Spain suppressing Catalan Indyref

[Craig B]

I can understand a people who suffer under opression wanting to free themselves and form their own government, but I just don't see that as the reality when it comes to Catalonia, nor Scotland for that matter. I'm sure there are things that people in Barcelona think Madrid is doing wrong, but I don't believe it's much more than how people in Gothenburg feel about Stockholm, and nobody's talking about an independent Gothia.

Then you must be wrong about Scotland being like an English county, or Catalonia being the same as a Swedish one.

If you want to find something in Sweden similar to present Catalonia, what about Norway 1905?

If you mistakenly compare unlike things, you have no cause to be surprised if you find them to be different. The fact that there was a rebellion in Dublin a century ago can't be dismissed as irrelevant on the grounds that there was no rebellion in Norfolk or Rutland.

I also can't shake the feeling that this is all playing into the hands of a certain Eastern autocrat.

Yes, that trope is familiar to me. It's all a plot to weaken England in the face of the Russkies, or whoever happens to be the current bogeyman. In Ireland in 1916 it was the Germans. In 1798 ... well, no prizes for that one. In 1641, the Pope.

I have tried to argue that a desire for independence is not necessarily a response to outrageous oppression, although Catalonia has indeed suffered that, and Ireland did as well, in the highest degree. But I used the example of a child desiring to leave the parental home. This is a natural development even in happy homes, and it should be accepted and fulfilled. If it is not, then the home will become an unhappy one, whatever it may have been up to that time.

 

[uke2se]

Then you must be wrong about Scotland being like an English county, or Catalonia being the same as a Swedish one.

If you want to find something in Sweden similar to present Catalonia, what about Norway 1905?

If you mistakenly compare unlike things, you have no cause to be surprised if you find them to be different. The fact that there was a rebellion in Dublin a century ago can't be dismissed as irrelevant on the grounds that there was no rebellion in Norfolk or Rutland.

Point taken. I suppose the difference is time and circumstances of the union. Sweden and Norway were united in 1814 as a result of war. Sweden attacked Norway and forced the union. That union was then dissolved more or less peacefully in 1905. I don't think you can compare that to Scotland in the United Kingdom or Catalonia in Spain.

Yes, that trope is familiar to me. It's all a plot to weaken England in the face of the Russkies, or whoever happens to be the current bogeyman. In Ireland in 1916 it was the Germans. In 1798 ... well, no prizes for that one. In 1641, the Pope.

I do think that it's a plot. I think nationalism and separatism all over the West is being helped along by Putin. I see the same thing in Brexit.

I have tried to argue that a desire for independence is not necessarily a response to outrageous oppression, although Catalonia has indeed suffered that, and Ireland did as well, in the highest degree. But I used the example of a child desiring to leave the parental home. This is a natural development even in happy homes, and it should be accepted and fulfilled. If it is not, then the home will become an unhappy one, whatever it may have been up to that time.

But that's not how nation states work, and it never has been. You are arguing that Spain should just allow the largest part of their economy to leave the country. Never going to happen, and the Catalonian government is stupid if it thought it would.

 

[Craig B]

But that's not how nation states work, and it never has been. You are arguing that Spain should just allow the largest part of their economy to leave the country. Never going to happen, and the Catalonian government is stupid if it thought it would.

I see you're switching to a "might is right" argument, and that anyone who thinks any other principle should be applied - e.g. democratic expression of popular will, as was vainly made in Ireland 1918 - is "stupid". Your unabashed innocent imperialism is very refreshing.

 

[Rolfe]

It's a paradox that countries that have already achieved independence are honoured and accepted and their independence days are recognised by foreign diplomats who go along and congratulate them and speak about their achievements in glowing terms.

But if a country which has lost its independence wants to regain it, these same diplomats will excoriate the ambition in the most abusive terms, threaten them with international ostracism and penury, and castigate those who hold the ambition to be normal like the regular guys as evil racist hate-filled Nazis.

 

[uke2se]

I see you're switching to a "might is right" argument, and that anyone who thinks any other principle should be applied - e.g. democratic expression of popular will, as was vainly made in Ireland 1918 - is "stupid". Your unabashed innocent imperialism is very refreshing.

