You blame Pujol, but consider 2 things: 1st, your theory of how “useful” was pujol on the early 80’s is about utility for the state and central gov.; if was not prosecuted by the “banca catalana” issue, was the state’s justice that lacked on act. 2nd: until now, the only thing known about the case is that pujol’s father,a banker, left money for the sons of pujol in a foreigner bank account, being annoyed for the political career of mr. pujol. And did it on a context in which the inestability of spain was big enough as for resulting in a coup d’etat (“23f”) after that. If the military would have succeed, pujol and his family would have needed to go to exile. That money was for that. The only known thing as a fact is what pujol said by himself, while, until now, the only evidences shown by the spanish gov. have become false, as was said by the andorran bank system. After that, a bank of andorra was intervened.
Happened the same with Trias, the major of Barcelona: forged evidences and false accusations of having money on switzerland. Trias obtained a certificate of the whole swiss bank system that he never had funds in that country. Happened the same with president Mas, that was told on the spanish press that had money also on swiss banks, being told in the mid of the elections for the catalan parliament. At the end, was false also. And i could continue.
Is interesting your point about the payment highways: those highways were done by private investors with the permission of the spanish gov., but without public money. The fun fact of this is that, until late 90’s, all the access by highway to Barcelona were payment ones. Do you know why is fun? Because is the central gov. that should make the highways to connect the cities (as the only one with legal power for that), and, if you take off the private investments around barcelona, the result was that the city didn’t had a single wide road to access to it. kafkian, isn’t it? and you blame the catalans for that!
you can blame the shortcomings and poverty of roads, highways, airport or trains on catalonia. There are indeed reasons enough to be enfuriated because of the infraestructures around the city. but the only guilty of those lacks is always the central gov., with exclusive attributions for make the things happen or not happen.
the merely existance of the Ap7 payment highway is because oecd forced spain to connect barcelona and valencia by highway. Of course, spain did it by payment. Any other way would have been extremely surprising. your point seems to be that catalans should make a triple effort for having roads: pay the central gov. to make them by taxes, while they don’t. 2nd, pay then the private companies that make them by buying them, and 3rd, after that, stop getting the income of the tolls. And where from is supposed that catalans could get the money to do that? And why do they need to pay 3 times for the roads that are free (public central gov. budget) in the rest of the state?
With this im not defending mr. pujol, nor this sons, nor the catalan politicians, and of course there’s dirty to be cleaned. But each fault to its guilty one.
Right now there’s only 1 not payment highway to access to barcelona.

Thank you for your comment.

The lack of independence of the judicial system in Spain (cut the crap with the neologist “Spanish State” will you?, it sounds ridiculous in English) is a shame and one of the major flaws of Spanish democracy. It is subject to such a political pressure that undermines the very principle of Justice. I’m glad to see that both Podemos and Ciudadanos have this issue pretty high up in their agendas as it seriously hinders Spain’s ability to move forward.

However, I find your argument a superb example of double moral standard when pointing out WHEN Pujol has been prosecuted rather than focusing on the FACT that Pujol and his family embezzled for decades while talking everyone about ethics from a moral higher ground. You are right in one thing though, do you remember the case Banca Catalana and how he was allowed to walk away untouched? The powers were kind to him back then because he was useful, now he is a nuisance.

Believe me, if Catalonia’s elite was truly different to the rest of Spain’s, and 35 years of nationalist rule had created a more free, equal or even wealthier society, I would support independence so that the rest of Spain has something to aspire to, an example to look up to.

Unfortunately, they share the same nepotistic, antagonistic and merit-adverse view. It has created a regime where the mediocre flourish provided that the worship the “Nacio Catalana” and blame “Madrit” or “Espanya” oops sorry “Estat Espanyol” for all their shortcomings.

My advice? Grow some balls, clean up your house of corruption and stop seeing other peoples of Spain as the enemy. The ones privatising the Catalan NHS, the ones you pay highway tolls to, the ones not paying prescribed drugs to pharmacies or those who sell expired medical equipment to the elderly are not “Spanish”, they are “Catalan”.

Most of what’s noted above also applies to other parts of Spain, the only difference is who the perceived enemy is. Unfortunately many people in Catalonia have bought into the “others” being responsible. I find this lack of self-criticism truly staggering.

Kind regards,

Angel

Is, indeed, a landscape without independence or power sepparation, but the dependence is not from barcelona but from madrid instead.
What about the constitucional court? (that pronounces over legislative questions).

The lack of judial or fiscal prosecution of mr. Pujol was not a fault of the catalan “oasis” but of the spanish state. Is not opinion, is a fact, since all fiscal powers and judicial powers depends only on the central state. And it seems that those powers didn’t moved until Mr. Pujol said that was independentist. Was then, not before, that the state’s machinery began to work. Not against corruption (that is not still probed while the only evidence is the public confession that mr. pujol did by himself) but againts the heretics ideas of this retired old politician.

Thank you for your reply.

I would like to start my reply stating the obvious: Catalonia is part of Spain.

Why is this important? Because all the problems that affect Spanish Democracy, of which you noted just a few, are also applicable to Catalan Democracy. What makes Catalonia different from other parts of Spain is not the immaculate separation of powers or a inquisitive and free press. The “Catalan oasis” was merely an illusion made possible by the tight political control exerted by the Catalan nationalist elite over society and media. The fall of the Godfather Pujol should be a stark reminder that the flaws of Spain’s political system are systemic, widespread and know no regional borders.

On the “political’ as opposed to the “legal” dimension of the Catalan issue, please allow myself to throw your argument back at you. What was President Obama’s response to the popular petition for Texas secession? That’s right, he invoked the “Indestructible union” of “indestructible states” enshrined in the American Constitution. Was he dogging the political debate or just reminding all players what the rules are? Granted, a Constitution can be changed, however, it is not merely a matter of political will as you suggest. It requires a wide social consensus and, above all, a sense of institutional loyalty (or at least respect!) by all involved that is nowhere to be seen among the separatist opinion makers.

