10 ms·

It's pretty sad to see how weak some of the recent democracies are. At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves, even though many tho

It's pretty sad to see how weak some of the recent democracies are. At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves, even though many thought an independent Scotland would be a huge mistake. Now compare that with the Spanish government. Banning a referendum, raiding political parties and Catalonian government offices, arresting government officials, flirting with far-right politics, de-facto suspending the Catalonian autonomy and basically abandoning any democratic dialog. Now, there is no going back. I wish the best of luck to my friends in Catalonia. Shall they be allowed to express their desire to leave or stay in Spain in peace. I wish no one to get hurt during these turbulent weeks.

pfortuny 9y ago
Well, well, well, well... You should read the constitution and compare it to what the catalonian establishment is doing. The rule of law applies also to politicians.
- fra 9y ago
  The democracy is weak because of the constitution. It should be amended.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  is it not the law based on the popular will, theoretically? Because it seems to me that these people are asking to vote.
  - notspanishflu 9y ago
    They asking to vote outside the Law, not only European, or Spanish Law, but the Catalan Law too.
- iagooar 9y ago
  Oh, you are from Gijón. Using the constitution as some sort of shield / holy bible that can't ever possibly be changed IS what show the weakness of Spanish democracy. In the end, governments are there to serve their people. They don't make sense as entities on their own. They represent a group of people who chooses to be represented by their government. If the government attacks the people and refuses to hear to what people have to say, you need to resort to not following the dogma.
  - farresito 9y ago
    Thank you. It's quite surprising how hard it is for a lot of people to understand this. Listening to the Spanish president say that what's going on in Catalonia is anti-democratic and that democracy is following the constitution is the most frustrating thing you can hear, and I'm surprised people use that argument against the pro-independence movement.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      Democracy requires the rule of law. The law says the vote should not take place, therefore either the vote doesn't take place or the law (the constitution, in this case) is changed. Politics is the art of the possible. Right now, this is not possible and pushing for it is not constructive.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - farresito 9y ago
        The Spanish constitution is violating one of the basic rights: the right of self-determination. To me, right now, it doesn't matter what the constitution says. We will ignore it. The constitution won't be changed because it's in their interest to not change.
        notspanishflu 9y ago
        Basic right for whom? Are you talking basic human right? A random bunch of people right? Who? When defining a right, you must show who is the subject of that right.
        farresito 9y ago
        I'm not completely sure what you are trying to say, but this is what I'm referring to: http://www.unpo.org/article/4957 http://www.unpo.org/article/4957
- tbatchelli 9y ago
  That constitution was written and signed under Military watch. Let's not forget Franco, a genocidal dictator, died of old age while still in power, he was not ousted by democratic forces. And no one ever went to jail for the dictatorship. Many in power during the dictatorship remained in power for a long time after it "ended". The current constitution is a reflection of that time, where Spain was a nascent democracy but the military and judiciary (and oligarchies) were still controlled by Franco people. Times change, so do societies, and constitutions can be amended to reflect that. In fact Spain recently amended it's constitution overnight. They could also amend the constitution to allow for a vote, but they don't want to.
  - teh_klev 9y ago
    Thank you. People forget, democracy is a process, it doesn't just stop some time in the past.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      It's a continuous, ongoing process of transforming societies. It's delicate and must be protected and cherished.
  - egloeda 9y ago
    "That constitution was written and signed under Military watch." You're just lying. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_para_la_ratificaci%C3%B3n_de_la_Constituci%C3%B3n_espa%C3%B1ola https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_para_la_ratifi...
    - icebraining 9y ago
      That link doesn't confirm or deny parent's statement.
  - mcdevilkiller 9y ago
    A lot of people were killed under Franco's mandate, but he wasn't genocidal, Hitler was (Jews, Gipsies, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
- farresito 9y ago
