Democratic Revolution
One of the causes of revolution is the perception among a group, even a nation, that they are not being heard, that their concerns are not being addressed. That is just as true with the riots in Washington as it is with Scottish Nationalists and the Black Lives Matter groups, and as it was at the time of the Civil war and the Restoration (of the Stuarts) in Britain.
I would not suggest for a moment, that the various riots across the world reflect the Scottish people, but the feeling of being marginalised is a common denominator.
The difficulty is that actions needed to satisfy two opposing groups may be mutually exclusive. It was never possible to have peace in a nation determinedly Protestant, when the king was insistent on making it Catholic. In the same way, it is impossible for a country to put America always first, yet trade with the rest of the world. It can even be impossible to reconcile the views of rival faction among fans of sports teams, some wanting the manager to leave, others for him to stay.
Nevertheless, in a democracy, the opinions of rebellious factions are entitled to be heard; not, perhaps, in violence, or civil war, but certainly in public debate; not as a report of a Minister, but as a subject for common concern in the parliament of all Britain. The case of the Scottish Nationalists, for example, needs airing, not just in Scotland, but in Westminster; not just as a debate on Scottish independence, but as a debate about Britain as a whole – how it is devolved and how each part is supported; how the concerns of Wales, Ulster, and the Scottish Highlands can be raised, and seen to be raised, at the highest level. It’s not sufficient for it to be debated by the Government; it needs to be aired where the ordinary citizen can see it is being debated, even where the ordinary citizen can contribute. (Unfortunately, too many people perceive the BBC as being biased, in one direction or another, to make it an honest broker, yet I am unable to suggest a viable alternative.)