Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

Post Catalonia and Scotland Referenda Compared
Created by John Eipper on 10/12/17 8:18 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:


Catalonia and Scotland Referenda Compared (José Ignacio Soler, Venezuela, 10/12/17 8:18 am)

I confess I was a little surprised by John E's questions. When commenting on Ángel Viñas's post of 11 October, John first asked, "Would the Venice Commission have sent observers to the Catalonia Referendum... if Catalonia had asked?" He followed this up with, "Why wasn't Catalonia granted the same privilege Scotland received when it voted on independence?"

John further wrote, "to answer that the 'constitution disallows it' is not fully satisfactory," and finally, "Catalonia's separatists argue that the constitution is unfair, and was written by Francoist holdovers to serve their own interests."

I was surprised because in several previous posts, I fully addressed these questions. If I remember correctly, several other participants in WAIS did so as well. But let me try again to clarify my points and first address a more immediate and basic question.

The October 1st referendum result in Catalonia, besides not being a legal referendum, did not comply with basic standards of any kind. It is therefore not possible to claim legitimacy or credibility. There are other more technical reasons to reach this conclusion, despite what the Catalonian Generalitat, or WAISer Jordi Molins for that matter, argue to the contrary.

But suppose--just suppose!--the Referendum result was legitimate.  I then ask, is it reasonable to claim that 36% of population is a valid measure to justify independence? I believe that such a massive social transition, the separation of a society, with its economic, political, legal, and social impacts, should be decided by a great majority of the population, not a minority voicing its opinion, perhaps or most probably against the will of the majority.

Regrettably, yesterday the Catalonian Generalitat, in an absurd and ridiculous ceremony based on this assumption, declared independence but also its immediate suspension--yes but no at the same time! The declaration reminded me of the Mexican comedian Cantinflas, who is perhaps not so well known by many non-Spanish-speaking WAISers but famous for his frequently absurd, contradictory and ambiguous speaking style.

Well, let me now try to answer JE's questions, regarding the Venice Commission, which for those unfamiliar with it is the EU entity in charge of solving legal matters regarding internal constitutional affairs. This body already stated, in response to a specific consultation from the Generalitat, that the Referendum could not be held in conflict with constitutional law. For this reason it would have been very difficult, and most likely impossible, for them to send or authorize observers.

I am not a lawyer, but regarding the question as to why Catalonia was not granted the same privileges as Scotland--well, it is already clear.  It would have been against the constitution to grant such privileges.  This is not the case for British law, which I presume does not explicitly have anything against such procedures if it is agreed to among the British regions.

But suppose again--just suppose!--that permission had been granted by the Spanish government. In that case, unfortunately they too would have been acting against the law, and being accomplices, they would immediately be legally accountable and most likely accused of prevarication, which would have been unacceptable and politically suicidal.

Finally, it is true that Catalonian separatists argue that the Spanish Constitution is Francoist, but they should remember that this same constitution was approved by 90% of the Catalonian population in a legal--this time it was!--referendum. Catalonia by the way gave it the largest approval percentage of all the Spanish regions. Therefore the "Francoist constitution" argument is just one more of the hackneyed and oft-repeated historical manipulations of the independentistas.

JE comments:  I fully understand the legal argument, but it still is not--sorry!--fully satisfactory.  One could counter the "it's the law" interpretation with many Godwinesque case precedents, such as Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson in their day, or Citizens United at present.  Is the right (the legal) always the good

I'm neutral on Catalonian independence, and there are solid points on both sides.  But it's problematic to argue that the Referendum results were wrong on procedural grounds, when the vote itself never had the chance to operate otherwise--read, legitimately with observers and universal participation.  There can only be one result from this:  intransigence on both sides.

Next, Ángel Viñas seconds José Ignacio Soler's view--or thirds it, if we include José Manuel de Prada.

Rate this post
Informational value 
Reader Ratings (0)
Informational value0%

Visits: 110


Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

Trending Now

All Forums with Published Content (40464 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications


Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy


Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series


Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust


Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire


Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 Violence War War Crimes Within the US


Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)


Geography Maps Tourism Transportation


1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who