31 ms·

Spanish here, I have family and home in Catalonia. 1) You need to read history to understand the situation. But not the history of the last 100 years, but of t

by hummel 9y ago

Spanish here, I have family and home in Catalonia. 1) You need to read history to understand the situation. But not the history of the last 100 years, but of the last 1000. Catalonia was never independent, it was part of the Kingdom of Aragon. The kingdom of Aragon and the castle kingdom allied in a dynastic way and created what is known today as Spain. There is no 2) Voting is illegal, it is not illegal to vote but it is illegal to vote for independence from Spain. The illegality of their vote is supported by the judicial system, not political. 3) Despite being illegal, the Catalan people mobilized to express their opinion on 1-O. This was a popular expression, but not a democratic mandate since the votes were not supported by any international body and were not conducted in a public or transparent manner. Only 38% of Cataluá citizens voted, the remaining 62% did not participate in this vote. 4) Catalonia is a very strong autonomous region, with many economic links with Europe and the rest of Spain. Catalonia wants to receive more money and contribute less to the whole of Spain, which has led to certain tensions and a very unsympathetic attitude. Spanish politicians are particularly incompetent and corrupt, as are Catalan politicians who are accused of various flagrant corruption processes. 5) Other regions of Spain, such as Pamplona or Euskadi, have more arguments for independence, but they chose coexistence within the democratic framework. The government usually negotiates 6) The independentistas have voted secretly, they have not stood up to those who vote for them. The declaration of independence is temporary and ineffective. It will not provoke any conversation or dialogue, by the points expressed above. 7) Spain will apply Article 155, which will replace all the political, administrative and social structures of Catalonia's autonomy. Catalan politicians face criminal charges and high treason and will be tried by them. Independence fighters will argue for love, equality, brotherhood and happiness, while trying to shield themselves from the European Union and universal values. The world cannot understand their will, as they have been executed outside the democratic framework. On the contrary. 8) The republic has been proclaimed to conceal acts of corruption and incompetence on both sides. the solution is to dissolve the parliament and call elections. But democratic elections, not using the tools of any banana republic.

