Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

A thick white mist covered a quiet Scottish village, as I joined people going to vote.  Around the village - on a boat, in the field - national flags were flying, silent statements of their owners' stances: for the UK, or for an independent Scotland. The mist felt heavy.  The country was holding its breath as, for 24 hours, the future of the UK was as invisible as the horizon.

By Friday the world knew that Scotland had voted "no" to independence. Yet the result showed that around 45 percent of Scots wanted independence, and in Glasgow - the largest city - a majority voted "yes."

After three centuries of union, how did it come to this?

International media reports often explain Scottish demands as for "economic control"; some are unable to believe the referendum is genuine and imagine conspiracies for more power.

The UK media often portrays "yes" voters simply as nationalists, deluded about economics. But the reality in Scotland is very different. This was a genuine debate - a debate in which every citizen took part - and the question was: How can we create a better society?

A "yes" to independence was really a "no" to the present UK political system. The referendum was the culmination of decades of Scottish voters' frustration with UK governments that they feel do not represent them. Scottish voters are generally further "left" than those in southeastern England, which has the highest population.

Right-wing governments have led to a string of grievances that have stoked resentment over more than a generation: devastation of heavy industry that put whole communities out of work, unfair tax laws, and now a welfare policy that forces some recipients to choose between charitable food handouts or starvation. It is no coincidence that it was the Glasgow area - one of the poorest in the UK, where some families have not had work since heavy industry collapsed in the 1980s - which voted for independence. Those with nothing to lose are more willing to take risks.

Of course, growing inequality plagues the whole UK, not only Scotland. The difference for Scotland is that, as a historically independent country, it has an alternative. "If your ship is veering to the right and sinking, and you have a lifeboat, wouldn't you get on it?" asked one voter.

So why did Scotland reject independence?

Surveys show patriotic sentiment contributed to save the UK. Many voters cited "feelings about the UK" as their primary reason for choosing the union, while polls showed disillusionment with London-based government as people's main reason to vote for independence.

However, the decisive factor in the vote was ultimately economic uncertainties after independence.

This reflects the media's choice to report almost exclusively on economic uncertainty before the referendum.

A study of BBC reporting in the year before the vote showed it gave a 3:2 bias towards negative news about independence, much of which was negative economic predictions taken from government sources.

To be fair, this was probably partly unintentional: Why would those involved in union institutions sympathize with independence? Only one newspaper supported independence - again, in Glasgow. And in the last few weeks, TV and newspaper delivered daily reports of impending economic crisis. Political risks of staying in the UK and potential benefits of leaving the UK received almost no coverage.

A final factor against independence was the fear that a split would diminish the UK in the world. The UK still likes to think it is a world power, and cherishes its UN Security Council seat.

As long as it follows Washington in its policy line, the UK can maintain a pretense of authority - reminding one of the old Chinese story where the fox walked in front of the tiger and argued that it was him all the animals were running from.

Separation would have meant not only Scotland but the whole UK being cut down to size: a bitter pill to swallow.

What does the result mean? Some argue this was the perfect result: a "no" vote by a narrow margin. Scotland enjoys the security of staying in the UK, but will be placated with more powers over finance and welfare.

There is consensus that the greatest achievement of the referendum has been the involvement of the entire population in a debate about the best future for Scotland, and creating a fairer social system.

Emotions ran high, but in the end people voted calmly and in an orderly way, with respect for other's opinions.

The author was born and educated in Scotland, and is currently a PhD candidate at University of Oxford. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn