Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Galas wrote:
Oh boy, Here come the tanks!
I have friends in Catalunya (Independentists, actually), I wish nothing happens to them, or obviously anybody else.

But this can get ugly.

Just in case I'm going to buy a spanish flag and go and hide inside the Bruc Military Barracks.

Apparently shortly after Catalunya declared independence the government in Madrid passed legislation saying they get full control over Catalunya. So, yeah, fun times about to happen there.

155 IS active.

Lord Kragan wrote:
155 IS active.

Let the hunger games begin.

May the odds ever need in your favour.

Big thrats to Catalonia, and prime minister who now facing 25 year in jail and other for rebellion.

Seizing catalan media. Maybe replacing police.

Potential riot police, even army deployed...
Spain now has a choice. De escalate or well send in the tanks...

EU/US on team Spain.

History has shown us time and time again (Irish independence, pre-American revolution etc etc ) that if you start jailing or shooting people, you make martyrs of them.

Now, obviously, Madrid isn't shooting people and thank God for that, but if they start handing out 25 year jail sentences, it will only increase support for Catalan independence.

High level, round table talks, with the Swiss as a neutral referee, was what was needed here, not brinksmanship from both sides.

Madrid have handled this so badly, I wonder if Rajoy isn't a double agent for Catalan independence.

On the other hand, violence can also work to supress indepencende movements. Just ask the Cheche... oh, right.

Don't take this as an endorsement of such tactics, though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
History has shown us time and time again (Irish independence, pre-American revolution etc etc ) that if you start jailing or shooting people, you make martyrs of them.

Jewish-Roman wars, Vendee Revolt, 8888 Uprising, the 1970s Thai Uprisings, Mohamed Morsi, Syria.

You're only remembering the successes because they stand more prominent in history; there are plenty of revolts suppressed with violence regardless of the martyrdom.

Using violence to suppress a revolution/secession/uprising/revolt is not inherently wrong as long as the force is applied in a controlled manner. What makes violence wrong is the reasoning behind applying it, I think you'll find very few people who would argue that violence applied against the Confederate States of America was "wrong".

 avantgarde wrote:
I think you'll find very few people who would argue that violence applied against the Confederate States of America was "wrong".

Oh, my sweet summer child...

 Spinner wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
I think you'll find very few people who would argue that violence applied against the Confederate States of America was "wrong".

Oh, my sweet summer child...

First that was the 19th century.
Second the moral implications were different, the Catalan parliament is working on a vote backed by a referendum, the legal shakiness of either doesnt entirely undermine the popular vote that proports it.
Third only one side is authorising violent control.

Are the tanks moving, or was that just a figure of speech?

The best the pro-independence movement can do is follow Ghandi's 'peaceful non-cooperation' policy, and organise a sit down protest, if the Spanish government runs roughshod over that it will end up badly for them.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
I think you'll find very few people who would argue that violence applied against the Confederate States of America was "wrong".

Oh, my sweet summer child...

First that was the 19th century.
Second the moral implications were different, the Catalan parliament is working on a vote backed by a referendum, the legal shakiness of either doesnt entirely undermine the popular vote that proports it.
Third only one side is authorising violent control.

Are the tanks moving, or was that just a figure of speech?

The best the pro-independence movement can do is follow Ghandi's 'peaceful non-cooperation' policy, and organise a sit down protest, if the Spanish government runs roughshod over that it will end up badly for them.

Yeah. Peaceful protests and you turn up armed and start beating people up.

Yeah that worked well for UK in India. It never works. UK has been a former colonial power to have experience in it. .

We did smart thing and let them, we gave them the country before we triggered full civil war and before too much blood was spilled.

The problem the Catalan senate has is that no one is recognising the vote in the western world. The US, UK, Germany, France, EU. This causes them problems politically because even if Spain withdrew everything from them (so funds, banking support etc) and let them get on with it then where are they going to get any finance from to support anything? They will become a void state that will only result in the suffering of the people.

The UK cannot because if illegal referendums were legitisised the SNP will hold one, and if needs be another one, and another, until they get what they want.

 Whirlwind wrote:
The problem the Catalan senate has is that no one is recognising the vote in the western world. The US, UK, Germany, France, EU. This causes them problems politically because even if Spain withdrew everything from them (so funds, banking support etc) and let them get on with it then where are they going to get any finance from to support anything? They will become a void state that will only result in the suffering of the people.

Well unless Putin wanna troll the globe to a level of full blown bridge con one.


But he has separatists regions, however, Russia is a little more forceful I'm there keeping them in line.

 Orlanth wrote:

Third only one side is authorising violent control.

In which measure is not-violent? I have read on Italian newspaper that in universities and other public places any independentist opinion was suppressed and intimidated.
Independentist have good PR, a veeery shaky referendum, shallow history rewriting and bleak perspectives.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Third only one side is authorising violent control.

In which measure is not-violent? I have read on Italian newspaper that in universities and other public places any independentist opinion was suppressed and intimidated.
Independentist have good PR, a veeery shaky referendum, shallow history rewriting and bleak perspectives.

I didn't know about intimidation of pro-idependence supporters in universities, but with or without that info the point still stands.
The intimidation is one way.

Belligerent student intimidation is different anyway, I don't blame any segment of the pro-Spanish unity movement for them, students often go off the rails with their activism, and anyone here who is pro-Spain and wants to wash their hands of what student activists do should get a free pass.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Third only one side is authorising violent control.

In which measure is not-violent? I have read on Italian newspaper that in universities and other public places any independentist opinion was suppressed and intimidated.
Independentist have good PR, a veeery shaky referendum, shallow history rewriting and bleak perspectives.

I didn't know about intimidation of pro-idependence supporters in universities, but with or without that info the point still stands.
The intimidation is one way.

He surely meant it the other way. Pro-indy suppressing and intimidating the others.

Elections called for Dec 21st. Puigdemont and his government deposed.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
I think you'll find very few people who would argue that violence applied against the Confederate States of America was "wrong".

Oh, my sweet summer child...

First that was the 19th century.
Second the moral implications were different, the Catalan parliament is working on a vote backed by a referendum, the legal shakiness of either doesnt entirely undermine the popular vote that proports it.
Third only one side is authorising violent control.

Are the tanks moving, or was that just a figure of speech?

The best the pro-independence movement can do is follow Ghandi's 'peaceful non-cooperation' policy, and organise a sit down protest, if the Spanish government runs roughshod over that it will end up badly for them.

If you want a modern example, you'll find few people outside some nutters that would argue the violence applied against the breakaway Islamic State is morally wrong. Not even when it's violence from a regime as nasty as Bashar's.

I have no stake in whether or not the Spanish gov't uses force to bring a wayward region in line. I do think it would be dumb to give the secessionists a body to parade down the streets.

 jhe90 wrote:
Yeah. Peaceful protests and you turn up armed and start beating people up.

Yeah that worked well for UK in India. It never works. UK has been a former colonial power to have experience in it. .

I just listed several examples where governments just killed/imprisoned people until they stopped publicly agitating. Violently suppressing a revolution then reforming afterwards can be a successful suppression tactic. That's literally what the British Empire did in response to the Mutiny of 1857 and they held the Raj for 90 more years. India/Pakistan was several times the size of the UK in population and size, the British were never going to hold the nations in the wake of WW2 once the Indians/Pakistanis organized and stopped actively assisting the British in policing themselves whether or not the Indian independence movement was violent.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
I think you'll find very few people who would argue that violence applied against the Confederate States of America was "wrong".

Oh, my sweet summer child...

First that was the 19th century.
Second the moral implications were different, the Catalan parliament is working on a vote backed by a referendum, the legal shakiness of either doesnt entirely undermine the popular vote that proports it.
Third only one side is authorising violent control.

Are the tanks moving, or was that just a figure of speech?

The best the pro-independence movement can do is follow Ghandi's 'peaceful non-cooperation' policy, and organise a sit down protest, if the Spanish government runs roughshod over that it will end up badly for them.

The popular vote doesn't support the Catalan referendum or parliament.

The problem with the Catalan independists movement is that it broke the law three times:

-They broke the Spanish constitution.
-They did broke the Catalonian Constitution law to approve their modifications to make their referendum "legal"
-They did broke their own referendum laws to make the referendum and declare independence because by their own law they shouldn't have done it.

 Galas wrote:
The problem with the Catalan independists movement is that it broke the law three times:

-They broke the Spanish constitution.
-They did broke the Catalonian Constitution law to approve their modifications to make their referendum "legal"
-They did broke their own referendum laws to make the referendum and declare independence because by their own law they shouldn't have done it.

