The city of Glasglow, Scotland was reported to be sullen and quiet Friday morning, with a feeling of defeat and acceptance permeating the population. Fifty-three percent of the locals had campaigned furiously for months in favor of the Yes Independence Movement, which led up to Thursday’s vote of whether Scotland should separate from the United Kingdom.

The movement failed. The 300-year-old union will stay intact.  However, that’s good for both sides of the debate, even if the Yes voters don’t realize it right now.

Outside of the heroics of William Wallace, who led indentured Scots against the tyrannical chainmail-armored Brits, which was famously portrayed in the Oscar-winning film “Braveheart,” it’s hard for Westerners to recall much about Scotland’s historical relevance at all. But had the country’s fight for independence been a success last week, a mutually beneficial relationship between themselves and the United Kingdom would have collapsed and sent waves throughout the European Union and subsequently the United States.

Proponents of Yes believed that an independent Scotland would be more prosperous and democratic, finally able to rule itself and escape the often-restricting grasps of the United Kingdom — consisting of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland — as a whole.

Becoming an independent state was alluring for Scots. Many believe the country had assets in manufacturing, tourism and energy production with literal seas of oil and gas reserves sandwiched between itself and the Scandinavians that could support jobs and investment that could stand on its own. Scotland has excelled in output for each of those industries, and has made significant strides in utilizing renewable energy sources. But it is far too dependent on its bond with the rest of the UK for it to cut ties.

A Wednesday report by Vox, an online journalism site, stated that Scotland’s universities are filled with scholars from elsewhere in the UK, its banks relied on a bailout from London after the 2008 financial crisis and its renewable energy programs and life sciences research depend heavily on investment from Westminster, where the UK government resides. Independency would plunge all of those successful programs and organizations into uncertainty.

When it comes to monetary policy, Scotland simply didn’t have answer. The Yes movement insisted on relying on the UK’s pound, meaning Scots would be at the mercy of money that they don’t even control. It’s a dangerous policy, and certainly not one to introduce right in the midst of a global economic recovery.

David Cameron, prime minister of the UK, allowed the referendum and has, along with other leaders of the British Parliament, promised to delegate extensive new powers to the Scottish Parliament, surely as an act of desperation to prevent the country’s secession. He must deliver on his promises, as the vote that occurred on Thursday occurred peacefully and at least deserves a response from him, if anything to prevent more unrest in the near future.

His plan, as reported in the Telegraph on Saturday, to, “offer new sovereignty over tax, spending and welfare services, and then set out a high-speed legislative timetable,” is encouraging for the UK and for Scotland. A middle ground here is vital.

The progress of the Yes movement was admirable, changing favor of independence within Scotland from 30 to 45 percent in a matter of months. It energized the young and generated an international strife, which is more than most movements are capable of. It failed for good reason, but the values behind it are sound. Cameron and the UK must do more to upholster the capabilities of Scotland as a nation while keeping the United Kingdom together as it should be.

Phil Kramer is a sophomore finance major. His column appears weekly. You can reach him at pwkramer@syr.edu or on Twitter at @PhilipWKramer.

Published on September 22, 2014 at 12:03 am