Well okay, then. The British election predictive polls were well off the mark, when they looked at their data and poked at their tea leaves and then called the election a virtual dead heat between the Conservative and Labour parties, with neither party gaining a clear majority. But, by the end of the actual counting, the Tories had grabbed an actual clear majority in that British election of 7 May, in defiance of predictions and history. (No sitting prime minister’s government apparently had actually increased its parliamentary total since 1900). This victory means no more sometimes-awkward coalition government with the Liberal Democrats.

Meanwhile, that claymore waving, bagpipe-playing Scottish National Party (SNP) has now essentially turned Scotland into a one-party state (at least in parliamentary delegation terms). And, once all the votes were in, the heads of three British parties each carried out political self-defenestrations in response to their respective electoral thrashings. In many countries, results like this would be read as a major seismic political event, one with vast implications for the future. And so it has been as well for the United Kingdom.

Inevitably, perhaps, much of the analysis, so far, has focused closely on how the Tories will assign duties, cabinet offices and get on with the act of governing; how they will sort out some sort of relationship with Labour and the SNP; what will happen to the UK Independence Party and the Liberal Democrats and their discouraged voters, now that they are simply minor parliamentary irritants; and how the new Cameron government will divide up the spoils of war amongst its various factions. As The Economist commented just after the results had come in, “But such is the ragged state of British politics that David Cameron looks condemned to preside over a government that will be weaker than the coalition he has run for the past five years, even as this election has deepened the problems Britain faces. The Tories must strengthen a fragile economy, manage the uncertainty of a referendum on Europe and salvage a union with Scotland that is falling apart.”

But beyond the largely domestic political dynamic, there is another important question that calls for fuller examination as well. And that question is what Cameron’s victory means for Britain’s international standing and its relationships with its allies in Europe – and with the US. Or, as British political analyst and author David Torrance told media after the election, “Yesterday was V-E Day, when the United Kingdom was celebrating its finest hour. Seventy years later, it could be contemplating the beginning of its end in its current form. The next five years will be a twin debate about two unions — the European Union and the United Kingdom.”

Photo: British political leaders, former Labour leader Ed Miliband (L), formerLiberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg (C), and British Prime Minister David Cameron Conservative (R), wait to lay wreathes at the Cenotaph for the VE70 Commemorations in Whitehall, central London, England, 08 May 2015. The Service of Remembrance held at the Cenotaph is to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day (VE Day). EPA/ANDY RAIN

The first thing to consider, of course, is that precisely because of the results of this election, the Tories will be increasingly consumed by domestic politics. Their first issue will be in working out some sort of modus vivendi with the SNP in the way the national government relates to Scotland. They have already promised priority negotiations on a new financial and administrative deal between Westminster and Scotland, and that will likely soak up much of the attention span of the new government since it will touch on so many crucial aspects of national governance.

Moreover, the new government will be looking in every budget category for the spending they can reduce in order to meet their pledges to bring the government deficit down to budget-neutral levels. This will inevitably mean nasty quarrels within their own Tory government over which programmatic oxen must be gored so that others can be spared, amidst all the budgetary bloodletting. This will be in addition to an acrimonious national debate between political parties and among the more general public, once the nasty details of planned cuts in the National Health Service and a wide variety of educational and social programs come into crisper focus. It is relatively easier for people to be supportive of austerity and efficiency in government when it is the general enemies of government bloat, waste, fraud and mismanagement that will be squelched. But, once the discussion becomes a bun fight over specific benefits, all of the interested parties start to feel the pain and then let the world know just what they think – in the media – and in the streets.

And while the SNP had earlier said that a referendum on Scottish independence would not be on the cards for a generation, after they were decisively defeated in last year’s referendum, given their new, overwhelming parliamentary caucus from Scotland, it could easily be envisioned that that pledge will evaporate – and be replaced in turn by some kind of vote – or, at the minimum, some very public political pushing and shoving to bring the question to the fore all over again despite that earlier statement.

With such a sketch of the broader domestic political landscape to hand, the international implications of this Tory victory can snap into clearer focus. On the one hand, many international leaders will be relatively comfortable with the continuity that five more years of a David Cameron government will presumably offer the global community. Foreign governments tend to favour continuity – even with enemies to some degree – because at least the others know what they have to deal with in their international relations messaging and negotiations.