And the problem for the Spanish Government is that their heavy handed response rendered all of that a moot point. Perception is everything. The Referendum might have been illegal, but all that matters is the images and footage of voters being beaten to a pulp by Police plastered all over the media.

Whose narrative do you think is winning here? The Spanish Government's narrative of an illegal and invalid referendum?

Or the Catalan Separatist's victim narrative?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem with the Catalan independists movement is that it broke the law three times:

-They broke the Spanish constitution.
-They did broke the Catalonian Constitution law to approve their modifications to make their referendum "legal"
-They did broke their own referendum laws to make the referendum and declare independence because by their own law they shouldn't have done it.

And the problem for the Spanish Government is that their heavy handed response rendered all of that a moot point. Perception is everything.

To you sitting comfortably a few hundred miles away maybe.

When people start losing jobs because their companies have upped sticks and left for somewhere else or, worse, get thrown in jail for doing something stupid in the heat of the moment they'll see that perception is extremely relative but the law is still the law.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem with the Catalan independists movement is that it broke the law three times:

-They broke the Spanish constitution.
-They did broke the Catalonian Constitution law to approve their modifications to make their referendum "legal"
-They did broke their own referendum laws to make the referendum and declare independence because by their own law they shouldn't have done it.

And the problem for the Spanish Government is that their heavy handed response rendered all of that a moot point. Perception is everything. The Referendum might have been illegal, but all that matters is the images and footage of voters being beaten to a pulp by Police plastered all over the media.

Whose narrative do you think is winning here? The Spanish Government's narrative of an illegal and invalid referendum?

Or the Catalan Separatist's victim narrative?

There is a point. Media perception is a very powerful tool in anyones arsenal of political and media manipulation.

They do say a image is worth 1000 words. Even if that image is not entirely true.

 Orlanth wrote:

First that was the 19th century.

You seem to think that means something it does not.

 avantgarde wrote:
Jewish-Roman wars, .

I wouldn't call those 'controlled' in... well, any sense of the word. I seem to recall they got pretty brutal toward the end. Same with Watt Tyler's Rebellion, or any number of uprisings and rebellions against the 'British and/or English' crown.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
I think you'll find very few people who would argue that violence applied against the Confederate States of America was "wrong".

Oh, my sweet summer child...

First that was the 19th century.
Second the moral implications were different, the Catalan parliament is working on a vote backed by a referendum, the legal shakiness of either doesnt entirely undermine the popular vote that proports it.
Third only one side is authorising violent control.

Are the tanks moving, or was that just a figure of speech?

The best the pro-independence movement can do is follow Ghandi's 'peaceful non-cooperation' policy, and organise a sit down protest, if the Spanish government runs roughshod over that it will end up badly for them.

The popular vote doesn't support the Catalan referendum or parliament.

Sorry, what popular vote. One faction cannot claim ownership of every registered voter who stays away.
Those who do not vote in an election shouldnt complain if their preferred candidate loses, this is no different.

There was a lot wrong with the referendum, but the right to hold a single binding referendum was constitutionally blocked when freedom through democratic mandate is illegal, the law is at fault not the populace, it's as wrong as apartheid. The answer is to allow a single binding referendum and make sure you win it, from whatever perspective.

jouso wrote:

When people start losing jobs because their companies have upped sticks and left for somewhere else or, worse, get thrown in jail for doing something stupid in the heat of the moment they'll see that perception is extremely relative but the law is still the law.

Historically, when those things happen, the fight just gets nastier. The government moves to executions, and the independents move to terrorism. And no one wins. you assume that every one of them just goes 'Oh, my goodness what a fool I've been!' but that sort of revalatory moment is actually very rare. the man without a job blames the government. the man in prison blames the government. And if and when they get out, they're now 'self radicalized' as the US likes to call it now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I wouldn't call those 'controlled' in... well, any sense of the word. I seem to recall they got pretty brutal toward the end. Same with Watt Tyler's Rebellion, or any number of uprisings and rebellions against the 'British and/or English' crown.

Or anyone else at the time, if you are capable of being even remotely fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem with the Catalan independists movement is that it broke the law three times:

-They broke the Spanish constitution.
-They did broke the Catalonian Constitution law to approve their modifications to make their referendum "legal"
-They did broke their own referendum laws to make the referendum and declare independence because by their own law they shouldn't have done it.

And the problem for the Spanish Government is that their heavy handed response rendered all of that a moot point. Perception is everything.

