IN the early hours of September 19, as it became clear that victory for the No side was assured, those who fought for the outcome were visibly relieved, rather than buoyant. Most of the Yes campaigners, so optimistic just hours before, slumped in their seats, shellshocked.
The more senior figures on the local Yes campaign were nowhere to be seen in the large school hall in East Renfrewshire where one of the 32 counts was taking place. But prominent politicians from the pro-UK parties were only too happy to chat.
Their thoughts reflected the conventional wisdom of political commentators ahead of the vote. One predicted that the SNP, which he assumed would be shattered after its raison d'être was rejected by the electorate, would begin an episode of bitter infighting and recrimination. Another thought the nationalists would have no option but to accept they had been beaten convincingly, declaring the issue of independence settled once and for all.
What no-one saw coming was a remarkable surge in membership within the SNP. Within days, it had become the UK's third largest party, doubling in size to almost 50,000. Within a few months, it passed 100,000. Currently, the SNP boasts a membership of more than 110,000, meaning around one in 47 Scots is signed up. The spiralling figure, along with the Prime Minister's Evel bombshell the morning after the poll and Nicola Sturgeon's ascendency, gave the party a momentum which it maintained going into the general election, where it claimed a historic landslide.
The pro-independence Scottish Greens, too, saw membership rocket. Standing at just 1,500 pre-referendum, it has risen to 9,000 which party strategists believe will be crucial in delivering votes next May.
The victors in the referendum, meanwhile, have struggled over the past 12 months. Johann Lamont soon quit as leader of Scottish Labour, which has since struggled to shake off her complaint that Westminster figures tried to run it like a "branch office". Jim Murphy, her successor, saw his political career destroyed within six months. The Scottish Tories, meanwhile, have avoided disaster but just hung on to a solitary Scottish UK seat and there is little evidence a breakthrough is imminent at Holyrood.
At a conference examining Scotland's post-referendum landscape this week, the Aberdeen University academic Michael Keating argued that despite the electoral map of the country being turned on its head since the vote, in a sense there was also a continuity. The SNP, he said, was now simply seen by voters as the fulfilling Labour's former role - sticking up for Scotland in London from the left of centre.
Meanwhile, the unionist parties have struggled to come up with a convincing narrative in the post-devolution landscape. Considering Labour's refusal to deal with the SNP at Westminster pre-general election, and Tory depictions of the SNP as pickpockets, his analysis that the behaviour of unionists is damaging the union deeply is convincing.
The SNP looks certain to win another majority at Holyrood next year, with another referendum in the not too distant future not off the cards. As Professor Keating points out, the SNP hegemony will not last forever, but a return to the former status quo is unlikely.
"What is very difficult to see is when the SNP get in trouble, the old UK party system reconfiguring itself," he said. "I think we'll get something very different."
With a new poll finding that less than one in ten Scots believe the pre-referendum 'vow' has been delivered, the history books may yet reflect on pro-UK parties winning the war but losing the peace.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel