[88840-8855]

I really never got the Catalonia crisis, especially around 2017, 2018. A region of approx. 8 million Catalonias who see themselves as Catalonians first and as Spanish second, with their own distinct history, vote with over 80% for their indipendence from Spain. People representing the interests of Catalonians go to the Spanish parlament, explain their goal of indipendence.

And then stuff happens that I only read from bad China and bad Russia. Those political leaders are arrested. Police is sent in to stop the protests. Protests are suddenly called "the rebellion", people are arrested, the representatives of the indipendance movement have to flee Spain. Later it comes out that the police was seizing ballet boxes during the election.

Spain then acts hard on the region, holds a gun against the head of many businesses located in the Catalonian region so they have to move out from there.

So much more bad stuff has happened around that.

I am just wondering - where is the outcry? I cannot stop overseeing the paralls to other conflicts around the world, very hot conflicts.

[gjulianm]

I'm not one to approve of the spanish government management of the crisis, which was terrible, but there are quite a lot of missing things here that are important to the story.

> vote with over 80% for their indipendence from Spain

The 2017 referendum vote ended up with 90% of votes for independence. However, only 43% of the census participated, mainly due to the fact that this referendum was not binding at all, and wasn't even "legal". Other referendums have had similar results.

> And then stuff happens that I only read from bad China and bad Russia.

I think regular media picked up on that with no issues. I remember reading detailed articles on Politico or The Guardian, for example.

> Those political leaders are arrested.

They were arrested not for explaining their goal of independence but because they exceeded their functions and competences when they held the referendum. Now, there's a lot of discussion to be had about the political motivations of those charges and the punishments, but I think the reality that they used public resources to hold a referendum that they legally couldn't hold is undeniable. That was the trigger, not just saying they wanted independence.

> Spain then acts hard on the region, holds a gun against the head of many businesses located in the Catalonian region so they have to move out from there.

That's not exactly what happened. Some companies legally moved headquarters from Catalonia to other regions, and some new investments were reduced, but those are mainly motivated by the legal insecurity about what was going to happen (and also, take into account that businesses are led by people with their own ideologies and biases of the situation). But it hasn't been that impactful overall.

> I cannot stop overseeing the paralls to other conflicts around the world, very hot conflicts.

For starters, other than the police action in the referendum, there's been a remarkable lack of violence on both sides. I mean, every 11th of september there are demonstrations for independence around the Diada (day of Catalonia) celebrations, political calls to action and such, and those things are not repressed. So I don't think pointing parallels to "very hot conflicts" is warranted.

[kspacewalk2]

> Some companies legally moved headquarters from Catalonia to other regions, and some new investments were reduced, but those are mainly motivated by the legal insecurity about what was going to happen (and also, take into account that businesses are led by people with their own ideologies and biases of the situation).

This happened in Montreal. It was the business capital of Canada until the referendums. Now Toronto is.

So it goes.

[denton-scratch]

> they used public resources to hold a referendum that they legally couldn't hold is undeniable

If the constitution says that calling for secession is a criminal offence, it follows that holding an indendence referendum is also criminal. I'd argue that a constitution that criminalises campaigning for secession is a bad constitution, and that the central government should have (a) staged the referendum and (b) campaigned in it.

[gjulianm]

Calling for secession is not directly a criminal offense. The charges were sedition and misuse of public funds. The latter is fairly clear, the former is a more gray area (in Spain, sedition is a public tumultuous rising to stop laws from applying, using violence or illegal methods) and one could debate whether it applies or not. But in both cases, the reasoning was that the Catalan government did not have the competence to hold that referendum, was notified of that by legal means and they disobeyed those orders. That was the core of the decision, not about the contents of the referendum but the fact that they didn't have the authority to do it and did it nevertheless.

> and that the central government should have (a) staged the referendum and (b) campaigned in it.

