NIGERIA might seem an unlikely comparator to Scotland. Yet its example is instructive both to those favouring Scottish independence and those still envisioning a federal reconstruction of the United Kingdom.

British policy in the post-war decades was to transform the Empire into a Commonwealth: a freely associated community of self-governing nations. After the Declaration of London 1949, it was not even necessary to keep the monarchy as head of state – although many chose to. There’s an old lady living in a big house in Windsor who was once Queen of Nigeria – as well as Queen of Kenya, Queen of Sierra Leone, and Queen of the Gambia.

It was universally acknowledged, from the Second World War onwards, that colonies had a right to independence, and that the British Government would ultimately facilitate, and not obstruct, the exercise of that right.

The focus of British efforts was on preparing countries for independence and on influencing the terms and timing of independence. The general policy was that, where possible, independence should be granted only when a country demonstrated desire for it and a capacity for it, and only under such institutional structures as would enable the country to operate as a “going concern”.

That meant a functioning, stable, tolerably well-administered state, with a democratic government and protection for minorities, that would neither collapse into chaos nor fall to the Communists as soon as British troops were withdrawn.

The British did not want Nigeria to become independent too soon, because they were concerned about violence and ungovernability, particularly in the north of the country. On the other hand, they did not want to wait too long, because they wanted to avoid arousing Nigerian resentment, which could have jeopardised the chances of good (and mutually profitable) post-independence relations.

The undertaking by Alan Lennox-Boyd, the Conservative Secretary of State for the Colonies, was that if a majority in the Nigerian Parliament, newly elected in 1959, should vote for independence “some time about January 1960” then the British Government would “consider it with sympathy” and “fix a date when they would accede to the request”. The date would be dependent on how far regional self-government and minority rights had progressed. In other words, as soon as you prove that you want it, and can handle it, you can have it.

Some say it is mistaken to see Scottish independence as a decolonisation process. Scotland, it is said, was never a colony, but rather a full and zealous participant in British imperialism. I have previously argued that the experience of Union in 1707 and its immediate aftermath was similar to the colonial experience of other countries. Many countries, although joined to the British Empire by a subtle mixture of elite co-option, treaty, fraud and force, nevertheless played their role in defending and expanding it. One might as well accuse Kenya of imperialism because the Kings African Rifles fought in Burma, as accuse Scotland of imperialism because the Black Watch fought at Magersfontein.

Yet in one crucial regard, Scotland is being treated as worse than a colony: the principle of the right to independence, and the traditional colonial route to agreed independence by the election of a pro-independence majority to the legislature, are being denied to Scotland.

Scotland has proven we have the capacity for independence. Although recent squabbles do show the need for further institutional reform, particularly in the role and powers of the Lord Advocate, the basic fact remains that Scotland has almost all the apparatus of a functioning state.

A demonstration of desire, in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections, should be all that is required for the independence process to commence. That would mean the convening of a Constitutional Conference to agree the constitution of the Scottish state, citizenship provisions, the terms of cooperation in post-independence military and financial relations, and the date of independence.

Independence is however only the beginning of the story, and here Nigeria serves not as an example for independence supporters, but as a warning to British federalists. Nigeria’s federal constitution of 1960 was not a bad one. Yet under it, Nigerian democracy lasted just six difficult years before falling prey to a military coup.

The problem was the absence of federation-wide parties. Each region became a virtual “ethno-state”, each dominated by one party representing its own regional interests. Elections were little more than identity censuses, and politics was reduced to a game of regional patronage distribution.

Now that the Tories are the party of English nationalism, British politics is heading the same way. Different dominant parties prevail in each country of the UK, each representing the national interest of their own people. Under such conditions, no clever constitutional engineering can guarantee stable democracy.

Some say that Southern Nigeria should have broken away and formed its own country. One might easily reach the same conclusion about ‘North Britain’.

The next star guest on the TNT show is Suzanne Zeedyk. Join us at 7pm next Wednesday