spankalee 9y ago
What does the 1000 year history have to do with anything? If the people want independence now, that's all that matters.
- cbraz 9y ago
  The usual claim for independence has historical roots.
  - spankalee 9y ago
    The claim that matters is that people want independence at all. Why isn't important, self-determination is.
    - harperlee 9y ago
      The context in which things have been happening matters. Catalonia asked for fiscal special treatment like the one that other regions have for historical reasons (whereas they don't have such history). So the context is important.
      - kgwgk 9y ago
        Catalonia could have obtained a similar system when the constitution was written, but declined to do so.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Plenty of counterexamples, including the joint independence movement among 13 English colonies in North America (which, unlike decolonialization in, say, India, wasn't the historically independent subjugated locals revolting against the foreign colonizers, but largely the imported ruling class revolting against the homeland that set them up and displaced the locals.)
- StreamBright 9y ago
  "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- MLR 9y ago
  I don't think this is a particularly valid viewpoint. For one thing it would destroy half the countries in the world, and most of them aren't highly developed nations that can vaguely cope with it. For another, how do you set limits, why is Catalonia special but any random town or city isn't? There's also the point that (probably) irreparably destroying countries based on slim margins and changing whims probably isn't smart. Now that's not to say I wouldn't support a (legal) referendum in Catalonia, but you do need to treat it with some nuance.
fusiongyro 9y ago
Point #1 trails off, can you finish it?
- david927 9y ago
  Sure: There is no... reason why a country that in every way (culture, language, its own flag, etc) is its own country outside of the fact that it has been ruled over by other countries shouldn't be allowed autonomy if the people will it. I'll finish 2 as well: Such a vote will always be called illegal by the occupying country. The creation of Catalan, despite being voted on, will be called illegal by Spain. That's their perspective of it, not Catalan's.
tertius 9y ago
Your opinion on what Catalonia will actually need to do to gain independence. Is civil war (however unlikely) the only way?
- narag 9y ago
  Stop talking of Catalonia as if there were only one opinion. At least half of catalans don't want independence.
  - lllllll 9y ago
    > Stop talking of Catalonia as if there were only one opinion. At least half of catalans don't want independence. Citation needed.
    - harperlee 9y ago
      See the distribution of votes for the regional Parlament.
  - simlevesque 9y ago
    They should have voted then.
    - sangnoir 9y ago
      Why legitimize a non-constitutional process you disagree with? I would stay home too.
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      The catalan parliament has approved the "independence" resolution (despite the parliament lawyers warning about the illegality of the voting) with 70 "yes" (out of 135 seats).
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        Which is, essentially, a repeat of the same pattern as the election. To me, it's starting to smell like trying to manufacture a "mandate" when you really don't have one.
Zaak 9y ago
Thank you for these clarifications of the situation. It helps to hear from someone who has a personal connection to the issue.
- lllllll 9y ago
  Please keep in mind the points raised by OP are highly subjective or his/her own interpretation.
guiomie 9y ago
Those are all valid points. But why didn't Spain support a referendum like Canada supported Quebec twice and the UK with Scotland? Like the OP said, this could all have been stopped if Spain had supported the vote and campaigned for the no. How could Catalonia get a 'legal' vote?
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Stage one would be amending the Spanish constitution to get rid of the notion of Spain as being indivisible, and that's where it becomes really tricky, as you then need to get consensus from all of Spain to allow that.
  - petre 9y ago
    Well, good luck with that. Spain was a fascist country for 40 years.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      And why is that relevant to this discussion?
- cavanasm 9y ago
  I'm under the impression the only way an independence vote could be legal is if the Spanish Constitution was changed to allow that. The current constitution declares Spain "indivisible", with no more specific details. That would seem to pretty clearly exclude any possibility of a part of Spain legally separating from Spain. The UK's legal system is a little slipperier. UK doesn't have a hard and fast Constitution. If Parliament allows something, it's basically legal (less hard checks on legislative power than your typical constitution).
  - liberte82 9y ago
    It's interesting how this stems from a cultural difference. In very general terms, the UK is based on common law, in which we decide the truth as we go, based on the decisions of parliament and court cases. Spain and France are based on civil law, which are much more rigid and top-down, but also more clearly defined. In civil law, if it's not explicitly declared illegal, you can do it. In common law, it's a little murkier. This even seeps into the language (The French say they "have the right" to do something, the English say they are "allowed" - active vs. passive). Of course there is great overlap between the two in reality, but at their core the two legal systems have different philosophies. Hence why you end up with situations where the UK may be more flexible about things like separation.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
hectorlorenzo 9y ago
> Other regions of Spain, such as Pamplona or Euskadi, have more arguments for independence, but they chose coexistence within the democratic framework. Except that Euskadi had a pro-independence armed group that killed 829 people from 1975 to 2011. Other than that, doesn't Euskadi have its own tax system, distinct from the Spanish one? I think it's not fair to compare both situations.
- narag 9y ago
  Apart for the (unfair) advantage, the salient point of a separate tax collection is that our administration can't investigate violations inside that region for taxes or public spending. There are virtually no corruption cases there. That doesn't mean there is no corruption there, but that we can't know because the people in charge of investigation is the same that could be investigated. This seems to be the reason they've been so quiet lately.
smcl 9y ago
Nice catch 22 - between (2) and (8). You are allowed to secede if you vote for it ... but you're not allowed to vote to secede.
- narag 9y ago
  You are allowed to vote to parties that want the secession and promise to vote for Constitution reform. The thing is people, even in Catalonia don't want independence. This question is presented over and over again as a Catalonia vs rest of Spain, when it's actually a debate that's not settled inside Catalonia. Parties that don't propose independence had less votes than the ones that do, the electoral system being the culprit that they have majority in regional parliament.
  - smcl 9y ago
    "The thing is people, even in Catalonia don't want independence" - in your opinion perhaps. Many others have a different opinion. But this is something that could easily be settled by ... a vote on independence.
    - narag 9y ago
      Last election had a majority of votes to parties that didn't proposed independence, that's a hard fact, not an opinion. And as you will soon learn, there is no need to settle that question, it was settled long ago.
      - smcl 9y ago
        Carefully worded answer. To those who might take narag's words at face value, they're probably referring the 2014 referendum where voters were asked "do you want to Catalonia to be a state" and "and if so, do you want it to be independent". The result was 80% of the results were "yes" for both but the turnout was low (40-ish percent). I don't think that is exactly decisive for either side, but to claim it as a win for the "no" camp is a little bit disingenuous.
joaomval 9y ago
How many countries got independent legally?
- eponeponepon 9y ago
  Plenty. India, Kenya, Australia, Canada and various ex-SSRs all spring to mind. Not many without violence on the run-up, I'll grant you, but in many cases, the actual process of independence was performed entirely legally.
  - joaomval 9y ago
    ex-SSRs can be a good example but ex colonies isn't a fair comparison with Catalonia
    - degradas 9y ago
      I'm from ex-Soviet country called Lithuania, and no, although Lithuania was the first country to declare independence from the Soviet Union, it was not done within Soviet legal framework in any way.
  - confounded 9y ago
    Yes, often quite a bit of violence in the run up. Whether the imperialist side wants to try and look good at the point of capitulation or not has little to do with how “legal” the effectual parts of fighting for independence are. To suggest that, e.g. Gandhi didn’t have a meaningful role in achieving India’s independence, because the British considered his actions illegal, is very silly.
  - xtreme 9y ago
    Saying that India got her independence legally is quite a stretch. There were plenty of mutinies, bloodshed, violent and non-violent movements before the British (massively weakened by the WWII) decided that they had enough. While it is true that India did not declare unilaterally declare independence (some leaders did, but they did not gain widespread public support) and start a civil war, the independence movement itself was not legal and most leaders were branded terrorists and incarcerated.
arturh 9y ago
Catalonia was not part of the Kingdom of Aragon, it was part of the Crown of Aragon, which is different.
- kgwgk 9y ago
  Actually the southwestern part of Catalonia was part of the Kingdom of Aragon before Catalonia existed.
jerf 9y ago
