A

fter some excitement and much tension, not just in the UK but further afield, the referendum is now over and Scotland has decided to remain in the Union by a clear majority, albeit the size of the vote for independence underlines a considerable unease with the status quo. I happened to be in the UK over this period, also had a direct interest in the outcome and was well-drawn into the discussion and media coverage.

Two earlier writings in The Jakarta Post by my good friends John Arnold (Sept. 10), setting out why he thought the Union was important and a riposte by Gordon Benton (letter on Sept. 16), both with very long term Indonesia involvement, set out main arguments that featured in the many debates that have taken place.

The independence argument was setting out a promised land, Scotland'€™s Future. The '€œBetter Together'€ argument highlighted our centuries of common history.

For myself I have always felt that all our futures are worked out better if we acknowledge the foundations set by the past of our families and our nations.

Tearing things apart is very seldom the way to the future, unless the members have reached the intolerable position of abject hate and fight. In no way was that the situation in the UK, but the referendum has jolted the whole of the United Kingdom into an arguably overdue examination over how the country is governed, specially on the domestic front.

Had the vote gone the other way, ie to independence, the governance issues that would have had to be addressed would have been mind-boggling and really had not been set out in sufficient detail to voters.

As Harvard professor Niall Ferguson, a Glaswegian like myself, has indicated, when there is too much doubt left it is better to hold onto what you know than take a huge leap into a large unknown with no sure landing place.

While the late polls indicated that each side of the debate was equally balanced as polling day approached, there was still a large number of '€œunknowns'€ or '€œundecideds'€.

It would also appear that many of these were in the older demographic age group, suspicious of lofty promises after a lifetime of political experience and poor delivery, and naturally they adopted to hold onto the '€œdevil you know'€.

There is also another important point to recognize for now and in the future. The older generation voting in the referendum had been tempered by the crises of the early to mid-1900s, Depression and World War II, and had learned to work with their fellow Britons, often blood brothers and sisters, and share these common, very trying experiences.

As the older generation dies out and today'€™s youngsters mature and look forward, the huge changes that were brought about in the 20th century, which set the foundations on which they build their lives, to them those events will only be a matter of tale or reading in a history book, and will probably have no more bearing on their views of life than through reading about the key events of earlier centuries.

Thus when these issues surface again in the future, which could very well occur unless the promised changes are followed through, this young generation will have had different experiences on which to base any decision on momentous points of political change.

It now behoves the UK government to set about establishing a structure that is fair and allows the four countries that make up the United Kingdom to practice a form of self-government within the composite of togetherness, recognizing the important things we need to share under an appropriate form of federal structure.

A form which works well elsewhere. This will involve serious and deep constitutional discussions, which all the main parties have promised, and to be effected immediately.

Within England itself the referendum has stirred the north of the country, which shares many of the deprivation problems that led to the voice for change north of the border.

These will also have to be addressed in the constitutional changes that are being sought by the population as a whole.

An issue raised several times during the speeches and debates was poverty. It was interesting to note that '€œyes'€ votes were highest in the areas of worst urban poverty, areas that had traditionally been the heartland of the Labor Party, where rhetoric was not being matched with delivery. Glasgow'€™s fringe poverty areas, with its remaining post- industrial age urban blight, are among the poorest in Europe. One could clearly see a plea for change.

Some comment put the blame on central government for a situation which has attracted insufficient attention over the years, but this misses the point. Central government is responsible for framework and policies; it must be the charge of regional and lower levels of government structure to resolve poverty issues. Furthermore, it must be realized that it is not just a question of providing funds, but equally important, perhaps more, is to engage and empower the people that need the help until they see a future for themselves.

For Indonesia, which has now established a framework for workable government, it must henceforward see its regional level of government, apart from needed investment in infrastructure and education, more strongly focused on the issues of poverty and employment, including a stronger role played at provincial level. Otherwise the center of the country becomes more and more distant from the reality of the regions and disgruntlement and hence dissent creeps in.

Fortunately for the country it has several important flagship growing cities, which can act as catalysts for regional growth, although these must try to avoid the worldwide issue of peri-urban slum development, by recognizing this very real problem and tackling it from the beginning, with training and empowerment built into solutions.