  If the law goes against one of the principles of democracy, the issue is with the law. What would your opinion be on a constitution that allows slavery? Because that was the case with a lot of constitutions in the past, and I think we would all agree that from a human right's point of view it was wrong. What's going on in Catalonia is illegal, but it's the democratically correct choice, and given what the Spanish government says ("we will only talk as long as it's within the legality"), it's the only thing you can do. For those HN readers that might not know, a decade ago Catalonia tried to pass something known as the Estatut, which would give us more rights and more power (similar to what the Basque country has had for a long time). Needless to say, it didn't pass because the big parties opposed to it. One of the two important political parties in Spain (the Popular party) went as far as going around Spain collecting signatures (four million) to get rid of the Estatut. And that's part of the story of how the pro-independence movement gained as much traction as it has right now.
  - notspanishflu 9y ago
    Sure? The current situation doesn't have anything to do with Pujol family being close to go to jail for corruption? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordi_Pujol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordi_Pujol
    - farresito 9y ago
      I have no idea what point you are trying to make. We are not talking about corruption here; we are talking about the right of self-determination.
      - notspanishflu 9y ago
        Yeah, and you feel so powerful downvoting everyone who doesn't aligned with your political strategy. I bet you are all for dialog, good arguments, better talk than fight... /s
        farresito 9y ago
- tomjen3 9y ago
  Oh it probably violates the constitution - but the right thing to do is to either let it slide or admend it. The law is supposed to serve the people, right now Spain is just using it as a bully platform.
  - notspanishflu 9y ago
    No, if someone wants to change the Spanish Constitution, there's a legal way to do it.
jfaucett 9y ago
> Now compare that with the Spanish government. Banning a referendum, raiding political parties and Catalonian government offices, arresting government officials, flirting with far-right politics, de-facto suspending the Catalonian autonomy and basically abandoning any democratic dialog. The irony is that many who support the independence of Catalonia are against independence of current EU member states and fail to see the inherent dangers in the centralization of power (many such dangers exemplified by this very article and listed by you).
- allemagne 9y ago
  I'm sure many who applaud Brexit don't support "Calexit" either and I don't think that's ironic, really. They're entirely different situations.
  - jfaucett 9y ago
    I would like to see an argument for that. With the original scenario, its just an argument for autonomy and that less homogoneity and centralization in governmental structures better represents and distributes power amoung the diversity of the governed. Someone arguing for Brexit and against Calexit would have to do so on other grounds - which I'd be interested to see if they have any weight.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      The things that make a region a part of a country are different from the things that make countries a part of a transnational union.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Seems simple to justify: Brexit is just canceling a treaty, the other is dividing a country.
627467 9y ago
Playing devils advocate: Spain has a constitution that was signed by Catalonian reps in the 70s. It's the constitution which prevents the referendum from happening. (I believe for a referendum to be constitutional, Spain's "federal" parliament would have to agree to it and the whole country would have to vote). Personally I feel this whole comparison between the 2 situations highlights the cultural differences: consensus seeking anglo-saxons, conflict/imposition-driven Hispanics/Latins. (non-hispanic latin here)
- iagooar 9y ago
  > Spain has a constitution that was signed by Catalonian reps in the 70s Totally agree. Yet, the 70s were different times. Getting out of a dictatorship and moving into a democratic state takes a lot of compromises on all sides. Back then, there was the sense of urgency to agree on common terms, for the time being, to allow the country and the people to transition into a modern democracy. It's been 40 years now. Times change, the world changes, people change. A constitution is a very important document for a country, yet it should not be used as a license to oppress people. Many Catalonians requested to change some parts of the constitution to better represent Catalonia's cultural and political differences, as compared to Spain. Yet Spain would not even consider talking about anything that challenges the status quo. We will see where this is heading.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    > Times change, the world changes, people change. A constitution is a very important document for a country There are legal ways to change a constitution. In all cases, it starts by changing public opinion.