To you sitting comfortably a few hundred miles away maybe.

When people start losing jobs because their companies have upped sticks and left for somewhere else or, worse, get thrown in jail for doing something stupid in the heat of the moment they'll see that perception is extremely relative but the law is still the law.

I agree that the economic factor is of lesser importance once nationalism is riled up. It will be a case of 'better poorer but free'.

It is not all doom and gloom for the Spanish response though. Rajoy has called elections in Catalonia, in a method smart enough that he likely wasnt behind it according to his recent performance.

The December elections will be recognised by Spain and the EU, yet the Catalans independents have no choice but to ignore them and hold thier own 'national'elections. This gives opportunity for a pro-Spain party to be elected and internationally recognised as representing Catalonia.
To make this work Puigdemont needs to be formally removed, which has happened, but NOT arrested and thus unable to fight the regional election. If he participates, its on Spains terms, is he loses, its a mandate however much the pro independent supporters might ignore it.
The only option is to hold snap general election as free Catalonia on or before that date, and Dec 15th (or earlier) is a tough target date for fair 'national' elections.

Rajoy can still feth this up by arresting or disavowing enough seperatists that the ballot becomes intrinsically unfair. The only way out will be for proxy leaders offering allegiance to Catalonian independence but not formally its leaders. This raises new problems because of conflicting egos. Whoever the seperatists have leading the Dec 16th election would be president of Catalonia (autonomous region), not Puigdemont, and it could all dissolve in a power play.

 Orlanth wrote:
Or anyone else at the time, if you are capable of being even remotely fair.

Charles the Bad of Navarre went your way on that. Charles IV of France managed a similar issue far better, through negotiation. Ferdinand II of Aragon managed to deal with another somewhat better in Catalonia.

You were saying?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

When people start losing jobs because their companies have upped sticks and left for somewhere else or, worse, get thrown in jail for doing something stupid in the heat of the moment they'll see that perception is extremely relative but the law is still the law.

Historically, when those things happen, the fight just gets nastier. The government moves to executions, and the independents move to terrorism. And no one wins. you assume that every one of them just goes 'Oh, my goodness what a fool I've been!' but that sort of revalatory moment is actually very rare. the man without a job blames the government. the man in prison blames the government. And if and when they get out, they're now 'self radicalized' as the US likes to call it now.

Not necessarily. Basques eventually took off their ski masks so did the IRA. Also the terrorism normally predates the move to executions, and a policy of execution isnt certain either. The exception being the policy for the marxist international, which was class rather than race struggle. The idea that the escalation is caused by the state not the seperatists/rebel movement. This works because the socio-political climate itself is thretened and the elite, seeing their incomes at risk, demand increasingly heavy handed reaction. While both the Basques and the IRA both hoped this model would work for them as it did in Africa and Central America, it doesn't apply to a race based conflict.

If Catalonian terrorism kicks off it will be a race rather than class struggle. This means people on both sides for each economic section of the community from the well to do to the underclass.
I cannot see this ending well at all for Catalonian independence movement, the peaceful approach is tactically more sound, even when analysed coldly and with the moral implications ignored for the moment.

 Orlanth wrote:
Not necessarily. Basques too off their ski masks so did the IRA. Also the terrorism normally predates the move to executions.

The IRA stood down after more or less winning so I'm not entirely sure that would count.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Not necessarily. Basques too off their ski masks so did the IRA. Also the terrorism normally predates the move to executions.

The IRA stood down after more or less winning so I'm not entirely sure that would count.

Winning what? Northern Ireland is still part of the UK. Power sharing in Stormont was on the cards anyway, they just prefered rule 100% from Dublin. As for the border poll, once was offered in the 1970's but the nationalists boycotted it because they would lose and it would look bad.

The real clincher though was bribery and release of terrorists from prison, and reclassification of terrorists also. The IRA did gain from Good Friday, but mostly as a seat in government and cash handouts to its leaders and activists, with mirrored handouts to loyalist thugs. All in all it was worth it from the UK perspective, expensive, though less so than army involvement. Though the peace was not seen as anything more than a temporary convenience by more hardcore nationalists until 9/11 taught most Americans that terrorism wasn't a heroic venture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looking up Barcelona has had recent terror attacks, from Islamists, this could ironically help now as there is likely little taste for this type of action, and it clearly isn't policy from either side.