SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

I have to admit that it was with a certain amount of trepidation that I woke up this morning and switched on the television news. After all, it was possible that the country of which I have been a citizen for all of my 55 years, namely the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, might no longer exist. Scotland might have voted no longer to be part of it.

I had always thought that the vote would be a close victory for the no's, even when, at the start of the campaign, opinion polls showed a big majority for maintaining the status quo. The no campaign was likely to be, and was, stodgy, wooden, and patronising; while the yes campaign was exciting, fun and optimistic. However, in the end, the margin against independence was bigger than expected, 55% to 45%. The head had won over the heart.

This was a relief. I have no doubt that Scotland could survive as an independent country; there are plenty of modern states that have a similar or smaller population. Things wouldn't have been as rosy as the yes campaign liked to present them, but they could have managed fairly well. The problem is that it would have been a disaster for England. The Celtic peripheries provide an extremely useful brake on the English tendency to be smug, superior and condescending. Without Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland in due course?) the rump would have been in danger of becoming a permanently conservative, grumpy, anti-immigrant, isolationist kingdom. One which I would have had more than a little difficulty supporting.

But although voters chose to maintain the union, that doesn't mean that things won't change. Panicked by opinion polls showing a dead heat or even a slight lead for the yes campaign, the leaders of Westminster's three main political parties at the last minute promised further devolution to the Scots (which, in practice, means further devolution to Wales and Northern Ireland as well). This is unabashedly a good thing. The U.K. is one of the most centralised states in the world, with 95%+ of all tax revenues circulating through London before they are doled out to the provinces. The Mayor of London, a world-class city with more people than the whole of Denmark, has less power than my local authority, with only 40,000 people (5,000 before a local authority reform here). Major provincial English metropolitan areas such as Manchester and Leeds have almost no independent power at all.

In the end, more power to Scotland will probably satisfy everyone there, both yes and no voters. For if there is one message to take from the campaign (in which 85% of people voted, including 16 and 17-year olds for the first time), it is that ordinary people are fed up with being bossed around by an elitist set of politicians housed a long way away in London. If their influence can be reduced, then it will be good for the whole of the union, and not just Scotland.

Walter Blotscher