"You need to read history to understand the situation." That is true if we want to analyze the question of whether or not Catalan "should" be independent from Spain, a question so murky and shot through with political philosophy, theory, and pragmatics that even two sides that stipulate all the same facts can come to different conclusions. But for what johnnyfaehell was really getting at, which is a tactical and/or strategic analysis of the effectiveness of the moves the various sides have been making, we don't really need all that, we just need an understanding of human nature, with at best some slight elaborations for the slight deviations in local conditions. I personally have no great opinion about whether Catalan should or should not be independent. Distinctly from that, though, it is fair to observe that Spain has handled this quite badly. While there is probably no solution in which they completely smooth things over, they have certainly taken multiple moves that are very clearly the simple, intuitive things that our genetically-imposed tribal political sense tells us to take when people challenge our rule, and which work (to some degree) in a tribal context of 100-ish people [1], but which at this scale were basically guaranteed to massively inflame the situation. [1]: Albeit in a way that many people here would probably find generally unjust. The Big Man in the Tribe basically just telling a couple of rabble-rousers to shut up, and if necessary, getting some of his supporters to rough them up a bit to remind them who is in charge, "works", but a lot of us would find that fairly distasteful, because while our genetics tell us to do that, civilization requires other tactics in order to hold together. Scaling up that Big Man's action to a region breaks in multiple ways; for instance, if Catalan perceives itself as a separate tribe, then the "rough them up a bit" phase doesn't register as an internal tribe spat with our genetically-programmed politics, but warfare between two tribes, and that prompts a radically different response.
- platz 9y ago
  So then, what tactics does civilization require in order to hold together?
  - jerf 9y ago
    Well, that sounds like a book. But despite the failure, I'd point to Brexit as an example where there was a conflict that was still broadly speaking handled in a civilized manner. If I recall correctly, the EU never said that if the UK left, they would take steps to liquidate Parliament. It was (and is!) an acrimonious debate, but still a civilized one (contrary to apparently popular belief, "nice" and "civilized" are not synonyms and are at times diametrically opposed; at best "nice" is what can result from civilization, it is not the cause of civilization). And despite the fact Brexit narrowly passed, I guarantee that had the EU gone the route that Spain did, Brexit would not have narrowly passed, but passed by a wide margin. Contrariwise, even with all of Spain's errors and provocations, by numbers it seems like Catalonian independence just barely has something like a majority, or narrowly misses a majority, despite the superficial voting numbers, and that I would imagine includes a lot of very squishy support. Let's call real support in the 40-60% range. Some emotional sweet talk in attempt to emphasize solidarity, combined with some threats about what "could" happen (both in terms of bad things that may happen economically and vague threats of retaliation from Spain) but with no actual violence threats, along with emphasizing that it is their choice ultimately, would probably have resulted in as much as a 2-1 defeat for the independence. If nothing else, even just an appeal to the status quo rather than the dangers of such a radical change has had some success as a political campaign ("don't change horses midstream" - relection slogan for Abraham Lincoln [1]). Convert that "squishy support" into "squishy rejection", and the numbers change a lot. I hope what I'm writing here makes it clear just how much of a wild-ass guess that is, rather than some sort of principled analysis; if your mileage varies, more power to you. My big claim is that it would have made the situation better moreso than the precise numbers. That is an example. There were other approaches that would have done better. I'd also observe that the approach I'm proposing here strikes me as fairly European, with the emphasis on solidarity and such. I'm pretty sure I'd recommend a substantially different approach if we were discussing Texas secession. I'd also point out that I'm not viewing successfully keeping Catalan in Spain as the end of history. The issues would still be there. "Something" would really have to be done about that. But all countries have stresses, and Quebec remains part of Canada to this day, for instance. The stresses don't have to explode. (I've also read some analysis that suggests these actions would have been politically untenable for Spain's current leadership. So I'm talking about what Spain as a whole "should" have done, not what Spain's leadership necessarily could do. I still don't know where I fall in the "forces of history" vs. "big actors in history" debate, but I tend to think the answer is "yes, both by a lot".) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_campaign_slogans#1864 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_camp...
TallGuyShort 9y ago
>> The illegality of their vote is supported by the judicial system, not political. However it came about, that's a really political situation to be in. It sounds to me like Spain has set up a legal framework in which war is the only way to leave a democracy. I'm not familiar enough with Catalonia's motive's here to judge their decision, but that's a shitty situation in which to make that decision. And to be clear, I think that's a problem with a lot democracies. You end up with tyranny of the majority, and you either "pay the price for living in a civilized society" or you end up in an armed battle. There's no, "oh okay - I'll stop using nationally-funded roads and you can stop taking my money to start wars elsewhere." I think this is subconsciously part of why the 2 parties in the US seem so irrational to each other - there's only a need to get 51% (or in very few cases 67%) and then protect your existing supporters - there's no need to make a system that works for almost everyone. So people feel alienated and defensive, but basically do the same thing that was done to them the second they get their foot in the door. >> the votes were not supported by any international body and were not conducted in a public or transparent manner >> Only 38% of Cataluá citizens voted, the remaining 62% did not participate in this vote. Huh - sounds like elections in the US too. #twins
- flamedoge 9y ago
  How to solve voter turnout? free donuts?
  - crooked-v 9y ago
    Mandatory voting, with real but minor punishments for not filing a ballot (but no requirement to actually vote for a candidate, to allow for cases where none of the above appeal). Of course, this will never happen with the current political structure of the US, as the Republican Party works to aggressively reduce total voter turnout everywhere it can.
    - TallGuyShort 9y ago
      How would you implement mandatory voting without doing what Republicans want to do to verify right-to-vote in the first place? Requirements to vote have been associated with racism in the past, sure, and the ideas are often stupid and pointless, but talking to foreigners, myself included, the opposition to having to show ID to vote seems stupid too.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thetxef 9y ago
> 5) Other regions of Spain, such as Pamplona or Euskadi, yeah...not sure how well informed your are...Pamplona is NOT a region, but the capital of a region.
- adrinavarro 9y ago
  He meant Navarra.
gutnor 9y ago
Forget 9) In the last days, Puidgemont refused to declare if he had or not declared independence. Even though he publicly called for negotiation, his refusal practically prevents the Spanish government to do just that. "Suspended Independence" was maybe the biggest egotistical move by that guy. It was pure self-preservation.
logfromblammo 9y ago
In the U.S., no one disputes that secession is legal. The whole country was founded by secession. It is, however, well-established by precedent that if any states do secede, the remaining states will then be able to launch a war of conquest against them, and re-annex their territory back into the union as a new entity with exactly the same name, borders, and government structure as before the secession occurred. If you want to secede, you must prepare to fight for it. As of 1775, no English colony in North America had ever been independent. It had always been subject to the king of England. This was not sufficient reason for the colonists to remain loyal subjects of the crown. The colonists took it upon their own initiative to secede from England. Any votes that may have been cast were taken mainly among those who wanted independence, and those who wished to remain loyal were likely not even informed that a vote was taking place. It isn't really there for a democratic mandate, but a means of gauging support among the uncommitted for any war that may follow. In the ideal case, the result of the vote is strong enough that the war is a foregone conclusion, and it never actually happens. The WOPR concludes that the only way to win is not to play. Or it may be a means of the parent entity tactfully trying to shed a non-performant territory. Or it may be because people are genuinely trying to decide a course of action based on the will of the people. The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, for instance, may one day hold a referendum to determine whether the island should apply for statehood, petition for independence, or remain in the status quo. It is likely that the remainder of the U.S. would honor the results of any such vote, though probably with the U.S. retaining sovereignty over any territory the military already directly controls. It is not necessary for any national or international body to recognize the vote. It is purely for the secessionists, to determine if they could win a war if the parent entity invades after the split. The secessionists don't have to pay any attention whatsoever to other regions with an equally strong or stronger case for secession. If you are voting to secede, you don't care whether or not the vote is legal or binding. The explicit wording is regarding secession, but implicitly it is about whether people will take up arms for Catalonia, or at least not take up arms for Spain, if there is a war for independence. The percentages don't really matter, only the raw numbers. If 10000 people vote "yes", you know that there are potentially 10000 armed rebels out there, waiting for the signal to join the fight. I think Spain is handling this in the worst possible manner, diplomatically. Viral videos of people getting beaten by police is only going to increase the number of people willing to fight to make it stop.
babuskov 9y ago
> You need to read history to understand the situation. If the people read history the way you propose, USA would never be a free country.
dmix 9y ago
