Scotland and Quebec share many features. Both are nations within larger states, strongly identified by their distinctive institutions and traditions. Both have experienced some three decades of constitutional debate, animated most recently by social democratic nationalist parties. Moreover, their shared historical connection to the British Empire has created many demographic links and institutional similarities. The rise of nationalism at the ballot box in the 1970s, not to mention the referendums on measures of self-government, make comparisons between the two convenient. In contemporary academic parlance, they both have become exemplars, along with Catalonia, of the 'stateless nation', although as Quebecois scholars point out, the extensive powers wielded by the province give it a presence as a 'state'. It is also easy to highlight differences between the two nations. Quebec has twice the population of Scotland, and is host to visible minority and immigrant communities that are much larger than in Scotland. Quebec is often seen as an example of ethnic nationalism, prioritising birth and language, while Scottish nationalism is often associated with civic markers such as political values and residency. Academics are not the only ones to make comparisons between the two nations. Politicians and journalists in both places have used the other to prove a point. For instance, in September 2002, the First Minister of Scotland, Jack McConnell, used the occasion of the annual British Labour Party meeting to make such a comparison. He criticised the Scottish National Party (SNP) plan to hold a referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland by referring to economic difficulties in Quebec at the time of the 1995 referendum.1 Similarly, extensive Quebecois media interest accompanied the referendum for a Scottish Parliament in 1997. The comparison between Scotland and Quebec provides both positive and negative fodder for political discussions. For nationalists in Scotland, Quebec provides a positive example of a nation largely controlling its culture and economy. Quebec's ability to control such diverse policy areas as pensions and education proves that nations within states can exercise substantial jurisdictions. For Quebec nationalists, Scotland serves as an example of a broadly recognised nation. Long before the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, the United Kingdom provided clear political acknowledgement of Scotland's distinctiveness: a separate question time at Westminister for Scottish issues, a separate bureaucracy north of the border, and dedicated ministers within the Scottish Office. Such acceptance of Scotland's status as a nation contrasts markedly with the painful and drawn-out debate in Canada over the recognition of Quebec as a 'distinct society' in constitutional terms. In Scotland, more of the political debate has focused on the nature of political reform and less on whether the Scots exist as 'a people'. Even for some federalists in Canada, the creation of the Scottish Parliament has served as evidence that British attempts at devolution mimic the effectiveness of current Canadian constitutional arrangements. As a corollary, these federalists would contend, advocates of a greater degree of sovereignty in Quebec should instead be happy with the constitutional status quo. Clearly, comparison of the two 'stateless nations' can serve many purposes. Historical parallels As many of the chapters in this book contend, the histories of Scotland and Quebec run parallel in many places. Both Scotland and Quebec experienced integration into the British Empire in the eighteenth century, Scotland through the Act of Union of 1707 that saw the disappearance of the local parliament and Quebec through the Conquest of 1759-60. The histories of the two regions come together in the person of James Wolfe. Aide-de-camp to Lieutenant-General Henry Hawley at the defeat of the Jacobite army at Culloden in 1746, Wolfe was the general commanding British forces (including erstwhile Jacobites) at Quebec in 1759. …