Today in Scotland, voters are choosing between independence and remaining as part of the United Kingdom. I have been watching this process with half an eye on the Middle East where there are also a number of separatist movements – in southern Yemen and Western Sahara for example, plus the of course the Kurds and the two Sudans which went their separate ways, north and south, in 2011.

Conditions in Scotland are very different from those in the Middle East but people in the region could still learn quite a lot from looking closely at what has been happening in Scotland. This applies not only to questions of independence but also the conduct of referendums in general.

The first point to note is that the public have become fully engaged in the Scottish referendum process. If opinion polls are correct, as many as 90% of registered voters will turn out to cast their ballot. By any standards, this is an extremely high level of participation and it maximises the referendum's legitimacy. 

The high participation level is because voters recognise that the outcome will have long-term consequences for their country. It is not the same as electing a government which can be thrown out again in a few years if people don't like it.

Contrast that with participation in the Egyptian constitutional referendum earlier this year – another ballot with long-term consequences – where turnout was below 40%.

Along with the expected high turnout at the polls in Scotland, there has also been a high level of public participation in the independence debate itself. Not just punditry in the media but ordinary people having their say, discussing it on the streets, with neighbours and at meetings in village halls.

The quality of debate has also been good. Questions of independence tend to arouse strong emotions but in general people have not let that get in the way of the real issues. The pros and cons have been explored at length.

Again, the way this contrasts with referendums in Arab countries scarcely needs describing. The usual practice is not to encourage much public debate, for fear it will lead to the "wrong" outcome. Ultimately, though, that only serves short-term interests and becomes a barrier to long-term progress.

The final thing to watch is what happens after the Scottish results are announced. According to opinion polls, the "Yes" and "No" camps are running very close, so there could be only a small majority for or against. Either way, a small majority will leave a very large number of Scots disappointed – which could potentially become divisive in the aftermath.

This raises the issue of majoritarianism which I have mentioned before in blog posts relating to Arab countries: the idea that winning a majority – even if it's only a majority of one – becomes a mandate to ignore the wishes of those on the other side. But if the overall balance of opinion is not also taken into account, a narrow majority can cause more problems than it solves and endanger national cohesion.

For that reason, once the Scottish result is known, some kind of accommodation process will have to start. The main British political parties have already said that in the event of a "No" vote they will offer concessions to Scotland, giving it more autonomy within the United Kingdom. Similarly, if it's a "Yes", the Scots will not go their own way entirely and will have to start working out ways of collaborating with the rest of the UK in a number of areas.