Maybe there's another way of looking at this. Thread of musings:

We could start by recognising that separatist referendums in free democracies are almost never heard of (Quebec and Scotland are outliers), and ask the question why that is. 1/ https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1384438658707640320

It's because the norm since the start of the modern democratic era, post WW2, is that if you're part of a society characterised by liberty & democratic representation then there's a reasonable expectation you should tolerate the diversity and inclusivity that comes with that. 2/

That implicit social contract is why democracies generally do not allow secessionist referendums despite there being nationalist movements in many of them, from the Ryukyu movement on Okinawa to the Bavarian, Corsican or Veneto independence movements. 3/

For example, in facing off against Corsican nationalism, Emmanuel Macron makes it clear France would not tolerate secession but only moves to enhance regional identity within the French state 4/: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-corsica-macron-idUSKBN1FR2F9

Macron: “I want everyone in the (French) Republic to be able to claim their identity, their specificity. But if this specificity is to be the Republic’s enemy, then it’s an error and I cannot accept it.”

Does this make Macron an anti-democrat? 5/

Maybe, or you could argue it's the opposite. He has a reasonable expectation that Corsicans should tolerate French democratic pluralism while the state respects and preserves individual regional identity. This is arguably the modern liberal view. 6/

It might be that Macron is wrong, that all separation movements must be given a clear route to secession, & to think otherwise is to be anti-democratic. Or, we could see secessionists as anti-democratic given they live in free democracies yet can't tolerate given inclusivity. 7/

Which position is anti-democratic is open to debate therefore, which means Sturgeon's argument is too simplistic. If we recognise the historic norms of the modern democratic era then it's not unreasonable to set a high bar on secession. 8/

The 2014 referendum was extraordinary and should be recognised as such. To say it must be a one-off would be to go too far, but it is not unreasonable to say that a repeat should only happen if a high bar is reached. 9/

That high bar doesn't have to be set in stone. It could be consistent polling over a reasonable period of time (several years) showing the vast majority of people in Scotland can no longer tolerate British pluralism and that secession is front and centre of their needs. 10/

We would all recognise a society characterised in that way, but that's certainly not the Scotland we have at present. You could argue there must be a clear route to secession in law. Fine, a reasonable argument. Make it. Maybe a UK constitutional convention could achieve it. 11/

In the meantime however, it seems to me it is not anti-democratic for the state to refuse a secession referendum in a democracy because a highly agitative nationalist minority gets a particular result in a parliamentary election fought on multiple issues. 12/

Secession of part of a free democratic state would be so extraordinary and would go against all historic norms that the path to that happening should not be via blind acceptance of simplistic populist arguments that don't recognise democratic norms. 13/

These are big questions, and it would arrogant for anyone to to say their view is right. I think Sturgeon shows a degree of arrogance in her absolutist position, and while not suggesting my view is the right view, I merely suggest exploring different views.

Musings end 14/14