Scotland chose decisively against independence on Thursday, but it was not a vote for the status quo in Britain, according to a report by the New York Times.
The debate over regional and national autonomy that was set off by the Scots has just begun, and it promises a constitutional shake-up in the United Kingdom, which remains intact but by no means fixed or unchallenged.
While the outcome of the vote was met with tremendous relief from Downing Street and Buckingham Palace to Brussels and Washington, Britain was also awakening to the realization on Friday that it had agreed to grant the Scots considerable new powers to run their own affairs. Prime Minister David Cameron now faces a broader debate over the centralization of power in London, uncertainty over Britain’s place in Europe, intense budget pressures, and fissures within his own Conservative Party as he heads toward a general election in the spring.
Nearly 45% of Scots voted on Thursday to abandon the United Kingdom forever, but when the ballots from all 32 voting districts were tallied early Friday, the “no” campaign had won 55.3% of the vote, ensuring a more powerful Scotland within Britain.
The victory of the “Better Together” camp was ensured late in the campaign when all three main political leaders from Westminster - Cameron, Labour Party leader Ed Miliband and Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg - jointly promised “extensive new powers” to the Scottish Parliament over taxing, spending and welfare, while also pledging to continue the budget allowance Scotland gets, a generous allowance per capita compared with what the rest of Britain receives.
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, who led the independence fight, called for reconciliation Friday and then, visibly dejected, announced he would step down in November. But he made it clear that Scotland would hold the party leaders to their promises, which Parliament must turn into law, even if the three parties have not quite agreed on the details.
Cameron was faced with criticism from his own Conservative Party about the blithe manner of the promising and the possible expense. More interesting, perhaps, many legislators said that if Scotland received still more power over its finances, it was time for England to gain more, too. Some even suggested a separate English parliament, like the ones in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
One of the great anomalies of the British system, as it has developed, is that England is subject to the laws of Parliament in which Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish legislators vote. But Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments that rule, without any English say, on many important regional matters.
Cameron on Friday vowed to fix that, saying: “We now have a chance - a great opportunity - to change the way the British people are governed, and change it for the better.”
He gave no specifics but said: “Just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues.”
And all that, he asserted, “must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland,” with draft legislation supposedly ready by January, which is considered unlikely, given that it must be negotiated with all three main parties. But few expect such important legislation to be enacted before the general election in May.
Cameron also has an eye on the general election, his own restive party, the rise of the English nationalist United Kingdom Independence Party to his right and, to his left, the uninspiring performance of his opponent Miliband in arguing for continued union in Scotland.
Cameron clearly sees another advantage to an English parliament. Given his party’s relative strength in England, it would tighten the Conservatives’ grip on power even with left-wing Scotland, with 41 Labour members of Parliament, remaining in the United Kingdom.