Last week the Catalan people (an autonomous community of Spain) voted in their regional parliament to hold a referendum on October 1st concerning their desire to secede from the nation of Spain (despite secession being illegal according to the Spanish constitution).  The autonomous communities of Spain have limited autonomy, and Catalonia is the largest of these, comprising a landmass of 32,000 km² and a population of 7 million.  The Spanish constitution however does not permit secession from the nation of Spain and so the government of Spain is accusing the pro-independence campaigners of trying to destroy the country, and has said that it will pursue all legal means to prevent the vote from taking place.

The population of Spain is 46m, so the Catalan people represent nearly 15% of the population.  Assuming the vote passes and the Catalonians do indeed wish to secede, by what right can anyone justifiably try to prevent this?  Should the Catalan people not have the right to determine their own future?

This question today relates directly to the Catalonian people, but is a question which has been asked by the peoples of many nations which had once been independent but whom subsequently formed a part (willingly or not) of another country, nation or empire:  the Scottish as part of the United Kingdom, the Crimeans as part of the Russian Empire, the Taiwanese as part of the Chinese Republic and so on (and on and on…).  It would seem then that this is a question which arises often, and yet it would seem that there is no ready answer, no set of criteria against which any aspiring autonomous state can be judged:

Population Size?  Is there a specific number of people that are needed to form a self-governing state?  The smallest sovereign country is the Republic of Nauru – an island country in Micronesia – which has a population of less than 11,000 (2011 Census).  If Nauru then can be considered sovereign, why not the 7m people in the Catalan region?

Territory? Does a country need to have a specific territory in order to be claimed?  The boundaries of the Catalan region are not disputed, so in that very real sense they do have a territory; albeit one which is also claimed by Spain.  Yet territory is one thing that humans have readily fought over at every period in history, with some areas continually switching from one country to another.  So perhaps that cannot be used as an empirical criteria.

Language? Does a nation need to employ a language which is its own – distinct and unique from others?  If this is a criteria, then all English-speaking nations should be as one – a giant English-Speaking empire, to be closely followed by a Spanish empire, a French empire etc. In this example not only would many countries have to merge, but many countries would also have to split – India should be separated into the 22 parts – one for each of the official languages (with perhaps a bit left over for the English-Speaking empire).  This too then can be discounted as a valid current criterion.

So, of the possible factors can be attributable to a people or to a nation are there any which are unique?  I would argue that the only factors which can be considered to be unique are:

• The fact that other people recognise someone as belonging to a specific nation/ community
• The fact that the individual themselves consider that they belong to a specific nation/ community

…and even then, individuals may belong to multiple communities at once.

If this is the case, the only criteria for judgement is perception, and thus is subjective.  In the absence then of any empirical measurement, by what right can any one person or body, impose a ‘perception’ onto another person or body?  Surely the opinion of the group or community which considers itself separate must be the deciding factor?  Hence any community which considers itself as separate should in fact be considered as separate and sovereign – the alternative is that a person or body is obliged by another to remain part of a group; and this by any definition of the word is subjugation.

It is conceivable that the 7m Catalan people could avoid such subjugation by electing to renounce their Spanish citizenship; however this would not grant them the status of being a nation, this would only remove their citizenship of Spain.  In addition, since in the world today nationhood is inextricably linked with geography, in the absence of any territory, the Catalonian people could not create the separate state that they seek, they remain subjugated.

Therefore, if they are to secede, in order to become a separate nation, the nation that emerges must have a territory which can be governed: and the Catalonian territory is at present considered by (the rest of) Spain to belong to Spain.  Thence the reason for conflict…  So, perhaps the reason for refusal of independence comes down to no more that the desire to keep (and keep control of) land.

For as long as the only valid criteria for consideration as an independent nation is the subjective approval of other communities, and that the recognition implies that a territory needs to be made available, then it is highly probable that a great many requests for recognition will be refused.  To me, it seems that such refusal is likely to result (eventually) in conflict: India, Ireland, United States of America, Crimea, Nepal etc etc etc.