REFERENDUM

Today marks three years since Scots rejected independence by 55.3% to 44.7%. The constitutional question continues to dominate Scottish politics, with almost constant speculation about the prospect of another vote. Here, prominent campaigners on both side

NO ISSUE has divided Scotland more than the constitutional question.

It split families, strained friendships, sparked pub arguments and in the days leading up to the referendum, created so much tension in our communities it felt like we had an Old Firm game on every day.

People who would be on the same page on almost every other political debate found themselves on opposing sides.

Yet how did we end up arguing with each other when we agreed on so much?

Let’s look at the detail. Both sides argued the best thing for Scotland was to keep the pound. We all agreed we should have some sort of common defence arrangement with our neighbours and allies.

We needed a single market for goods, energy and financial services. Our borders should remain open.

The Yes campaign tried to assure people that not much would change and people had nothing to fear.

Alex Salmond’s vision of independence was sometimes difficult to distinguish from Alistair Darling’s view of the union. It was a back-handed way of recognising that quite a lot about the UK works.

And what were the opportunities of independence? More economic growth, generous social security, better childcare, investment in the NHS and a fairer society, the Yes campaign argued.

These are all ambitions shared by many on the No side. We strongly believed they would be easier to achieve within the Union – an argument vindicated by the collapse in oil revenues and projections of the deficit of an independent Scotland.

Out of this bitter debate, a consensus can be pieced together – that it makes sense for Scotland and the rest of the UK to continue to work together, whatever the constitutional arrangements.

And no matter the nature of that partnership, each nation should have the ability to promote its own cultural identity and political priorities.

We also agree we should be working towards a more prosperous and a much fairer one. Most people and their politicians at least agree on that.

There are differences of opinion in how we best make Scotland a better place. That’s the battle of ideas most of us welcome now the constitutional question is off the table.

I believe if Scotland had been an independent country for these last 300 years, then today we would be seeking some sort of union with our neighbours for reasons of economic prosperity and security. It just makes sense.

But I also agree the Yes campaign were right to set ambitious goals for Scotland and challenge us to set our sights for our country higher.

As the prospect of a second referendum fades, so do the 2014 battle lines of Yes and No. When they disappear, I hope we can recognise the hopes and concerns we share.

The people of Scotland settled the question that divided us. Now we must work together to use the secure economic platform the UK provides us to realise our shared ambitions.