Scots may have rejected independence on 18 September, after with a resounding 55% of voters opted out of breaking the 307-year old union with England, but it is clear that the storm hasn't subsided.
The Better Together campaign and pro-unionists breathed a sigh of relief following the historic referendum's results but it is clear that the relatively tight margin in voting means millions of Scots (45%) are still hungry for independence.
Westminster can't rest on its laurels that it secured a pro-union vote as Scotland as it is seemingly in a Catch-22 position to keep the country within the UK.
The Yes Vote
The one huge takeaway from the recent referendum is that the unprecedented turnout means the end vote is representative of the majority (and minority).
A whopping 84.59% of eligible Scots turned out to vote and, in the end, the pro-unionists won.
However, dig a little deeper, and the 'win' by the No vote is a lot more complicated.
Scotland's biggest city Glasgow had a massive turnout of 75% and 194,779 (53.5%) voted Yes while 169,347 (46.5%) voted no.
A huge 71% of young people aged 16 to 17 years old also voted for independence while 48% of 18 to 24 year olds also opted for the union break.
The future of the country is in the hands of the youth and, while it may be morbid to point out, 73% of over 65 year olds that voted No in the referendum, won't be around for many decades to come to prevent the union break from happening.
Granted, this is based on the pessimistic view that those who are voted Yes are unlikely to change their mind.
However, one would be forgiven in assuming this considering how the unprecedented amount of independent economic analysis and lack of contingency plans from the pro-independence camp, did little to stop the momentum of dissidence over the union.
Furthermore, shouts of feeling "cheated" from the youth camp is likely to leave sores and wounds in their political psyches for decades to come, as the majority of younger population had strived seek a severing of ties with England.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) may have lost the referendum but it is likely to win the war for independence in the end.
The pro-independence camp were already in a win-win situation as by even just having a referendum meant that it had delivered on the promise to give Scots a say on how the country should be governed.
It lost the vote over breaking the union but it has won the ability to gather unprecedented amounts of power and control over its finances, even though it still benefits from the taxpayers' pockets from across the whole of Britain- not just Scotland.
Westminster is in a tough spot.
It has to grant the enhanced devolutionary powers promised to voters in exchange for the No vote.
This includes greater control and setting of taxation rates as well as spending power. Never mind that this could cause a major upset to the political and economic infrastructure to the rest of the UK the Conservatives will be damned if they do fulfil on promises and damned if they don't.
Either way, it will lead to an inevitable referendum.
Damned if they Do, Damned if They Don't
If the Conservatives do not deliver on enhanced devolutionary powers, Scots will feel cheated, especially for those who didn't necessarily want independence but wanted greater control over who governs them locally.
After all, in the 2010 General Election, 1,035,528 Scots opted for Labour out of the 2,465,722 who actually turned up to vote. In the end, their affairs are ultimately conducted by a Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.
(Although it is worth noting that only 491,386 for SNP)
It will undoubtedly lead to enough uproar, especially to the disillusioned youth who opted for independence in the first place.
Furthermore, youth unemployment north of the border is higher than the rest of the country and as the voting statistics showed, the higher the jobless rate is in an area, the higher proportion of pro-independence people are.
However, if further devolution is granted, there is a great political conundrum to tackle, which will leave sourgrapes in many people's mouths.
If Scotland is effectively allowed to be given unprecedented power over its tax rates, spending activities, subsidies and so forth, it does cause confusion over whether Scottish MPs should have the right to stick in their two cents over how England would be run.
Considering it's the overall UK taxpayers' purse that would fund Scotland's subsidies, possibly lower tax rates, and pensions, it could cause a huge schism in parliament.
But one of the biggest points made by Scotland's deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is that it is probably too late to say that there is not going to be another referendum.
"There is no going back - and much as they might have wanted to, Whitehall politicians and mandarins cannot put us back in a devolved box," said Sturgeon in a recent opinion piece.
"The word 'devolution' is no longer adequate, for that describes a process of handing down carefully circumscribed powers from on high to a relatively passive people.
"Scotland is now more politically engaged and assertive than at any stage of the democratic era."
The economic arguments are still the same as they were before the 18 September referendum and there is still not defined contingency plans from the pro-independence camp over key independence infrastructure issues but I don't think people are interested.
The No vote may have won the referendum but it has only delayed an inevitable break in the union; for better or for worse.