THEY like lovebombing in Shan State.

Because it makes a change from real bombing.

For decades, after all, many in the would-be breakaway Burmese province fought a intermittent but largely forgotten war.

Their efforts were met with brutal reprisals from Burma's military rulers, including allegations of mass rapes and slaver raids on indigenous villages. Thousands fled Shan State, mostly a plateau in what many locals still refer to as Burma (even after central authorities restyled their country as Myanmar).

Now Burma is, Shans and others hope, making a stuttering transition to democracy. The rhetoric on secession has changed. It has started to sound more akin to the friendlier overtures of British unionists to Scotland.

And some Shan, in exile in northern Thailand, have started to draw the parallel.

"Both separation as well as unification have their pros and cons," said the Shan Herald, which operates out of the Thai city of Chiang Mai, in what I believe is its first article on Scottish independence. "What an enlightened government needs to show is that there are more pros than cons in a union for all."

The paper referred to British-educated Aung San Suu Kyi, the long-time opposition leader and a focal point for reforms.

Her words, to my ears, can sound Cameron-esque, acknowledging the right of minorities to go, but urging them to stay. The Shan Herald reported: "Remember and implement what Aung Sun said: 'The right to secede must be given. But we must do what we can to make them not want to secede.'"

Now I don't know how many Shan living inside Burma know about Scotland and its big vote in September. This is a desperately poor and underdeveloped part of the world.

But the fact Shan press in exile is writing about the referendum is yet another example of the extra-ordinary reach of the Scottish question.

This - and here I am labouring an old point again - is the UK, one of the oldest states in the world, an international fixture, allowing a democratic election on its own break-up. That has impact even in the remote highlands of south-east Asia.

So too, it seems, did a certainly 1990s Hollywood blockbuster beloved of foreign commentators on Scottish politics and history. "When Shans think about Scotland, three men come into mind," opened the Shan Herald. The men: William Wallace, as played by Mel Gibson in Braveheart; Robert Bruce (and his spider); and, yes, Sean Connery as 007.

The first two, Wallace and Bruce, fought against "the British", it added.

"Later on Scotland became a member of the United Kingdom, not unlike Shan State, through a treaty signed between it and England," the paper continued. "Now eight centuries after Wallace, many Scots, included Sean Connery, are pushing for Independence despite London's decentralization policy."

There is little chance of an indyref in Shan State any time soon. In fact, an exiled Shan government has already declared independence from Burma, in 2005, without a poll.

It's not clear what support this had from inside the province, especially among non-Shan.

"So what does [Scotland's independence referendum] augur for the Shans?" asked The Shan Herald in not quite perfect English. "No doubt there are at least half of the Shan population, reeling after the Burmese Army's bullying, who are for an independent Shanland as proven by the short-lived but overwhelming support given by exiled Shans to the Interim Shan Government when it declared Independence.

"But the Burma Army and its leaders need not panic in a hurry, if its intentions to form a federal union are pure.

"It must also change its ways: from a 'burn all-kill all-rape all' war machine into a 'help all, love all, and, gentle to all' movement for peace."

* Thanks to reader Nicholas Mayes of Singapore for spotting the Shan Herald article. Seen or heard something abroad about Scotland? Feel free to let me know.