    - atomi 9y ago
      I wonder how some of these posters would feel if this was a California referendum requesting independence.
      - JBlue42 9y ago
jawbone3 9y ago
Uh, you remember how indyref was Cameron gambling the cohecion of his country for the opportunity to steal a policy issue from the opposition? The idea that indyref was allowed out of respect of popular will is utterly deluded, Cameron never cared for the scots as they are too left to vote for him.
gfiorav 9y ago
You’re not in a democracy, it’s a representative parliament system. Same almost worldwide. There’s a difference. Many of modern so called democracies though referendums are not the best way to solve these issues. Read up on how it worked for the Ancient Greeks or how the American constitution fathers talk about “direct democracy”. Then think how it worked out for Brexit. It’s nothign new: ancient Greeks also got fired up by propaganda and later regretted their own decisions. Socrates came up with his “government of the fit” watching his contemporaries claim for bad things only to regret it when it was too late. Essentially: a referendum is like saying “every single citizen has enough information and vision to do whatever is best for the country”. I find that pretty optimistic to say the least.
- nsnick 9y ago
  So you are saying you want Spain to bring back the Fascists?
  - gfiorav 9y ago
    How I’m I saying that? I don’t even mention fascism. I’m saying that representative parliament works, and there’s a way to solve this using this worldwide system. Direct democracy is not what we have, America’s founders considered it “anarchy” as a matter of fact. Read up.
    - monodeldiablo 9y ago
      America's founders also considered slaves fractional people and women incapable of voting. They happened to be right about some things, but they were still wrong about other things.
      - gfiorav 9y ago
        Yeah, they also called indigenous people “savages”. Back in those days stuff like that was still not clear. However, when creating the constitution, they put a lot of thought on the system it should follow. Like I said: direct democracy is a tried and tested method. It has failed for the same reason always.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
"At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves, even though many thought an independent Scotland would be a huge mistake." That referendum was restricted to two options, what the UK government wanted and what they thought was too extreme a position to win. By excluding the middle way option, which polling suggested would win they hoped to get their own position rubber stamped. The fact that it came so close us a testament to how badly they played their hand. See also Brexit.
- krona 9y ago
  Not really. The wording of the question was decided by the Scottish Parliament and reviewed for intelligibility by the Electoral Commission, an independent body.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    The number of questions/answers was decided in an agreement between the Scottish and UK parliaments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Agreement_(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Agreement_(2012) It was openly known that the nationalists wanted the option, and the unionists didn't. Perhaps it was negotiated away for something else the nationalists wanted, but still the point stands, they wanted it, and didn't get it.
- dazc 9y ago
  What was this 'middle way' option? Scotland already has its own Parliament, legislation and such. I always thought they were already in a 'middle way'? I'm not trying to be provocative, just trying to understand what else could Scotland get without going full-on independent?
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    More control over taxation could be something on the table. Devolution of welfare & benefits. A reevaluation of how much input Scotland gets in UK-wide decisions. A reevaluation of how things like NHS Scotland are funded, in the face of NHS England being gradually drained of cash (since the amount of money given to Scotland to spend on various things depends on the amount of money England spends on them). There's a few big things, and a bunch of little specific things, that could all be on the table. In practice, some of this has happened, but perhaps not as much as would've been if the debate were more public.
rdiddly 9y ago
It's been 80 years since the Spanish Civil War, yet I can't help but wonder whether its influence is being felt today with BS maneuvers like this. What would Spain be like today if Franco hadn't been helped into power in the 30s by (among other infamous parties who shall remain nameless) Ford Motors, General Motors, and the Catholic Church?
- rhaps0dy 9y ago
