Referendum, Pressure Release Valve or Pressure Cooker?

I've written before that direct democracy could be a useful pressure release valve for political activists who would be better persuading other voters than engaging in violent protest. On the other hand some commentators have lamented the animosity evident in the recent Scottish independence referendum. So what provokes aggression?
It could be that some people just can't consider that others have different values. Some are traditionalists, others progressives. Some narrowly nationalistic, others not.
Or it could be that people feel that they are being lied to, deceived or manipulated by leaders, politicians and campaigners. Maybe sometimes by design, sometimes by accident or misinterpretation. (Scotland can't have the pound, some said. Of course they can, they have pounds in their bank accounts and pockets. How're you going to stop them? What was meant was that the Bank of England would refuse to be lender of last resort to Scottish banks.)
Then there's the matter of forecasting the future benefits of a decision, and all the assumptions that that entails. Is it rosy or grey? Who knows? There's nothing true about forecasts, they are usually inaccurate, unless by luck, and often wildly wrong.
Maybe we can introduce systems that help to reduce some of these provocations. Laws against lying in public life would be a start. Discussion of the limits of forecasting would be useful. Appreciation of differences in values and respect for others opinions may be a cultural thing that could be learnt. Maybe doing direct democracy, and losing, builds a bit of humility that makes things less fraught next time. And maybe having a system of direct democracy that allows future corrections and amendments to recent decisions takes the edge off disappointment. If Switzerland changes its constitution by referendum then the system is already in place to change it back again, if demanded.
But when I sit back and consider the referendum for Scottish Independence and the state of Eastern Ukraine it's pretty obvious what's best!

Disempowerment

A thought for the day: disempowerment leads to violence.
Political protests can become riots. One vote per household in Northern Ireland perpetuated the Troubles by disempowering Catholics in large households. Substantial minorities in Northern Spain and Sri Lanka resorted to terrorism. Western Ukrainians fight separatists in the East. In short, and to simplify, the disempowered try to seize power through force of arms, threats and violence.
What's the solution?
One person one vote. Referenda rather than rule by an elected elite. A culture of tolerance and respect for minorities and/or culturally homogeneous political regions with local government. Wide adoption of the golden rule.
Alternatively, wide economic success means less political angst and is also a route to peace.
Interactive Democracy is the epitome of empowerment, but Representative Democracy can be counter productive, centralising power amongst a political elite and disempowering the majority. This is what we have seen in Ukraine, when the West insisted on national general elections despite the Eastern regions wanting a referendum on independence. Much death and suffering could have been avoided.

Groupthink / Groupspeak

It was an hour into the House of Commons debate on Ukraine when a conservative backbencher noted that a majority of Crimeans probably want to be a part of Russia, whether the recent referendum was a shoddy affair or not. Otherwise the Members of parliament spoke with a common voice, vilifying Russian "aggression". It wasn't so much a debate as a signal to the Russian authorities who may have been watching and a statement of British will. Groupspeak, for want of a better word.
Or was it an example of groupthink, "when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment”.
Perhaps the government has taken a more analytical approach behind closed doors, carefully considering all arguments and developing a strategy to play this international game of geopolitical power. Then spinning a line in public discourse in order to influence Russian behaviour.
Interactive Democracy may undermine these games of brinkmanship, because the debate would be more open. For example, using the ID system someone may point out that European money supported opposition in Ukraine leading to revolution; that Crimea has its own Parliament that voted to have the referendum; that Ukraine does not yet have a government approved via a general election; that the Ukrainian interim government planned to outlaw the Russian language, precipitating fears among Russian speakers; that the international community haven't advocated the right for self determination of Crimeans despite using this argument in other situations, such as the Falkland Islands; that troops on Crimean streets has not had a violent effect and may have actually calmed the situation; that there is no evidence of voter intimidation by troops; or that Crimea is geographically distinct from mainland Ukraine. (All stated as counterpoints to the much publicised arguments on the other side; facts not checked.) Others may state a desired objective, such as to promote democratic self determination and political transparency; or to reinforce democracy in other "threatened" states. And some may make predictions - that Russia won't relinquish its grip on Crimea in any event, for fear of looking weak.
Personally, I'd rather have an open, honest, probing and democratic debate than let politicians play geopolitical games. And I'd advocate the same for other countries, too.