Scots have spoken, now Britons must act

In the end, the “bond” held, just barely. Democracy can be beautiful and ironic at the same time. The Scots, who have voted in a historic referendum to reject independence from England, can testify to that. So who says freedom is everything and democracy is everything about freedom? Scotland has chosen to be, well, not so free, but the process of coming to that conclusion is quite remarkable and respectable.

Some say it's just like a child in the family trying to leave home and becoming independent from the parents. The Scottish independence issue doesn’t carry with it a scary international scenario and has been monitored with more curiosity than genuine concern. It's not an earth-shattering event that would send superpowers' war rooms buzzing with anxiety. If the Ukraine and Middle East situations are thrillers, Thursday’s decision by the Scots is a family drama at best.

While the Eastern Europe and Palestinian affairs feature ideological, religious and political conflicts, the Scottish issue is mostly economic. There is national pride involved, but, by and large, if England and Scotland have not had deep disagreements over financial aspects of their relationship, it might not have come to the vote on Thursday. Nationalism came seriously into play only in the home stretch of the referendum.

The Scotland case should serve as a lesson to all the powers that be. Ideological differences can redefine borders, but so can economic inequality. The “Better Together” campaign, for all its feel-good, comforting elements, failed to give pro-independence voters a guarantee that the status quo will help them economically. The pro-independence voters weren't sure about a non-England economic future of Scotland either, but they were willing to make a leap of faith. If you think you have been exploited, you are likely to sever the ties and give it a try on your own, and it doesn't matter if things might actually get worse.

Both camps' campaigns were basically attempts to describe each side of the coin in their own ways. The “England Loves Scotland” camp presented the status quo as a brotherly, caring (albeit misunderstood) relationship. The other side called what England had done habitual “exploitation” committed under the guise of parental concern. Warnings that Scotland could be worse off economically were dubbed a scare tactic by the pro-independence campaign.

A lot of things will change now, but the relationship is unlikely to turn volatile or violent. Both countries have come a long way from the days when armoured soldiers beat down doors and dragged off “rebels” for public execution. Yet the divisive power of the economic issue can never be underestimated. When two people agree on just about everything else, what they have in the bank can dictate their relationship.

England and Scotland can call the latest independence push a close call. But it won’t be the last. The pro-independence camp has come close to winning and must have learned some lessons. It will be better prepared next time, no matter how long it has to wait. As for England, the one and only lesson is that your friend, or your neighbour, or your family member must be treated well. Allegiance, of all things, can never be taken for granted.

The urge to be free is always there, even there's nothing quite wrong in a relationship. England has promised better treatment of the Scots, but the trick is that future action must come from the heart and not the head. In other words, equality must stem from mutual respect, not necessity. Only then can “Better Together” be a genuine foundation of relationship, not some words used in a desperate campaign.