The road to Scottish independence may be easy, hard or comical

Brazilian separation is an example of an unconventional way to freedom. ­Historian Sebag Montefiore reports that Brazil became independent during a bout of diarrhoea. The bowel loosening movement upset 22-year-old Prince Pedro. He had been left in charge of Brazil, then a Portuguese colony, by his father King Joao.

(The king had returned to Portugal in 1821 to quell a revolution there.) Regent Pedro had vacillated between ­independence and loyalty to his father for some time. In 1822, as the political pressure for ­independence grew with crowds in Rio shouting “let the people rule Brazil”, he responded first by ordering troops to fire into the protesters. Then he switched. When the crowds demanded he remain, he declared: “Tell the people, I stay.”

READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: What Labour in power will mean for the United Kingdom

When Pedro was out riding in August of 1822, he suffered a spasm of diarrhoea. While his ­trousers were around his ankles, he was ­handed a letter from Rio: Portugal was ­planning to ­reconquer Brazil, and he faced arrest if he ­resisted. Between bouts of dysentery, throwing his hat to the ground, he drew his sword and cried: “The time has come. Independence or death. We’ve separated from Portugal.”

No mean feat bearing in mind his distressing condition.

In October 1822, a much-recovered Pedro was declared emperor of Brazil. He declared: “From Portugal, we want nothing, absolutely nothing.” Pedro wrote to his father: “Brazilian ­independence triumphs ... or we die defending it.”

At his coronation on December 1, Emperor Pedro sported a green silk tunic, spurred boots, and a green and yellow cloak made of toucan feathers.

READ MORE: The treaties that solidify Scotland's status as an independent nation

Moving from wild ways to independence to easy ones.

Some British colonies and dominions found separation pretty straightforward. Countries in the Caribbean often met little resistance from Westminster. The British government said a referendum in Saint Lucia was not needed ­because the people had spoken in electing a ­pro-independence majority to their parliament.

Likewise in Dominica, a referendum was ruled unnecessary because: "The British ­government’s consistent policy has been to be guided by what seemed to British ministers to be the wishes of the majority of the ­territory.” ­

Given that the pro-independence ­government had won a majority in the Dominican ­parliament, the British government ­concluded: “We do not think that further evidence of ­popular opinion can reasonably be demanded.”

Canada and Australia, likewise, found ­separation relatively easy as they moved ­steadily from dominion status to independence.

In the case of India, however, matters did not proceed quite so smoothly. Despite many ­promises of self-rule – often produced when Britain was at war and desperately needed ­bodies for the front line – little meaningful ­progress was made.

For instance, just before the beginning of the First World War, the British government ­promised special benefits to India in return for their support during the War. As many as 1.3 million Indian soldiers were sent to the ­Middle East, Europe and Africa to fight for the ­British in 1914-1918. Despite these vows, British ­intransigence persisted.

In response to this continuing ­obstinacy, ­Mohandas Gandhi’s civil disobedience ­movement of 1930-1931 was launched with the famous Salt March. Although in itself, it failed to bring Indian independence, it seriously undermined British authority and united India’s population in a movement for independence under the leadership of the Indian National Congress (INC). It signalled a new stage in the struggle for Indian swaraj (self-rule) and facilitated the downfall of the British Empire in India. ­Gandhi’s Salt Satyagraha (a word Gandhi used to connote civil resistance) drew upon a traditional South Asian cultural practice – the “Padyatra” (a long spiritual march) that ­became a model of strategic action for many social movements.

Similar promises were repeated at the time of the Second World War, as Gandhi intensified his demands for the complete independence of India. He drafted a resolution calling for the British to quit India. The “Quit India Movement” was the most aggressive movement launched by the Indian National Congress. ­Gandhi was ­arrested on August 9, 1942, and was held for two years. The Quit India Movement came to an end by the close of 1943, when the British suggested that complete power would be transferred to the people of India. Gandhi called off the movement which resulted in the release of thousands of political prisoners. In the end, it took until midnight on August 15, 1947 for Britain finally to quit India.

One conclusion is that Britain is decent when independence involves little or no disturbance to Westminster. On the other hand, if any significant challenge to the established order threatens, the reaction is very different.

A major lesson from these varied routes to independence is plain. Assertion works. ­Acquiescence doesn’t.