Scotland is staying. London's headaches are just starting.

British leaders are relieved by the Scots' vote against independence. But devolving new powers to Scotland – and perhaps to England – may be a bigger challenge for Westminster than the referendum was.

Lefteris Pitarakis/AP
British Prime Minister David Cameron leaves after giving a statement to the media about Scotland's referendum results, outside his official residence at 10 Downing Street in central London on Friday. Scottish voters have rejected independence, deciding to remain part of the United Kingdom after a historic referendum that shook the country to its core.

The Scots have voted no to independence. But their majority decision has raised more questions than answers about the future of the United Kingdom.

While the Scottish National Party takes stock and anticipates new powers for the Scottish parliament at Holyrood, constitutional experts and campaigners are trying to interpret Prime Minister David Cameron’s victory speech and what it means for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cameron spoke of a "new and fair" constitutional settlement which would answer the politically thorny issue of "English votes for English laws."

Under the current system, many areas like health, education, and environment issues are devolved to the parliaments of Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. However those countries’ Members of Parliament can still vote on the issues even when they only affect England, which makes up 84 percent of the UK population.

Eddie Bone from the Campaign for an English Parliament says he was disappointed by the Scottish vote, because a yes would have put more pressure on British leaders to grant some form of English self-rule.

But he says Cameron’s comments and the Scottish "Yes" campaign have made change inevitable. “We have to have a first minister, an executive, and a minister for England. We don’t accept what some of the national politicians like Nick Clegg have been suggesting that we devolve power to the regions and big cities."

Such a move, he argues, "will lead to the breakup of England and ultimately the UK. There has to be fairness first, and you don’t do that by dividing cities and regions.”

Cameron has assigned the Leader of the Commons and former foreign minister William Hague to chair a committee to examine the anomaly of Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs voting on English matters. But he also warned that if no agreement was reached, it might have to be decided after next year’s general election.

The three main British parties pledged before the referendum to devolve more powers to Scotland in the event of a no vote, maintaining a controversial formula by which Scotland receives more public spending per head of population than other constituent parts of the UK.

Breaking 'the vow'

But constitutional expert Iain McLean at Nuffield College, Oxford, says he is skeptical about the parties' promise, dubbed "the vow."

“It was a panic measure and I think Cameron is going to have difficulty seeing it through," Professor McLean says. "On the day of the referendum, we saw his own MPs saying no more financial powers, which was extraordinary for members of what is the Conservative and Unionist party to be saying at such a sensitive time."

But while politicians south and the north of the border absorb the result, "Yes" campaigners acknowledge they have lost a chance of a generation to achieve independence.

One of the more unusual groups was English Scots for Yes. Co-founder Math Campbell, who was born and raised near Cambridge but moved to Scotland at 18, says the result has been tough. He blames the "British establishment" for his campaign's defeat. “I hope they do follow through on the vow but I’m not sure it’s deliverable. We managed a huge swing in support with 1.5 million people wanting independence but it wasn’t enough."

“The establishment had to wheel out big business – the banks, supermarkets – to frighten people which helped put people off,” Mr. Campbell says.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Scotland is staying. London's headaches are just starting.
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0919/Scotland-is-staying.-London-s-headaches-are-just-starting
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe