I would say that Tito's policy toward Macedonia was successful from a Yugoslav point of view, but from a Serbian point of view it was not. This simply re-enforced Serbian perceptions as victims in the second Yugoslavia. You guys all seem to forget that Tito's system FAILED in Yugoslavia, his country disentrigated into bloody civil war and everything he took decades to create has now been destroyed. Now you can argue that wasn't his fault, but rather the fault of the leaders who came to power after him (Milosevic, Kucan, Tudjman) that abused his system, but if there had been a better system, those very leaders would never have come to power. The fact is that Tito's of policy decentralization in Yugoslavia fundamentally alienated the largest and most important national group in Yugoslavia, the SERBS. It was precisely the Serbs who had invested the most in Yugoslavia's creation and could be counted on most to preserve it. Instead, Tito's de-centralization empowered those national groups that had invested the least in Yugoslavia, and would be most prone to turn against the state in a time of crisis. So you can look at MAcedonia and say Tito's policy there was a success because it created a loyal population favorable toward Yugoslavia and that had finally turned its back on Bulgarian irredentism and designs in the region. However, Macedonian loyalty toward Yugoslavia lasted only in peacetime, during Tito's power, and in the decade after when Yugoslavia's fate was secure. It's easy to be loyal to the state during this time. WHAT's MucH MORE IMPORTANT is the way Macedonians acted in 1991-1992 when the war in Croatia was raging and the country was verging on complete disentigration. Did Macedonians at this time, when the unity of the country was at stake, and when they were needed most, did they choose to defend Yugoslavia or did they themselves take advantage of the country's crisis to break away? THAT's what's important and it was Tito's system that enabled them to do that.
Let's say Tito instead decided to make Macedonia an autonomous province of Serbia in 1945. Sure this would have pissed off a bunch of Macedonians and maybe drove them to declare themselves as Bulgarian rather than Serbian, and it probably would have pissed off other Yugoslavs such as Croats and Slovenes who'd complain that Serbia was too large a republic and that they were being dominated. But look at who chose to defend Yugoslavia when the country needed it most: Serbs. It was precisely those national groups that were empowered by Tito (Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks, Macedonians, Albanians) as a means to reduce Serbian dominance and ensure their loyalty Yugoslavia which turned their back on the state and sought secession.
And you mention Kosovo. Many will look at the time that Rankovic was in power in Serbia and declare it as the beginnings of Kosovo's problems because of the way he treated and suppressed Albanians. However, the real problems of Kosovo started when Albanians were given a de-facto republic after Rankovic and treat Kosovo as their own country. It is during this time when massive illegal Albanian immigration began by Albanians fleeing Enver Hoxha's tyranical rule and settling in Kosovo. It was the Albanian authorities that refused to secure the border and turned a blind eye secretly favoring a higher and higher Albanian population in the province. As soon as Tito died, they proved they began demands for a republic and again when the 1990's came, they were the last one's to defend the state. Now think about it. Sure Rankovic's policies toward Albanians were harsh and may have contributed toward their desire toward independence, however the solution to such a situation should not be to give that group the means by which to achieve independence. Tito's policy toward all of Yugoslavia was like that.
Take the example of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Muslims were identified as a constituent nation in Yugoslavia only in 1969, two years before the scheduled 1971 census, and many believe given such a status out of a fear that the majority of Muslims would declare themselves as Serbs and therefore making them a constituent nation would counteract the creeping perception of Serbian dominance. But think about it? Would Bosnia have declared its indpeendnece from Yugoslavia in 1992 if the Muslims hadn't been recognized as a nation?
I think that in general people somehow believe that it was Serbian hegemony that had always been the problem of Yugoslavia, both in the first and the second, and therefore the only way to have saved Yugoslavia was to further de-centralize and further endorse the wishes of non-Serbs. But when it comes down to it, Serbs were by far the most important national group in Yugoslavia, and it was a fundamental mistake by the Tito regime to operate and organize yugoslavia on the premise: a weak Serbia = a strong Yugoslavia
