What If The Scottish Independence Referendum Passed?

The Actual History

On September 18, 2014, Scotland held a historic referendum asking a single question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" This culminated a process that began when the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP), led by Alex Salmond, won an unprecedented majority in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election. This victory provided the mandate to negotiate the Edinburgh Agreement with UK Prime Minister David Cameron in 2012, which established the legal framework for the referendum.

The campaign featured two main groups: "Yes Scotland" advocating for independence, and "Better Together" (sometimes called "No Thanks") supporting Scotland's continued place in the United Kingdom. The Yes campaign emphasized Scotland's distinct identity, the democratic deficit of Westminster rule, and the potential for a more progressive, prosperous Scotland controlling its own resources, particularly North Sea oil. The No campaign focused on economic uncertainty, currency questions, defense implications, and the notion of shared British identity.

In the final months before the vote, opinion polls showed a narrowing gap, creating genuine concern in Westminster that the 307-year union might end. This prompted the "Vow," a last-minute promise published in the Daily Record newspaper and signed by the leaders of the three main UK parties (Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrats), pledging "extensive new powers" for the Scottish Parliament if voters rejected independence.

When the votes were counted, the result was decisive if not overwhelming: 55.3% voted against independence, while 44.7% voted in favor. The turnout was exceptionally high at 84.6% of eligible voters, reflecting the referendum's importance to Scottish citizens.

In the aftermath, Alex Salmond resigned as First Minister and SNP leader, with his deputy Nicola Sturgeon succeeding him. The Smith Commission was established to deliver on the "Vow," resulting in the Scotland Act 2016, which devolved additional powers to the Scottish Parliament, including expanded tax and welfare authority.

The 2014 referendum did not settle the independence question permanently. The 2016 Brexit referendum—in which Scotland voted 62% to remain in the EU while the UK as a whole voted to leave—reinvigorated independence sentiment. The SNP has repeatedly called for a second independence referendum, arguing that Brexit fundamentally changed Scotland's position. The UK government has consistently refused to authorize another vote, maintaining that the 2014 referendum was a "once in a generation" event.

As of 2025, Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom, but constitutional tensions persist. The Scottish government, still led by the pro-independence SNP (though in coalition with the Scottish Greens since 2021), continues to advocate for another independence referendum, while Westminster maintains its opposition to reopening the constitutional question.

The Point of Divergence

What if Scotland had voted for independence in September 2014? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the final referendum result was reversed, with 55% voting "Yes" and 45% voting "No."

Several plausible factors could have contributed to this alternate outcome:

First, the "Vow" of additional powers—which some analysts credit with swaying undecided voters—might have backfired. In our timeline, some viewed this last-minute intervention as a panic measure or an admission that the current constitutional arrangement was inadequate. In this alternate timeline, the "Vow" could have been perceived more widely as a desperate ploy, pushing wavering voters toward independence rather than reassuring them.

Second, the Yes campaign might have more effectively addressed economic concerns, particularly regarding currency arrangements. The question of what currency an independent Scotland would use became a major vulnerability for the Yes side in the actual campaign. In this alternate scenario, the Scottish government could have presented a more concrete and reassuring plan—perhaps a formal currency union with the rest of the UK supported by preliminary Bank of England statements, or a more detailed transition plan to an eventual Scottish currency.

Third, a different campaign emphasis might have prevailed. In our timeline, the No campaign successfully framed independence as a risky leap into the unknown. In this alternate scenario, the Yes campaign might have more effectively characterized independence as the safer option for Scotland's future in Europe (particularly with growing concerns about a potential Brexit referendum), its National Health Service, and its social welfare system.

Finally, external events could have influenced the outcome. Perhaps leaked communications revealing UK government contingency plans for Scottish oil resources, or ill-considered remarks from a senior Westminster figure dismissing Scottish concerns, might have created a last-minute surge in nationalist sentiment.

Whatever the specific mechanism, on September 19, 2014, in this alternate timeline, First Minister Alex Salmond stepped before the cameras at Edinburgh's Dynamic Earth to announce the birth of a new nation, setting in motion a complex process of separation negotiations and nation-building that would fundamentally alter the British Isles.

