Catalonia

[Bean]

Because the people no longer want it, or she thinks she might lose?

Either way what should be the correct process then?

Regional government camping locally until there is enough support, regional government asks permission from national government who says yes or no.

If yes there is a vote, if no there is not.

Hang on that sounds familiar until the last bit

So even if you only read the summary at the top, it goes along the lines of there being no public support for it (Indy#2).

Since we've proved by the numbers that 57% of Catalan registered voters voted, there was public support.

[northernladyuk]

Because the people no longer want it, or she thinks she might lose?

Either way what should be the correct process then?

Regional government camping locally until there is enough support, regional government asks permission from national government who says yes or no.

If yes there is a vote, if no there is not.

Hang on that sounds familiar until the last bit

The Scottish example just demonstrates how the UK has managed this well.

[NotAllThere]

Where do you get 99% from? Wiki is currently showing 91.96%. So were the police attacking people in case they were going to vote Yes? Hard to see how voting No is attempting to change the constitution. Surely it is the opposite?

Right, because 99% as opposed to 90% negates the whole argument. The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Have a second go. Ask a Spanish judge. In any case that's moot, given that the organisers are claiming 90% voting yes.

So there you have it . 90% of those who voted could be charged with attempting to change the constitution unconstitutionally (if it is indeed a crime to try to change the constitution unconstitutionally, and that is what they appear to be doing). The other 10% - depending on the exact way Spanish law works - could perhaps be charged with something like being accessories before the fact.

It really isn't terribly hard to see how the people who voted could be breaking the law. It might be unjust, badly handled, brutal, even undemocratic (which seems to me "things not being done as I'd like them" nowadays). But that's a different argument.

I wonder what would happen if the British people decided to hold a general election without parliamentary approval?

[SimonMac]

So even if you only read the summary at the top, it goes along the lines of there being no public support for it (Indy#2).

Since we've proved by the numbers that 57% of Catalan registered voters voted, there was public support.

Again, never said there wasn't support, I have said the opposite in fact

A minority of the public wanted it to happen.

I have questioned the validity of the referendum

[SueEllen]

Right, because 99% as opposed to 90% negates the whole argument. The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Have a second go. Ask a Spanish judge. In any case that's moot, given that the organisers are claiming 90% voting yes.

So there you have it . 90% of those who voted could be charged with attempting to change the constitution unconstitutionally (if it is indeed a crime to try to change the constitution unconstitutionally, and that is what they appear to be doing). The other 10% - depending on the exact way Spanish law works - could perhaps be charged with something like being accessories before the fact.

It really isn't terribly hard to see how the people who voted could be breaking the law. It might be unjust, badly handled, brutal, even undemocratic (which seems to me "things not being done as I'd like them" nowadays). But that's a different argument.

I wonder what would happen if the British people decided to hold a general election without parliamentary approval?

We wouldn't though.

Though there is nothing stopping us getting rid of parliament.

[SimonMac]

It is in no way easy. But new states do from time to time successfully secede against the will of the country they are leaving.

And the majority* only do so by war and vast bloodshed (see Former Yugoslavia/Eritrea and the whole debacle that is the USSR/Russia in the context of Crimea)






*careful to use that word as minority/majority confuse a few people on here

[Bean]

Again, never said there wasn't support, I have said the opposite in fact

Yes, you quite clearly did. Which was then disproven

otherwise why would you say;

Ok, re-reading your post, you are correct 57% people voted so that proves there was support of the vote

Unless you were disagreeing with the notion of public support for the vote to which I was stating (in response to your 'minority' quip ).
Enough now.

I have questioned the validity of the referendum

With badly chosen analogies, which themselves have been explained to you.

This ref had both regional government & public support

Indy#2 has neither (as a result of no public support)

IF there was public support (for instance, say an increase in SNP SMPs at the next election), THEN the regional gov (Sturgeon & the green) would hold a vote in the Regional assembly and then would ask Westminister, who would have to allow it, for fear of being branded masters etc.

The Spanish gov have said no, given the likely outcome goes against what they want and thus it would ever be - so how or what channel the Catalans should go down 'officially' is a great question, as there appears to be no legal channel available to them!

[northernladyuk]

Right, because 99% as opposed to 90% negates the whole argument. The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Have a second go. Ask a Spanish judge. In any case that's moot, given that the organisers are claiming 90% voting yes.

So there you have it . 90% of those who voted could be charged with attempting to change the constitution unconstitutionally (if it is indeed a crime to try to change the constitution unconstitutionally, and that is what they appear to be doing). The other 10% - depending on the exact way Spanish law works - could perhaps be charged with something like being accessories before the fact.

It really isn't terribly hard to see how the people who voted could be breaking the law. It might be unjust, badly handled, brutal, even undemocratic (which seems to me "things not being done as I'd like them" nowadays). But that's a different argument.

I wonder what would happen if the British people decided to hold a general election without parliamentary approval?

Why did you invent the 99% figure it it is irrelevant? Nothing you say suggests that it was illegal to queue up with the intent of casting a vote one way or another.

[Bean]

And the majority* only do so by war and vast bloodshed (see Former Yugoslavia/Eritrea and the whole debacle that is the USSR/Russia in the context of Crimea)






*careful to use that word as minority/majority confuse a few people on here

yes - you

[SimonMac]

Yes, you quite clearly did. Which was then disproven

otherwise why would you say;

Unless you were disagreeing with the notion of public support for the vote to which I was stating (in response to your 'minority' quip ).
Enough now.

I was agreeing with you, not saying I was wrong, it is possible to agree with certain points of your argument and still think on the whole you are wrong.

With badly chosen analogies, which themselves have been explained to you.

This ref had both regional government & public support

Indy#2 has neither (as a result of no public support)

IF there was public support (for instance, say an increase in SNP SMPs at the next election), THEN the regional gov (Sturgeon & the green) would hold a vote in the Regional assembly and then would ask Westminister, who would have to allow it, for fear of being branded masters etc.

The Spanish gov have said no, given the likely outcome goes against what they want and thus it would ever be - so how or what channel the Catalans should go down 'officially' is a great question, as there appears to be no legal channel available to them!

Which is the crux of my argument, the government said no, people ignored that and things escalated to a situation where we can both agree that everyone loses.

The Catalans only option is to try and gather enough NATIONAL support to affect change to a NATIONAL constitution (which they agreed to in 1978), which I would assume they know they cannot do so it seems they are tulip outta luck.