Scottish Independence: What went on and what happens next

On the 18^th of September 2014, 84.59% of the Scottish population went to the polls to decide the future of their country; at the final count, as we’ve seen “No” won over “Yes” by 55% against 44% of votes.

The “No” campaign won out for several reasons, most notably how it and its supporters worked to stem the vote count for “Yes”. Whenever there was a surge in votes for “Yes”, the “No” campaign quickly worked to counteract this, creating surges of their own to keep themselves ahead of the opposing side (in this case, the party leaders journeyed up to Scotland). Many Scottish citizens felt that going independent was too much of a risk economically and were more inclined by the offerings of the “Better together” campaign. Daniel Weissman of the Bournemouth University Politics society raised the question as to whether independence would have been a reasonable choice for Scotland; because it was impossible to tell how the country would have coped in the future, the vote could have been considered a potentially costly gamble at best. Scotland’s economy will consistently grow with England’s and the vote also put shares up for the pound once results came through. In addition, the Royal Bank of Scotland will not relocate to London, allowing their operations to continue without any interruption. By staying with England, six hundred thousand jobs can be created through trading which benefits both nations and above all else, Scotland will not lose its power and presence as a nation by staying with England. 

Of course a vote as large as this wasn’t without controversy; there have been accusations of bias and swayed votes floating around both the media and those who campaigned for the “No” vote. Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has been especially vocal on this, stating that the British party leaders misled voters with their campaigns. The oil supplies from the North Sea were an important part of debate as officials were apparently misled over amounts of the substance which forms a large part of Scotland’s economy. There was also an incident involving Andy Murray receiving abuse on Twitter after his decision to support the “Yes” campaign hours before the referendum began.

But what could have happened had Scotland actually made history by voting “Yes”? Many economists argue that Scotland may have struggled without the pound, a drawback which George Osborne enforced and was then supported by Labour leader Ed Miliband. It was also debated that the country’s impact, presence and influence on the world would have been significantly diminished if they split from the UK. Going independent would have also had an effect on Britain’s military; a member of the Navy based in HMNB Clyde, the force’s headquarters in Scotland, said that the base would either have to be declared sovereign territory or relocated south of the border had Scotland chosen to vote yes.  But on the other hand it was also argued that on its own, Scotland could have better tackled financial inequality amongst its citizens; a problem which Scottish members of Parliament feel was brought on and exacerbated by Westminster policies. In addition, being independent would have also allowed Scotland to fully shape itself as a nation; some of the primary areas up for consideration included the Scottish NHS, which some feel could have been freed from the privatisation that plagues the English organisation and branched out on its own.

Now we know that the people don’t want independence, how does Scotland proceed in the future? The answer lies in continued devolution (the giving away of powers) to Scottish Parliament, which will be carried out by either the Labour or Conservative parties. Most recently Ed Miliband and David Cameron had a row over what was the best way to proceed with this tactic. Labour would give Scotland the power to vary income tax by 15p out of every pound as well as complete control over their own elections, meaning that they cannot be dissolved by Westminster. The Conservative party wants to be more lenient in this regard, giving Scotland complete control over its income tax.

But with devolution comes another issue; the West Lothian question remains difficult to solve; is it fair that English MPs have no say on Scottish issues whereas Scottish MPs can participate in both based on devolution? Some analysts have suggested that giving more and more powers to Scotland could result in a greater level of political inequality between Westminster and Scotland. Change will undoubtedly come to Scottish Parliament over the coming months; Alex Salmond has already announced he will be stepping down as First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party and Scottish MPs are pointing to his deputy Nicola Sturgeon to replace him.

Would a vote for independence ever happen again? Salmond has promised that the dream will never die but as Alistair Darling put it, this has been a once in a lifetime vote. Despite this argument Salmond has claimed that Scotland could still become independent; the process of gradual devolution to the country could end up making the country independent in all but name, meaning Scotland would be able to declare its independence without even needing a referendum at all.

After all the voting and political blowback there’s no real way of knowing whether Scotland would have been better or worse off on their own, but for now the country will remain joined to Britain.