The mood, it would seem, changed overnight in Scotland.
“People were talking about the referendum everywhere – they would encounter each other at bus stops and strike up conversations. They’d meet in a pub and immediately start talking, mostly in a very circumspect way, talking about the issues and what might happen, but not really discussing how they’re going to vote,” said Western Political Science professor Robert Young, a leading secession expert.
Young, a Canada Research Chair in Multilevel Governance, was in Edinburgh for the Sept. 18 vote, after two years of following the Scottish independence campaign. The referendum saw a turnout of more than 84 per cent, with roughly 55 per cent voting ‘no,’ in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom.
“The morning after, people on the streets weren’t talking about it. They were going about their business. That’s it. It’s done,” Young continued.
But, as he sees it, it’s not really over. With 45 per cent of the electorate wanting to secede, it could – and likely will – pose a major problem going forward for the Scots.
“The question is whether the people – especially the young people, who joined in so enthusiastically – will now become disaffected from politics. That’s possible. If not, they’re going to be a potent force to have to deal with,” Young said.
Political tensions will likely continue and boil over at some point in the near future. Promises made by the U.K. government of further devolution are unlikely to materialize any time soon, with the Scotland Act alone already consuming three years in parliament. Draft legislation, expected on the table in December, is highly unlikely, he explained.
“That’s very, very hard to see. The parties at Westminster are divided over what should be done.”
Scots committed to devolving more powers over taxation and welfare are equally committed to finding a solution to the West Lothian question – a debate on whether Scottish members of parliament (as well as those in Wales and Northern Ireland) should be able to vote on matters affecting England only, while those who represent English constituencies have no say on similar matters concerning Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
“(Prime Minister David) Cameron has pledged to find a solution to this, and how that’s going to work out is not at all obvious. But his backbenchers – some of them – are furious about offering more powers to Scotland. They will be really hard to cope with,” Young said.
“I think (secession) could come back to the table pretty quickly.”
In fact, the ‘no’ campaign was somewhat of a bully, Young continued, placing little emphasis on the common history, fellow feeling and a sense of brotherhood. The bulk of the campaign was devoted to dire predictions and threats, he said. What’s more, the media was overwhelmingly supportive of the ‘no’ side, attacking and criticizing arguments in favour of secession.
Had the result of the vote been different, it wouldn’t have been as bad as predicted.
“The big threat was over the currency. If you walk away from the U.K., you walk away from the pound. I think that’s rubbish. Had the Scots voted ‘yes,’ there would have been an agreement on a currency union,” explained Young.
“It would have been messy. There would have been losses, there’s no doubt about that. But there would have been non-material benefits to being independent.”
As for those who were watching the Scottish referendum with a keen eye and interest in Quebec politics, the result of the vote serves a devastating blow, he added. Many Quebecers were in Scotland for the vote, he added, notably Parti Quebecois member Pierre Karl Péladeau.
“I think it takes the wind out of the sovereigntists’ sails even more. They are at a very low ebb at the moment. If you can’t do it in Scotland, where can you do it?” Young said.
“Scotland has great geographical advantage over Quebec. It’s not in the middle of the country. It’s got oil. It has a very high level of human capital. It’s got a high standard of living on average. If they are going to be bullied and beaten up, then who is going to vote ‘yes?’”