David Cameron was not hindered by a written Constitution though so he basically gambled it and won, just. In doing so he has stirred English and Scottish nationalism, which is very likely to eventually break up the United Kingdom. What a master stroke oi?.

Despite the above, or maybe because of it, I would support a new Constitution that allowed independence referendums to be held and the notion of “unbreakable Nation” removed, even it that would make it unique in the world. The only countries ever to allow referendums on independence no longer exist or have seen regions break away (e.g. USSR, Yugoslavia and Ethiopia). Moreover most Western Constitutions clearly state that the state they refer to is indivisible. Spain’s 1978 Carta Magna is not particularly original.

By the way, please please do not compare Ireland in the 1920’s or the Philipines in the 1940’s with today’s Catalonia. Suggesting that Catalonia has some sort of colonial relationship with the rest of Spain is not just falling under the separatist’ language spell, is offensive to those who truly suffered under the boot of Spanish Imperialism or those, like my parents’ families, who migrated to Catalonia to do low-paid jobs for the Catalan elite and now have to hear how they are called “francoist cattle put in trains to dilute us” by a famous separatist.

You described yourself in Twitter once as an American patriot. You defend your country despite its flaws and the fact that it was built on slavery and the genocide of the native population. I assume you do so because but you can see beyond those flaws. The same applies to me, although I find patriotism difficult to swallow, I do think Spain can be improved and will be. I truly believe that there is enough good people living there to make a decent place to live.

I agree that PP has done pretty much nothing to restore the emotional bonds with those who don’t see themselves as Spaniards. I ain’t an easy task though and while I don’t pretend to have a magical solution, breaking Spain up without a profound social and political upheaval is falling from the frying pan into the fire.

Kind Regards,

Angel

Thanks for your comment and for your interest in the website.

What I accept is that a large majority of the Catalan population has expressed its dissatisfaction at the current constitutional arrangement; and that a smaller, but still substantial portion has expressed its belief that the only solution remaining open to them is secession and independence. That’s a big problem, whether you want it to be or not: and simply telling 3 million or so people to “deal with it” is not only poor politics, it is unlikely to succeed. Failing to recognize that the Catalan issue amounts to a constitutional crisis will only lead to a perpetuation of the problem.

I disagree with your interpretation of what the “right to self-determination” constitutes: regional elections are certainly not what the UN has enshrined in its charter. But this is a thorny issue which I’ve addressed elsewhere, so – with respect – I don’t intend to repeat it here.

Spain is a democracy, yes. But firstly, it is (in my judgment) a highly flawed democracy with weak institutions without political independence, high levels of corruption, and an electoral regime that is relatively unrepresentative. Those are not insurmountable problems, and there are countries with far worse political regimes, but there is no important political party in Spain that has made any realistic proposal to correct those faults. Least of all the PP which entirely backs the status quo. Additionally, it is a country which – by necessity at first, but now by choice – refuses to deal with a historical legacy of fascism that still has relevant implications. There are important political and economic institutions that were shaped by Franco and that still operate today. Secondly, so what if Spain is a democracy? Being a democracy doesn’t necessarily stop people from wishing to govern themselves. Very few people would argue that the Irish were obliged to remain part of the United Kingdom simply because the latter was a democracy. Or that Norway was obliged to stay in union with Sweden. Or that the Philippines absolutely had to stay with the US simply because we’re a democracy. I think your view of democracy is overly legalistic. Voting alone does not make a democracy: they vote in North Korea too. The best measure of a functioning democracy is that no one would want to leave it even if given the choice. That’s why Quebec is still in Canada, why Puerto Rico is still in the US, why Gibraltar and Scotland are still in the United Kingdom. Though if the Cameron government doesn’t quickly address the pending issues and promises made to the Scots, they will depart – democracy or not. Let the Catalans vote: if Spanish democracy is all you say it is, then I guarantee you that they will vote to stay. No amount of demagoguery will long sway the common sense of the people. Thirdly, The virtue of a people is not a material consideration; the Catalans don’t need to be white as the driven snow to exercise their rights.

I subscribe to Jefferson: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” I’m not in favor of anarchy or of every tribe with a historic beef setting up its own microstate. On the other hand, Catalonia has the population and wealth to be significantly more than a microstate; and they may have sufficient cause to decide that they wish to reject the compromises of ’78. That’s not for me to decide since I’m neither Spanish or Catalan.

I believe the decision of the current Spanish Administration to neither negotiate with the elected representatives of the Catalans nor provide any alternate avenue for them to address their concerns – in fact, to actively impose obstacles – is what has precipitated this crisis in the first place. It is my opinion that it was rank opportunism on the part of Mariano Rajoy to play to his conservative base no matter the longer-term political cost to regional solidarity; and I think it was stupid. There is some hope that a new government in 2016 might open a more fruitful dialogue which would lead to a revival of those strained fraternal bonds, assuming it is not too late by September. But I honestly doubt it. The electoral math, at this time, seems to be pointing to a PP + Ciudadanos or perhaps a PP + PSOE coalition. Either way, any government dominated by the PP will put paid to the possibilities of reconciliation. So things will continue to fester: that’s my assessment from a purely pragmatic point of view, without bothering with the – in any case highly debatable – rights and wrongs of the matter.

And if you wanted to get into the rights and wrongs of the case, I’d be happy to oblige: I think both sides have substantial arguments and neither is wholly right or wholly wrong.

Very sincerely yours,

Fernando

Best regards,

Genís Vendrell

Kind regards,

Fernando Betancor