The linked article draws a bizarre comparison between Canada and Scotland, should it secede from the U.K.. First of all, Canada has nearly seven times the population and vastly more land. Second, Canada's "relatively small" economy is merely the #11 largest in the world in terms of GDP and three quarters the size of the entire U.K. (and 31% higher per capita). Third, Canada never really seceded from the U.K.. Although Canada has been independent in practice for over a century and completely independent in law since patriation in 1982, Canada's symbolic head of state is still the British monarch. Canada never had to fight or vote for independence. We just gradually wound up that way.

The relationship between Canada and the U.S. does have some superficial similarities, but Canada's status as a different country has always made relations between Canada and the U.S. substantially different than between Scotland and the U.K.. The situation Scotland finds itself is almost completely different from anything Canada as a whole has ever gone through.

The more interesting parallel is between Quebec and Scotland. Quebec's population is 50% larger than Scotland's and its land area is vastly larger, but it has held two referendums on separation from Canada and has threatened to hold others several times. Here are some lessons we've learned:

1. Baseline support for separation is Quebec is well below 50% most of the time, but separatists have chosen unusual periods when separatist sentiment is at a peak to hold referendums and campaigned hard for a victory. In these separation referendums, the advantage clearly goes to the separatists.

2. The terms for a successful separation vote have been and remain unclear. At the time of both referendums, federalists and separatists had extremely different ideas about what percentage of the vote would be necessary to actually carry out separation. Since then a "clarity act" has been passed, but all it states is that a "clear majority" is required. If it looks like Scotland might reach 50% plus one, then the U.K. and Scotland had better have a clear stance on what that will mean!

3. A separatist government was responsible for composing the referendum questions in both of Quebec's sovereignty votes. These governments can and will choose tortuous, unclear phrasing to get as many extra votes as they can.

4. Everybody has different ideas of what separation would actually entail. Would Quebec keep a portion of federal property (e.g. Military equipment)? Would they assume a proportional amount of the national debt? Would they be allowed to use Canadian currency/passports? Would English centers (e.g. Montreal) and native bands that wish to remain in Canada be permitted to separate from Quebec and remain with Canada? The list goes on and on. Federalists will make separation sound as scary and punitive as possible while separatists will make it sound as harmless as possible. The trouble is, people voting in the referendum don't really know what they're voting for except a start to the negotiations!

5. Business interests loathe political instability. Referendums and separatist governments with draconian language laws have significantly retarded Quebec's economy over the years. I would suggest that, whether they separate or not, it would be in Scotland's best interests to pass a law stating how long it must be before the next referendum on separation can be held. If this is not done, separation will remain a constant uncertainty.

6. Separation threats haven't been all bad for Quebec. Due to Canada's practice of transferring funds from wealthy provinces to poor provinces, Quebec has received substantial funding that has helped make up for it's lagging economy. Their separatist governments have also used the specter of separation to extort concession after concession out of the federal government. If Scotland votes no, it's a safe bet that the U.K. government will be pandering to Scottish interests for generations.