The Kingdom stays United, for now

But the September 18 vote revealed the growing sentiment for independence among the Scots. In the final days leading to the referendum, opinion polls predicted that the contest was on ‘a knife edge’ and ‘too close to call’ causing panic among the leading British anti-independence leaders, notably Prime Minister David Cameron, who had taken the […]

But the September 18 vote revealed the growing sentiment for independence among the Scots. In the final days leading to the referendum, opinion polls predicted that the contest was on ‘a knife edge’ and ‘too close to call’ causing panic among the leading British anti-independence leaders, notably Prime Minister David Cameron, who had taken the gamble to call for the referendum.
In a rare show of unity, leaders of the three main political parties including Cameron’s Conservative Party, trooped to Scotland to admonish the Scots not to abandon the union. Even the Queen, who ordinarily stays above the political fray, was moved to put in a word of royal caution asking the Scots to think carefully before voting. As it happened, the ten percent margin of victory for the ‘’No’’ campaign turned out was much higher than the opinion polls had predicted.  
Much of Scots’ disenchantment with the union had been the perception that Scotland was being short-changed, especially on revenues from its North Sea Oil.
The referendum was a triumph for British democracy. The acrimony generated in the heat of the campaign may not abate anytime soon; but both sides did not resort to violence. Mr Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party, who led the pro-independence movement, announced he would step down from both posts, noting that he believed the party, parliament and country would benefit from new leadership.  In other countries, separation, or the agitation for it, would lead to wars with loss of life. The partition of India in 1947 with the emergence of Pakistan; the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971, or the 1967 attempt by the old Easter Region to secede from Nigeria, are a few examples.  
Had the Scots voted in favour of independence, it would have presented serious implications not only for the UK’s economy; its international standing would have been severely dented. A ‘’Yes’’ vote would have also emboldened separatists in Europe, such as the Catalans in Spain and the Flemish in Belgium, among others, to tread a similar path.  
In the former British colonies in Asia and Africa, not a few commentators rooted for Scottish independence as a way of getting their own back on the former colonial power whose divide and rule policies had been part of the strategy to maintain its grip over its empire. On the other hand, there were those who viewed the referendum with trepidation, fearing that a’’ Yes’’ vote might spur separatists in their own countries.
The “No’’ campaign led by Gordon Brown, former British Prime Minister, and Alistair Darling, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of them Scots, did much to sway their compatriots.  In the heat of the campaign, Mr Cameron and the other political leaders had to promise devolution of more powers to the Scottish parliament if the Scottish electorate voted for the union.  Having achieved their aim, it remains to be seen whether that pledge would be fulfilled.
The nationalists may have lost the referendum this time around, but it may not be over yet. The flame of Scottish nationalism won’t easily be extinguished, leaving open the strong possibility that the nationalists will revisit the issue of independence in the future. This could well be the case especially if promises of more autonomy made during the campaign go unredeemed.  
Scottish nationalism holds lessons for Nigeria, where there have long been complaints of too much concentration of power in the federal government and calls for decentralisation and reform.