And, of course, Prime Minister David Cameron isn’t going to suddenly do a 180-degree turn on his prior positions on the globe’s most pressing international issues such as pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions, for example. (It is curious to note that within the context of the long-time US-UK “special relationship” reaching back to those dangerous days before America’s entry into World War II, despite their seemingly discordant ideological homes, the George W Bush/Tony Blair and Barack Obama/David Cameron partnerships were particularly close on virtually every international issue since 2001.)

But, and here’s the thing, the Cameron government has pledged to hold a referendum in two years on continued membership in the EU by Britain as the Cameron government pursues a new bargain with the EU. The build-up to such a referendum will, in and of itself, be enormously fractious and energy draining on the government, even if the population as a whole ultimately upholds the idea of Britain’s continued membership in this community.

As The Economist further noted, “The problem for Cameron with such a pledge is that a significant chunk of his own party has effectively been against membership in the EU for a while, and these would be in addition to all those who presumably favoured UKIP in the recent election and its position opposing the EU. Europe is especially dangerous for the Conservatives. Under pressure from Eurosceptics in his party, Mr Cameron promised to spend two years renegotiating Britain’s place in the EU before holding an in-out referendum by the end of 2017. Setting such a firm deadline was foolish: there is a real risk that, in the mid-term doldrums, British voters will sever their country’s relationship with its most important trading partner. But Mr Cameron has no option but to stick with it.

“The difficulty will be calibrating Britain’s demands. Ask for too much and he will come home empty-handed. Win too little from Brussels and he will lose too many of his own party for his government to survive. He should avoid all talk of treaty change (which European governments are unlikely to countenance) and focus instead on cutting red tape, extending the single market and cracking down on welfare tourism. Then he should spin every slight achievement as a mighty victory.” But many will see right through such an act of rampant political sophistry for the bait and switch they will accuse it of being.

Moreover, if the analysts are right on these numbers, a majority of Scottish voters are strongly in favour of continued membership, as is the SNP. But, if English voters come down against continued participation or are thoroughly split on the matter, the division between the two parts of the UK over the EU could further exacerbate the tensions over the sustainability of the continued union of Great Britain, thereby further sapping the energy of a Cameron government for dealing most other international questions.

In the most dramatic case, that is, an actual unwinding of the Scottish and English political union, one could even see efforts by Scotland to retain its current membership or obtain a new membership in the EU in defiance of English moves to withdraw from the community. The resulting shock waves from all that would probably consume most of the political energies in the UK for years. And a British departure from the EU might well be the trigger the SNP would use to call another referendum on the nature of the UK itself, despite their defeat last year by a sizeable margin on that issue.

Of course another question related to Scotland as a part of the UK has a major international security dimension. Scotland currently is homeport to the British nuclear submarine fleet, and one of the tenets of the SNP has been to oppose Scottish home porting for such enormously powerful (and expensive) weapons platforms. With the planned replacement of the current boats by the next generation of Trident subs, there is the possibility for a whole new angry, politically charged confrontation between the national government and the SNP parliamentary delegation – and the Scottish home government – over such a basing plan. Because British nuclear submarine forces are an integral part of a unified strike posture with the US, problems with new deployments into the future will be a significant and difficult to resolve problem for that “special relationship’s” nuclear deterrence strategy.

And there is another problem represented by the planned new, next generation subs – regardless of whether they are based in Scotland or not. That is the budgetary one. Given the Cameron government’s strongly stated desire to cut government spending significantly over the next number of years, as cuts in the NHS and other educational and social spending begin to bite, it will be unlikely for defence expenditures to be immune from new cuts. The problem is that British defence spending has already been on a declining curve for years and a Trident sub is a really, really “big ticket” item, let alone a whole flotilla of them. Almost regardless of Cameron’s predilections for demonstrating a rigorous international security posture on the part of the UK, he almost inevitably will be facing pressure both within and without his party to not spare the military from the cutting of government expenditures.

Over the longer term, such a result will be to lessen the capability of the UK to demonstrate a credible participation in international security efforts, whether they are patrols against piracy in the Indian Ocean or to participation in extended deployments (such as in Afghanistan or Iraq) to cope with international terrorist-style insurgents. (Of course there are those will see such limitations on military capabilities as a rather good thing, thereby preventing the British from joining up in some of the more dubious adventures that might be dreamt up under a future George W Bush thinkalike, but that must be another column.)