> but not a democratic mandate since the votes were not supported by any international body > The world cannot understand their will, as they have been executed outside the democratic framework. So they need permission from other countries to make decisions about their own country? I don't get what you're saying here other than they "messed with the status quo and should get in line". Which is a questionable basis to make such an argument. Of course other countries are not going to risk destroying their relationship with Spain to back some independence movement. There will never be initial international "support" unless they were clearly being repressed and there were human rights violations. But not all democratic movements depend on repression to be right, nor should they require that to determine the direction of their own political futures.
pjc50 9y ago
> Catalan politicians face criminal charges and high treason and will be tried by them. The trial and subsequent execution of Patrick Pearse et al for treason in 1916 was the event which turned Irish independence from controversial in Ireland to a virtual certainty. Trial even without execution of the Catalan leaders is going to create martyrs for the movement, and their names will be invoked in the subsequent terrorist bombing campaign.
- antientropic 9y ago
  Spain has extensive experience with that though (see: ETA). The ETA lost in the end. Catalans may well turn to terrorism, but that will only cause them to lose international support.
pjmlp 9y ago
Regarding history you just skipped over the part in 1640, where we were lucky that Filipe IV could not fight two rebellions at the same time and decided to send the troops just to Catalonia, allowing Portugal to regain independence.
alex_young 9y ago
"Catalonia was never independent" - it was indeed, and in the 20th century. George Orwell wrote a first hand account of his observations while fighting for their independence called "On Catalonia". Worth a read if you're looking for historical context.
- kgwgk 9y ago
  That’s true. Catalonia was independent for three days in 1931 and one night in 1934.
  - alex_young 9y ago
    Citation needed
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest-lived_sovereign_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest-lived_soverei...
      - alex_young 9y ago
        "This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2014"
        kgwgk 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Republic_(1931) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Republic_(1931) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_State_(1934) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_State_(1934) Maybe you could explain what are your reservations about what I wrote? I could give you more precise references if needed.
        alex_young 9y ago
        Circular citations of Wikipedia articles do not prove that Catalonia existed for the very short period of time you claim. I would suggest reading about the revolutionary period. I have cited a well regarded first hand account of the period. Your claim that Catalonia has no history of independence is simply wrong.
kobeya 9y ago
Let’s say you’re black in the American south before 1868, or South Africa before 1993. Voting or any sort of civic duty is illegal for you. Does that mean that you shouldn’t be allowed to vote? I am NOT saying Catalonians are oppressed the way blacks were in the American south or South Africa. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m purposefully using a more extreme example to illustrate that this is a moral, not legal question. Self-determination is a fundamental human right, by the philosophy of the Enlightenment at least. And this remains true whether or not it happens to be codified in law. If the Spanish constitution blocks reasonable paths to self determination, then the constitution is wrong—morally, not legally, of course. And why should we support an immoral law? There are good reasons for doing so in fact — preventing anarchy in the pejorative sense — but only if a constructive alternative is provided to fixing the law within the system in a reasonable amount of time. Surely there is a process for modifying or amending the constitution? Spain didn’t try.
- narag 9y ago
  Self-determination is a fundamental human right, by the philosophy of the Enlightenment at least. That's very misleading. Persons have rights. Countries haven't. United Nations chart acknowledged collective right to self determination in the case of colonized countries as a way to give freedom to millions of individuals living in countries that were controled by western rich countries by force. But by no means a country has claimed ever that there's a general right for an arbitrary territory to secede if its inhabitants decide so by voting. There is overwhelming evidence against that alledged "right". No country would accept that. What about yours? What do you think will happen if a region of your country decides to hold a vote to leave the rest?
curun1r 9y ago
I have relatives who live in Catalonia, though they aren't ethnic Catalans. One of them works as an education official in the region, so her view may be skewed, but she also has a view of the situation that others don't necessarily see. She believes there's a systematic attempt by the government in Madrid to minimize Catalan culture and assimilate its people into a single Spanish culture. The Catalan education system has repeatedly had funding and other support denied for Catalan language, history and culture programs. It may all tie back to money, but painting it as "rich Catalonia wants to not pay to support the rest of Spain" is a 1-sided view of the subject. It's also possible to see it as "powerful Madrid trying to protect its golden goose by actively trying to stamp out Catalan culture." Both have some merit. What's interesting is that my relatives believed there was very little support for independence before the response from Madrid. But now with their heavy-handed tactics (they witnessed the violence first-hand...I saw their cell phone videos), more people support the idea. Before the violence, as a non-Catalan Spaniard and an American she married who both chose to live in Barcelona for work, they both thought independence was a stupid idea. But now, as she put it, "I now feel that the government in Catalonia is incompetent and the government in Madrid is evil. If I have to choose between the two, I choose incompetence."
kafkaesq 9y ago
You need to read history to understand the situation. But not the history of the last 100 years, but of the last 1000. Catalonia was never independent, it was part of the Kingdom of Aragon. The kingdom of Aragon and the castle kingdom allied in a dynastic way and created what is known today as Spain That's (very) interesting and useful information, on a certain intellectual level. But you know, sending legions of paid goons (clad head-to-toe in black, comic-book style, no less) to randomly beat people in the streets (and in stairways, hallways... wherever they felt like it, apparently) has a way of nor only more or less completely delegitimizing your position, within the EU and on the international stage -- but in getting those affected put aside their differences, and take a stand to protect themselves, once and for all, against further abuses. Which, as a directly result of the national government's actions, is apparently what is now happening. And the fact that you aren't even mentioning the recent violence in your 8-point summary goes a long way to explain what's increasingly driving so many people to the the pro-independence side in the first place. And BTW on the history front, there was also this guy named Francisco Franco, and certain extremely unpleasant events in the 20th century you're also very conspicuously not mentioning. And all the bodies being dug up and forensically analyzed, in all those unmarked graves, even today. But let's not go there.
pera 9y ago
During the last couple of months I have been following this situation very closely, reading a lot of history, reports and even the Spanish constitution, but I'm obviously not an expert, so please feel free to correct me if there are any mistakes here: 1) What I understood from reading various sources is that Catalonia was completely independent between the years 987 (death of Louis V of France) and 1137 (Marriage of Ramon Berenguer IV and Petronila of Aragon) [1][2]. Although in my opinion that is not relevant for the current independence movement. 2) The act of voting is not illegal: there is no single article in the Spanish Constitution of 1978 that prohibits citizens to vote something specific. The Catalan independence referendum though was, of course, unauthorized (referendums requires the participation of the King, the PM, and the Congress [3]). I wanted to point out that this idea of voting as something "illegal because of the content of the referendum" probably originates from the Spanish newspaper El Pais, with articles like "Mitos y falsedades del independentismo" which is full of false citations of the constitution (check for instance the articles cited in the paragraph starting with "Además, la ley del referéndum es ilegal por su contenido [...]"). 3) This is a valid point actually, although it would be fair also add that the Gurdia Civil, the National Police, and at some level the Mossos d'Esquadra, did everything they could (including violence in some cases) to stop people voting in this referendum. 4) Catalonia have a budget surplus [4], so I would argue that what "they" want is to contribute less. 5) Do you mean because of things like the Fueros of Pais Vasco and the Reino de Navarra? In any case, as you probably know, not everybody in Euskal Herria wanted/wants to coexist with the Spaniard state... I wouldn't be surprised if after Catalunya some other autonomic regions look for independence too. 6) True. The institutional situation in the Generalitat and Parlament is chaotic and unfortunate, and from what I heard from friends even most independentistas think so. 7) Well, this is a very opinionated point. If any generalization can be made about what "the world cannot understand" is why did the Spanish government handle this situation so poorly. 8) I personally agree with you that elections are necessary, but that will not solve the issue: the Catalans and the rest of Spain needs to know what every part wants and then start building some solution from there. And a review of the Constitution of 1978 would be useful too. --- [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Catalonia#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Catalonia#Orig... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catalonia#The_rise_and_fall_of_the_aloers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catalonia#The_rise_... [3] - http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/articulos.jsp?ini=92&tipo=2 http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/ar... [4] - http://www.minhafp.gob.es/es-ES/CDI/Paginas/OtraInformacionEconomica/Sistema-cuentas-territorializadas-2014.aspx http://www.minhafp.gob.es/es-ES/CDI/Paginas/OtraInformacionE...