  It might well have become part of the Communist bloc (maybe not, if anarchists and communists hadn't stopped bickering). I don't know if it would have stopped before or after the USSR.
mcdevilkiller 9y ago
"At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves" The problem here in Spain/Catalonia is that Catalonian politicians only want Catalonians to vote. I feel that, being a Spanish citizen of legal age, I have the same right to vote on whether I want a part of my country to separate from it. But they won't let us vote, so, why should "we" let them vote? (Also, as per the constitution, it is illegal)
- kuroikyu 9y ago
  Only Scotland voted on their referendum. The rest of the UK didn't nor couldn't vote. Would you let, let's say, France vote on your general elections to chose the next MP? Would you let a stranger choose the colour of the walls for your living room? Only Catalans can decide their own fate. It's up to them and no one else whether they stay or leave. I don't care which side wins but there must be a vote.
  - e98cuenc 9y ago
    You can change your last sentence to say: "Only spanish can decide their own fate". Only Scotland voted on their referendum, as agreed by the whole United Kingdom. USA did not allow southern states secede, Germany did not allow Bavaria secede, etc.
- enriquto 9y ago
  What do you mean? in the scottish referendum only scots voted, not all brits. Are you saying that all spaniards (not only those living in Catalonia) should vote in the referendum? I don't see how this makes any sense.
  - collyw 9y ago
    Actually it was people living in Scotland. As a Scot living in Spain I wasn't allowed to. "Fair enough" I though, until we got completely screwed over with the English and Welsh voting for Brexit. Lets face it the lead up to both referendums were based on packs of lies (on both sides probably - but it can only be proven for the winning sides).
jimmaswell 9y ago
>At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves This isn't really true. You can get arrested for "offensive" social media posts in the UK.
- codefined 9y ago
  Never heard of a case where someone has been arrested for saying anything that isn't aimed at causing vioelnce. The UK government _do_ allow a lot of open debate on political topics (and every other type of topic) as long as it doesn't threaten peoples health.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jimmaswell 9y ago
    A couple was arrested for simply burning some religious books a while ago.
  - onorton 9y ago
    This was a huge issue last year. http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/01/man-who-filmed-dog-doing-nazi-salute-when-he-said-gas-the-jews-denies-committing-hate-crime-6820905/ http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/01/man-who-filmed-dog-doing-nazi-... What's funny is that the original youtube video is still up. Edit: Might as well include the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus
notspanishflu 9y ago
It's hard to try to explain the true here when secessionists are brigading but you aren't serious, really. Since 1977, Catalans had participated in 35 free elections, and in 3 referendums. The Catalans have their own government, and there are politicians born in Catalonia successfully in the Spanish Parliament, and in the European Parliament. Where you don't see freedom? If someone wants to change the Spanish Constitution, there's a legal way to do it.
- kiliancs 9y ago
  Catalans will never amount to the number of votes you need to start such a change. This position amounts to prohibiting the exercise of the right to self-determination all peoples have.
  - notspanishflu 9y ago
    The so-called "right to self-determination" doesn't exist in the Spanish Constitution, nor in the International Law, nor in Comparative Law. https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_991126.html https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_9911...
  - pvaldes 9y ago
    Perfect, as everybody can say anything for the "right" of this new thing, the "self-determination all people have" I require you to free the oppressed people of Ohio, quit the area right now, and anexionate the state to, for example, France. And if you do not agree to do what I want then I will shout loud that "this is not a democracy and all of you are nasty fascists". Happy? Yes, is exactly like that. Last year the catalan goverment spent 5 millions euro (stolen) from taxes of all spaniards in a similar "referendum" show. Money used against the interests of the same people that give it. Instead to pay schools and hospitals they bought cardboard urns, candies and fireworks and make a wonderful theater full of passion, and drama. Do we understand the meaning of the term "diversion of public founds and prevarication"? This year trying the same dirty trick again and take the freedom that all spaniards have by law to decide about their country. And of course they are the "victims" in a world that do not understand their uniqueness and fantasy extravaganza.