It's not a "might makes right" argument. It's simply reality. I don't think you can argue that Catalonia has a 'right' to be independent of Spain anymore than Spain has a 'right' to keep it. It's all just a matter of political reality.

As for "democratic expression of popular will", I don't believe an illegal referendum in which less than half the population participated is "popular will". I also don't think "popular will" on any given date is necessarily the best thing to do, see Brexit.

 

[uke2se]

It's a paradox that countries that have already achieved independence are honoured and accepted and their independence days are recognised by foreign diplomats who go along and congratulate them and speak about their achievements in glowing terms.

But if a country which has lost its independence wants to regain it, these same diplomats will excoriate the ambition in the most abusive terms, threaten them with international ostracism and penury, and castigate those who hold the ambition to be normal like the regular guys as evil racist hate-filled Nazis.

Scotland is fairly similar to Catalonia in that it never 'lost' its independence as much as naturally merged into a larger union.

 

[Rolfe]

Jeez, you really believe that?

 

[uke2se]

Jeez, you really believe that?

Yes. I read it in history books.

 

[Craig B]

Point taken. I suppose the difference is time and circumstances of the union. Sweden and Norway were united in 1814 as a result of war. Sweden attacked Norway and forced the union. That union was then dissolved more or less peacefully in 1905. I don't think you can compare that to Scotland in the United Kingdom or Catalonia in Spain.

I can't even compare it to the history of Norway, as that country was not independent in 1814.

On January 7, 1814, about to be overrun by Swedish, Russian, and German troops under the command of the elected crown prince of Sweden, Charles John, Frederick VI of Denmark was prepared to cede Norway to the king of Sweden in order to avoid an occupation of Jutland.

... 1905 is the year when Norway regained its independence after the dissolution of the Union between Sweden and Norway. For the first time since 1397 Norway had a national king, after 500 years of political unions with other Scandinavia countries — the Kalmar Union until 1532, then Danish rule in the united kingdom of Denmark-Norway until 1814, and finally a personal union with Sweden until 1905​

Sources: wiki.

Catalonia and Scotland, on the other hand, lost their parliaments at the same time, 1707-1714, both having previously shared a monarch with a more powerful neighbour.

 

[uke2se]

I can't even compare it to the history of Norway, as that country was not independent in 1814.

On January 7, 1814, about to be overrun by Swedish, Russian, and German troops under the command of the elected crown prince of Sweden, Charles John, Frederick VI of Denmark was prepared to cede Norway to the king of Sweden in order to avoid an occupation of Jutland.

... 1905 is the year when Norway regained its independence after the dissolution of the Union between Sweden and Norway. For the first time since 1397 Norway had a national king, after 500 years of political unions with other Scandinavia countries — the Kalmar Union until 1532, then Danish rule in the united kingdom of Denmark-Norway until 1814, and finally a personal union with Sweden until 1905​

Sources: wiki.

Catalonia and Scotland, on the other hand, lost their parliaments at the same time, 1707-1714, both having previously shared a monarch with a more powerful neighbour.

Scotland and Catalonia both have parliaments. I can't recall Catalonia ever being independent. Before the union of Aragon and Castille, Catalonia was a principality within Aragon.

And nice write-up on why Norway isn't comparable.

 

[Craig B]

Scotland and Catalonia both have parliaments. I can't recall Catalonia ever being independent. Before the union of Aragon and Castille, Catalonia was a principality within Aragon.

The modern parliament of Catalonia^WP has interesting historical precedents.

Although the Counts of Barcelona, also Kings of Aragon from 1137, had greatly extended the territory under their control .., The need to secure troops and revenue led to the steady expansion of the royal court and a formalisation of its procedures. It came to be referred to as the Cort General de Catalunya or Corts catalanes(Catalan Courts), and was endowed with formal procedures, effectively a written constitution, by King Peter III of Aragon in 1283, making from this institution the policemaking and legislative body of the Principality of Catalonia ...
it also ... from 1359, established a permanent delegation to oversee the Crown (the Deputation of the General, forerunner of the Generalitat de Catalunya). The Catalan Courts were abolished by the Nueva Planta decrees in 1716 after Catalonia's defeat in the War of the Spanish Succession.​

It is therefore easy to see why that is perceived (not without good reason) by modern Catalans, as a historical experience of independence, followed by its loss.