Immediate Aftermath

Political Earthquake in Westminster

The immediate political aftermath in London was seismic. Prime Minister David Cameron, who had agreed to the referendum confident of victory, faced calls to resign from within his own Conservative Party. In a somber statement outside 10 Downing Street, Cameron refused to step down, declaring: "I did not want this outcome, but I respect the democratic will of the Scottish people. My duty now is to ensure an orderly transition that protects the interests of all citizens of these islands."

The opposition Labour Party faced perhaps an even more severe crisis. Having lost 40 Scottish MPs at a stroke, their path to a Westminster majority in the upcoming 2015 general election became considerably steeper. Internal recriminations began immediately, with blame assigned to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Labour leader Ed Miliband for failing to convince Scottish voters to remain in the union.

The political calculus of British politics was instantly rewritten, with analysts projecting a structural advantage for the Conservative Party in the remaining UK (rUK) going forward. This realization prompted immediate soul-searching within Labour about their future electoral strategy in a post-Scotland United Kingdom.

Initial Negotiations and Transition Period

Following the referendum, both governments moved quickly to establish a framework for separation negotiations. A joint statement announced an intended independence date of March 24, 2016—the anniversary of both the Union of the Crowns (1603) and the Acts of Union (1707)—giving approximately 18 months for the complex divorce proceedings.

Key immediate issues included:

Currency arrangements: After intense negotiations, a transitional currency union was agreed for a five-year period, with the Bank of England continuing as lender of last resort but with Scottish representation added to the Monetary Policy Committee. Scotland committed to establishing its own currency by 2021.
National debt: Scotland agreed to assume approximately 8.4% of UK national debt (roughly proportional to its population), though the exact figure was offset against Scottish claims to UK assets.
North Sea oil: The division largely followed the established median line principle, giving Scotland approximately 90% of oil reserves, though with some adjustments negotiated for specific fields.
Nuclear weapons: The most contentious early issue was the Trident nuclear submarine base at Faslane. A compromise was reached whereby the UK would retain the base under a 15-year lease (similar to arrangements at Guantanamo Bay or Hong Kong), with Scotland receiving substantial rental payments and a commitment to complete removal by 2031.

Economic Turbulence

The immediate economic impact was significant though not catastrophic. The pound sterling fell approximately 12% against the dollar in the week following the vote, while the FTSE 100 dropped by nearly 8%. However, markets stabilized faster than many predicted once the orderly nature of negotiations became apparent.

Scotland experienced capital flight in the initial months, with several financial institutions including Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Life announcing plans to redomicile their headquarters to London, though they maintained significant operations in Edinburgh. Property prices in Edinburgh and Aberdeen fell by 15-20% in the six months after the vote.

The new Scottish government, still led by the SNP but now with cross-party representation in a "Team Scotland" negotiating position, moved quickly to reassure markets. Finance Secretary John Swinney announced plans for a Norwegian-style oil fund and strict fiscal rules for the new nation, helping to stabilize investor confidence by early 2015.

International Reactions

The international community responded with varying degrees of enthusiasm. The European Union was caught flatfooted by the result, with Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker hastily convening emergency meetings to determine the process for Scotland's EU membership. After initial legal confusion, the EU adopted a pragmatic approach, announcing a "continuity of effect" principle that would allow Scotland to remain within the EU's legal framework during a streamlined accession process.

The United States officially recognized Scottish independence in principle while emphasizing the importance of NATO cohesion and the nuclear issue. Russia was more openly supportive, with President Vladimir Putin sending congratulations and speaking of a "new multipolar order" in Europe.

Catalonia's regional government announced plans for its own independence referendum inspired by Scotland's success, triggering a constitutional crisis in Spain that would echo throughout the EU in subsequent years.

Long-term Impact

The Remaking of British and Scottish Politics

By 2025, both Scottish and rUK politics had been fundamentally transformed by independence.

