It definitely took hold. It was an act of political union, albeit the democratic vote was heavily biased towards a larger English population, but the Scottish influence is imprinted in UK law, US law and any ex-colony.

The works of Adam Smith and David Hume arguably shaped the modern capitalist world which India is part of and branched off from.

Maybe there are nuanced arguments why it's less of a democracy, but I'm fairly sure nowadays every democracy has similar arguments.

But from a judicial standpoint, most of the strengthening around civil liberties as mentioned in the Scottish Enlightenment only happened in the 20th century.

Indian (and Malaysian and Singaporean) jurisprudence largely forked off from British jurisprudence in the 1940s-1960.

A number of the reforms in jurisprudence that happened post-WW2 weren't incorporated in the judicial codes for most colonies at that point, so judicial norms remain paternalistic.

> Scottish influence is imprinted in UK law, US law and any ex-colony

In Canada sure (Scots were overrepresented in "anglophone" Canada), but not the rest of the Commonwealth.

You edited a bit but I appreciate your point and I'll defer to you as I don't know much about Indian Democracy or the behaviour of the current government. I suspect that the seed of self-determination has well and truly been planted though.