Would it be too much to ask to substantiate even only half of what you have written?
Dictatorship. How and why? I am no fan of the Spanish PM, but he’s no dictator, even if sending the police was, IMHO, stupid and counterproductive .
The vast majority would welcome Catalonia. Why do you say that when all evidence suggests the contrary?
You are forgetting that Spanish unity is one of the principles of their Constitution, a Constitution that was democratically voted and accepted by all Spaniards, including the Catalans. It was voted a while ago, yes; so what? Do laws automatically have an expiration date? The statute against killing people is probably centuries old, this doesn’t mean I can go on a spree and kill people just like that!
Many people love to say that every independence movement was, at some point, “illegal” according to the laws of the country it was trying to break free from. Washington was “illegal” in the eyes of London. Bolivar (the liberator of Gran Colombia, i.e. Venezuela Colombia and Ecuador) was “illegal” in the eyes of Madrid. Etc. What these people fail to realise is that London and Madrid never gave their colonies political freedom. The Catalans live in a democratic country, whose Constitution was democratically approved by all citizens, including those of Catalonia. None of this applies to Washington and Bolivar. That’s a huge, huge, huuuuge difference.
Madrid is between a rock and a hard place. What would you do if you were the Spanish PM? Would you tell the Catalan politicians: “yes, by all means, ignore the Constitution and go ahead? Would you send in the army and come across as an authoritarian bastard?
Like I said, there has been NO debate whatsoever on the actual implications of independence. All very similar to Brexit, with possibly the only difference being that they didn’t have a posh, privately educated and Latin-speaking politician, who claims he cannot support his family on a salary of only £140k, saying they’d have more millions for their health service.
What worries me is that it is far from clear that there is a definite majority in support of independence, unless you want to consider the result of a referendum where you could print the polling card from home and vote in any seat you liked. Even if you are pro-independence, even if you bury your head in the sand and don’t want to ask the difficult questions about what independence means, shouldn’t you at least want to be sure that something as important and potentially irreversible as independence is, in fact, supported by a strong majority of the people? Decisions like these should require a qualified majority. In the UK, you need 2/3 of the votes in the Commons to call an early election. Yet 52% of the votes was enough to declare Brexit. Folly. Utter folly.
There is also much to be said about the limits of direct democracy, and how it lends itself to becoming hostage to demagogues and populists. There is a reason, after all, why the constitutions of many countries explicitly prohibit referendums on international treaties and on tax matters. You disagree? You think it limits the freedom of the people? Then think of what would happen if there were a referendum on: “do you want 1% tax rate?”. Or what would happen in certain parts of the world if there were a referendum to kick out a given minority/ethnic or religious group. Freedom is never absolute – that’s the difference between a liberal democracy and the tyranny of the majority.