When some people think that giving Catalonia enough entity to even consider independence is too much, a referendum is out of the question. If the central government had been open to hold the referendum they would also have been open to previous smaller claims from Catalonia that would probably have satisfied enough people and dropped support for independency.

[ipaddr]

Those are crushing numbers. 90% of 43% of voters who made a choice to vote and leave. Such overwhelming numbers. Do you think the other side would have gotten everyone who didn't vote?

[gjulianm]

Not everyone, but a majority. Going to vote was strongly correlated with being for independence: it was clear the referendum wasn't legally binding and wasn't approved by the Spanish government. People who didn't want independence didn't even bother to vote in that.

And it's not an hypothesis: polls and parliament votes have shown for years that the support for independence (or for independentist parties) has been fairly stable at around 45-50%. Support for a referendum vote has been wider (up to 70-80% depending on the poll and how you count some party's positions) but similarly fairly stable over the years.

[rosndo]

Remember that in many places it was very difficult to vote due to violent interference by Guardia Civil.

[zozbot234]

90% of 43% is less than 40% voting for independence. Hardly overwhelming numbers, for a referendum that everyone knew would not actually matter.

[denton-scratch]

> for a referendum that everyone knew would not actually matter.

Surely if people thought the referendum "didn't matter", then they'd be less, not more likely to cast a ballot? I'd say that 40% is a pretty strong vote, in those circumstances (and given the risk of being beaten up by riot police).

[pvaldes]

Not, because here lies the trap. This was a farce, not a real election.

It was practically guaranteed that the votes would be replaced later in the cardboard urns guarded exclusively by the separatists. The obvious plan was to drag as many millions of people as possible to vote and then use this number as new upper limit to made up a separatist support number (see? 80% of this new cipher voted separatist, we counted the votes ourselves, [invented a number], and this is two million more of supporters than before, so I'm right. Now lets negotiate how money you own me to not secede).

It must be noticed that they printed 10 millions of ballots, for a pool of voters much lower. Why they needed to have like two ballots for each possible vote?... well, fill the dots.

The only good move in that situation is avoid voting

[Darmody]

Everybody who wished independence voted. 90% of 40% is nothing when voting for serious matters.

In most places that wouldn't even be considered a valid referendum.

[denton-scratch]

It wasn't a valid referendum. It was illegal, and everyone knew that it was against the Spanish constitution. 90% of 40% in what amounts to an opinion poll is not "nothing" - it's a remarkable turnout, given that voters knew the Spanish government had sent in shiploads of non-Catalan riot police to suppress voting.

[raverbashing]

90% of 43% is 38%. Hardly overwhelming numbers.

[kspacewalk2]

Can't tell if this comment is tongue in cheek. 40% is crushing and overwhelming? Like, maybe next time all those other supposed hidden supporters of independence can be arsed to get off their butts and show up to the most important vote of their life (at least if it was binding or legal according to Spanish law).

[cracrecry]

>The 2017 referendum vote ended up with 90% of votes for independence. However, only 43% of the census participated.

That is not true. Those are the numbers given by the independentist people themselves, with some people voting 5 times as there were no the required warrantees(as it was an illegal referendum).

The real numbers are those that supported an independentist party for the local elections, over 50% of the electorate.

[dc-programmer]

Catalonian secession would precipitate a similar push by the Basque region. From what I understand, these are two of the wealthiest areas in Spain, so them leaving would be a huge blow.

Another reason for the lack of support is that other countries don’t want to create a precedent for similar breakaways. Catalonia would have a hard time joining the EU for this reason (similarly Scotland if they were to secede).

The second reason hints at the explanation for the difference to other regions of the world. There is no hard and fast rule to apply to see why self-determinism is championed for one group but admonished for others. The sentiment is wholly a consequence of the motivations of the country in question and other interested nations.

Any moral rhetoric deployed by nations to justify policy is just post hoc rationalization of the underlying pragmatic decision making calculus. I think most people implicitly understand this. Which is why I’m incredulous when people act surprised by governments acting hypocritically

[BeFlatXIII]

Scotland was stabbed in the back by other citizens of the UK when Brexit won shortly after Scotland's remain referendum won.

