This is now gonna get serious....

Illegal referendum.?? That's what the Madrid called it . The Catalan govt have every right to call for a Indy ref..

 

Absolutely. The Spanish government have completely shot themselves in the foot with their handling of the situation, in particular banning a referendum. All they had to do was agree to one being held, but stipulate that a 2/3 majority was needed for secession to become reality. This is a reasonably common condition when changing the status quo in a matter of such magnitude. Therefore, they could have minimised the risk but retained their credibility. To be honest the Catalan government aren't doing themselves any favours either by unilaterally declaring independence off the back of a clearly flawed vote. And now Spain finds itself in a rather large and seemingly unresolvable pickle, which could have been completely avoided.

 

Yes of course things have moved on. Fascist, nationalist, authoritarian or whatever the western governments of the time were loathe to intervene that's for sure. Franco was fighting the spectre of communism in spain wasn't he? (Nationalist argument not mine). But things have moved on, yet spain will suffer again.

 

If you vote for independence then you must be stuck by the terms that follow.

You should have anticipated the likely consequences before you vote.

 

Nail on head MT.

 

They do, I agree. Madrid have made a total mess of how they handled it. But Catalonia also has a responsibility to ensure that any referendum conforms to international norms. Difficult under the circumstances I know, but it certainly seems that this one didn't. Any vote on that scale with a majority of 90% is reasonably doubtful, to say the least.

 

Where does this 66.66% come from?

Did we have that regarding Scotland?

 

No, which was surprising. A lot of people thought we should have had it for the EU referendum. Apparently the reason why we didn't was because it wasn't a legally binding vote. Hmmm.....!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

 

The main question is why is the Madrid govt scared of an Indy Referendum in Catalunya ??

 

None of these referendaaaa tend to be "legally binding".

It does however seem fairer for these seismic plates to move upon the basis of majority.

Not sure why Mario thinks you need two thirds. Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

That is the only point I would change. I'd run the referendum on the same basis as Brexit and only a majority would be needed so 50.1% wins.

 

A number of organisation's have a voting rules that are a mix of simple majorities and super majorities. The super majority can sometimes be as high as 75% and is deemed useful when you need a strong majority to ensure that you can make the change work. I was expecting a super majority to be applied to Brexit. I fail to see how a 52%/48% is a workable majority because the control is with them that didn't vote.

 

I know politicians are generally pretty stupid but Rajoy couldn’t have handled it any worse. Should have let them have a binding referendum that would probably have resulted in a narrow remain vote and moved on. Instead it’s blown out of all proportion. Just daft.

 

Especially as only 37% of the electorate voted meaning you are talking about less than 20% of the population deciding something fairly monumental. Super majority are there for a reason n usually.

 

Those that didn't vote deserve all they get.

Not sure what you mean by a workable majority. If you decide to hold a referendum, you should be stuck with the decision of the 50%+ who voted.

Then there's Parliament. A workable majority is a constantly movable feast, depending upon what the MPs are being asked to vote on. The Tories seem to have bought a workable majority for now. 52/48 is fine by them.

 

On matters as seismic as secession and self determination, I'd personally favour a super majority for the reasons outlined by @tosh in the post below. 50.1% is a questionable majority even with an 80% turnout. That means that only 40% of eligible voters actively voted to change the status quo. Of course, you can argue that it's up to the abstainers to come out and vote, but with matters of national independence, Brexit etc, it's not like you'll get the chance to recast your vote for the other side in four or five years. The result is pretty permanent.

 

I can see the argument but it just doesn't sit right with me. Each vote should be equal. Like you point out when the vote is for something as important as independence then one can't complain about the result if one doesn't bother voting.

 

Not necessarily. I know a few people who didn't vote because they said they didn't know enough to decide and as they thought it was basically an opinion poll and there was no 'I don't know option', they didn't vote. Had they known it was going to be classed as basically legally binding, they said in hindsight they would have voted to remain as it's a big risk and it's pretty much permanent.