The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland may have survived last month’s referendum in Scotland – but the question on the lips of many who fought a bruising and divisive campaign is: for how long?
While 55 per cent of Scots voted to keep the UK intact, 45 per cent registered their preference for an independent Scotland – a number that many unionist politicians may now, in their hubris, dismiss as a “minority”, but which, in reality, was just a few percentage points away from burying three centuries of British statehood. While the four nations of the British Isles remain united, the future integrity of the UK is not fully assured and another referendum on Scottish independence could come sooner than many people think.
What finally secured victory was something many observers christened “the vow”. The pro-Union camp, panicked by polls putting the dynamic Yes campaign within a hair’s breadth of victory just weeks before the referendum, suddenly went into overdrive. British prime minister David Cameron, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and opposition leader Ed Miliband signed and published the vow just two days before the September 18 poll.
It was a Westminster guarantee of “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament in the event of a No vote.
Just days before this pledge, even Gordon Brown – a Scot who is still popular in some parts of the electorate despite his embattled three years as British prime minister – was drafted to fight in the unionists’ corner. A political heavyweight despite now being a backbench Labour MP, Mr Brown promised a No-voting Scotland “home rule in the UK [where] we would be moving quite close to something near to federalism in a country where 85 per cent of the population is from one nation (England)”.
Today, Scotland’s reward for voting No seems fraught with ambiguity. In addition to the 1.6 million members of the Scottish electorate who voted Yes, at least a notable number of those two million who voted to stay within the Union did so with this promise of new powers firmly in mind. But, as many Yes campaigners warned before the referendum, the promise of these “extensive new powers” for Scotland’s devolved parliament – that were vaguely detailed at best – looks on course to disappoint this now massively politically engaged Scottish nation.
Not only has Mr Brown now felt obliged to ask Scots to sign a petition calling on the UK government to fulfil its (and bizarrely his own) pledge of greater powers, but Mr Cameron has incensed many in Scotland by insisting that any beefing up of the Scottish Parliament work in tandem with moves to introduce English votes for English laws in Westminster – that is, excluding Scottish MPs from voting on English-only legislation. That Mr Cameron should have muddied the waters with such a proposal in what is supposed to be a single-minded determination to deal with a post-referendum Scotland is a sign that, as before, Westminster understands little about this nation of 5.2 million – and how it has changed during the referendum process.
While a commission has been established to see to the “Scottish Question”, it seems inconceivable that, against the backdrop of such political shenanigans, and with the potential for party conflict at a high, a new constitutional settlement will hand Scotland the weighty powers that could hold the UK together for more than a lifetime.
Indeed, while the pro-independence camp lost the plebiscite, membership of the defeated Scottish National Party (SNP) – the ruling party of the Scottish Government and leading proponents of independence – has trebled to more than 80,000 since referendum day. And the many grassroots pro-independence groups, far from being chastened by defeat, look more emboldened than ever before. More crucially perhaps, an October 5 opinion poll published by the Scottish Sunday Herald suggested that two-thirds of Scots wanted “the vow” to translate into devo-max – a settlement by which the Scottish Parliament would control all its affairs bar defence and foreign policy.
This flowering of political engagement in Scotland has moved some to compare it to the Arab Spring. The differences between Scotland, and Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, for example, are obvious – Scotland managed its bitter constitutional feud without violence for one – but the point is clear. Eighty-five per cent of the Scottish electorate voted in the referendum – significantly higher than for ordinary elections – and while the Union was saved by a clear majority, Scotland’s largest city, Glasgow, voted Yes to independence, as did its fourth city, Dundee.
The ruling SNP, despite seeing its long-held dream voted down, remains popular in Scotland and while another referendum in the immediate future is unlikely, an agreement that fails to meet the expectations of the Scottish people might very well have to make another sooner than many anticipate.
The UK state, which has the ability to offer a raft of significant powers to Scotland, might be advised to take heed of such a proposition if it values its long-term survival. Next time, the answer to the now-legitimised question of Scottish independence could well be an emphatic Yes.
Alasdair Soussi is a freelance journalist, covering the Middle East and Scottish politics
On Twitter: @AlasdairSoussi
