The Power of No

By+Kerry+Brown

On September 18， the UK contemplated a fundamental change to its national existence. The coalition government headed by Prime Minister David Cameron voted into office in May 2010 promised in 2012 to hold a referendum to decide whether Scotland remains part of the UK or becomes independent. He did so after immense pressure from the Scottish National Party， headed by Scotlands First Minister Alex Salmond， who said that the citizens residing in the northern part of the British main island needed to decide whether to stay as part of the UK or become an independent country.

Complex history

With a population of 5.3 million， Scotland is home to less than 8 percent of the UK population. And yet it is an area rich in resources， with oil fields in the northern oceans and good agricultural and financial sectors.

The specter of Scotland going independent after 307 years of union with the rest of the UK was a troubling one. Before 1707， Scotland had existed as an independent country， but one that sometimes shared monarchs with England， as it did under King James I from 1603. This history between England and Scotland was often a fractious and violent one.

A land with a different ethnicity， language and customs for most of the period up to the Middle Ages， Scotland was unconquered by the Romans during their occupation of the British Isles from the first to the fourth century. Edward I as King of England famously prosecuted savage wars in the northern borders， brutally executing William Wallace， one of the main Scottish rebel ringleaders in 1305. Wallaces story was given modern wide exposure in the 1990s Hollywood blockbuster， Braveheart. The Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 saw the English forces defeated， and an English treaty recognized Scottish independence in 1328. Despite this， the separate countries of England and Scotland were closely linked to each other for the ensuing centuries. The 1707 Union， however， created one country in which they both existed as separate territories， alongside Ireland and Wales.

In this union， England has always been dominant in terms of population， political and financial power. This lies behind the rising trend in recent years for more autonomy and selfgovernment in Scotland. These were initially met by devolving an increasing series of powers from the Westminster National Government. Under Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1999， a Scottish national assembly was established， with the ability to decide legislative and administrative issues. However， tax-raising powers and national defense remained largely in the hands of the central government.

The complex interlinked history and management of their different affairs helps explain some of the reasons why the vote held on September 18， which rejected independence by a majority of 55 percent to 45 percent， was such an emotionally highly charged and difficult one. Complaints in Scotland for many years have grown about the manner in which they are dealt with by the Central Government. There is anger over the ways in which resource money is seen as going straight into the tax coffers of the Central Government rather than being used locally. These complaints work both ways. Many English residents feel that Scotland is overly subsidized and gets preferential treatment. These issues are ones that Cameron and his government in the aftermath of the vote will have to deal with.

These resentments lay behind the surprise majority electoral victory by the Scottish National Party in 2011. Under their eloquent and charismatic leader Salmond， an economist who used to work for Shell Oil， an agreement between the national parliament in London and the local assembly in Edinburgh to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should be independent or remain part of the Union was finally agreed to in 2012. For most of the two years of the campaign， the assumption widely shared was that the pro-independence proportion of the population would greatly outnumber those voting to break apart. Only in the last month from August， however， did polls start to show that of all the eligible voters， a significant proportion was considering backing the independence ticket. That 1.6 million did eventually vote for Salmonds proposal is a huge victory for him， despite the fact that he ended up losing. The election was too close for comfort， and in the last few days there were dire warnings from business and others that the creation of a separate Scotland would be disastrous.

Crucial vote

The “No to Independence” campaign was hamstrung in much of the last year by its negative tone. Its core argument was that Scottish people would lose out， have lower standards of living and generally suffer if they voted yes. But as Salmond argued over the last few months， such fear tactics ignored the fact that in per-capita terms， Scotland was wealthy， had developed infrastructure and major industries. He also argued that with greater control over its fiscal affairs， Scotland would be able to plan its budgets better. There were fierce arguments between his party and its opponents about whether Scotland would be able to maintain use of the British currency if it became independent， and whether it could remain part of the EU. It is unprecedented for a member state of the EU to have part of itself break away and then ask to join separately.

As people contemplated the possibility of a yes vote for independence， it became clear that few really knew what the solution to the full legal， tax and fiscal challenges would be should Scotland chose to break away. Salmond stated that the pound sterling would continue to be used. But Cameron rebuffed him by saying that the UK would oppose this. Shares of national debt were also issues that needed to be worked out， along with a long and complex disentanglement of tax and legal affairs between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK.

In the build-up to the final result， all of the major UK parties jointly undertook granting greater powers to the Edinburgh government. In that sense， Salmond won both ways. Even though he failed to achieve a vote supporting breaking away， Scotland will be governed in a different way after this referendum than before it. The details of this new deal have yet to be worked out， but will almost certainly involve greater fiscal freedom for Scottish residents. The fact that the vote was so tight in the end， and that the pro-independence lobby were able to get such huge public support cannot be ignored by the national government.

The events over the last few months in Scotland， culminating in the September 18 plebiscite， have been widely watched across Europe and the rest of the world. Many leaders of other EU member states were dreading an outright victory for independence， as they struggle with their own separatist movements. Countries like Spain in particular， still dealing with the Basque independence movement， probably sighed with relief that a precedent against breaking away was set in the Scottish vote. Despite this， the fact that the UK allowed a vote to at least give some idea of what local people wanted will not have been missed by leaders of other aspiring nations in Europe who want to have more devolution or freedom.

For this reason， the Scottish vote was hugely significant. It shows that for all the forces of globalization and transnational cooperation， in the end people also want to keep their governance and interests very local. The more remote government and administration is， the less it seems to matter in peoples allegiances and lives. The EU administration is largely invisible， and portrayed as faceless and mendacious； national governments have had increasingly tough times keeping their people happy. Local governments， while not wildly popular， are at least accessible and more visible. The Scottish vote shows how ambiguous people are about governance in the 21st century in Europe.

Cameron took a huge risk in allowing the September 18 vote to go ahead， and there have been fierce criticisms of him within the UK and across Europe. The result in the end was the best one he could have expected， especially as there was a real chance for a week or so that independence might happen. The trauma of this period may well push him to review his promise to hold a similar referendum if reelected in 2015 on Britains membership in the EU. This is likely to prove every bit as contentious， and very challenging， with a date set for 2017. There are real questions now over whether he can really proceed with this promise， at a time when the UK needs to stabilize its internal affairs. For a conservative， Cameron has proved himself someone who likes to take high risks. The Scottish referendum was a huge gamble， and while it paid off in the end， it has probably made people in the UK think that some things are better left as they are. The EU membership might be one of these.