by hummel 9y ago

spankalee 9y ago

What does the 1000 year history have to do with anything? If the people want independence now, that's all that matters.

cbraz 9y ago
The usual claim for independence has historical roots.
- spankalee 9y ago
  The claim that matters is that people want independence at all. Why isn't important, self-determination is.
  - harperlee 9y ago
    The context in which things have been happening matters. Catalonia asked for fiscal special treatment like the one that other regions have for historical reasons (whereas they don't have such history). So the context is important.
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      Catalonia could have obtained a similar system when the constitution was written, but declined to do so.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Plenty of counterexamples, including the joint independence movement among 13 English colonies in North America (which, unlike decolonialization in, say, India, wasn't the historically independent subjugated locals revolting against the foreign colonizers, but largely the imported ruling class revolting against the homeland that set them up and displaced the locals.)
StreamBright 9y ago
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
MLR 9y ago
I don't think this is a particularly valid viewpoint. For one thing it would destroy half the countries in the world, and most of them aren't highly developed nations that can vaguely cope with it. For another, how do you set limits, why is Catalonia special but any random town or city isn't? There's also the point that (probably) irreparably destroying countries based on slim margins and changing whims probably isn't smart. Now that's not to say I wouldn't support a (legal) referendum in Catalonia, but you do need to treat it with some nuance.

fusiongyro 9y ago

Point #1 trails off, can you finish it?

david927 9y ago
Sure: There is no... reason why a country that in every way (culture, language, its own flag, etc) is its own country outside of the fact that it has been ruled over by other countries shouldn't be allowed autonomy if the people will it. I'll finish 2 as well: Such a vote will always be called illegal by the occupying country. The creation of Catalan, despite being voted on, will be called illegal by Spain. That's their perspective of it, not Catalan's.

tertius 9y ago

Your opinion on what Catalonia will actually need to do to gain independence. Is civil war (however unlikely) the only way?

narag 9y ago
Stop talking of Catalonia as if there were only one opinion. At least half of catalans don't want independence.
- lllllll 9y ago
  > Stop talking of Catalonia as if there were only one opinion. At least half of catalans don't want independence. Citation needed.
  - harperlee 9y ago
    See the distribution of votes for the regional Parlament.
- simlevesque 9y ago
  They should have voted then.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    Why legitimize a non-constitutional process you disagree with? I would stay home too.
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    The catalan parliament has approved the "independence" resolution (despite the parliament lawyers warning about the illegality of the voting) with 70 "yes" (out of 135 seats).
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      Which is, essentially, a repeat of the same pattern as the election. To me, it's starting to smell like trying to manufacture a "mandate" when you really don't have one.

Zaak 9y ago

Thank you for these clarifications of the situation. It helps to hear from someone who has a personal connection to the issue.

lllllll 9y ago
Please keep in mind the points raised by OP are highly subjective or his/her own interpretation.

guiomie 9y ago

Those are all valid points. But why didn't Spain support a referendum like Canada supported Quebec twice and the UK with Scotland? Like the OP said, this could all have been stopped if Spain had supported the vote and campaigned for the no. How could Catalonia get a 'legal' vote?

gsnedders 9y ago
Stage one would be amending the Spanish constitution to get rid of the notion of Spain as being indivisible, and that's where it becomes really tricky, as you then need to get consensus from all of Spain to allow that.
- petre 9y ago
  Well, good luck with that. Spain was a fascist country for 40 years.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    And why is that relevant to this discussion?
cavanasm 9y ago
I'm under the impression the only way an independence vote could be legal is if the Spanish Constitution was changed to allow that. The current constitution declares Spain "indivisible", with no more specific details. That would seem to pretty clearly exclude any possibility of a part of Spain legally separating from Spain. The UK's legal system is a little slipperier. UK doesn't have a hard and fast Constitution. If Parliament allows something, it's basically legal (less hard checks on legislative power than your typical constitution).
- liberte82 9y ago
  It's interesting how this stems from a cultural difference. In very general terms, the UK is based on common law, in which we decide the truth as we go, based on the decisions of parliament and court cases. Spain and France are based on civil law, which are much more rigid and top-down, but also more clearly defined. In civil law, if it's not explicitly declared illegal, you can do it. In common law, it's a little murkier. This even seeps into the language (The French say they "have the right" to do something, the English say they are "allowed" - active vs. passive). Of course there is great overlap between the two in reality, but at their core the two legal systems have different philosophies. Hence why you end up with situations where the UK may be more flexible about things like separation.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

hectorlorenzo 9y ago

> Other regions of Spain, such as Pamplona or Euskadi, have more arguments for independence, but they chose coexistence within the democratic framework. Except that Euskadi had a pro-independence armed group that killed 829 people from 1975 to 2011. Other than that, doesn't Euskadi have its own tax system, distinct from the Spanish one? I think it's not fair to compare both situations.

narag 9y ago
Apart for the (unfair) advantage, the salient point of a separate tax collection is that our administration can't investigate violations inside that region for taxes or public spending. There are virtually no corruption cases there. That doesn't mean there is no corruption there, but that we can't know because the people in charge of investigation is the same that could be investigated. This seems to be the reason they've been so quiet lately.

smcl 9y ago

Nice catch 22 - between (2) and (8). You are allowed to secede if you vote for it ... but you're not allowed to vote to secede.

