The international response to Scotland's independence referendum has been characterised by some predictable platitudes.

US president Barack Obama praised the peaceful democratic quality of the referendum while reiterating that the UK is "better together". Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered similar praise, congratulating David Cameron on a successful referendum result which shores up the transatlantic alliance. In Brussels, the European Commission applauded the outcome of Scotland's vote as a good result for the EU.

As unpalatable as it may be for many Scots, these sentiments reflect an inescapable reality: that in the liberal democratic West, democratic expression is welcomed until it challenges the status quo. While Scotland is a highly regarded nation, and while its neighbours would - through necessity - have quickly established relations with a newly independent Scotland, the fact is that given the choice, nearly every foreign government will welcome the victory of the No campaign. Governments, and the institutions they establish, like to see the continuation of what they know. If dramatic change is to happen, their preference is that it will come about through their own agency.

If the No campaign's victory in the referendum ensures a certain continuity for Scotland, has anything changed? Has Scotland's international standing been affected by virtue of its referendum experience? The answer is that it almost certainly has. As director of the Scottish Global Forum, I have this past year alone been invited to speak in Germany, Iceland, Nigeria and the United States. I have been interviewed by American, Russian, Japanese, French and Dutch journalists.

Why? Because Scotland's referendum has been an extremely rare democratic event. It has spawned a pluralistic civic-driven politics that the world has been compelled to watch and learn from. In the process, an international spotlight has been shone on Scottish thinking, aspirations and preferences.

Foreign journalists have written of Scotland's green credentials, notably its ambitious renewable energy targets. They have detailed the opposition to Trident. It has been acknowledged that many Scots are resistant to the hard neo-liberalism now driving UK politics. It is thought - correctly or not - that Scotland has a distinctly pro-EU outlook that contrasts starkly with the anti-Brussels rhetoric which infuses conservative politics in London.

The international media has now largely normalised the assumption that Scotland's referendum process provides a template for constitutional expression and debate in other parts of the world. Politicians in other countries - even countries such as France and Italy which have their own "secession problems" - have been fulsome in praising the nature and quality of what Scotland and the UK have achieved since the SNP won the 2011 Scottish elections.

Positive perceptions aside, has the referendum yielded practical policy repercussions for Scotland? Where does it stand as an international actor in the aftermath of the No vote? The answer is that future Scottish governments will look to enhance the country's international relations but they will do so within the tight constraints of devolution.

Scotland will continue to pursue its interests within the EU. Scottish First Ministers will continue to promote Scottish trade and culture in key states such as the United States and China. But the fact remains that, having returned a No vote, Scotland's significance to international politics will continue to be defined by its indispensability to the UK's international posture.

Scotland contributes substantially to the UK's defence budget each year (more than £3 billion) and Scots continue to be heavily represented in the UK's military and security services. Scotland is home to the UK nuclear force. It is also widely seen as being crucial to maintaining the UK's membership of the EU.

The European Commission has said that Scotland's rejection of independence would help to ensure a "united, open and stronger Europe"; this statement has widely been taken to mean that Scotland being in the UK lessens the chances of the UK exiting the EU. Indeed, in its reflection on the referendum, the New York Times described Scotland as "adamantly pro-EU" and asserted that Prime Minister David Cameron would have a better chance of winning any future EU referendum if Scots are voting in it.

Within the UK, Scotland demonstrates an array of competencies and strengths which some Scots think could be more fruitfully harnessed through independence. The No vote means that, for the foreseeable future at least, there will be no testing of that theory. Scottish governments will continue to engage as meaningfully as they can with the world of states, and in doing so look to enhance Scotland's already-strong international brand. This has undoubtedly been bolstered by the past two years. It is difficult to deny that Scotland now walks a little taller in the world.

Dr John MacDonald is director of the Scottish Global Forum www.scottishglobalforum.net