Skip to main content

Pro-union protesters wave union jack flags during a demonstration at George Square in Glasgow, Scotland, September 19, 2014.CATHAL MCNAUGHTON/Reuters

Alex Salmond, the longtime leader of Scotland's pro-independence movement, resigned Friday following the defeat of the Yes side in a hard-fought referendum. It marked the end of an era in Scottish politics, but the movement Mr. Salmond embodied is unlikely to fade away.

"I think the party, parliament and country would benefit from new leadership," the 59-year-old Mr. Salmond announced in the Scottish capital, hours after it was confirmed that the pro-union side had triumphed in Thursday's referendum, with 55 per cent of the vote. Mr. Salmond has led the Scottish National Party for 20 of the past 24 years, and has served as Scotland's First Minister since 2007.

Despite the loss, he had brought Scotland closer to his dream of independence than anyone expected, rattling the integrity of the United Kingdom in the process.

"For me as leader, my time is nearly over," a fatigued-looking Mr. Salmond said after a sleepless night of watching the referendum results trickle in. "But for Scotland the campaign continues, and the dream shall never die."

The same sentiment prevailed on Glasgow's central George Square, where a small crowd of flag-waving independence supporters lingered Friday, long after the No side's win was announced. Veteran activist Andrew Carnegie – a 45-year-old antipoverty activist who shouted himself hoarse all week on the square trying to convince passersby of the merits of independence – finally gave up and handed the megaphone to his son.

"We got close. Next time, we will conquer!" an excited 25-year-old Darren Carnegie shouted to a smattering of applause. Around the Carnegies and their listeners, police and municipal workers were busy picking up the discarded "Yes" paraphernalia left behind by the thousands who had descended on the square on Election Day, hoping for a victory party that never happened.

There was plenty of symbolism in Friday's passing of the microphone from one generation to the next, though the elder Mr. Carnegie's voice was in no shape to explain it. What has come through loud and clear, though, is that Scottish nationalism, and the divisions laid bare by the referendum campaign, are far from finished.

There may be a moment of quiet now to put the "Scotland question" away for a long time – if British Prime Minister David Cameron and his fellow pro-union politicians can capitalize on it. If they don't, young Scots, who will remember how close they came to independence in 2014, will surely bring the question around again some time soon, albeit under a new leader.

In his concession speech early Friday morning, Mr. Salmond said he accepted that "Scotland has decided, at this stage, not to become an independent country." But he warned the result must not be interpreted as support for the constitutional status quo.

Mr. Salmond said he would stay on as party leader and First Minister until a November SNP conference, after which he would stay in politics as an ordinary member of Scottish parliament. Nicola Sturgeon – a 44-year-old Glasgow native and his deputy who was arguably the Yes camp's most effective speaker during the referendum campaign – immediately became the odds-on favourite to succeed him.

Mr. Salmond, as he tried to rally Scots to the Yes cause, said repeatedly during the campaign that the referendum was a "once in a generation, perhaps even once in a lifetime" event. But he always made clear that he was speaking only for himself on that point. That leaves the door open for Ms. Sturgeon – or another SNP leader – to raise the issue again.

The key to avoiding that, Scottish analysts say, is for London to deliver on the promises it made during the final weeks of the campaign – a flurry of last-minute offerings prompted by a single poll 12 days before the vote that suggested the Yes side had briefly and narrowly taken the lead. "Scotland will expect these vows to be honoured in rapid course," Mr. Salmond warned.

A sombre-looking Mr. Cameron woke up Friday claiming he had heard the message, and that he would seek "a balanced settlement, fair to people in Scotland." But making good on the promises made to Scotland – more powers for the Scottish parliament, plus a guarantee that Scots will continue to receive a higher per capita share of public spending – won't be easy, particularly with UK-wide elections approaching in May.

The promises Mr. Cameron made to Scotland in a joint Sept. 16 letter that was also signed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Ed Milliband, leader of the opposition Labour Party, have already proven unpopular among the Prime Minister's own Conservatives.

Some backbench Tories were in open revolt Friday over the promises to Scotland, with London Mayor Boris Johnson stoking the fire by calling the guarantees "slightly reckless." Mr. Johnson, who recently announced a planned return to national politics, is widely believed to covet Mr. Cameron's job.

Conservative MPs are particularly aware that the election is just eight months away, and giving more powers to Scotland will be a boon to the UK Independence Party (UKIP) that is already eating into the traditional Conservative vote base.

"I think there is definitely going to be change," said Stephen Tierney, an expert on constitutional matters at the University of Edinburgh. "But these promises cannot be delivered on the timetable that's been mapped out. You cannot deliver all these powers to Scotland without taking into account the rest of the country."

The promises have also triggered predictable backlash in Wales. "Wales should not be treated as second class to Scotland," Leanne Wood, the leader of the Welsh nationalist movement, said. She threatened to reopen the argument over whether England, too, needs its own parliament with powers similar to those given the national assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

So "devo-max" as the package of powers sought by Scotland is known, may soon become devolution for all, fundamentally changing the nature of the United Kingdom and forever weakening the central government in Westminster.

"On one hand, the referendum kind of settles one question – that of whether Scotland will stay in the union – but it does open up a whole bunch of other ones," said Jonathan Hopkin, associate professor of comparative politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "The fact that this has happened and the fact that it was so close has put the whole organization of the UK state back on the table."

Mr. Cameron suggested that his government would like to deal with the question of more rights for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland simultaneously. The problem, Prof. Hopkin said, is that Wales – which lacks the oil and other natural resources found in Scotland – is less interested in the kind of tax-and-spend powers Edinburgh seeks. Meanwhile, those in Northern Ireland are very divided about the kind of relationship they want with London.

The wild card, again, is the far-right UKIP which already signalled it will campaign against giving any rights to Scotland that aren't also given to England. It's a line of attack that could force the Tories to back away from some of the promises made to Scotland, or risk being punished by English voters.

Some believe that a tight electoral calendar over the next 36 months could create the conditions for Scotland to fall into what Canadians calls "neverendum."

The 2015 UK election is followed quickly by a 2016 Scottish parliamentary election that will see the SNP stand for reelection. Both those votes will be fought in the shadow of Mr. Cameron's promise to hold a referendum of his own – on whether Britain should remain within the European Union – in 2017 if he's re-elected next year.

Scots are generally fonder of the EU than increasingly Euroskeptic England, so there's the potential for a cascade of political dominoes that brings the Scottish question back around much faster than in a generation's time.

"If Westminster fails to deliver [on its promises to Scotland], this issue is going to come back rather quickly," said John Curtice, a professor of politics at Glasgow's University of Strathclyde. "Not delivering, and being seen not to deliver far more devolution by May 2016 could be the trigger" for another SNP win, Prof. Curtice said. Which would immediately restart talk of another referendum.

And as wild as this campaign was, the next one could be even more unpredictable. "I voted No because the Yes side didn't give me enough good reasons [to vote for independence]," said 22-year-old Nicole Campbell, whose legs were circled by her two young children as she cast her ballot Thursday in downtown Glasgow. "If we vote to leave the UK, it's forever. If we stay, then maybe I'll vote Yes next time if they give me a few more reasons."

Editor's note: A previous version of this article said incorrectly that Alex Salmond became Scotland's First Minister in 2011. In fact, he has served in that role since 2007.

Follow related authors and topics

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.

Interact with The Globe