Bombarded and besieged by events both dire and real—Ebola, ISIS, climate change to name a critical few—it’s understandable that Americans have paid little attention to recent events in Scotland. While many of us (myself included) retain an abiding cultural affinity for that place, Scotland’s recent Independence Referendum just never rose to a level of importance that captured our attention. But it should have; here’s why:

It was only 238 years ago—a drop in time’s bucket—that we were sufficiently discontented with English rule that Thomas Jefferson penned his immortal words, “When in the course of human events…” That document was the world’s first UDI: a Universal Declaration of Independence. For the next five years, England would challenge our will to achieve independence and in the end, at Yorktown, America was more than just words.

In mid-September, Scotland put itself to the test with the Independence Referendum. Eligible voters were given a simple, straightforward choice: Should Scotland be an independent country, yes or no. Although the vote was predicted to be very close, the final tally indicated that 55% of the electorate voted to remain within the United Kingdom, a surprisingly clear mandate. What apparently swayed many undecided voters were promises made by David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that many additional powers of governance would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, making the country independent all but in name. However, in the wake of the vote, promises made in the heat of battle do not appear as if they will be kept, just the kind of human event that leads to more radical change.

Since the referendum, membership in the Scottish National Party (SNP) has quadrupled. It now stands at more than 82,000, five times more than Scotland’s second largest political party, Labour. If that trend continues which is likely because the new leader of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, seems bent on playing to the independence hardliners, the next Scottish elections in May 2015 will return an enormous SNP majority to the Scottish Parliament. When that happens, it’s more than likely that the SNP will consider the vote a mandate to declare UDI. If that occurs, a Scottish friend told me, it will be “cat-among-the-pigeons.”

The antidote to a Scottish UDI lies in London. Westminster could honor Mr. Cameron’s promise of increased devolved powers, but both history and modern politics argue against that. In 1746, after the Battle of Culloden which put a bloody end to Bonny Prince Charlie’s Jacobite Rebellion, the victorious Duke of Cumberland (known as “The Butcher” in Scotland) executed all surviving Scottish prisoners; edicts banning everything from wearing tartan to prohibiting the bagpipes all but destroyed Scotland’s clan system. In more modern terms, it’s difficult to imagine that Parliament will feel very charitable to a country that even posed the question of independence. Moreover, if additional powers were to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, what could Westminster say to Wales and Northern Ireland when they come knocking on the door saying, “What about us?” To make things worse, the mood in England is less than charitable. Many Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs) feel that if Scotland doesn’t want English MPs to have a say in Scottish affairs, then why should Scottish MPs have a say in affairs that only affect England? Maybe the United Kingdom isn’t so united after all.

On this side of the Atlantic, Scotland’s independence referendum seemed not much more than a polite exercise in democracy. Voters decided that Scotland and England were indeed better together, end of story. But it’s not looking that way. The prospect of a Scottish UDI puts many things in question: will even the threat of it move Westminster to accommodate some measure of Scottish aspirations? What about those Scots who voted No: in the face of English intransigence, will they feel the time for more radical solutions has finally come?

So why should we care? Because we are a revolutionary people. The American farmers who fired the shot heard round the world did not have all the answers. All they knew was that London was too far away and too insensitive to the reality of its New World colony to tolerate. The very real and practical questions of how a new and independent America would make its way in the world paled in comparison to our patriotic fervor. In the end, we didn’t do too badly.

Neither will Scotland.

Jamie Kirkpatrick