narag 9y ago
You are allowed to vote to parties that want the secession and promise to vote for Constitution reform. The thing is people, even in Catalonia don't want independence. This question is presented over and over again as a Catalonia vs rest of Spain, when it's actually a debate that's not settled inside Catalonia. Parties that don't propose independence had less votes than the ones that do, the electoral system being the culprit that they have majority in regional parliament.
- smcl 9y ago
  "The thing is people, even in Catalonia don't want independence" - in your opinion perhaps. Many others have a different opinion. But this is something that could easily be settled by ... a vote on independence.
  - narag 9y ago
    Last election had a majority of votes to parties that didn't proposed independence, that's a hard fact, not an opinion. And as you will soon learn, there is no need to settle that question, it was settled long ago.
    - smcl 9y ago
      Carefully worded answer. To those who might take narag's words at face value, they're probably referring the 2014 referendum where voters were asked "do you want to Catalonia to be a state" and "and if so, do you want it to be independent". The result was 80% of the results were "yes" for both but the turnout was low (40-ish percent). I don't think that is exactly decisive for either side, but to claim it as a win for the "no" camp is a little bit disingenuous.

joaomval 9y ago

How many countries got independent legally?

eponeponepon 9y ago
Plenty. India, Kenya, Australia, Canada and various ex-SSRs all spring to mind. Not many without violence on the run-up, I'll grant you, but in many cases, the actual process of independence was performed entirely legally.
- joaomval 9y ago
  ex-SSRs can be a good example but ex colonies isn't a fair comparison with Catalonia
  - degradas 9y ago
    I'm from ex-Soviet country called Lithuania, and no, although Lithuania was the first country to declare independence from the Soviet Union, it was not done within Soviet legal framework in any way.
- confounded 9y ago
  Yes, often quite a bit of violence in the run up. Whether the imperialist side wants to try and look good at the point of capitulation or not has little to do with how “legal” the effectual parts of fighting for independence are. To suggest that, e.g. Gandhi didn’t have a meaningful role in achieving India’s independence, because the British considered his actions illegal, is very silly.
- xtreme 9y ago
  Saying that India got her independence legally is quite a stretch. There were plenty of mutinies, bloodshed, violent and non-violent movements before the British (massively weakened by the WWII) decided that they had enough. While it is true that India did not declare unilaterally declare independence (some leaders did, but they did not gain widespread public support) and start a civil war, the independence movement itself was not legal and most leaders were branded terrorists and incarcerated.

arturh 9y ago

Catalonia was not part of the Kingdom of Aragon, it was part of the Crown of Aragon, which is different.

kgwgk 9y ago
Actually the southwestern part of Catalonia was part of the Kingdom of Aragon before Catalonia existed.

jerf 9y ago

"You need to read history to understand the situation." That is true if we want to analyze the question of whether or not Catalan "should" be independent from Spain, a question so murky and shot through with political philosophy, theory, and pragmatics that even two sides that stipulate all the same facts can come to different conclusions. But for what johnnyfaehell was really getting at, which is a tactical and/or strategic analysis of the effectiveness of the moves the various sides have been making, we don't really need all that, we just need an understanding of human nature, with at best some slight elaborations for the slight deviations in local conditions. I personally have no great opinion about whether Catalan should or should not be independent. Distinctly from that, though, it is fair to observe that Spain has handled this quite badly. While there is probably no solution in which they completely smooth things over, they have certainly taken multiple moves that are very clearly the simple, intuitive things that our genetically-imposed tribal political sense tells us to take when people challenge our rule, and which work (to some degree) in a tribal context of 100-ish people [1], but which at this scale were basically guaranteed to massively inflame the situation. [1]: Albeit in a way that many people here would probably find generally unjust. The Big Man in the Tribe basically just telling a couple of rabble-rousers to shut up, and if necessary, getting some of his supporters to rough them up a bit to remind them who is in charge, "works", but a lot of us would find that fairly distasteful, because while our genetics tell us to do that, civilization requires other tactics in order to hold together. Scaling up that Big Man's action to a region breaks in multiple ways; for instance, if Catalan perceives itself as a separate tribe, then the "rough them up a bit" phase doesn't register as an internal tribe spat with our genetically-programmed politics, but warfare between two tribes, and that prompts a radically different response.

platz 9y ago
So then, what tactics does civilization require in order to hold together?
- jerf 9y ago
  Well, that sounds like a book. But despite the failure, I'd point to Brexit as an example where there was a conflict that was still broadly speaking handled in a civilized manner. If I recall correctly, the EU never said that if the UK left, they would take steps to liquidate Parliament. It was (and is!) an acrimonious debate, but still a civilized one (contrary to apparently popular belief, "nice" and "civilized" are not synonyms and are at times diametrically opposed; at best "nice" is what can result from civilization, it is not the cause of civilization). And despite the fact Brexit narrowly passed, I guarantee that had the EU gone the route that Spain did, Brexit would not have narrowly passed, but passed by a wide margin. Contrariwise, even with all of Spain's errors and provocations, by numbers it seems like Catalonian independence just barely has something like a majority, or narrowly misses a majority, despite the superficial voting numbers, and that I would imagine includes a lot of very squishy support. Let's call real support in the 40-60% range. Some emotional sweet talk in attempt to emphasize solidarity, combined with some threats about what "could" happen (both in terms of bad things that may happen economically and vague threats of retaliation from Spain) but with no actual violence threats, along with emphasizing that it is their choice ultimately, would probably have resulted in as much as a 2-1 defeat for the independence. If nothing else, even just an appeal to the status quo rather than the dangers of such a radical change has had some success as a political campaign ("don't change horses midstream" - relection slogan for Abraham Lincoln [1]). Convert that "squishy support" into "squishy rejection", and the numbers change a lot. I hope what I'm writing here makes it clear just how much of a wild-ass guess that is, rather than some sort of principled analysis; if your mileage varies, more power to you. My big claim is that it would have made the situation better moreso than the precise numbers. That is an example. There were other approaches that would have done better. I'd also observe that the approach I'm proposing here strikes me as fairly European, with the emphasis on solidarity and such. I'm pretty sure I'd recommend a substantially different approach if we were discussing Texas secession. I'd also point out that I'm not viewing successfully keeping Catalan in Spain as the end of history. The issues would still be there. "Something" would really have to be done about that. But all countries have stresses, and Quebec remains part of Canada to this day, for instance. The stresses don't have to explode. (I've also read some analysis that suggests these actions would have been politically untenable for Spain's current leadership. So I'm talking about what Spain as a whole "should" have done, not what Spain's leadership necessarily could do. I still don't know where I fall in the "forces of history" vs. "big actors in history" debate, but I tend to think the answer is "yes, both by a lot".) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_campaign_slogans#1864 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_camp...