And nice write-up on why Norway isn't comparable.

Thank you.

 

[uke2se]

The modern parliament of Catalonia^WP has interesting historical precedents.

Although the Counts of Barcelona, also Kings of Aragon from 1137, had greatly extended the territory under their control .., The need to secure troops and revenue led to the steady expansion of the royal court and a formalisation of its procedures. It came to be referred to as the Cort General de Catalunya or Corts catalanes(Catalan Courts), and was endowed with formal procedures, effectively a written constitution, by King Peter III of Aragon in 1283, making from this institution the policemaking and legislative body of the Principality of Catalonia ...
it also ... from 1359, established a permanent delegation to oversee the Crown (the Deputation of the General, forerunner of the Generalitat de Catalunya). The Catalan Courts were abolished by the Nueva Planta decrees in 1716 after Catalonia's defeat in the War of the Spanish Succession.​

It is therefore easy to see why that is perceived (not without good reason) by modern Catalans, as a historical experience of independence, followed by its loss.

I don't think those are very good reasons at all, because Catalonia wasn't independent before that. It was a civil war between princes. It was actually more of an interstate war between the major powers in Europe. Catalonia wasn't defeated. The Habsburgs were.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I don't think those are very good reasons at all, because Catalonia wasn't independent before that. It was a civil war between princes. It was actually more of an interstate war between the major powers in Europe. Catalonia wasn't defeated. The Habsburgs were.

Yeah, this is the folly of trying to discuss political geography in that era. It was less "Catalonia" or "France" as distinct political entities and more "the Iberian holding of the Habsburgs" and "the domain of House Valois and their banners."

ETA: which has no bearing on my being for or against any given independence movement, I should add. What dead people "owned" or what prior people in that geographic spot wanted should make no difference in deciding what to do for the people who live their now (and perhaps even some consideration for those in the future). Dead people do not gain or lose from decisions made today, only those alive today and yet to be born will be impacted.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes. I read it in history books.

"History is written by the winners." Nevertheless there is plenty to be found about what actually happened if you take the trouble.

 

[Rolfe]

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

Slight digression. Would you mind?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306968

 

[Craig B]

I don't think those are very good reasons at all, because Catalonia wasn't independent before that. It was a civil war between princes. It was actually more of an interstate war between the major powers in Europe ... The Habsburgs were [defeated].

Have you forgotten that these same Habsburgs had been rulers of Spain up to that war? Here is a description of their Spanish monarchy

"Spain" or "the Spains" in this period covered the entire peninsula, politically a confederacy comprising several, nominally independent kingdoms in personal union: Aragon, Castile, León, Navarre and, from 1580, Portugal. In some cases, these individual kingdoms themselves were confederations, most notably, the Crown of Aragon (Principality of Catalonia, Kingdom of Aragon, Kingdom of Valencia, and the Kingdom of Majorca).​

Thus, Catalonia was a real existing polity with, as I have indicated, a Parliament and a government, in federation with other states in the Kingdom of Aragon, which itself shared a monarch with Castile.

This political arrangement was called "The Spains", and that is where it differs from the rather similar British arrangement of 1603 to 1707.

On 20 October 1604 King James, who had succeeded separately to the two thrones of England and Scotland, proclaimed himself "King of Great Brittaine, France, and Ireland. When James died in 1625 and the Privy Council of England was drafting the proclamation of the new king, Charles I, a Scottish peer, Thomas Erskine, 1st Earl of Kellie, succeeded in insisting that it use the phrase "King of Great Britain", which James had preferred, rather than King of Scotland and England (or vice versa. While that title was also used by some of James's successors, England and Scotland each remained legally separate countries, each with its own parliament, until 1707 ...​

So the monarchy of England and Scotland, despite James's preference, was not consistently described as "The Britains" but was called by the names of the individual countries, whereas Spain by contrast was described as "The Spains" in that period.

