The shit in Spain falls mainly in the fan

[Zanza]

So what will the central government do? Send the black helicopters to arrest the rebels?

[celedhring]

Intervention has just been approved, although it won't come into effect until tomorrow. We'll see how difficult it is for Madrid to take over the administration. In the long run Madrid wins - it holds all the cards in a long fight - but I really hope it's a short one.

All the same, we'll all lose. It's so pointless.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Nations are not simply built on legitimate grievances, if only because one person's legitimate grievance is another person's trifle. There were many in 1776 who thought, not without reason, that the 13 Colonies were complaining unduly. People who oppose independence movements generally tend to cast such movement as baseless,  no?

The revolution of 1776 would have failed if it was a peaceful political movement, it only succeeded because it was a military one, and we won the war. It didn't have close to enough votes to win in an actual democratic process.

Again, either numbers mean something, or they don't. If we are only deeming legitimate movements which can rely on « overwhelming majorities », then very few movement would ever be legitimate, and a case can be made about the legitimacy of ordinary government. And if support is weak (and I believe it is), a referendum would have shown the weakness of that support. Rather, Madrid did not even want to concede a shred of legitimacy from the beginning of the process. It upped the ante considerably.

I'm super-against any secession movement, but I think if you seek to secede from a country in a peaceful way, it is very important to have an unambiguously strong amount of support. The Catalan movement doesn't even unambiguously have 50% of the voters of Catalonia, lot along some stronger amount, which to my mind would be necessary for a legitimate and proper peaceful democratic process.

Now sure, if they start fighting a war over it 40% of the populace who are really passionate and willing to die over it, with a much smaller number willing to fight against it, and a broad center who wants to stay out of it, then the passionate 40% might win a bloody campaign of rioting and etc against the central government.

[Berkut]

Nations are not simply built on legitimate grievances, if only because one person's legitimate grievance is another person's trifle. There were many in 1776 who thought, not without reason, that the 13 Colonies were complaining unduly. People who oppose independence movements generally tend to cast such movement as baseless,  no?

The revolution of 1776 would have failed if it was a peaceful political movement, it only succeeded because it was a military one, and we won the war. It didn't have close to enough votes to win in an actual democratic process.

More to the point is that there was no democratic process in place to find out, nor would Britain have tolerated the result anyway, at that time.

That is why the comparison to the American war for independence is a apples and oranges comparison.

Why not compare it to something more relevant? Maybe India's efforts for independence (not that those were not without bloodshed as well) or Canada's practical break from being ruled from London?

Again, either numbers mean something, or they don't. If we are only deeming legitimate movements which can rely on « overwhelming majorities », then very few movement would ever be legitimate, and a case can be made about the legitimacy of ordinary government. And if support is weak (and I believe it is), a referendum would have shown the weakness of that support. Rather, Madrid did not even want to concede a shred of legitimacy from the beginning of the process. It upped the ante considerably.

I'm super-against any secession movement, but I think if you seek to secede from a country in a peaceful way, it is very important to have an unambiguously strong amount of support. The Catalan movement doesn't even unambiguously have 50% of the voters of Catalonia, lot along some stronger amount, which to my mind would be necessary for a legitimate and proper peaceful democratic process.

Now sure, if they start fighting a war over it 40% of the populace who are really passionate and willing to die over it, with a much smaller number willing to fight against it, and a broad center who wants to stay out of it, then the passionate 40% might win a bloody campaign of rioting and etc against the central government.

Yeah, that is pretty much how I feel.

Spain is a democratic nation with a established rule of law and reasonable assurances of representation, at least as far as I can tell.

There is zero justification for any kind of violent need to express a political viewpoint that has basically failed to be realized through the essentially democratic political systems already in place.

The separatist failed when trying to use the system in place to achieve their goals, so now they are trying to use violence instead. That is only justified when you can show that the non-violent process was not actually democratic to begin with.

[celedhring]

The US State Department - through Heather Nauert ()  - backs Spain's territorial integrity and supports efforts to guarantee it.

God, never thought it could feel good to have the backing of the Trump administration. 

[Grey Fox]

These fucking racist assholes.

[CountDeMoney]

So when do the Serbs start building the rape camps?

[HVC]

How are the other Spanish speaking countries siding?

[celedhring]

How are the other Spanish speaking countries siding?

Most said they wouldn't back a Catalan UDI, but that was ex ante. We'll see in the coming hours I guess. Spain maintains good relations with most of them and has strong economic links with many Latin American nations, I would be really surprised if anyone recognized the Republic, besides Venezuela.

[Oexmelin]

When did the separatists use violence?

[The Minsky Moment]

So Oex would you agree the Confederacy was justified in seceding, and Lincoln was wrong to use force to defend the union?

[Zoupa]

Lolwut? How do you get there from what he wrote?

[Rex Francorum]

When did the separatists use violence?

I may not get the whole picture, but wasn't it the Spanish government who used violence?

[Barrister]

So Oex would you agree the Confederacy was justified in seceding, and Lincoln was wrong to use force to defend the union?

The US was on fairly dubious ground in using force to keep the South within the union.  There was no referendum, but it seems there was little doubt that there was substantial support for succession.

The only real moral ground for fighting the south was the argument that slavery was immoral (and that the slaves had no voice in whether or not to secede), but that of course was not the ground that Lincoln originally claimed in the war.

[Tonitrus]

The Confederacy was the first to use force.