> By not doing anything against an illegal referendum the Spanish state would have made the first step towards accepting that it does no longer have full contro

> By not doing anything against an illegal referendum the Spanish state would have made the first step towards accepting that it does no longer have full control over a part of its own territory. I couldn't disagree more. If the referendum is not part of the legal process, then it's not binding, but participating in it should not be illegal, and absolutely should not be suppressed with force. There's a vast chasm between "we do not recognise this referendum because it was not held in accordance with the constitution" and "we will use violence to stop you doing this thing". > I'm also quite sure that their international reputation is not really that important to them when the state itself is endangered. Again, all it takes is to say "no, actually, no referendum was held, as the laws do not permit it. All you did was hold a symbolic protest", and boom, the state isn't threatened. Unless, of course, a majority of the broader state is sympathetic to the symbolic protest. Which, if so, would explain the seeming desperation to prevent it, but at the same time further undermines any moral justification for doing so. In short, either there was no need to suppress the voting, or there was no moral reason to suppress the voting. The more the Spanish state is threatened by a symbolic, non-binding, unconstitutional referendum, the less the Spanish state is deserving of defence.