[dc-programmer]

Yeah that was whack

[jeroenhd]

No country likes itself to be split apart, especially when a relatively rich part of the country tries to separate. I don't know about Spanish law, but serious attempts to break up the country could be considered treason where I'm from. On the other hand the whole civil war they fought 90 years ago makes the point quite complicated to the Catalan people.

If California tried to leave the USA, the American government would do anything in their power to keep them from leaving. This is still quite different, as Spain isn't as loosely structured a government as the USA, but it's equally preposterous from a government point of view.

[HideousKojima]

>No country likes itself to be split apart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia

[capableweb]

Happened because of the "Velvet Revolution" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution) which was yet again the people pushing the government to do something. I think when parent said "No country likes itself to be split apart" they refer to the current people in power (the government), not the people actually living in the nation. Otherwise all successful independence efforts can be considered "The country wanted to be split".

[denton-scratch]

As the industrial heartland of Spain, a lot of non-Catalans live in Catalunya. They don't want to suddenly find themselves in a foreign country. That's not "the people in power" - that's ordinary people.

There's quite a lot of nationalism in Spanish politics; when Franco died, there was no proper national reconciliation. Catalunya suffered quite badly in the Civil War and afterwards, and there should have been something like the SA Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Instead, they restored the monarchy, which was, as you'd expect, nationalist.

[denton-scratch]

> No country likes itself to be split apart

Indeed. But some countries handle independence movements with more grace than others. It's perfectly legitimate for a region to ask for independence. If the host nation is graceful, and (for example) allows independence referendums, a civil war becomes much less likely.

The host nation always fights back; but passing ten-year imprisonment sentences on the leaders of the secessionists isn't very graceful. Sending paramilitaries to beat up prrotestors and voters isn't graceful at all. A little more "graceful" is to resort to dirty tricks; Alex Salmond, former leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, was dragged into court on trumped-up sexual harrassment charges.

[mardifoufs]

Spain supports separatist movements elsewhere though. They have no issues supporting western saharan independence, even if the separatist groups are engaged in armed conflict.

[denton-scratch]

> They have no issues supporting western saharan independence

...formerly known as "Spanish Sahara". That's old-fashioned colonialism.

[mikem170]

> No country likes itself to be split apart

That doesn't morally justify forcing thousands or millions of people to remain in a political situation that they are opposed to.

[marcusverus]

A country which forces a separatist region to remain in their country is engaged in imperialism.

[aisengard]

This is getting pretty close to the "War Of Northern Aggression" nonsense that's peddled throughout the United States South.

[marcusverus]

Imperialism against people with abominable ethics is still imperialism.

When the southern states used their democratic institutions to secede, and then the North invaded 'to preserve the union', that was imperialism. Waging an imperial war and then freeing the slaves of the conquered doesn't retroactively make your war a just, non-imperialist one. It just makes you an imperialist whose moral views on slavery are superior to those of the people whom you conquered. But you're still an imperialist.

Now, if the Yanks had actually engaged in a moral crusade to free the slaves, that'd be one thing--but they didn't. If you think they did, then I'm guessing your understanding of the civil war comes from your education by said Union, or from movies. If this is the case, read a history book (Battle Cry of Freedom is a good start) and you'll find it impossible to believe that the Union fought the war to free the slaves. That the "moral crusade" nonsense is still peddled throughout the United States is a simple matter of the winners writing the history books (and nobody wanting to be seen sympathizing with slavers).