In any case, even in the best case, any serious cuts, let alone budgetary increases will almost certainly preclude the UK from meeting the military spending goal established by Nato. And this will come at a time of generally increasing tension with Russia, the continual uncertainties in the Middle East, and the growing – not shrinking – commitments around the globe for varieties of international peacekeeping. And that doesn’t even get into the question of spending on foreign assistance programs – spending that is always a target all around the world at times of governmental budgetary austerity.

As The Washington Post noted two months ago, “With Europe facing its shakiest security environment in a generation, Britain has slipped into a familiar role: Washington’s tough-talking wingman. British leaders have led the rhetorical charge against the twin menaces of Russia and the Islamic State while browbeating reluctant European governments to wake up to the reality of a newly unstable continent. But behind the flinty facade lies an unmistakable erosion in British power, one that has reduced Washington’s indispensable ally to a position that U.K. officials, military leaders and analysts acknowledge could leave the United States without a credible partner in taking on the greatest threats to global security. ‘If the U.K. can’t do it, who else is the U.S. going to turn to in Europe?’ said Gen. Richard Dannatt, a retired British army chief. ‘There’s no one else.’ Britain’s diminished military capacity is a product of years of stringent austerity policies that show no sign of easing.”

What this will portend is the likelihood that the long-term special relationship – even if it continues with a still-United Kingdom – will get a little less special and a bit less of a relationship, almost regardless of Cameron’s druthers. Or, as The Post went on to note, “The British withdrawal from world affairs could soon accelerate, with budget cuts likely to take an even greater bite out of an already withered military. A report issued this week by a respected British think tank, the Royal United Services Institute, found that Britain’s regular army could shrink to just 50,000 troops by 2019 – about half the number of the amount when the decade began and just a fraction of the figure from the height of the Cold War. ‘The concern is that we’re going to fall from being a significant player to a bit-part player,’ Dannatt said. ‘The U.K. isn’t of much use to the U.S. if we don’t have a worthwhile military force behind us. Anybody can talk tough. But if you don’t back it up, everyone just laughs at you.’ ”

If the country does begin to come unravelled, the relationship will be that much less important still. In that eventuality, Britain’s unique voice in international affairs – a role that historically has seemed to punch significantly beyond its actual strength and weight – will become a much more subdued one.

Or, as the New York Times’ conservative columnist Ross Douthat put the case, “you have to argue explicitly for a Great Britain. You have to invoke the United Kingdom’s world-bestriding past, which the Scots no less than the English sustained and died defending, with something more than awkward embarrassment. You have to make a case to the Little Englanders that Britain’s multicultural, Europe-facing present can keep faith with that past and not just bury it. You have to demonstrate that a liberal empire, no less than an ethnic homeland, can be something real and rooted — something felt in ‘the blood and guts,’ as Massie put it during the Scottish referendum, ‘the bone and marrow of our lives.’ I’m a Yankee; this not my argument to make. But if our cousins can’t find leaders who can make it, there won’t be a Great Britain anymore.”

In that event, defence planners may well start to think of Britain as a nation with the relative impact of, say, a Spain or an Italy. In such a circumstance, the UK’s reduced role could well mean its heretofore special voice will become sharply less distinctive, and far less audible. DM

Photo: British Prime Minister and Conservative party leader David Cameron (R) with his wife Samantha (L) wave to supporters at the door of Number 10 Downing Street after meeting the Queen in London, Britain, 08 May 2015. Cameron hailed the ‘sweetest victory’ of his political career in the general elections, with the win giving the Conservatives around 330 seats and a clear mandate for another five years in office. EPA/ANDY RAIN

Read more:

• Cam again – The Conservatives have triumphed at the polls. Governing will be much harder in the Economist;

• Election may set Britain on a path to becoming Little England at the Washington Post;

• The Suicide of Britain, a column by Ross Douthat in the New York Times;

• U.K.’s shrinking military clout worries U.S. at the Washington Post;

• The Amazing Decline of America’s Special Relationships, a column by David Rothkopf at Foreign Policy;

• Little England: Why the British election matters to the United States at the Brookings Institution website.