pfortuny 9y ago

Well, well, well, well... You should read the constitution and compare it to what the catalonian establishment is doing. The rule of law applies also to politicians.

fra 9y ago
The democracy is weak because of the constitution. It should be amended.
RobertoG 9y ago
is it not the law based on the popular will, theoretically? Because it seems to me that these people are asking to vote.
- notspanishflu 9y ago
  They asking to vote outside the Law, not only European, or Spanish Law, but the Catalan Law too.
iagooar 9y ago
Oh, you are from Gijón. Using the constitution as some sort of shield / holy bible that can't ever possibly be changed IS what show the weakness of Spanish democracy. In the end, governments are there to serve their people. They don't make sense as entities on their own. They represent a group of people who chooses to be represented by their government. If the government attacks the people and refuses to hear to what people have to say, you need to resort to not following the dogma.
- farresito 9y ago
  Thank you. It's quite surprising how hard it is for a lot of people to understand this. Listening to the Spanish president say that what's going on in Catalonia is anti-democratic and that democracy is following the constitution is the most frustrating thing you can hear, and I'm surprised people use that argument against the pro-independence movement.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    Democracy requires the rule of law. The law says the vote should not take place, therefore either the vote doesn't take place or the law (the constitution, in this case) is changed. Politics is the art of the possible. Right now, this is not possible and pushing for it is not constructive.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - farresito 9y ago
      The Spanish constitution is violating one of the basic rights: the right of self-determination. To me, right now, it doesn't matter what the constitution says. We will ignore it. The constitution won't be changed because it's in their interest to not change.
      - notspanishflu 9y ago
        Basic right for whom? Are you talking basic human right? A random bunch of people right? Who? When defining a right, you must show who is the subject of that right.
        farresito 9y ago
        I'm not completely sure what you are trying to say, but this is what I'm referring to: http://www.unpo.org/article/4957 http://www.unpo.org/article/4957
tbatchelli 9y ago
That constitution was written and signed under Military watch. Let's not forget Franco, a genocidal dictator, died of old age while still in power, he was not ousted by democratic forces. And no one ever went to jail for the dictatorship. Many in power during the dictatorship remained in power for a long time after it "ended". The current constitution is a reflection of that time, where Spain was a nascent democracy but the military and judiciary (and oligarchies) were still controlled by Franco people. Times change, so do societies, and constitutions can be amended to reflect that. In fact Spain recently amended it's constitution overnight. They could also amend the constitution to allow for a vote, but they don't want to.
- teh_klev 9y ago
  Thank you. People forget, democracy is a process, it doesn't just stop some time in the past.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    It's a continuous, ongoing process of transforming societies. It's delicate and must be protected and cherished.
- egloeda 9y ago
  "That constitution was written and signed under Military watch." You're just lying. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_para_la_ratificaci%C3%B3n_de_la_Constituci%C3%B3n_espa%C3%B1ola https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_para_la_ratifi...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    That link doesn't confirm or deny parent's statement.
- mcdevilkiller 9y ago
  A lot of people were killed under Franco's mandate, but he wasn't genocidal, Hitler was (Jews, Gipsies, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
farresito 9y ago
If the law goes against one of the principles of democracy, the issue is with the law. What would your opinion be on a constitution that allows slavery? Because that was the case with a lot of constitutions in the past, and I think we would all agree that from a human right's point of view it was wrong. What's going on in Catalonia is illegal, but it's the democratically correct choice, and given what the Spanish government says ("we will only talk as long as it's within the legality"), it's the only thing you can do. For those HN readers that might not know, a decade ago Catalonia tried to pass something known as the Estatut, which would give us more rights and more power (similar to what the Basque country has had for a long time). Needless to say, it didn't pass because the big parties opposed to it. One of the two important political parties in Spain (the Popular party) went as far as going around Spain collecting signatures (four million) to get rid of the Estatut. And that's part of the story of how the pro-independence movement gained as much traction as it has right now.
- notspanishflu 9y ago
  Sure? The current situation doesn't have anything to do with Pujol family being close to go to jail for corruption? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordi_Pujol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordi_Pujol
  - farresito 9y ago
    I have no idea what point you are trying to make. We are not talking about corruption here; we are talking about the right of self-determination.
    - notspanishflu 9y ago
      Yeah, and you feel so powerful downvoting everyone who doesn't aligned with your political strategy. I bet you are all for dialog, good arguments, better talk than fight... /s
      - farresito 9y ago
tomjen3 9y ago
Oh it probably violates the constitution - but the right thing to do is to either let it slide or admend it. The law is supposed to serve the people, right now Spain is just using it as a bully platform.
- notspanishflu 9y ago
  No, if someone wants to change the Spanish Constitution, there's a legal way to do it.

jfaucett 9y ago

> Now compare that with the Spanish government. Banning a referendum, raiding political parties and Catalonian government offices, arresting government officials, flirting with far-right politics, de-facto suspending the Catalonian autonomy and basically abandoning any democratic dialog. The irony is that many who support the independence of Catalonia are against independence of current EU member states and fail to see the inherent dangers in the centralization of power (many such dangers exemplified by this very article and listed by you).

allemagne 9y ago
I'm sure many who applaud Brexit don't support "Calexit" either and I don't think that's ironic, really. They're entirely different situations.
- jfaucett 9y ago
  I would like to see an argument for that. With the original scenario, its just an argument for autonomy and that less homogoneity and centralization in governmental structures better represents and distributes power amoung the diversity of the governed. Someone arguing for Brexit and against Calexit would have to do so on other grounds - which I'd be interested to see if they have any weight.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The things that make a region a part of a country are different from the things that make countries a part of a transnational union.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Seems simple to justify: Brexit is just canceling a treaty, the other is dividing a country.