And since I'm certain you'll follow up with that tired old canard about the South starting the war at Ft. Sumpter, I'll provide you with the relevant history in advance:

0) Abraham Lincoln wins the 1860 presidential election on November 8, 1860. 1) On November 10, the South Carolina General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the people of S.C. to elect a commission to determine whether the state should secede. 2) Convention delegates were democratically elected on December 6. 3) These duly elected delegates convened in Columbia on December 17th. 4) They voted unanimously for secession. 5) The South Carolina General Assembly declared their independence on December 24. 6) At this point, American troops occupy Fort Sumpter, which at this point is foreign soil. 6) On Jan 9, the US attempts to reinforce the fort. They are prevented from doing so when Confederate artillery fires on the resupply ship. 7) On Jan 31, 1861, Governor Pickens demands the surrender of Fort Sumpter. 8) Lincoln sends multiple ships, with hundreds of soldiers and sailors, to reinforce the fort. 9) On April 11, knowing Lincoln plans to reinforce the occupying force, the Rebs once again demand the surrender of the fort. The commanding officer refused (then tried to play for time by making up conditions, which were refused). 10) At this point, American troops have been occupying foreign soil for ~4 months, and are effectively signaling their intent to stay indefinitely. 11) On April 12, the Rebs start shelling the fort. They shell it for 34 hours, then the Americans surrender. 12) After their surrender, before the Americans took down their flag, the Confederates allowed them to honor the flag with a 100 gun salute. One of the Yanks' guns misfired, killing Edward Galloway--the only American soldier who died.

You should feel free to say "well they were slavers, so fuck them". That's perfectly valid! But facts is facts, and the Civil War was imperialism.

[aisengard]

Ah, so you want to talk about democracy, do you?

Neither the north nor the south can really be considered democratic institutions by modern standards - less than half of their population could vote at the time of the civil war (women's suffrage) - and far less than half in the south (millions of slaves). The country as a whole elected Lincoln, and the southern states (via their mostly-undemocratically-elected leaders) rejected that slightly-more-democratically-sourced outcome. The democratically-elected leader and his political party then brought more democracy to the entire country by emancipating the enslaved and subsequently gave them (the men, anyway) the right to vote. Whether or not that was their intention at the outset doesn't change the fact that the north brought more democracy, which the south hated, and continues to hate.

So much for those vaunted democratic institutions you claim to hold so dear.

[marcusverus]

This doesn't contradict anything I said, unless you're under the impression that broad suffrage is a free pass to invade and conquer any nation with less-broad suffrage.

The North had broader suffrage than the South. The North freed the slaves after the war, and gave Black men the right to vote. And the Civil War was still imperialism. Do you disagree?

[cracrecry]

>vote with over 80% for their indipendence from Spain.

You should inform yourself before you talk. In Catalonia NEVER over 80% of the population voted for independence. This is BS.

What happened is that a 50 something percent of the votes(not of the population) wanted to impose independence over the laws of the parliament that require at least 2/3 majorities for anything substantial.

>And then stuff happens that I only read from bad China and bad Russia.

More BS. How many people died on that rebellion? How many died in the US Black lives matter incidents? How many people die on South Africa incidents each year?

>Spain then acts hard on the region, holds a gun against the head of many businesses located in the Catalonian region

Nobody hold a gun against business but the independentists. They just could move freely around national territory, protecting their assets against radicals.

[mardifoufs]

>More BS. How many people died on that rebellion? How many died in the US Black lives matter incidents? How many people die on South Africa incidents each year?

This is whataboutism, I don't see how those are relevant to the situation in spain

[bigDinosaur]

Part of what you are saying is misleading for the simple reason that Catalonia does not consist solely of Catalans (i.e. an ethnic group as opposed to just anyone living in that region). It is a part of Spain, and thus people from anywhere in Spain can move there. They did not participate in the referendum with the argument that it was illegitimate.

The closest parallel is probably Quebec in Canada, for what it's worth. Highly contentious. One thing I've learnt is that if I want to keep my friends in these places, I don't mention politics.

