Edinburgh voted decisively against Scottish independence in 2014. More than a decade later, the debate has returned to university campuses, where students are weighing the promise of political control against the uncertainty of what independence might bring. A desire for another referendum is emerging — but agreement on what should happen next is harder to find.
In Edinburgh, Scottish independence is more than a constitutional question debated at Holyrood. It is also a question of identity, economic security, and who gets to make decisions about the country’s future. For students, these questions intersect with concerns about Brexit, the cost of living and the political direction of the UK.
In September 2014, 55.3 per cent of voters rejected Scotland’s independence proposal. Edinburgh delivered an even clearer verdict: 61.1 per cent voted No. In light of these perspectives, the debate has continued, with calls for another referendum raising a difficult question: should Scotland have another opportunity to decide?
For Rory, president of the University of Edinburgh Yes Society, the answer is, fittingly, yes. Independence, he argues, would give Scotland greater control over its political and economic future.
“We hope to achieve a Scotland that has full powers of a state to tackle issues specific to Scotland and ultimately a more equal and happier country,” Rory said.
Rory argues that Scotland’s position within the UK restricts its ability to pursue policies reflecting its electorate’s priorities. He points to austerity, Brexit, and decisions over Scotland’s natural resources as examples of where greater autonomy could make a difference.
That desire for political agency also emerged when speaking to University of Edinburgh students. Of those I spoke to, 83.3 per cent supported holding another referendum.
However, support for another vote did not necessarily mean respondents had settled on independence. When asked how they would vote in a referendum tomorrow, 30.6 per cent were undecided, while 16.7 per cent said they would not vote.
These responses offered a glimpse into why some students want the issue revisited. One respondent argued that “people should have the ability to vote and decide,” while another said Scotland should no longer be “governed by Westminster.” For them, the opportunity to reconsider the country’s constitutional future appeared important in its own right, regardless of whether independence would ultimately win their support.
Brexit remains central to this argument. In the 2016 European Union referendum, 62 per cent of Scottish voters backed remaining in the EU, despite the UK-wide vote favouring departure.
For Rory, this result highlighted the limits of Scotland’s influence within the UK. He believes independence could create a route towards EU membership and allow Scotland to determine its own immigration policy. Of students I spoke to, 52.8 per cent of them identified a different relationship with the EU as the greatest potential benefit of independence.
One respondent supported another referendum to “re-establish our relationship with the EU and to give us power over our own country.” But as independence does not guarantee this, we must then start to ponder external risks. If the promise of greater democratic control strengthens the case for independence, economic uncertainty provides a powerful counter-argument.
Economic uncertainty was the most frequently selected concern among students I spoke to, cited by 55.6 per cent of respondents. For students already navigating the financial pressures of university life, the economic consequences of constitutional change may be particularly difficult to overlook.
One student, who wished to remain anonymous, supported another referendum but questioned the lack of detail surrounding economic proposals. “I think they should have one; however, there have been few proposals for what will be done economically.”
Rory argued that Scotland has the foundations of a viable independent economy, pointing to energy, financial services, food and drink, and the space industry. Nevertheless, an independent Scotland’s currency, the division of public assets and liabilities, and future trading relationships would all require careful consideration.
Other respondents were more dismissive. One described independence as “Financially impossible.” Opposition also extended to hostility towards the Scottish National Party (SNP), illustrating that scepticism about independence does not always stem from the same concerns.
The responses suggested that political attitudes may be influenced by identity and community as well as policy. One respondent suggested that football allegiances and the communities around them could shape political opinions; another exclaimed that Scottish culture has been demolished and stolen from its people, and that we have a right to regain it.
Edinburgh’s decisive “No” in 2014 settled the question for that moment, but it did not end the debate. Among the students who responded to my survey, the appetite for another vote was considerable, while opinions on the outcome remained more divided. The challenge facing the independence movement is not simply persuading people that Scotland should have another say. It is convincing them what that choice could deliver — and why the risks might be worth taking.
Photo by Tegan Conway on Unsplash.