627467 9y ago

Playing devils advocate: Spain has a constitution that was signed by Catalonian reps in the 70s. It's the constitution which prevents the referendum from happening. (I believe for a referendum to be constitutional, Spain's "federal" parliament would have to agree to it and the whole country would have to vote). Personally I feel this whole comparison between the 2 situations highlights the cultural differences: consensus seeking anglo-saxons, conflict/imposition-driven Hispanics/Latins. (non-hispanic latin here)

iagooar 9y ago
> Spain has a constitution that was signed by Catalonian reps in the 70s Totally agree. Yet, the 70s were different times. Getting out of a dictatorship and moving into a democratic state takes a lot of compromises on all sides. Back then, there was the sense of urgency to agree on common terms, for the time being, to allow the country and the people to transition into a modern democracy. It's been 40 years now. Times change, the world changes, people change. A constitution is a very important document for a country, yet it should not be used as a license to oppress people. Many Catalonians requested to change some parts of the constitution to better represent Catalonia's cultural and political differences, as compared to Spain. Yet Spain would not even consider talking about anything that challenges the status quo. We will see where this is heading.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  > Times change, the world changes, people change. A constitution is a very important document for a country There are legal ways to change a constitution. In all cases, it starts by changing public opinion.
  - atomi 9y ago
    I wonder how some of these posters would feel if this was a California referendum requesting independence.
    - JBlue42 9y ago

jawbone3 9y ago

Uh, you remember how indyref was Cameron gambling the cohecion of his country for the opportunity to steal a policy issue from the opposition? The idea that indyref was allowed out of respect of popular will is utterly deluded, Cameron never cared for the scots as they are too left to vote for him.

gfiorav 9y ago

You’re not in a democracy, it’s a representative parliament system. Same almost worldwide. There’s a difference. Many of modern so called democracies though referendums are not the best way to solve these issues. Read up on how it worked for the Ancient Greeks or how the American constitution fathers talk about “direct democracy”. Then think how it worked out for Brexit. It’s nothign new: ancient Greeks also got fired up by propaganda and later regretted their own decisions. Socrates came up with his “government of the fit” watching his contemporaries claim for bad things only to regret it when it was too late. Essentially: a referendum is like saying “every single citizen has enough information and vision to do whatever is best for the country”. I find that pretty optimistic to say the least.

nsnick 9y ago
So you are saying you want Spain to bring back the Fascists?
- gfiorav 9y ago
  How I’m I saying that? I don’t even mention fascism. I’m saying that representative parliament works, and there’s a way to solve this using this worldwide system. Direct democracy is not what we have, America’s founders considered it “anarchy” as a matter of fact. Read up.
  - monodeldiablo 9y ago
    America's founders also considered slaves fractional people and women incapable of voting. They happened to be right about some things, but they were still wrong about other things.
    - gfiorav 9y ago
      Yeah, they also called indigenous people “savages”. Back in those days stuff like that was still not clear. However, when creating the constitution, they put a lot of thought on the system it should follow. Like I said: direct democracy is a tried and tested method. It has failed for the same reason always.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

"At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves, even though many thought an independent Scotland would be a huge mistake." That referendum was restricted to two options, what the UK government wanted and what they thought was too extreme a position to win. By excluding the middle way option, which polling suggested would win they hoped to get their own position rubber stamped. The fact that it came so close us a testament to how badly they played their hand. See also Brexit.

krona 9y ago
Not really. The wording of the question was decided by the Scottish Parliament and reviewed for intelligibility by the Electoral Commission, an independent body.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  The number of questions/answers was decided in an agreement between the Scottish and UK parliaments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Agreement_(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Agreement_(2012) It was openly known that the nationalists wanted the option, and the unionists didn't. Perhaps it was negotiated away for something else the nationalists wanted, but still the point stands, they wanted it, and didn't get it.
dazc 9y ago
What was this 'middle way' option? Scotland already has its own Parliament, legislation and such. I always thought they were already in a 'middle way'? I'm not trying to be provocative, just trying to understand what else could Scotland get without going full-on independent?
- vertex-four 9y ago
  More control over taxation could be something on the table. Devolution of welfare & benefits. A reevaluation of how much input Scotland gets in UK-wide decisions. A reevaluation of how things like NHS Scotland are funded, in the face of NHS England being gradually drained of cash (since the amount of money given to Scotland to spend on various things depends on the amount of money England spends on them). There's a few big things, and a bunch of little specific things, that could all be on the table. In practice, some of this has happened, but perhaps not as much as would've been if the debate were more public.

