[wkz]

The same argument could have been made about Europe not so long ago. I think one difference is that back then the playing field was more equal. Military power was roughly equal to the number of people you had fighting on your side.

Fighter Jets, Aircraft Carriers, Tanks, Drones, Nukes changes that to military power being equal to your economic power. Meaning that authoritarian governments are much harder to displace if they have enough economic power.

> Their lives are largely unaffected.

This might be true for a large portion of the population. That does not justify treating the rest as enemies of the state. Not allowing people the freedom to speak their mind is never moral.

[mcny]

How would life improve for "minorities" in a democracy? Imagine China PR became a democracy. Would they keep the promises they made to Hong Kong?

UK is democratic. The current prime minister TM is from the same political party as her predecessor DC but nobody even talks about the promises made at the vote for creating an independent Wales.

[wkz]

The argument was not that freedom of speech follows from democracy. You could theoretically have an authoritarian rule that allowed unfiltered criticism against it. The argument was: not allowing freedom of speech is always wrong, independent of the type of governance.

I agree that democracy in itself does not guarantee rights for minorities. It depends on the majority adhering to a moral system that enshrines human equality. We know that this system can break down, a population can agree to subjugate some of its members. I would still rather put my trust in the majority over in one person and especially in a system that allows me to replace the government after some period of time.

[Wildgoose]

There were no promises made for Welsh Independence. What are you talking about?

[mcny]

Sorry. I was thinking Scotland. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/david-... https://archive.fo/ekq26

[hardlianotion]

Not true. SNP talk about it all the time. "The Vow" is highly contentious. What you believe was promised largely depends on what side of the nationalist divide you sit on.

[mcny]

> SNP talk about it all the time.

Sorry, I think I failed to be clear. I meant to signal the lack of the Tories talking about keeping their promise. SNP wants more devolution. It is silly for the English to say why Scotland should have a say in English affairs if the English should not have a say in Scotland.

> "The Vow" is highly contentious.

Well, of course it is.

> What you believe was promised largely depends on what side of the nationalist divide you sit on.

Isn't that very convenient? The way I understand it, Labour expects to win a lot of seats in Scotland so it is against their interest as well for Scotland to be independent?

In any case, the point is not how England screws over Scotland but rather use it as an example that a fully democratic government to replace China PR will still screw over Hong Kong and Tibet.