As the yes side gains momentum, parallels in the response can be drawn to the 1995 campaign in Canada

A last-minute plan to devolve further powers to Scotland over tax, spending, welfare and a host of other areas as disclosed by George Osborne has parallels with the carrots dangled ahead of the Québec referendum in 1995 to stave off separation.

At the beginning of the 1995 campaign in Canada, the no side opposing sovereignty for the province of mostly French-speaking Québec had a big lead in the polls. But just as now appears in Scotland, the yes side had the momentum in the final weeks of the campaign.

Ultimately, after an emotional and controversial campaign, the no vote won with a razor-thin majority of 50.58% to 49.42%. It was a much closer vote than the 1980 referendum, when the proposal to pursue secession was defeated by 59.56% to 40.44%.

During the final days of the 1995 campaign, federal politicians announced their intention of meeting some of Québec's concerns. Jean Chrétien, the Canadian prime minister, said that he would take steps toward recognising Québec as a "distinct society" and guaranteeing Québec a de facto veto over constitutional changes.

According to Wikipedia, after the referendum a federal law was passed "requiring the approval of the regions (including Québec) to amend the constitution. The federal government also pursued what Chrétien called "Plan B", to try to convince voters that economic and legal obstacles would follow if Québec were to declare itself sovereign.

"This culminated in the federal government's 2000 Clarity Act which stated that any future referendum would have to be on a "clear question" and that it would have to represent a "clear majority" for the federal parliament to recognise its validity. The meaning of both a "clear question" and a "clear majority" is left unspecified in the act, to be interpreted by the supreme court."

In 2006, the House of Commons passed a symbolic motion moved by Stephen Harper, the prime minister, declaring "that this House recognise that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." However, there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means.

Harry McGrath, a regular commentator on Scottish issues in the Canadian media, has also noticed similarities in speeches by Chrétien then and David Cameron in the run up to the vote.

"Chrétien appealed to the rest of Canada to show its appreciation for Québec," he wrote earlier this year. "Cameron made the same appeal to the rest of the UK for Scotland. Chrétien spoke as a Québecker; Cameron as a 'bloodline' Scot. Chrétien said that that Canada was 'the best country in the world'; Cameron that 'Team GB [was] the winning team in world history'."

McGrath said that in 1995 Canada had the social structure to back up Chrétien's rhetoric – in its immigration system or its public health system, or its commitment to multiculturalism and its emphasis on military peacekeeping.

"Unfortunately for Cameron, many Scots sense a disconnection between his words and the reality of present day Britain," said McGrath. "When he boasts about the military, they think of the war in Iraq. When he speaks of tolerance, they recall the 'go home' vans driven around communities with high immigrant populations. When he cites compassion, they see the creeping privatisation of the healthcare system in England and Wales. Where he sees mutual prosperity, they note Scotland's dire poverty levels and Britain's status as one of the most unequal societies in the western world."

• This article was amended on 9 September 2014 to attribute two paragraphs to Wikipedia.