Scotland’s referendum for independence is over and history will record that 55% of the nation favoured to stay part of the United Kingdom and 45% favoured to go it alone. It was, of course, an issue which farmers across Ireland took a keen interest in, as constitutional change within the UK could create a ripple effect across Europe.

What the entire process did achieve, though, was to create a political debate which has been unprecedented in domestic Scottish politics for many decades. It has re-energised the process of democracy in a country of just 5.5m souls to the extent that a staggering 85% of eligible voters, approximately 3.62m, cast their votes on the simple question of “Should Scotland be an independent country?” with a “yes” and a “no” choice.

I would say that the Scottish farming industry edged more to a 50:50 split in the vote. But, for them, the argument was not just about the independence issue, but rather that the Scottish National Party (SNP) had nailed its colours to the mast with regard to remaining within that other union, Europe.

Scottish farmers still want to be part of what is, after all, one of the economic drivers of the world economy and is vital to maintaining Scottish exports of agricultural products, especially beef and lamb.

On the other hand, the Westminster Government is being forced to look at its relationship with Europe, given that the UKIP party is driving a coach and horses through Tory support in England (Conservatives in Scotland only have 15 MSPs out of a total of 129 in the Scottish Parliament). UK jitters over EU membership worries a farming industry in Scotland that is practical enough to see that being part of Europe is vital to it – despite being second from bottom in terms of subsidy per hectare in the EU league table of funding.

This highlights another major gripe the farming industry has with Westminster and that was the so-called ‘‘divergence uplift’’ money given to the UK by the EU in the spring of this year. It amounted to €223m and was given on the understanding that it be used to equalise area payments within the devolved areas of the UK. Largely, that meant the money should have gone to the Scottish farming industry.

The UK farming industry, on average, gets about €229/ha in Pillar I direct payments and about €20/ha for Pillar II monies. Scotland is ranked somewhere between Estonia and Latvia at the bottom of the table, with €130/ha of Pillar I funding and around €11/ha for Pillar II, highlighting just why the divergence uplift was needed and, indeed, justifiable.

However, Owen Paterson, a former British farming minister, was able to exercise his discretion on the matter and chose instead to spread that money evenly between all of the UK. This caused a furore in Scotland and was a major factor in London losing a swathe of farming votes that it should have been able to rely on for the referendum.

Gordon Brown’s late promise of even more devolution for the Scots, which included domestic tax raising powers and more control of how that money is spent, and which would have included more power for Scottish agricultural departments, was a major factor in swaying the rural vote at the last minute back towards maintaining the Union. Issues on animal health, like delivering a BVD-free Scotland, for instance, could be implemented without having to consult London.

While the resigning First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond and his SNP party may have been beaten in the vote, they may yet emerge as a winner in substantial political terms.

The energy and vitality of the Scottish people on either side of the referendum divide now awaits the rapid implementation of Gordon Brown’s cross-party promises made the week before the vote. Westminster must deliver on this or face a massive Scottish backlash in the UK general election on 7 May 2015.

The clock is running for the coalition UK Government to keep its promises to the Scottish people. If they don’t, the backlash will be severe, especially from farmers.