I think that would be quite likely. Even had the Quebec separatists won that referendum, it would have had no force of law, and no secession would have actually occurred.
Yes, Quebec doesn't seem to have any interest in seceding any more. It was historically a fringe thing, but it came close in 1995 due to a confluence of a whole lot of factors over several years that may be rather unique to Canada and Canadians, who knows?
That said, there has been no appetite for another attempt since the 1995 referendum, and the PQ is pretty much dead in the water these days.
A whole lot of other stuff transpired after the failed referendum, including legal decisions about the matter and, as it turns out, there were several problems with the referendum as framed, but more importantly, it turned out that Quebec didn't have a unilateral right to secede in the first place, either under Canadian law or under international law.
The failed referendum led to a whole bunch of stuff - including a Reference to the SCC, which ultimately set out what would actually be required for a province to secede from Canada - and the
Clarity Act as well. It turned out that Quebec would have required a lot more than just getting "50%+1" on the referendum question that was asked (including oversight as to the wording of the question and other details which are probably not important in this thread at this time) but including, most importantly, a constitutional amendment, which would itself require the consent of all the other provinces (and the federal parliament).
The parallels are what have (quite belatedly) prompted my (admittedly less than fascinated) attention as well.
To continue the parallel, as noted above, the Quebec attempt at unilateral secession failed, pretty much as narrowly as a referendum could possibly do, but in the aftermath, the Supreme Court of Canada heard and decided a Reference to determine whether such a referendum could, in fact, be binding and whether Quebec could unilaterally decide to secede at all either pursuant to Canadian law or pursuant to international law, and the answer to those questions, ultimately, was, "No."
In addition, in that Reference, the SCC also said that any such referendum would require a "clear majority of the populace" to vote in favour of it (before it even gets to all of the other requirements), but the SCC left the definition of "clear majority of the populace" to the courts. I suspect that 50.1% of, say, a 20% or 30% or 40% or 50% voter turnout might not constitute a "clear majority of the populace" but I don't know.
Just sayin'.
I'm not sure whether or not that would be a valid parallel, given the differences between the UK and the EU versus the differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK, but to continue the parallel above, I don't think that it would require that every citizen of the larger entity to have a personal vote, no. However, the other parties to the joint venture (in the Quebec reference case, the joint venture being Canada, and the other parties being all of the other provinces that comprise Canada) were, in fact, determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to have a say in the matter, since secession would require a constitutional amendment which would, in turn, require the consent of all of the other provinces.
Again, continuing the parallel (so far as it holds), the Supreme Court of Canada would appear to disagree with you. I don't know if that's how it will work in the U.K. but if the parallels hold, it seems that there may very well be very live issues there similar to those that occurred here in Canada.
Personally, I doubt that the separatist faction in Scotland will win the day in its current referendum (and I personally do not care one way or the other as I have absolutely no dog in this race), but if they do, I expect there will be lengthy and expensive legal questions and court decisions to follow, if the Quebec secession attempt is anything to go by.
