300-year old Union has been likened to a journey to hell and back. 

While Unionists may have eventually won the vote on the back of a desperate last-minute campaign of scare-mongering, combined with the promise of an eye-watering package of inducements, the verdict can’t hide the depth of pro-independence sentiment in Scotland. Having started as complete underdogs, the “Yes” campaign managed to bag a whopping 45 per cent of the votes. As Salmond, consoling his supporters, pointed out, “I don't think any of us would have thought such a thing to be either credible or possible.” More important than dwelling on “the distance we have fallen short, let’s dwell on the distance we have travelled’’.

The truth is that the reason the British government agreed to a referendum in the first place was because it underestimated the strength of the other side and took a “No” vote for granted. So much so that it rejected a proposal for a third option on the ballot paper — namely “devo max’’ (maximum devolution) along with “Yes” or “No”. Ironically, that's what it has now been forced to offer to Scots as a reward for rejecting independence.

So, what next? In a sense, the real fun and games will begin now with a battle looming over the shape of the new constitutional settlement that Scots have been promised. Moreover, it has prompted other regions such as England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to demand similar powers as are proposed to be given to Scotland opening a constitutional Pandora’s Box. Even the capital London is demanding more autonomy to run its own affairs.

But first it is important to emphasise that although the headline victory margin of the “No” camp may seem impressive, considering how close it came to nearly losing the vote, it is hugely deceptive. The fact that some 1.6 million Scots voted for independence reveals the strength of the Nationalist sentiment, especially among the youth who voted "yes" with their feet. And, for the first time, the fragility of UK was exposed, sending  shockwaves through the Westminster establishment in London. 

The message to the three main national parties — Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats — is that they can no longer afford to take the UK's famed unity for granted; and the era of a "top-down" system in which power flows from London to other regions at its pleasure is well and truly over.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that most of those who ultimately voted “No” did so, not because they were swayed by the Unionists' arguments but because they were spooked by the prospect of uncertainties in an independent Scotland. The threat by British banks to move out of Scotland, uncertainty over currency, and, above all, doubts whether an independent Scotland would be financially viable were some of the factors that made  them plump for the safer option of staying on.

The British government worked overtime and used every trick in the book to fuel people’s fears. Friendly economists were wheeled out to dispute Scotland's estimate of revenues from North Sea oil, a main source of its income; people were told to watch out about their pensions if they chose to leave; and rumours were floated about a likely run on Scottish banks. Even the Queen, normally a neutral observer, was nudged into saying that she hoped “people will think very carefully about the future’’ before casting their vote.

The clincher, of course, was Prime Minister David Cameron’s promise of maximum autonomy to Scots in exchange for a “No” vote — an act which, in any other circumstances, would be called open bribery. The move was backed by both Labour and Lib Dems. Many "iffy" Yes voters and most of the "undecideds" saw in it elements of the best of both worlds: more powers to govern themselves without having to jump into an uncharted territory. But the taste of the pudding lies in the eating. And they would get to taste it in coming weeks and months as negotiations to draw up the devolution package begins.

A row has already erupted with a section of Tories accusing Cameron of selling out to SNP with his panic-driven generous autonomy offer, and Labour raising objections to a move to bar Scottish MPs from voting on England-only laws. The government has its work cut out as it deals with pressures and counter pressures.

Scots will be watching very carefully and any attempt to short-change them is fraught with risk of provoking a backlash. It is important to remember that Scots’ feeling of alienation from the rest of Britain, which caused the pro-independence surge, has not gone away; and Salmond remains a huge presence in Scottish politics capable of reigniting the flames, if Cameron doesn’t deliver on his promise.

It was a bitterly fought campaign, with an unprecedented 85 per cent turn out, and divisions it caused not only in Scotland but across Britain will take time to heal even without any further provocation from either side. “Scotland is divided politically and socially. It will take a huge effort for politicians, Unionist and Nationalist, to begin the healing process,’’ one leading commentator wrote.
The UK as a constitutional entity may have survived for now, but the idea of a nation united by a shared identity has changed forever.  

The author is a London-based columnist