The reason eventually prevailed over passion. The "no" to Scottish independence is won, with 55.3% of the vote after the referendum on Thursday, September 18 (against 45% for "yes"), avoiding an earthquake in the UK . Almost invisible, barely audible, the silent majority in favor of a united kingdom mobilized. Why? Five reasons supporters of the "no".
Economic
Debt to oil reserves, the vast bargaining that would have faced Scotland in case of independence scared. Rich, the whiskey country could have lost, being isolated, prosperity: Recent opinion polls before the election, only 35% of voters believed that independence would improve their situation.
The oil from the North Sea would have been enough to live in the region? The economy remains unbalanced with a bloated banking sector: 1254% of gross domestic product (GDP), including 800% of the principal Scottish bank, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). What scare. In case of financial turmoil, Scotland would be vulnerable. Aware of the danger, RBS and Lloyds have indicated that if 'yes', they would move to London. Regardless of the cost involved (estimated at 1 billion pounds, or 1.27 billion euros each).
At the heart of anguish lies also the currency. The Scottish National Party (SNP), separatist party in power, had indicated he wanted to keep the pound within a monetary union with the UK, similar to the euro area. But Scotland, bound by strict rules on public finances, would have lost its budgetary autonomy.
London's refusal to comply with this option has to assume the worst: an informal monetary union - a bit like Ecuador, which uses the American dollar - forcing the country to accumulate huge foreign exchange reserves in order to be able to fight against possible attacks on its currency. Or, last option, less credible: to create a new currency promised to chaotic beginnings.
policy
The vote in favor of independence bears the label of Labour. Number of Scottish Labour voters are disgusted by the memory of Margaret Thatcher's policy and now want to get away from that of David Cameron, increasingly eurosceptic. But all Labour have not made the same calculation. "That's just to say" good-bye "to David Cameron and his policies need to remain in the UK! "Said the Labour MEP Catherine Stihler Scottish. Labour in power in Scotland, could affect the next election, losing Mr. Cameron, and prevent the holding of the referendum on the start or not, the United Kingdom, the European Union, she thinks.
European
The separatists themselves as fervent pro-Europeans. Anxious to remain in the Union, their vote was, explained some of them to escape the referendum on whether to maintain the UK in the EU as David Cameron plans to hold in 2017.
But staying in Europe is not obvious. Scotland isolated from the UK would be considered a de facto new state. In other words, it would launch an accession process to the EU. Accelerated? Hard to imagine, since it may be a "copy and paste" the conditions granted in the UK, with its exemptions on the euro, Schengen. The Social Democrats and the European Conservatives have said they would refuse the outset that Scotland adopts the same status as the UK
Europe, anxious to avoid further destabilizing episode, has not hidden his relief. "This result is good for the united Europe, open and strong, supported by the European Commission," blew Friday, José Manuel Barroso.
social
Scotland, excluding oil, is being "subsidized" by London. Public expenditure per capita is on average 1,300 pounds (1,600 euros) higher than in England. On this basis, the deficit for the Scottish government would have been 14% of GDP in 2012-2013.
Thanks to oil revenues, the government deficit falls to 8% of GDP, according to calculations by economists asset manager Schroders, roughly that of the UK today (7%). Levels still high, leaving little fiscal space to Scotland became independent: it could not afford to fund a welfare state, Scandinavian, with a high level of social protection, the dream of independence . And beyond the rhetoric, what is the future of their pensions and Social Security that the Scots were concerned.
Royal
"Scottish saved the Queen! "Independentists or not the Scots at the Republican reputation are not fond of the royal folklore. But nothing prevents to imagine that the second pregnancy of Kate Middleton, wife of Prince William, has moved some of the Scots. And if Queen Elizabeth was careful to take official position, his words exchanged at the end of the mass of the church near his residence at Balmoral, Sunday, Sept. 14 preceding the election, may have affected some subjects.
Held in "constitutional impartiality" However slipped interpreted as a support for the No camp message urging "voters to think carefully about their future," after a board including a prayer calling God "to keep us ill choice. "
In 1977, the queen had already ruled in favor of the union while voters in Scotland and Wales were about to be consulted in a referendum on the creation of a local parliament. Elizabeth II had explained that she "could not forget that [she] avai [t] was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom".
