On Thursday, September 18, Scotland’s voters were faced with a decision that could have profoundly altered the fate of their nation.

A surprisingly simple process for such a significant decision, the ballot included a yes or no box underneath the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

The world waited with bated breath until Friday morning’s results came out to 55.3% No vote and a close 44.7% Yes vote. However, regardless of the results, it was clear that Scotland and the United Kingdom would be undoubtedly affected.

After over 300 of years of union, the Scotland National Party’s leader, Alex Salmond, stated that it was high time the country “break the shackles” from its relationship with England and move forward politically, economically, and socially.

Supporters of independence claim that the separation will be ultimately beneficial to the nation, with Salmond stating “an independent Scotland, with the aid of its oil wealth, would be one of the world’s richest countries.” Before the election of the Scotland National Party in 2011, this statement would have had little to no support or hopes of coming to fruition.

With its steadily growing political and economic stability, the issue of being able to secede became an issue of whether or not Scotland ought to secede. Reasons for “Yes” seemed clear enough, yet 55% of voters remained unconvinced that independence was the best option for the nation.

“When I was in Scotland again last month, I saw a lot more advertising for independence than I thought I would, so I knew it was going to be a close vote,” said Ryan Kane, a senior and Scottish native.

Ryan added his £2 stating, “I think [the results] are overall better for [Scotland’s] economy, and it’d be a real risk because they would have to create their own currency. Staying with Britain is important to Scotland’s security.”

Throughout the debate over independence, worries about financial stability, specifically in terms of currency and the oil industry, have persisted. Scotland had claimed that the country would still use the pound and remain in currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom, however, the UK’s 3 main parties -the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats- argued against this agreement, which would result in Scotland’s creation of new currency or adoption of a separate but pre-existing currency.

Another issue remained in Scotland’s $36 billion oil industry. With 40 billion barrels already extracted and a predicted 24 billion remaining, there are approximately 30-40 years left of extraction in Scottish territory. If not managed correctly -Scotland’s most valuable industry, and what arguably gave the country the ability to secede in the first place- will be in grave danger.

The situation is made no better by a BBC report predicting a 38% fall in oil revenue in the area by 2018. Many worried that without England’s financial backing, the oil industry, and consequently, Scotland’s economy would suffer tremendously, effectively countervailing any potential benefit of independence.

England was certainly displeased with doing nothing to prevent the loss of “one-third of the United Kingdom’s land mass, 8% of its population, about 10% of its tax revenue and an incalculable amount of culture and intellectual capital” (USA Today). The government in Westminster made promises to “enhance” the powers of the Scottish Parliament by granting the nation more control over finance, welfare, and taxation.

Where does this leave Scotland? After results were released on Friday, leader of the Scotland National Party and voice behind the push for independence, Alex Salmond announced his resignation as First Minister of Scotland, only continuing his term until a successor is nominated in November.

Salmond’s abrupt departure surprised even his closest colleagues and also brings up the issue of who is to proceed in dealing with England in regards to the promise of an augmentation of Scotland’s political and financial powers.

“If England doesn’t fulfill their promises, then in 3 years I can see Scotland easily splitting from the United Kingdom without any problems,” said Arvid Samuelson, a senior who lived in England for several years. “It’s pretty much a known fact that not many countries in the United Kingdom like England as the main country because they believe that they’re too much of a bully.”

“They’re all friendly, but they have their ups and downs” said Jacob Mills, a sophomore born and raised in Wales.

As for the status of the relationship between Scotland and England after the referendum, Arvid added, “England, politically won’t show any anger, but I think people individually may have a negative view.”

“Yeah, we don’t really like Scotland,” claimed Scott Walsh, a senior and native Englishman. “People are probably going to hate that 45%.”

“I can imagine Scotty talking a lot of bad things about Scotland,” Samuelson said, laughing.

Ryan Kane expressed his view that such a movement could resurface, “Maybe in the distant future. [The independence movement] has been going on for a while, so not now that it’s settled.”

Though it may be settled, such a close vote means that the movement could soon be revived. Even after a no vote for Scotland’s independence, the United Kingdom may soon be one nation less united.