[mardifoufs]

But Québec would've been independant if the referendum was successful. Even at 50+1, it is now clear that the federal government would've accepted the results even if they didn't explicitly said so back in 1995. So I think there's a huge difference, considering that in Catalonia the referendum was completely ignored

[raverbashing]

> that in Catalonia the referendum was completely ignored

Because it was one-sided and those not agreeing with it didn't accept its legitimacy, hence not showing up to vote

You don't just put a ballot box outside of the provisions of the state and call that a "referendum"

[denton-scratch]

The Spanish state doesn't make any provision at all for secession or independence movements; it's all criminal. They even have a special court for dealing with these matters. Any attempt to campaign for independence puts you beyond the law.

In those circumstances, it's hardly surprising that independence campaigners broke a law.

[kiliancs]

Since Catalans will always be a minority in Spain, what you are saying is "you just don't put a ballot".

[raverbashing]

Scots and Quebeckers referenda were official

[dfxm12]

where is the outcry

There were huge protests at the time, ala https://www.nbcnews.com/video/barcelona-protests-escalate-ov...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41229486

This happened very recently. I still vividly remember the stories on the radio. The artifacts are online & visible if you really cared to look. I'm not quite sure of the point of questions like this.

[the_gipsy]

That story is very one sided.

The truth is that independence is near 50/50 overall, and always less in Barcelona.

Both sides provoke each other, the independence parties also sabotage actual dialogue and continuously create conflict out of thin air.

[LaLaLand122]

If I were in the Spanish government, I would give Catalonia a legal binding referendum. But splitting a country is not something you do in a weekend, we can't have Catalonia splitting with 50% + 1 of the votes just for "+1" to change his mind next week and Catalonia joining again.

So I would give Catalonia a legal binding referendum... with a requirement of at least a 66% vote in favour. For each person that wants to remain, there would be two that don't; and if you are at that point, it's probably better just to let them go. Being a politician, I would surely try to at least round it up to 70%.

They would never get 66% of the vote. If it looks risky, I could send the police in the Looney Tunes ship again... to vote!

And if they refuse my offer... well, it's way easier to argue "I have given them the referendum, they are not taking it". Right now, Catalans have the easy "freedom" argument.

[the_gipsy]

> And if they refuse my offer... well, it's way easier to argue "I have given them the referendum, they are not taking it". Right now, Catalans have the easy "freedom" argument.

This would change nothing. And they would never do a referendum on those terms. The whole thing, politically, is not meant to actually go through.

[LaLaLand122]

I would not be trying to solve the problem forever. I would be trying to effectively control it.

The alternative was to send police to fire rubber bullets, with somebody losing an eye (https://www.spainenglish.com/2019/10/01/eye-rubber-bullet-ca...), against people that wanted to... vote.

Rubber bullets happen to be a weapon invented by the British to use during The Troubles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bullet). But even the British, the inventors, stopped used them. In fact, the Catalan local police were also banned from using them and were shot in Catalonia only because it came from the non-Catalan police (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/catalonia-pr...).

(Not to mention all the other images of police violence).

Being able to say "I have given them the referendum, they are not taking it" vs giving the other party such a great narrative "That's why we want independence. We are more civilized than them. They are aggressive animals." changes something.

[the_gipsy]

Their narrative would just change slightly, to not getting a "real" or "fair" referendum, one that they could win. And they would not be wrong.

Yes, sending the riot police was a very, very bad move in terms of defusing a conflict. Literally all they had to do is let them run their big show, and expectedly declare the result void. At most, prosecute the politicians that unilaterally proclaimed independence in the parliament based on that puppet referendum.

However, the political party in power at the time, Partido Popular, knew that they would win some (right/fascist) votes everywhere else in Spain by exceeding force in Catalonia, in a kind of "scorched earth" move. They historically got almost no votes represented out of Catalonia anyway.

[kspacewalk2]

> vote with over 80% for their indipendence from Spain.

92% with a turnout of 43%. Hardly a resounding win for the independence side. Since the referendum was arguably illegal, a lot of people voted by staying home.

[mzs]

You can't really look at it in isolation and hope to understand, instead you need the context of history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoist_Catalonia