rdiddly 9y ago

It's been 80 years since the Spanish Civil War, yet I can't help but wonder whether its influence is being felt today with BS maneuvers like this. What would Spain be like today if Franco hadn't been helped into power in the 30s by (among other infamous parties who shall remain nameless) Ford Motors, General Motors, and the Catholic Church?

rhaps0dy 9y ago
It might well have become part of the Communist bloc (maybe not, if anarchists and communists hadn't stopped bickering). I don't know if it would have stopped before or after the USSR.

mcdevilkiller 9y ago

"At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves" The problem here in Spain/Catalonia is that Catalonian politicians only want Catalonians to vote. I feel that, being a Spanish citizen of legal age, I have the same right to vote on whether I want a part of my country to separate from it. But they won't let us vote, so, why should "we" let them vote? (Also, as per the constitution, it is illegal)

kuroikyu 9y ago
Only Scotland voted on their referendum. The rest of the UK didn't nor couldn't vote. Would you let, let's say, France vote on your general elections to chose the next MP? Would you let a stranger choose the colour of the walls for your living room? Only Catalans can decide their own fate. It's up to them and no one else whether they stay or leave. I don't care which side wins but there must be a vote.
- e98cuenc 9y ago
  You can change your last sentence to say: "Only spanish can decide their own fate". Only Scotland voted on their referendum, as agreed by the whole United Kingdom. USA did not allow southern states secede, Germany did not allow Bavaria secede, etc.
enriquto 9y ago
What do you mean? in the scottish referendum only scots voted, not all brits. Are you saying that all spaniards (not only those living in Catalonia) should vote in the referendum? I don't see how this makes any sense.
- collyw 9y ago
  Actually it was people living in Scotland. As a Scot living in Spain I wasn't allowed to. "Fair enough" I though, until we got completely screwed over with the English and Welsh voting for Brexit. Lets face it the lead up to both referendums were based on packs of lies (on both sides probably - but it can only be proven for the winning sides).

jimmaswell 9y ago

>At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves This isn't really true. You can get arrested for "offensive" social media posts in the UK.

codefined 9y ago
Never heard of a case where someone has been arrested for saying anything that isn't aimed at causing vioelnce. The UK government _do_ allow a lot of open debate on political topics (and every other type of topic) as long as it doesn't threaten peoples health.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  A couple was arrested for simply burning some religious books a while ago.
- onorton 9y ago
  This was a huge issue last year. http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/01/man-who-filmed-dog-doing-nazi-salute-when-he-said-gas-the-jews-denies-committing-hate-crime-6820905/ http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/01/man-who-filmed-dog-doing-nazi-... What's funny is that the original youtube video is still up. Edit: Might as well include the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus

notspanishflu 9y ago

It's hard to try to explain the true here when secessionists are brigading but you aren't serious, really. Since 1977, Catalans had participated in 35 free elections, and in 3 referendums. The Catalans have their own government, and there are politicians born in Catalonia successfully in the Spanish Parliament, and in the European Parliament. Where you don't see freedom? If someone wants to change the Spanish Constitution, there's a legal way to do it.

kiliancs 9y ago
Catalans will never amount to the number of votes you need to start such a change. This position amounts to prohibiting the exercise of the right to self-determination all peoples have.
- notspanishflu 9y ago
  The so-called "right to self-determination" doesn't exist in the Spanish Constitution, nor in the International Law, nor in Comparative Law. https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_991126.html https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_9911...
- pvaldes 9y ago
  Perfect, as everybody can say anything for the "right" of this new thing, the "self-determination all people have" I require you to free the oppressed people of Ohio, quit the area right now, and anexionate the state to, for example, France. And if you do not agree to do what I want then I will shout loud that "this is not a democracy and all of you are nasty fascists". Happy? Yes, is exactly like that. Last year the catalan goverment spent 5 millions euro (stolen) from taxes of all spaniards in a similar "referendum" show. Money used against the interests of the same people that give it. Instead to pay schools and hospitals they bought cardboard urns, candies and fireworks and make a wonderful theater full of passion, and drama. Do we understand the meaning of the term "diversion of public founds and prevarication"? This year trying the same dirty trick again and take the freedom that all spaniards have by law to decide about their country. And of course they are the "victims" in a world that do not understand their uniqueness and fantasy extravaganza.