Scotland's Political Evolution

The initial "rally round the flag" effect gave the SNP commanding victories in both the first independent Scottish parliamentary election in 2016 and in Scotland's elections to the European Parliament. However, by the 2020 election, the political landscape had diversified. The SNP remained the largest party but lost its majority as traditional party dynamics reasserted themselves. Without the constitutional question dominating politics, parties realigned around economic and social policy differences:

The center-left SNP focused on building a "Nordic-style" social democracy
Scottish Labour reestablished itself as a viable opposition force, reclaiming urban voters disenchanted with the economic challenges of independence
The Scottish Conservatives rebranded as the Scottish Democratic Party, distancing themselves from their UK parent and adopting a more centrist position
The Scottish Greens maintained a significant presence, pushing environmental policies in the oil-dependent nation

The Transformed United Kingdom

In the remaining UK, the Conservative Party's position strengthened considerably with the loss of Scotland. The 2015 general election resulted in a solid Conservative majority even larger than in our timeline. Without the need for coalition partners, Cameron governed with a more distinctly right-wing cabinet.

The most profound difference came with the Brexit referendum. In our timeline, the 2016 Brexit vote resulted in a narrow 52-48 victory for Leave. In this alternate timeline, without Scotland's predominantly pro-Remain votes, Brexit passed with a more decisive 54-46 margin. This stronger mandate resulted in a harder form of Brexit without the prolonged parliamentary battles that characterized our timeline's process.

The Labour Party struggled to redefine itself for the new electoral reality, eventually splitting into a northern-focused "Labour Heartlands" faction and a more metropolitan "Progressive Alliance." This fractured opposition allowed Conservative dominance to continue through the 2020 election.

Economic Divergence

The economic paths of Scotland and the rUK diverged significantly after independence:

Scotland's Economic Journey

Scotland's economy faced significant challenges in the first three years after independence. The decline in oil prices that began in late 2014 (a factor in both timelines) hit government revenues hard, forcing budget cuts and tax increases. GDP contracted by approximately 3% in the first year of independence, with unemployment reaching 9%.

However, by 2020, the economy had stabilized around three pillars:

Renewables: With control of its energy policy, Scotland invested heavily in its wind and tidal potential, becoming Europe's renewable energy powerhouse and exporting electricity to the rUK and continental Europe.
Financial services: While diminished from pre-independence levels, Edinburgh maintained its position as a specialized financial center, focusing on asset management and fintech, helped by Scotland's continued EU membership.
Education and research: Scottish universities leveraged continued EU research funding and favorable immigration policies to attract international students and researchers, particularly after Brexit reduced the rUK's attractiveness in this sector.

The introduction of Scotland's own currency—the Scots pound—in 2021 allowed more monetary flexibility, though it initially traded at a 15% discount to sterling before strengthening as the economy recovered.

The rUK Economy

The remaining UK initially weathered independence better than Scotland, benefiting from currency stability and London's dominant financial position. However, the harder form of Brexit that followed created more significant economic disruption than in our timeline.

By 2025, the rUK had pursued a more deregulated, low-tax economic model—sometimes described as "Singapore-on-Thames"—attracting certain forms of investment but increasing inequality. London remained a global financial center, though with reduced influence in euro-denominated transactions, which migrated more decisively to Frankfurt and Paris than in our timeline.

Europe and NATO

Scotland in Europe

Scotland's EU membership process moved faster than many expected, formally concluding in 2019. As a member state, Scotland aligned closely with the Nordic bloc, particularly on environmental and social policy. Although required to commit to eventual euro adoption, Scotland negotiated a lengthy transition period similar to Sweden's de facto opt-out.

Scotland's EU membership created complications at the England-Scotland border, which became an external EU frontier after Brexit. The need for customs and regulatory checks created friction in cross-border trade and travel, though technological solutions mitigated the worst impacts.

Security Realignment

NATO membership proved more complicated than EU accession. Scotland's anti-nuclear stance created tensions, but its strategic North Atlantic position made it valuable to the alliance. A compromise was reached whereby Scotland joined NATO in 2020 as a non-nuclear member, while permitting NATO vessels (including those carrying nuclear weapons) transit rights through Scottish waters.

