"The thing is people, even in Catalonia don't want independence" - in your opinion perhaps. Many others have a different opinion. But this is something that could easily be settled by ... a vote on independence.
Last election had a majority of votes to parties that didn't proposed independence, that's a hard fact, not an opinion. And as you will soon learn, there is no need to settle that question, it was settled long ago.
Carefully worded answer. To those who might take narag's words at face value, they're probably referring the 2014 referendum where voters were asked "do you want to Catalonia to be a state" and "and if so, do you want it to be independent". The result was 80% of the results were "yes" for both but the turnout was low (40-ish percent).
I don't think that is exactly decisive for either side, but to claim it as a win for the "no" camp is a little bit disingenuous.
If you want to be independent you go and vote. If you do not care you stay home. Such low turnout seems like a win for "no" camp, because people of Catalonia apparently do not care about independence from Spain.
If you want to be independent you go vote. If you do not care, or are afraid of getting hammered by Spanish police you stay home. In that case 43% turnout is pretty impressive.
Only if you think "not caring" means being against independence. I think it means not caring either way, i.e. they're neither in favour of it nor against it.
I think it is reckless to change borders just because few people want to. This is not your standard political issue, it's freaking tearing the country apart.
This is not a few people mucking around on a map for fun. Although for an example of that, see Britain and France carving up the middle east with a ruler last century. This is people voting for their own future, it is vastly different.
Again - read the GP. 2014: 20% No, 40something turnout. Independence has good support, but it is huge decision. Considering the gravity of the issue that's weak.
You have magically inflated 10% "yes/no" plus 5% "no" and saying that means 20% "yes" (which is a stretch) ... and then extrapolated that to a majority somehow? Given the turnout then if we were saying "this is a definitive mandate for independence" then yes that would be a ridiculous statement ... but suggesting the opposite is absolutely preposterous.
I have heard this line of reasoning a lot, also in Dutch politics, but I disagree with it. General elections are too broad to pick any issue and simply state that the votes on the parties that hold a certain position on that issue are representative of the voters' position.
If you want to know about x, hold a referendum on x, not a general election on the whole alphabet.
Because the central government refuses to allow for a real referendum.
But tell me, how do I vote for "yes" independence if, say, I only agree with the political program of the socialist party, not part of the "yes" coalition?
Parliamentary elections are one thing, referendums another.
Because the central government refuses to allow for a real referendum.
This is tiresome. Central government has not the power to refuse or allow a referendum to decide to commit a crime. Exactly the same as police has not the power to declare drugs legal. Please, if you really really want to have a rational conversation, stop parroting politicians' excuses. There are the basics, like "sensible people doesn't riot and attack police for a marginally relevant tax complaint or alledged cultural peculiarity" and if you can understand that this is the foundation, you should consider the possibility that someone is fooling you.
