[close04]

> the two sides are not "Catalonia should be independent" [...but] Catalonia should have a right to discuss terms of independence

Polling someone about something implies one of the results is perfectly possible. I considered that as being the final result for the purpose of the discussion because that's the crux of the matter. So yes, that is the only side that matters. There are no "fair" negotiations to be had. Spain has nothing to gain. It would not only show willingness to let illegal activity go unpunished and worse, it encourages it by negotiating.

What happens next time someone wants something illegal according to country laws and constitution? Negotiate every time? There is no negotiation that will please everybody and at best you'd end up with a random collection of patches where 100% of the population wants independence (since you don't want to oppress anyone).

> Spain should have a right to say "Well, look, the border should not include Barcelona since 60% of them (or whatever the figure might be in a just and fair plebiscite) have expressed a desire to remain".

What about the 40% (just to fit the math) that want the independence in Barcelona? Aren't they to Barcelona what Catalonia is to Spain? Should they splinter from Barcelona? How many times do you splinter? How long until you say "well I think we have enough"? And when you do isn't that arbitrary and hypocritical?

[vkou]

> Polling someone about something implies one of the results is perfectly possible.

Both results of asking Catalonia whether or not it should start negotiating with Spain as to what independence would look like are completely possible. It's up to Spain to accept that possibility, though, not Catalonia.

> There are no "fair" negotiations to be had. Spain has nothing to gain.

Internal stability, an end to social unrest, and doing the right thing, by letting people govern themselves, is not something to gain?

You shouldn't block your spouse from divorcing you in a broken marriage, and you should generally not keep people who want to leave, in your country.

> What happens next time someone wants something illegal according to country laws and constitution? Negotiate every time?

Generally speaking, when there's a large demand in a democracy for an unjust law to be changed, the correct thing to do is to, in fact, change the law.

> What about the 40% (just to fit the math) that want the independence in Barcelona? Aren't they to Barcelona what Catalonia is to Spain? Should they splinter from Barcelona? How many times do you splinter? How long until you say "well I think we have enough"? And when you do isn't that arbitrary and hypocritical?

That's the whole point of going to the negotiating table, in good faith. To discuss the options, to figure out how edge cases will work. If Barcelona wants to remain in Spain, I see no reason for why Catalonian secession should have to include it. Catalonia can then make the choice of whether or not it wants to secede without Barcelona. It will probably choose to not do so, and you will solve your problem without turning to violence and repression.

Of course, this requires negotiating in good faith, which seems to be anathema.

[close04]

> doing the right thing

It appears that most of the country (Spain) does not agree hence the existing laws. It's questionable whether even most of Catalonia agrees. Just because a small minority thinks that it's the right thing means nothing in the context of a whole country.

> You shouldn't block your spouse from divorcing you

If you have to use broken analogies to make the point then you don't have much of a point. It should be pretty clear right now that unlike divorce, what we're talking about here is illegal. You don't get to vote whether laws apply to you or not. The country as a whole votes what happens to the country.

> when there's a large demand in a democracy

Spain is the democracy, not Catalonia. And Spain's laws/constitution are pretty clear. The only democratic process that would be valid right now is to change the laws as a country, and then do anything about independence.

You seem to think democracy is this weird selective process where you can take an arbitrary group of people and as long as they mostly agree on something then everyone should submit to that.

Your logic above is perfectly able to justify anything, even genocide, as long as laws no longer apply because (local) majority consensus exists.