Grahame Smith outlines the most likely post-referendum scenario, showing there are opportunities and dangers

After two years, during which the independence referendum has been the all-consuming context for political and economic decision making in Scotland, the people have spoken. While the result was a decisive vote for Scotland to remain in the UK, with 45% voting ‘yes’, support for an independent Scotland is now at an all-time high.

In the weeks ahead, the vote will be the subject of much analysis. From information currently available, it appears that, in general terms, the under 40s voted ‘yes’ and the over 40s ‘no’; the poor voted ‘yes’ and the rich ‘no’ with the four local authority areas voting ‘yes’ being amongst those with the lowest employment rates in Scotland; a substantial number of ‘traditional’ Labour supporters, around 30% voted ‘yes’ (as did a fair number of Labour activists); and while the votes of union members may well have been fairly evenly split, taken together, it is likely that a majority of current and potential union members voted ‘yes’ too. All of this has considerable implications for the union and labour movement across the UK. That said, it is important to avoid reaching kneejerk conclusions based on such generalisations.

The one thing that can be said with complete certainty is that the referendum was a triumph for democracy. The phenomenal turnout came on the back of months of discussion and debate in workplaces, in communities and within families. There was a thirst for information and engagement the like of which I have not previously witness. I am immensely proud of the role the STUC played through our A Just Scotland initiative in responding to that demand.

The binary way in much of the media reported the referendum meant that, by deciding not to promote a Yes or No position, the contribution made by the STUC and by affiliates representing the majority of union members, received marginal coverage, particularly in the latter part of the campaign. However, I know that the STUC’s contribution was hugely valued by unions and their members and was commended by a range of serious commentators for its balance and the rigour of its analysis. A quick look at our three A Just Scotland papers easily reveals how accurate we were from the outset in highlighting the critical issues: the lack of credibility of the Scottish Government’s position on currency; the need for the unionist parties to address the demand for further devolution and commit to retaining the Barnett formula; and the central importance of fairness and social justice to a large swathe of the electorate. All were defining issues.

We also played our part in igniting the vast civic movement for real and progressive change that has grown in Scotland in the last two years. More union members and their families registered and turned out to vote than ever before. Many of those voting, some for the first time, and on both sides, voted for the constitutional settlement they felt would create a fairer and more just Scotland. They also demonstrated they want a real say over the decisions which affect their lives, including within the workplace.

The debate has now moved on to the further powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It is essential that this debate is not left to the politicians alone and that it delivers a substantial and meaningful package. The voice of civil society, so important in the creation of the Scottish Parliament, must be heard through direct engagement with people and communities.

Unfortunately, the signs are ominous. The appointment of an unelected politician to lead the process is hardly a sign of inclusiveness or of respect for democratic participation. While Scots are clearly impatient for change, the timetable which Gordon Brown invented on the hoof is hardly conducive to intensive civil and community involvement. The motion lodged in the House of Commons calls for consultation with the Scottish people on the proposals of all three UK parties. Are we simply to be handed down minimalist proposals developed in a pre-referendum context which we can either take or leave?

The STUC published it views on enhanced devolution in March 2014, prior to the referendum. It would be odd if we did not recognise that 45% of the public voted for all of Westminster’s powers to transfer to the Scottish Parliament and reconsider our position.

Constitutional change is about powers but it is also about purpose. For us, and for a vast number of those who voted one way or the other, that purpose is a fairer more socially just Scotland. To date, the focus on further devolution has been on fiscal and welfare powers. However, the important levers are those over wages and the labour market. It would, therefore, be appropriate for us the look again at the case, for example, for the devolution of powers over employment and union rights, including union recognition and collective bargaining and other forms of workplace democracy, and over the minimum wage.

The artificially restrictive timescale, and a process which is focussed only on consultation over the existing proposal of the three main Westminster parties, suggests an outcome that will be less than satisfactory. The Scottish public are impatient for change and a prolonged process is in no one’s interest. However, without the time for proper community engagement the danger is that the outcome will be a shabby political compromise that fails to satisfy and delivers proposals that have not been sufficiently scrutinised for their economic and social impact with the risk of a variety of unintended damaging consequences.

It must also be recognised that any proposal for enhanced Scottish devolution will be intensely scrutinised in Wales, Northern Ireland and in London not to mention by those who we know already wish to attach conditions to Scottish representation at Westminster.

A scenario in which a cobbled together deal is met with hostility in Scotland because it is perceived not to go far enough and hostility elsewhere because it fails to take account of their demands and, therefore, falls apart either before or after the General Election is all too easy to envisage.

It is clear that the constitutional debate in Scotland can no longer be held in isolation from a debate about de-centralisation across and within the UK as a whole, or crucially within the union movement. There is much to be won for working people through union leadership of the debate on enhanced regional government in England and further devolution in Wales and Northern Ireland.

The structure of the union movement including the arrangements of our union centres must reflect the post-referendum reality. We need an early and mature debate about the relationship between unions and the union centres in all jurisdictions of the UK, a debate which arguably should have taken place well before now.

At last the rest of the UK has woken up to the debate about the decentralization of power and the consequences of devolution. The example of the Scottish referendum, in the way that it re-engaged the public in politics and in the debate about where power lies and the purpose for which it should be used, is one that, if extended across the country, could fundamentally transform the UK’s established institutions and create the conditions for progressive social and economic change.

Grahame Smith is the General Secretary of the STUC.