Notice that the "Spains" consisted of polities having the characteristic of "legally separate countries": own Parliament; and that the Principality of Catalonia was one of these.

By general consent the British union is dated from the advent of a Union Parliament on May 1, 1707. By this criterion Catalonia lost its independence at about the same time.

Catalonia wasn't defeated.

[In 1714] there remained the struggle in Catalonia ... those who wished to continue fighting could point to the fact that the Kingdoms of Aragon and Valencia, as well as those in Castile, were subject to a regime that had forced them to change their laws and historic constitutions ... In consequence, Barcelona decided to resist, but there would be no Allied help ... and Bolingbroke made no protest when, in early July 1714 – after a year of guerilla warfare in the region – Berwick returned to Catalonia to formally besiege Barcelona. Antoni de Villarroel put up a stout defence of the city, but with little hope of relief the Catalan capital surrendered on 11 September.​

So Catalonia was defeated and in consequence lost its "laws and historic constitutions", effectively ceasing to be a separate political entity.

 

[Craig B]

Yeah, this is the folly of trying to discuss political geography in that era. It was less "Catalonia" or "France" as distinct political entities and more "the Iberian holding of the Habsburgs" and "the domain of House Valois and their banners."

That is absolute nonsense. It is as if you had absorbed as valid the most absurd pretentions of the most foolish monarchs. "l'état, c'est moi", eh?

The political history of states, of which monarchy is of course a part, but only a part, is a very important influence on modern events.

It's like the joke version of imperial history, when unfortunate schoolchildren were forced to learn and rhyme off lists of "kings and queens of England", and when they could do that, they were esteemed as knowledgeable about "History"

Spain is highly complex and diverse, and so are the Netherlands, and Austria, and Hungary and a myriad other places that have been "holdings of the Habsburgs". To examine their political and constitutional history is not a folly, but an indispensable study, if any understanding is to be achieved.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

"History is written by the winners." Nevertheless there is plenty to be found about what actually happened if you take the trouble.

Unironically quoting Braveheart?

History is written by whoever writes history.

 

[Planigale]

Ah yes, Irish republicans initiated a war on Britain. Poor Britain. Occupied and partitioned**? The final consequence was not the Civil War, but independence. I see the wicked Irish have established a 'Republic' with a 'Border', which is presenting a problem to poor Brexit Britain. More Irish aggression! Send in the Tans!

We do not yet know the final consequence, but the consequence in the near future is likely to be Ireland as a region of an EU state with a common foreign and defence policy*, common citizenship*, a common currency and fiscal policy*, a legal and judicial system with supremacy* over Ireland's court and laws. Less independence than following the war of independence, which as the name suggests resulted in independence, the civil war resulted in the republic.

I can understand that there is an argument that the people of Ireland freely surrendering their independence to be part of a European state is different from being forced to be part of a British commonwealth.

*These are not in themselves bad things.

** Arguably partition was a consequence of the civil war. (Even more arguably for the unionist population of Ireland independence was partition of the British state. Partition like many things can differ depending on your initial viewpoint.)

 

[Planigale]

Not meaning to derail, but a common argument that seems to be made is;
Brexit - the UK puts more into the EU than it gets out.
Catalonia - Catalonia puts more into Spain than it gets out.
Scotland - Scotland puts more into the UK than it gets out.
Italy - Lombardy puts more into italy than it gets out.

I do not disagree with redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer regions. But often these arguments are used by 'socialist' politicians (e.g. SNP) as an argument for increased independence. I never hear them say "we recognise that we are a wealthy region and will continue to transfer some of this wealth to poorer regions" (which is of course an issue with the Brexit negotiations; it would be interesting if e.g. there was a Grexit would the EU be volunteering to continue transferring funds to Greece after it left the EU?) I am morally uncomfortable every time I hear 'Catalonia is wealthier than the rest of Spain', or 'Scotland should keep oil income to itself'. An argument for independence should not rest on being selfish.