The debate, analysis and media machine all came to a head for the final vote on the 18th September 2014 in the Scottish independence referendum. While the You-Gov opinion polls had the No vote well in the lead for the majority of the year, August and September saw the Yes vote close the gap significantly, culminating in an overtake on the 2nd September 2014.
However, the No vote moved back into the ascendency with 50% of the projected vote on the 11th September 2013 and with so little time to go before the vote was cast and a whopping 97% of people eligible signed up to vote, it was a solid indication of what the likely outcome would be. Now that the vote has been cast, we know that it was a projection that turned out to be true, with No to independence winning out on the day.
However, at that point and with just a week to go it was a little too early to call for, but it was clear event then that a big portion of the voting public had already climbed down off the fence and landed on the No side of the divide, as they proved to do on the day of the referendum. There were plenty of variables that could swing the vote either way though as things were held tightly in the balance, but as things stayed true we still have a United Kingdom for the foreseeable future.
In the run up, it became a fiercely contested referendum with Scottish First Minister, leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and figure head of the Yes campaign, Alex Salmond, doing all that he feasibly could to build momentum for Scottish independence. However, David Cameron’s and Nick Clegg had also started to turn up the heat on the debate, teaming up with Ed Miliband to drop out of Prime Minister’s Questions to travel to Scotland and unite under the banner of the Better Together-led No campaign.
It wasn’t just words and unity with Labour and Lib Dem leadership that Cameron had thrown behind the No campaign, as he also arrived in Scotland with a roadmap for further devolution of policy making powers proposed for the No vote win. Now that the decision has been made, only time will tell how extensive the devolution process will become, but the proposals included significant decision making powers around tax, spending and welfare for the Scottish government as a part of what David Cameron referred to as, “the best of both worlds”.
At the time, Cameron was also keen to point out that this clarification comes in stark contrast to the lack of clarity from the Yes campaign in terms of the future currency, European Union membership status and public services funding deficit in Scotland. Added to this was the news that the Royal Bank Of Scotland would move it’s legal headquarters to London had there been a Yes vote, indicating that jobs and financial stability weren’t necessarily as assured as the Yes campaign had been keen to suggest. It increasingly clear considering the result of the referendum that this economic uncertainty was instrumental in the success of the No campaign.
However, the reality is that business leaders were a little split on the future economic viability of an independent Scotland with large portions pointing out possible troubles and price rises for food and other goods, while others argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to suggest economic instability. The big question was whether or not the voting public would be more swayed by the risk factor inherent in such a significant potential change to their country’s economy, and in hindsight we now know that they were.
Wider economic considerations beyond the lifespan of north sea oil production had also been referred to by the No campaign and were clearly taken into account by the voting public worried about the long term viability of the supply. As the reserves start to reduce, Scotland would have needed to find a new way of creating economic prosperity outside of the comfort of being an oil producing nation. While it was a consideration that had a long half-life, it’s one that was significant for people with children that would have been been set to grow up in a Scotland with the slowly dwindling economic reliance.
On the other side of the argument, the reality is that the people of Scotland will still need to face the reducing oil supply eventually no matter what the outcome of the vote. With this in mind, the key variable was whether or not people considered Scotland to be better off to face it independently or with the support of the rest of the UK and it looks like the Better Together ethos won out.
There were a lot of arguments for and against independence that sort of cancelled each other out when you looked into the details of them. For example, pensions were cited as an issue, but the Scottish government had already stated that little will change had a Yes vote been carried; questions about currency were responded to with statements about the continuation of the pound and an ongoing currency union; the creation of a border, no matter how flimsy, had been linked to economic issues, but then EU borders were held up as examples of how it can work well; defense and security risks had also been highlighted as potential threats to an independent Scotland, but the counter argument was that as a smaller state it would have a lower risk profile to the UK, so could feasibly handle the burden.
One item of consideration that didn’t seem to be so easy to cancel out was the fact that administration costs were likely to be high for an independent Scotland, especially in the first few years. While it’s true that a lot of Scottish policies and infrastructure are already devolved from the rest of the UK, and so are already in place, the reality is that there would have been many new government administration costs to be paid to go fully independent, which will have had an impact on the Scottish budget. For example, the renegotiation of EU membership and terms would have been costly all by itself.
In addition to this, the number of armed forces jobs would have more than likely needed to go up for Scotland if it were to become independent, which again increased the need for tax payer’s money to fund it. Whether this meant increased taxes or cuts elsewhere, the reality is that the added defense requirements would have needed funding somehow and at the point of the run up to the referendum it wasn’t entirely clear where the additional budget would be coming from.
For us, though, it wasn’t just a case of the ups and downs of the argument, we just like having Scotland as a part of the UK. However, as we didn’t reside in Scotland we weren’t allowed to vote, no matter what our historical lineage, which is a travesty in itself. Worse still is the fact that any Scots living in Bodmin, Morecambe, London or Carlisle were not allowed to vote either, so the fate of their homeland has been decided without their consideration. From our point of view, a referendum that decides the future of a portion of a nation should be open to all areas of that nation, not just those that happen to live inside the border of the area.
