THE sigh of relief in England over the defeat suffered by Scottish nationalists was almost audible. For the last fortnight — as the polls suggested the referendum over Scottish independence was going to be far closer than had been expected — my English friends cursed Alex Salmond and his Scottish National Party.

The media in England had no time for any other national or international news. Endless facts, figures and analyses overshadowed all else. And no wonder, for the stakes could not have been higher.

But after a substantial victory, unionists are still unhappy. At the heart of this post-referendum angst is the so-called ‘West Lothian question’. This is in reference to the promises of further devolution of powers made to Scotland by all three leaders of the major parties. Backbenchers of the Conservative Parties are furious at David Cameron for promising Scottish nationalists the moon, and are now demanding similar powers for England.

Currently, Scottish members of the British Parliament can vote on matters relating purely to England, while the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood has the exclusive rights to legislate on its own affairs. After the referendum, more and more English MPs are insisting that Scottish members be excluded from discussing and voting on matters pertaining to England. This would result in an assembly of members with unequal rights.

Pushing through such a reform would not affect the Conservatives as they only have a single seat in the Scottish Parliament, and have seen their popularity decline in Scotland over the years to the point of irrelevance. So the party could gain in their English heartland by agreeing to these constitutional changes.

However, Ed Miliband is caught in a no-win situation. His Labour Party has 41 seats in the Scottish Parliament and is a serious player there. If Labour supports the move to partly disenfranchise Scottish MPs in the British Parliament, it will lose popularity in Scotland. But if it opposes the proposed reforms, it will be seen in England as serving purely Celtic interests.

Immediately after the referendum, David Cameron muddied the waters by saying that the promised devolution of powers to Scotland would take place after balancing the interests of other parts of the Union. He said: “Just as the people of Scotland will have more powers over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs.”

Many suspect that by linking Scottish devolution to broader constitutional changes, Cameron has kicked the whole issue into the long grass. Getting a consensus and passing the necessary legislation might take years.

Should it take a long time to deliver on the promises made by all the major parties, Scottish nationalists will feel betrayed and cheated. The Tories may not have much to lose as a result, but Labour does. One result of any foot-dragging could well result in an electoral rout for Labour in Scotland in the general elections due next year.

Thus, the referendum has changed the political scenario in the whole country. And even though the nationalists lost by a margin of 45pc-55pc, the bulk of their support came from the youth and the working class. Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city, voted overwhelmingly for independence. All these sections of the population are Labour’s biggest supporters. Should the party now alienate them and they switch their votes to the SNP, the grounds for further pressure leading to independence will grow.

This is what happened in Canada when, after defeating the Quebec independence movement in a referendum in 1980, the unionists in Ontario alienated the Quebecois by their triumphalism. This led to a second vote in 1996, and a far closer result. For now, the matter seems settled, but only after Quebec won several concessions.

Another unexpected result of the Scottish referendum was the rehabilitation of Gordon Brown, the last Labour Prime Minister. A Scot himself, he delivered a passionate defence of the Union in a stirring speech in Glasgow that has been rated his finest. This was in stark contrast with his dour pronouncements while he was in office.

Although pre-referendum polls had suggested a difference of only a couple of percentage points between the two sides, the actual ten-point spread has puzzled some observers. What probably happened was that in order not to draw ostracism from neighbours and friends, many did not declare their true intentions until they entered the privacy of polling booths.

While the whole exercise passed by in a remarkably peaceful atmosphere, strong passions were aroused, with the ‘Yes’ camp often indulging in abusive language against speakers defending the Union. So unsurprisingly, many of the ‘undecided’ had actually decided to vote no, but kept their views to themselves.

By lowering the voting age to 16, Salmond managed to involve hundreds of thousands of young Scots in a way traditional politics has failed to do. In fact, for years, pundits have been bemoaning the disenchantment of young Brits from national and local politics. But as the campaign leading up to the referendum has shown, young people will participate actively provided they are motivated.

After his defeat, Alex Salmond has announced his retirement both as leader of the SNP and first minister of Scotland. His deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, is expected to take over in November, making her the first woman leader of Scotland. It will be her task to pressure Westminster to deliver on the promises made on the eve of the referendum.

Meanwhile, the markets have reacted with predictable relief, with shares in companies based in Scotland recovering in the value they had lost recently. The pound strengthened against the dollar. Nevertheless, the genie of devolution is out of the bottle, and it will be hard to put it back in.

Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2014