Catalonia is outside of the law

So what?

The whole point is that they don't want to be a part of Spain, i.e. Spanish law can go **** itself.

And with regards to international law, well I find it silly if someone thinks "international" law says area x of country y cannot leave y. Sure, countries can refuse to accept the existence of Catalonia as a country, but that won't stop them being independent of Spain, as well as being silly. The "West" loves democracy doesn't it, so if the region wants to do something and does it democratically, suddenly that has no meaning?

This could all have been avoided if Rajoy and Co. had been willing to accept some form of independence referendum - and it's worth pointing out that Catalan public opinion is pretty even split, it would be far from a certainty that the separatists would win a fair referendum.

The US War for Independence is a bad example, somewhat. According to John Adams, only around a third of Colonialists positively supported American independence. It was an undemocratic exercise. The problem with the Catalan referendum, its being outside the law, is that it lacks legitimacy. Not everyone participated and we don't know that the ballots were securely managed. It is important to keep everything legal and in line with the Spanish constitution because that is the only way the Catalans will secure a democratic legitimate independence, without tumult.

Not really. You see, the point of law is that it is an exercise of force. Politics exists within the lawful structures that the state creates. Catalan nationalists might have little regard for the law - but that puts them outside of normal politics in a liberal, democratic state.

Nor are illegal secessionist referendums democratic in any meaningful sense. A democracy does not and cannot exist outside of the structure of accepted rules and laws: without that, it is meaningless. In this case, the law quite clearly ascribes these constitutional issues to a Spanish demos. This, if anything, was a poor parody of democracy, guest-starring some truncheon-happy fools from the Spanish national police forces.

I spotted some CNT flags in the crowds in the news today. If only anarcho-syndicalism were a strong social force again as apposed to just being a fringe of flag wavers. *sigh*

Laws change all the time.

This particular one is rather fascists: "you cannot leave us".

So what?

The whole point is that they don't want to be a part of Spain, i.e. Spanish law can go **** itself.

Basically right, yes.

I feel like if 'it's illegal!' were a sound response to an independence movement we'd have a lot more foreign territories right now.

Yet we have that response to Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, North East England, London movements.

The "it's illegal" only becomes inoperative when we subjectively decide that the movement has merit and is in the right.

The 'it's illegal' response is confused from the beginning. It involves appealing to the particulars of a law in an argument which is essentially about whether that particular source of law should be recognised. This argument is circular. Where the authority of a particular set of rules is disputed, all there is is politics.

I know you're in some way involved in law because I've seen you on the careers forum, but I don't know where you're up to exactly. Have you read Hart?

If Scotland's Parliament acted outside its powers, I am sure you'd opt for the Supreme Court to deal with the issue rather than letting it be decided by political debate. We are ultimately predisposed to orthodoxy, until we are not. The status quo is presumed until it is rebutted, and we only rebut it when we sympathise with the revolution. Winston Smith is a hero; Jihadi John is not.

Apologies, yes, I have read Hart. Do you think he shines light on the Catalan situation?

Yes, through legal means. This is what is called the "rule of law" and is generally considered to be essential in a civilised society. It protects individuals, who are not governed by rules decided on by a whim - or rules that are simply applied differently on the basis of some individual's prejudices.



I'm not really sure what this has to do with fascism, other than that fascism was a form of government. What you seem to object to in this case is a state exercising authority: all states do that within the structure of the rules that are created. Spain is of course a liberal democracy.

In terms of the rule itself, Spanish law does not allow for unilateral secession of its subdivisions. Neither do many countries (indeed, I can only think of a small number of examples where that is possible) - and only within pre-established conditions. The United States of course and many countries besides have fought large-scale civil conflicts on this principle.

As I've said, I can completely understand why most countries do not provide their own break-up: a state that allows such a free-for-all will not long endure and in all reality, power will be entirely concentrated in whichever unit it grants these rights to. The state itself would become completely impotent.

Yet we have that response to Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, North East England, London movements.

The "it's illegal" only becomes inoperative when we subjectively decide that the movement has merit and is in the right.

No, I think he shines light on the conceptual question involved here, which as put variously in this thread comes down to whether the Spanish law settles the matter of whether Spanish law ought to be followed.

Of course if Scotland's Parliament acted outside of its powers I would have the UK Supreme Court rule upon it, and that would settle the matter within the UK legal system. If, however, Scotland sought to repudiate the UK legal system, clearly the UK Supreme Court's ruling would not settle the matter. It would derive its power from, and operate within, a system of laws which is being denied in the first place.

If your argument is that Catalonia ought to follow Spanish law, for whatever reason you think that is the case, that is a different matter. You are then making a non-circular argument, independent of the content of Spanish law, in favour of Catalonia recognising and being a part of that legal system.

To state straightforwardly, however, as I've seen done many times now, that the Catalan referendum and Catalonian independence is 'illegal', as though that is determinative of the issue, imho reveals a very simplistic analysis of the situation. If your argument against Catalan independence is simply 'it's illegal under Spanish law', OP's response of 'so what?' is pretty hard to meet.

There is a very clear distinction between views on Spanish unity and Catalan nationalism on one hand, and breaking the law of Spain on the other. You mention Scotland - the Scottish nationalists, to their credit, have used legal means to advance their position - even though, in general, I think their politics are utterly backward.

The wider point however is this: if someone breaks the law, they go to jail. Someone thinking that the law shouldn't apply to them does not mean it doesn't. All of these things are equally true whether you are the Premier of Catalonia or a knocking-shop proprietor in downtown Madrid.

I can imagine what would happen if, say, the people of Bradford decided to hold a unilateral referendum in which the majority voted to become an independent Islamic State with Sharia Law.

The wider point however is this: if someone breaks the law, they go to jail. Someone thinking that the law shouldn't apply to them does not mean it doesn't. All of these things are equally true whether you are the Premier of Catalonia or a knocking-shop proprietor in downtown Madrid.

If the law says that they can't (because they're worried about the result) then that is undemocratic basically by definition.

Saying "but it's the law" isn't a get-out clause. Pro-democracy campaigners act against the law all the time, in countries where democratic rights are not respected.

This is why I support what Russia did in Crimmea. If a country wants independence. Or to split off they should get it.

On one hand, I think the Catalonians should be allowed a legitimate referendum if they want one, but on the otherhand, at the same time, I cannot think of a good reason why each individual should not be allowed to declare their house an independent nation.