TallGuyShort 9y ago

>> The illegality of their vote is supported by the judicial system, not political. However it came about, that's a really political situation to be in. It sounds to me like Spain has set up a legal framework in which war is the only way to leave a democracy. I'm not familiar enough with Catalonia's motive's here to judge their decision, but that's a shitty situation in which to make that decision. And to be clear, I think that's a problem with a lot democracies. You end up with tyranny of the majority, and you either "pay the price for living in a civilized society" or you end up in an armed battle. There's no, "oh okay - I'll stop using nationally-funded roads and you can stop taking my money to start wars elsewhere." I think this is subconsciously part of why the 2 parties in the US seem so irrational to each other - there's only a need to get 51% (or in very few cases 67%) and then protect your existing supporters - there's no need to make a system that works for almost everyone. So people feel alienated and defensive, but basically do the same thing that was done to them the second they get their foot in the door. >> the votes were not supported by any international body and were not conducted in a public or transparent manner >> Only 38% of Cataluá citizens voted, the remaining 62% did not participate in this vote. Huh - sounds like elections in the US too. #twins

flamedoge 9y ago
How to solve voter turnout? free donuts?
- crooked-v 9y ago
  Mandatory voting, with real but minor punishments for not filing a ballot (but no requirement to actually vote for a candidate, to allow for cases where none of the above appeal). Of course, this will never happen with the current political structure of the US, as the Republican Party works to aggressively reduce total voter turnout everywhere it can.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    How would you implement mandatory voting without doing what Republicans want to do to verify right-to-vote in the first place? Requirements to vote have been associated with racism in the past, sure, and the ideas are often stupid and pointless, but talking to foreigners, myself included, the opposition to having to show ID to vote seems stupid too.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

thetxef 9y ago

> 5) Other regions of Spain, such as Pamplona or Euskadi, yeah...not sure how well informed your are...Pamplona is NOT a region, but the capital of a region.

adrinavarro 9y ago
He meant Navarra.

gutnor 9y ago

Forget 9) In the last days, Puidgemont refused to declare if he had or not declared independence. Even though he publicly called for negotiation, his refusal practically prevents the Spanish government to do just that. "Suspended Independence" was maybe the biggest egotistical move by that guy. It was pure self-preservation.

logfromblammo 9y ago

In the U.S., no one disputes that secession is legal. The whole country was founded by secession. It is, however, well-established by precedent that if any states do secede, the remaining states will then be able to launch a war of conquest against them, and re-annex their territory back into the union as a new entity with exactly the same name, borders, and government structure as before the secession occurred. If you want to secede, you must prepare to fight for it. As of 1775, no English colony in North America had ever been independent. It had always been subject to the king of England. This was not sufficient reason for the colonists to remain loyal subjects of the crown. The colonists took it upon their own initiative to secede from England. Any votes that may have been cast were taken mainly among those who wanted independence, and those who wished to remain loyal were likely not even informed that a vote was taking place. It isn't really there for a democratic mandate, but a means of gauging support among the uncommitted for any war that may follow. In the ideal case, the result of the vote is strong enough that the war is a foregone conclusion, and it never actually happens. The WOPR concludes that the only way to win is not to play. Or it may be a means of the parent entity tactfully trying to shed a non-performant territory. Or it may be because people are genuinely trying to decide a course of action based on the will of the people. The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, for instance, may one day hold a referendum to determine whether the island should apply for statehood, petition for independence, or remain in the status quo. It is likely that the remainder of the U.S. would honor the results of any such vote, though probably with the U.S. retaining sovereignty over any territory the military already directly controls. It is not necessary for any national or international body to recognize the vote. It is purely for the secessionists, to determine if they could win a war if the parent entity invades after the split. The secessionists don't have to pay any attention whatsoever to other regions with an equally strong or stronger case for secession. If you are voting to secede, you don't care whether or not the vote is legal or binding. The explicit wording is regarding secession, but implicitly it is about whether people will take up arms for Catalonia, or at least not take up arms for Spain, if there is a war for independence. The percentages don't really matter, only the raw numbers. If 10000 people vote "yes", you know that there are potentially 10000 armed rebels out there, waiting for the signal to join the fight. I think Spain is handling this in the worst possible manner, diplomatically. Viral videos of people getting beaten by police is only going to increase the number of people willing to fight to make it stop.

babuskov 9y ago

> You need to read history to understand the situation. If the people read history the way you propose, USA would never be a free country.

dmix 9y ago

> but not a democratic mandate since the votes were not supported by any international body > The world cannot understand their will, as they have been executed outside the democratic framework. So they need permission from other countries to make decisions about their own country? I don't get what you're saying here other than they "messed with the status quo and should get in line". Which is a questionable basis to make such an argument. Of course other countries are not going to risk destroying their relationship with Spain to back some independence movement. There will never be initial international "support" unless they were clearly being repressed and there were human rights violations. But not all democratic movements depend on repression to be right, nor should they require that to determine the direction of their own political futures.

pjc50 9y ago

> Catalan politicians face criminal charges and high treason and will be tried by them. The trial and subsequent execution of Patrick Pearse et al for treason in 1916 was the event which turned Irish independence from controversial in Ireland to a virtual certainty. Trial even without execution of the Catalan leaders is going to create martyrs for the movement, and their names will be invoked in the subsequent terrorist bombing campaign.

antientropic 9y ago
Spain has extensive experience with that though (see: ETA). The ETA lost in the end. Catalans may well turn to terrorism, but that will only cause them to lose international support.

pjmlp 9y ago

Regarding history you just skipped over the part in 1640, where we were lucky that Filipe IV could not fight two rebellions at the same time and decided to send the troops just to Catalonia, allowing Portugal to regain independence.

alex_young 9y ago

"Catalonia was never independent" - it was indeed, and in the 20th century. George Orwell wrote a first hand account of his observations while fighting for their independence called "On Catalonia". Worth a read if you're looking for historical context.

kgwgk 9y ago
That’s true. Catalonia was independent for three days in 1931 and one night in 1934.
- alex_young 9y ago
  Citation needed
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest-lived_sovereign_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest-lived_soverei...
    - alex_young 9y ago
      "This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2014"
      - kgwgk 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Republic_(1931) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Republic_(1931) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_State_(1934) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_State_(1934) Maybe you could explain what are your reservations about what I wrote? I could give you more precise references if needed.
        alex_young 9y ago
        Circular citations of Wikipedia articles do not prove that Catalonia existed for the very short period of time you claim. I would suggest reading about the revolutionary period. I have cited a well regarded first hand account of the period. Your claim that Catalonia has no history of independence is simply wrong.