The rUK maintained its nuclear deterrent by accelerating the development of alternative facilities in Plymouth and expanding its base sharing arrangements with the United States, though at considerable financial cost.

Constitutional Ripple Effects

Scotland's successful independence inspired similar movements across Europe and beyond:

Catalonia: The Catalan independence referendum of 2017 proceeded despite Madrid's opposition. Unlike in our timeline, where the movement was effectively suppressed, in this alternate reality, Catalonia's unilateral declaration of independence gained more international support, leading to a negotiated "autonomy-plus" arrangement within Spain.
Northern Ireland: The combination of Scottish independence and hard Brexit dramatically accelerated discussions about Irish reunification. By 2023, demographic changes and economic incentives led to a successful border poll, with Northern Ireland voting narrowly to join the Republic of Ireland, effectively dissolving the United Kingdom as historically constituted.
Wales: Initially, independence sentiment in Wales remained marginal. However, by the early 2020s, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland having left the union, Welsh nationalism gained momentum. While still not commanding majority support by 2025, polls showed approximately 38% of Welsh voters favoring independence—a dramatic increase from pre-2014 levels.

Cultural and Identity Evolution

The cultural impact of independence manifested in both subtle and significant ways:

In Scotland, a cultural renaissance took place with increased investment in Scottish film, television, and arts. The "Scottish Broadcasting Service" (SBS), formed from Scotland's share of the BBC, developed a distinct voice in international media. Edinburgh's festival scene expanded further, becoming an even more significant global cultural event.

In the remaining UK, a period of identity reconsideration occurred. The Union Jack remained the official flag, but England's St. George's Cross became more prominent in everyday use. The monarchy maintained its role as a unifying institution, with King Charles III (following Queen Elizabeth II's death in 2022) making frequent visits to Scotland as King of Scots—a separate title emphasized in Scottish contexts.

By 2025, relations between Scotland and the rUK had normalized considerably. Initial bitterness gave way to pragmatic cooperation, though with occasional flare-ups over specific issues. Citizens of both countries maintained close ties of family, friendship, and shared culture, even as their nations pursued increasingly different political and economic paths.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Ailsa Henderson, Professor of Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, offers this perspective: "What's fascinating about the Scottish independence scenario is how it accelerated existing trends in British politics rather than creating entirely new ones. The UK was already facing questions about its place in Europe, the role of regional identities, and its economic model. Independence served as a catalyst that forced these issues to resolution much faster than they might otherwise have developed. Perhaps the most surprising outcome has been the relatively pragmatic approach both governments ultimately adopted after the emotional referendum campaign. Despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, the deep economic, social, and family ties between Scotland and England made a complete rupture impossible and ultimately unnecessary."

Professor Vernon Bogdanor, constitutional scholar at King's College London, suggests: "The dissolution of the United Kingdom represents the most significant constitutional restructuring in Western Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall. What's remarkable is not that it happened—multinational states have frequently divided throughout history—but that it occurred through democratic processes rather than conflict. The precedent this established has been both stabilizing and destabilizing: stabilizing in demonstrating that constitutional change can occur peacefully through democratic means, but destabilizing in legitimizing separatist movements elsewhere that might not enjoy the same democratic foundations. Perhaps the most profound legacy has been the demonstration that no constitutional arrangement, however long-established, is permanent when it no longer serves the perceived interests of its constituent parts."

Dr. Kirsty Hughes, Director of the Scottish Centre on European Relations, notes: "Scotland's relatively smooth path back to EU membership created a fascinating experiment in European integration. For the first time, a territory left the EU as part of a larger member state, then rejoined on its own terms. This process revealed flexibility in EU accession procedures that many thought impossible. The contrast between Scotland's experience as an EU member state and the rest of the UK's more isolated position has been instructive for other European regions with independence aspirations. However, the border complications between Scotland and England also demonstrated that the costs of separation are real, even when both parties negotiate in good faith. The Scottish case suggests that independence within Europe can work, but it requires careful management of complex trade, regulatory, and migration issues that cannot be wished away by political optimism."