Scotland has voted “No” to independence and you can almost hear and FEEL the sigh of relief from British Prime Minister David Cameron and from Washington, where a formally downsized U.K. could have had a slew of implications.

Scotland has voted to stay in the United Kingdom after voters decisively rejected independence.

With the results in from all 32 council areas, the “No” side won with 2,001,926 votes over 1,617,989 for “Yes”.

Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond called for unity and urged the unionist parties to deliver on more powers.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron said he was delighted the UK would remain together and said the commitments on extra powers would be honoured.

Mr Cameron said the three main unionist parties at Westminster would now follow through with their pledge of more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

“We will ensure that those commitments are honoured in full,” he said.

Reaction has been pouring in, but one question lingers: is this a definitive resolution of this issue? Or will it come up again and proponents be better prepared next time? USA Today’s Editor-in-Chief David Callaway, in a piece before the vote, noted that a “no” vote was likely but Scotland could vote to pull out at a later date:

In less than three generations, the United Kingdom has gone from defender of Europe against all odds to a shadow of its former imperial self. From India to Hong Kong, Africa to South America, the Union Jack that 100 years ago flew over territory representing one-fifth of the world’s population has steadily faded. Now the flag might need to be physically altered entirely if Scotland bails.

In the frantic days leading up to the vote, as polls tightened from once unthinkable margins for the No vote to a dead heat, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron’s government has promised Scotland everything it ever wanted in its 15-year devolution from Westminster with its own parliament. Should he prevail, these new powers will ensure the independence question will come back for the next generation, if not sooner.

He notes the implications of the issue raging in Scotland:

Financial markets – especially the British pound – quake in fear of what a smaller Great Britain will look like, especially in these dangerous times. Separatists in Italy, Spain, Belgium and other parts of Europe are paying close attention. And concern about how Spain’s Catalan and Italy’s Veneto regions will react to a “Yes” vote has already manifested itself in the bond markets of those countries, with yields rising.

But is there a generational shift, suggesting the issue ain’t over yet?

Much of the final campaigning has centered around what it means to be British and the military history of the union. But to many Scots, particularly the younger ones, this is only so much noise. The English have always held their London seat of government and power as a cloak of superiority over their regional partners, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Try passing Scottish bank notes – legal British sterling – in London and watch the reaction, as I did this past weekend. “No, I said 10 pounds. Pounds,” insisted the doorman at a popular sports cafe. “Those are pounds,” I replied. “Oh, guess so,” he said as he stared at the bill. “For a few more days, at least,” I joked.

Even today, two-and-a-half centuries on, some of the older English aristocracy will still comment upon meeting an American, “So how are the Colonials doing these days, anyway,” only half kidding.

Stay tuned in this 21st century (or beyond)…

—Naked Capitalism:

We’re expecting to have some more thoughtful commentary in the next day or so from some close observers of the Scottish independence vote. On the surface, the results look more decisive than expected earlier. The margin of victory, at 55% against and 45% for, was wider than the forecast 54%/46% split. And the English press looks to be rubbing it in, with most UK media outlets showing celebratory images of the victors.

But keep a few things in mind:

1. The Scots got the full-bore TARP scaremongering treatment, including powerful corporations threatening withdrawal of operations and job losses. Media outlets virtually without exception backed the Westminster/corporate messaging

2. The pro-independence forces left themselves particularly vulnerable by not having worked through the banking/currency part of their program. That meant the economic cost of a split would be far greater than necessary

3. The ferocity of the English pushback demonstrated a belated recognition of the intensity of public sentiment in favor of independence, and the hazard that posed to the UK, particularly the risk of runs on UK banks. The fact that the officialdom deployed so much firepower to assure a victory on this vote served to legitimate not just the Scottish independence movement, but separatist movements generally

—The Volokh Conspiracy:

The BBC reports that a majority of Scottish voters have chosen to reject independence and remain part of the United Kingdom. We may never know whether an independent Scotland would have become a showcase for social democracy or a more free market-oriented polity along the lines of post-independence Slovakia. We also won’t get to see whether independence would enhance Scottish culture or undermine it.

But the UK is unlikely to just return to business as usual. In their efforts to persuade the Scots to vote “no,” leaders of all three major British political parties promised greater devolution of power to Scotland. It may not be possible to give much greater autonomy to Scotland without also devolving greater authority to local and regional governments in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

And there is much disagreement about exactly how much devolution should occur and to whom. If the Scots don’t get as much devolution as they want, they might feel that they were fooled into voting “no” and demand another independence referendum. On the other hand, too much perceived favoritism to Scotland might alienate opinion elsewhere in the UK, which could scuttle the deal. For example, one of the promises made by the party leaders is a commitment to extending the “Barnett formula” for the distribution of central government funds, under which Scotland gets much more money per capita than the rest of the UK. But that is likely to prove very unpopular in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Even Lord Barnett himself – the former Labor Party minister for whom the formula is named – has denounced the idea. He has said that the formula “is unfair and should be stopped…. it is a national embarrassment and personally embarrassing to me as well.”

President Barack Obama had let his opposition to Scotland independence be known and many nations in Europe had feared the independence movement.

See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license more cartoons like the one at the top of this post, visit http://politicalcartoons.com

JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.

themoderatevoice.com/