kobeya 9y ago

Let’s say you’re black in the American south before 1868, or South Africa before 1993. Voting or any sort of civic duty is illegal for you. Does that mean that you shouldn’t be allowed to vote? I am NOT saying Catalonians are oppressed the way blacks were in the American south or South Africa. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m purposefully using a more extreme example to illustrate that this is a moral, not legal question. Self-determination is a fundamental human right, by the philosophy of the Enlightenment at least. And this remains true whether or not it happens to be codified in law. If the Spanish constitution blocks reasonable paths to self determination, then the constitution is wrong—morally, not legally, of course. And why should we support an immoral law? There are good reasons for doing so in fact — preventing anarchy in the pejorative sense — but only if a constructive alternative is provided to fixing the law within the system in a reasonable amount of time. Surely there is a process for modifying or amending the constitution? Spain didn’t try.

narag 9y ago
Self-determination is a fundamental human right, by the philosophy of the Enlightenment at least. That's very misleading. Persons have rights. Countries haven't. United Nations chart acknowledged collective right to self determination in the case of colonized countries as a way to give freedom to millions of individuals living in countries that were controled by western rich countries by force. But by no means a country has claimed ever that there's a general right for an arbitrary territory to secede if its inhabitants decide so by voting. There is overwhelming evidence against that alledged "right". No country would accept that. What about yours? What do you think will happen if a region of your country decides to hold a vote to leave the rest?

curun1r 9y ago

I have relatives who live in Catalonia, though they aren't ethnic Catalans. One of them works as an education official in the region, so her view may be skewed, but she also has a view of the situation that others don't necessarily see. She believes there's a systematic attempt by the government in Madrid to minimize Catalan culture and assimilate its people into a single Spanish culture. The Catalan education system has repeatedly had funding and other support denied for Catalan language, history and culture programs. It may all tie back to money, but painting it as "rich Catalonia wants to not pay to support the rest of Spain" is a 1-sided view of the subject. It's also possible to see it as "powerful Madrid trying to protect its golden goose by actively trying to stamp out Catalan culture." Both have some merit. What's interesting is that my relatives believed there was very little support for independence before the response from Madrid. But now with their heavy-handed tactics (they witnessed the violence first-hand...I saw their cell phone videos), more people support the idea. Before the violence, as a non-Catalan Spaniard and an American she married who both chose to live in Barcelona for work, they both thought independence was a stupid idea. But now, as she put it, "I now feel that the government in Catalonia is incompetent and the government in Madrid is evil. If I have to choose between the two, I choose incompetence."

kafkaesq 9y ago

You need to read history to understand the situation. But not the history of the last 100 years, but of the last 1000. Catalonia was never independent, it was part of the Kingdom of Aragon. The kingdom of Aragon and the castle kingdom allied in a dynastic way and created what is known today as Spain That's (very) interesting and useful information, on a certain intellectual level. But you know, sending legions of paid goons (clad head-to-toe in black, comic-book style, no less) to randomly beat people in the streets (and in stairways, hallways... wherever they felt like it, apparently) has a way of nor only more or less completely delegitimizing your position, within the EU and on the international stage -- but in getting those affected put aside their differences, and take a stand to protect themselves, once and for all, against further abuses. Which, as a directly result of the national government's actions, is apparently what is now happening. And the fact that you aren't even mentioning the recent violence in your 8-point summary goes a long way to explain what's increasingly driving so many people to the the pro-independence side in the first place. And BTW on the history front, there was also this guy named Francisco Franco, and certain extremely unpleasant events in the 20th century you're also very conspicuously not mentioning. And all the bodies being dug up and forensically analyzed, in all those unmarked graves, even today. But let's not go there.

pera 9y ago

During the last couple of months I have been following this situation very closely, reading a lot of history, reports and even the Spanish constitution, but I'm obviously not an expert, so please feel free to correct me if there are any mistakes here: 1) What I understood from reading various sources is that Catalonia was completely independent between the years 987 (death of Louis V of France) and 1137 (Marriage of Ramon Berenguer IV and Petronila of Aragon) [1][2]. Although in my opinion that is not relevant for the current independence movement. 2) The act of voting is not illegal: there is no single article in the Spanish Constitution of 1978 that prohibits citizens to vote something specific. The Catalan independence referendum though was, of course, unauthorized (referendums requires the participation of the King, the PM, and the Congress [3]). I wanted to point out that this idea of voting as something "illegal because of the content of the referendum" probably originates from the Spanish newspaper El Pais, with articles like "Mitos y falsedades del independentismo" which is full of false citations of the constitution (check for instance the articles cited in the paragraph starting with "Además, la ley del referéndum es ilegal por su contenido [...]"). 3) This is a valid point actually, although it would be fair also add that the Gurdia Civil, the National Police, and at some level the Mossos d'Esquadra, did everything they could (including violence in some cases) to stop people voting in this referendum. 4) Catalonia have a budget surplus [4], so I would argue that what "they" want is to contribute less. 5) Do you mean because of things like the Fueros of Pais Vasco and the Reino de Navarra? In any case, as you probably know, not everybody in Euskal Herria wanted/wants to coexist with the Spaniard state... I wouldn't be surprised if after Catalunya some other autonomic regions look for independence too. 6) True. The institutional situation in the Generalitat and Parlament is chaotic and unfortunate, and from what I heard from friends even most independentistas think so. 7) Well, this is a very opinionated point. If any generalization can be made about what "the world cannot understand" is why did the Spanish government handle this situation so poorly. 8) I personally agree with you that elections are necessary, but that will not solve the issue: the Catalans and the rest of Spain needs to know what every part wants and then start building some solution from there. And a review of the Constitution of 1978 would be useful too. --- [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Catalonia#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Catalonia#Orig... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catalonia#The_rise_and_fall_of_the_aloers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catalonia#The_rise_... [3] - http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/articulos.jsp?ini=92&tipo=2 http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/ar... [4] - http://www.minhafp.gob.es/es-ES/CDI/Paginas/OtraInformacionEconomica/Sistema-cuentas-territorializadas-2014.aspx http://www.minhafp.gob.es/es-ES/CDI/Paginas/OtraInformacionE...