Spain will prevent “digital republic” in Catalonia

Some of the evidence you ask for include the mishandling of public funds, use of personal data for their own benefit, or breaking the laws of their own regional government such that they could pass new laws without the required number of votes (because they only had a very tight majority). Plus disobeying court orders, which is something that I insist can only be accepted in very special circumstances and this is not one of them. I know these are not the most serious crimes in history by any means, that's why they will be on the street early next year.

But what I really hate about this is the image they spread of my country. I do not mind if you sympathize with their movement, or even actively support it, but I mind if you agree with their view of Spain as an authoritarian country just for not letting them to do whatever they want ignoring their own laws and a large portion of Catalan people. I do not mind if they want to fight for independence, even if I find it terribly stupid, but I do not like feeling insulted. And I constantly feel insulted by these people.

It's not for you to decide that. If a majority of people in a region (yes, still to be conclusively shown for Catalonia) wish to have independence and their own self-government then they should have it. Otherwise you are promoting tyranny. You're like the husband who tells his wife that she is wrong for wanting a divorce because he's still happy with the marriage. Actually, the principle of indissoluble marriage has a lot in common with Section 2 of the Preliminary Title in the Spanish Constitution:

> The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation

Both principles of indissoluble unity - both in marriage and in the constitution of a state - are expressions of tyranny.

What is shown in the international media is just the tip of the iceberg. It doesn't show the independentists' feeling of superiority (rather than equality). I have read the pro-independence media, and their reader's comments, in Catalonian, to get an unfiltered view of their thinking, and the difference with what they project internationally is glaring. The Catalonian constitution, approved by their parliament is spite of its illegality, which they plan to adopt in the case of independence, has severe restrictions on press freedom and judiciary independence, far less democratic than the current situation in Catalonia. They brand Spaniards from other regions living and working in Catalonia as "inmigrants"; Catalonians in other regions of Spain are treated there as equals.

Maybe I am too cynical and influenced by realpolitik, but I am afraid that real world politics works mostly according to interests (and power; rules are made according to these) rather than just morals (although these too are a factor when it comes to interests, as Machiavello said it is very important to hold the moral high ground). I find this approach unpleasant, but also think that it allows one to better understand how the world actually works, rather than how it should work (I am powerless to change the world, but at least I can try to understand it).

Democracy is often used by western governments and groups as a very powerful emotional propaganda tool (for the first time AFIK, in the first world war against the kaiser). I remember when Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded in the name of democracy. The real motives were never stated in the open, they never are, what matters is to create a narrative that the masses will buy; it is only possible to understand what happens by taking a global view and considering multiple factors (of course I don't claim that I do really understand, I just mistrust whatever is claimed by the media of both sides and suspect the real motives are often hidden).

Is my view destructive? What if allowing a referendum results in the collapse of Spanish cohesion, very likely. Wouldn't the resulting turmoil be more destructive that the status quo (which I admit is far from ideal, but IMHO the lesser evil)? This is what I mean by absolutes, I believe that one should approach complicated problems globally, rather than by optimizing for just for one local property, even if it's a noble one such as democracy or self-determination. Look at the Arab Spring, there are many lessons here.

I like Bertrand Russell's take on liberalism: a difficult balance between maximizing personal freedom while preserving social cohesion.

I travel a lot, I have lived in different countries. If everybody tried to impose their local languages to foreign people, this would be impossible. Languages are tools for communication, using them as signs of identity is the arrogant part.

By the way, calling Catalan an indigenous language is ridiculous.

I have unfortunate news for you.

People hating larger governmental forces that control them isn't something weirdly unique to Spain or European nations. It is a part of the universal human condition.

If all existing European nations were abolished and merged into a new EU "country", guess what? The "nationalists" would hate the EU instead. This already happens in fact. Why do you think Brexit won? It won because so many people really don't like the EU and the way it works. The entire British population was threatened by its own government with ruination and told anyone who voted Leave was thick and racist, and Leave still won. Imagine how much bigger the result would have been if the government hadn't relied on such aggressive tactics.

Worse still, people who think they aren't "nationalist" would also be filled with hate, but towards imaginary external enemies instead. Go listen to the people who run the EU. Listen to people like Juncker, Verhofstadt and Merkel. They can't stop talking about the EU empire and the threats posed by "China, Russia and the United States". The USA is rather different to China but to the new Europeans, it's just another foreign enemy.

The way to stop people hating on each other is to help them resolve their differences amicably. Lots of votes, lots of tiny nation-states or even city states, and yes lots of borders, ideally of the smartest possible type to ensure they're hardly noticeable. In the end, forcing everyone to comply with one small group's set of preferences will always create big tensions. The solution is thus not fewer countries, but more.