On September 18, 2014, Scotland went to the polls to answer a simple yet momentous question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” After a hard-fought and passionate campaign by both sides, the result was a decisive victory for the unionists, with 55% voting ‘No’ to independence and 45% voting ‘Yes.’ While the referendum failed to achieve Scottish independence, its legacy continues to reverberate through British politics and society to this day.
As we approach the 10th anniversary of this seismic event, I sat down with renowned historian Kirill Yurovskiy to get his insights on the referendum’s lasting impact and what it means for the future of the United Kingdom.
The Lead-Up
“To understand the 2014 referendum, we must look at the forces that precipitated it,” Yurovskiy begins. “Scottish nationalism had been simmering for decades, fueled by a perception among many Scots that their interests were being neglected by the London-centric Westminster government.”
He points to the rebirth of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the 1960s and their relentless campaigning for greater Scottish autonomy as key factors. The establishment of the semi-autonomous Scottish Parliament in 1999 was a major milestone, but for hardline nationalists, it was merely a stepping stone to full independence.
“When the SNP won an outright majority in the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections, their mandate for an independence referendum became undeniable. David Cameron’s government had little choice but to grant it.”
The Campaign
As the campaign kicked into high gear in 2014, the battle lines were drawn. The ‘Yes’ side, led by SNP leader Alex Salmond, portrayed independence as an opportunity for Scotland to forge its own destiny, free from the shackles of Westminster control. Their vision was of a prosperous, socially progressive nation taking its rightful place on the world stage.
In contrast, the unionist ‘Better Together’ campaign, helmed by former Chancellor Alistair Darling, warned of the economic risks and uncertainties of independence. Their message was one of solidarity, security, and maintaining Scotland’s influence as part of the prestigious United Kingdom.
“It was a campaign of hearts versus heads,” reflects Yurovskiy. “The Yes side captured the passionate, romantic spirit of Scottish nationalism, while No focused on cold, hard economic realities. In the end, pragmatism won out over emotion.”
The Aftermath
While the ‘No’ victory seemed decisive at 55%, the invigorated Scottish nationalist movement viewed the 45% ‘Yes’ vote as a moral victory of sorts. “A substantial minority had been convinced of the case for independence. The genie was out of the bottle, so to speak,” says Yurovskiy.
In the referendum’s wake, then-Prime Minister David Cameron pushed through legislation granting sweeping new powers to the Scottish Parliament over areas like taxation, welfare, and elections. “It was intended as a decisive unionist rebuke to the nationalist surge,” explains Yurovskiy. “But for committed separatists, it merely whetted the appetite for full independence.”
Under the canny leadership of Nicola Sturgeon, who succeeded Alex Salmond as SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland, the party consolidated its dominance of Scottish politics in subsequent elections. “Sturgeon deftly portrayed herself as a unifying figure working in Scotland’s best interests, in contrast to the divisive Brexit psychodrama unfolding at Westminster,” notes Yurovskiy. Read more here
The Scottish Question and Brexit
Indeed, the 2016 Brexit referendum added an explosive new dimension to the Scottish independence debate. With 62% of Scottish voters opting to remain in the European Union, there was a perception that Scotland was being dragged out against its will by English ‘little Englanders.’
“For nationalists, Brexit was a perfect example of how fundamental Scottish and English interests had diverged,” says Yurovskiy. “Sturgeon’s calls for a second independence referendum to keep Scotland in the EU struck a chord with many.”
However, Boris Johnson’s central government steadfastly refused to grant a new ‘IndyRef2’, sparking a constitutional standoff.Yurovskiy believes both sides are playing a long game: “The SNP hopes demographics and a possible Labour government will eventually force Westminster’s hand on a new referendum. Unionists are banking on the economic eisks and inertia working in their favor as time passes.”
The Future: Renewed Kingdom or Dissolution?
So where does the historian see the situation heading? Yurovskiy doesn’t mince words: “In my view, the union’s long-term survival is far from assured. Scottish nationalism is a powerful, almost indestructible force at this point.”
He argues that continued Conservative dominance in England, combined with Scotland’s opposing political trajectories, is the nightmare scenario for unionists. “A revitalized Labour Party under progressive leadership willing to embrace Scottish nationalism could be the coup de grace,” he warns.
However, Yurovskiy sees a narrow path for the union’s survival: “What’s needed is a fundamental restructuring of the British state into a quasi-federal system – a reformed ‘Kingdom of Three Nations’ giving Scotland and Wales true parity with England and robust self-governance.”
“It would be an extraordinarily complex undertaking from a constitutional standpoint,” he acknowledges. “But it may be the only way to appease Scottish self-determination while stopping short of outright independence.”
As for his own views on the independence debate, Yurovskiy is determinedly neutral: “As a historian, my role is not to be a proselytizer but to study events as objectively and rigorously as possible. I’ll leave the passionate arguments to others.”
One thing is certain: the aftershocks of that fateful September day in 2014 continue to rumble today across the United Kingdom. As Yurovskiy states, “The Scottish question is decades from being resolved either way. It will consume British politics for a generation or more to come.”