Heightened tensions on the rock of Gibraltar

If Spain hadn't joined the European Union if 1986, we could have had a slower but more harmonious economic development - more industry and less unemployment. Also, we could have eventually joined other international powers and blocs, and not NATO, in order to defend our sovereignty and the sacred integrity of international law and treaties. Something rather imposible under the umbrella of the Pax Americana.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid, Spain

The territorial waters dispute needs to be settled once and for all. Britain and Spain should agree to take the issue to the European Court, or the squabbling will continue to the detriment of all concerned.
Max Tammbeck - London

Spain is being colonised by the European Union and all the cohesion funds transferred have been a way of duping and bribing the Spanish government and ruling elites. We are among the best developed economies in spite of our very high human development index, but we have quite a sizeble landmass for European scales and the best agriculture of Europe.
Annexing Spain was an move intended to reinforce the long term military security of the west without giving us, as a nation, a proper place. In other words, the issue of Gibraltar proves that we have been - at least for now and with the collussion of our own piggy bourgeois class - brought to a condition of being defenceless and powerless acceptance of how the UK, as a major partner in the Pax Americana, can override international law and disregard treaties and United Nations resolutions as well.
There is no European court, therfore, that will candidly look into this matter without factoring this in before the facts of the litigants. Only a true world court of law and justice could provide a neutral and final verdict. Such a court would include Russians, Chinese, Indians, representatives from small nations etc. Not just from our fake friends in Europe. Certainly not from the court of law that only find criminals of wars among those defeated and never among the ranks of the winners of the Second World War.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid, Spain

Daniel, we didn't see you complaining while the EU was funding just about every public project in Spain and didn't ask you to make cuts.
Brian - UK

Its time for the EU to put this to an end. Spain needs to get with the 21st century and accept time has passed since 1713 and that Treaty of Utrecht is superseded by new modern laws. The EU needs to give Gibraltar and its people the necessary support to, at a minimum, stop Spain committing unnecessary hardship on Gibraltarians and Spaniards crossing the border into Gibraltar.
And, more long term, to allow the people of Gibraltar to decide what they want to do in the future. Whether it be to maintain ties with Britain, gain independence or whatever they so chose. It their 21st century human right to chose their destiny, not Spain's 18th century baseless claim.
John - UK

Daniel A. Jaimen - the Russians have lost almost all of their illegal occupied territories, in addition to invading Georgia and stealing part of that country. The Chinese have a claim to Taiwan, and they too are using their mighty power against a little country by invading and trespassing in Taiwanese waters illegally.
India claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, so surely you would love to see these empire states sitting in the jury against little British Gibraltar. Its time to wake up to reality. And you are right, today Spain has become a financial colony of the ECB because of your countries' carelessness and bad admiration.
Spain still need to learn how to run a sustainable and successful economy, to be accepted with the big boys. So stop blaming the good guys for your poor judgment and the misbehaviour of your country. It does not hurt to be nice to the good people of Gibraltar.
Robin - USA

John, I agree with most of what you say but my goodness, please, no, not another referendum. Gibraltarians have said 'no', overwhelmingly, twice. Even the Irish didn't have the stomach for a third referendum.
Our new Europe is a picture of democracy, if the answer is 'no' they ask again and again, and again, and again, and again. Until the awkward ones forget what the question was. We said 'no'. How many more times do we have to say 'no'? We are not Spanish and have no desire to be.
We understand that it must come as a great shock to proud Spaniards, unable to comprehend why these people who live on the Rock refuse to go back to the mother country. Well, that is probably because we are not Spanish. It is very touching that they want us so badly, we like them too but we are not Spanish.
By the way, have you noticed how the vast majority of EU countries have been either fascist or under totalitarian regimes in the past 100 years? This is probably the root cause for their inability to understand how it could be that 30,000 people dare to say 'no'.
Cal pecan - Gibraltar, UK

John Spain's claim is not baseless as you assert. It is pure obfuscation to insist, as the UK does, that Gibraltarians have a right under the principle of self-determination to remain British and still live in Gibraltar. Under international law, there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves where a pre-colonial claim of sovereignty exists.
This is the case with Gibraltar which is listed by the United Nations as a territory that needs to be decolonised by the UK. A coloniser cannot legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another state by implanting its own population unto the territory it is colonising. In cases such as these, the inhabitants of the territory have a right to have their 'interests' considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in.
The UN has confirmed that the principle of territorial integrity complements and constrains the right to self-determination - see for example: Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960). 'Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.'.
The UN has repeatedly invited the UK to participate in discussions to achieve the de-colonisation of Gibraltar. Unfortunately, the UK continues to rely on a discredited interpretation of the principle of self-determination to turn a deaf ear to those requests in a clearly self-serving way.
Frank Martin - Australia

Spain should never be in NATO without a solution for the problem of Gibraltar. Without the sovereignty of Gibraltar we can not be an allied of UK, because Britain is a potencial militar enemy, We need to be allied with Hispanic countries from America, and others as Russia.
Mainake - Malaga, Spain

We should just close the border. Not only will that precipitate a solution in our favour but it will, as well, show how Gibraltar is part of Spain since without access to it - it will just die off. Too bad they scream when cornered and that the British are using them as human shields, a rather cowardly tactic we have seen used by the unprincipled and spineless.
To travel a country you do not hold citizenship of and despise at the very least by not cooperating with their judiciary is not a human right. They have no right to self-determination, they are not 'a people' but an encroachment by elements making a living and a killing outside the international law and in defiance of the article X of the pertinent Treaty of Utrecht.
Nothing justifies that the winners of the Second World War mock the law. The economic ties to the EU and the military ties to NATO don't do it either. It is totally unacceptable, both logically and morally, that the treaty is invoked when it suits their interests and ignored - or claimed to be outdated - when it doesn't. The English have grossly violated the terms of the treaty from the very beginning and, therefore, the only remedy is to surrender the town back.
And, by the way, there is no worse fascism than British social fascism, repression, discrimination, racism, social malnutrition etc. They do not chose to be British because they are afforded a better society to live in, but because they see their position as a profitable parasitism from Spain and British welfare.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid

The day Spain starts to discuss the return of Ceuta., Melilla, islas Chafarinas, Alhucemas, isla Prejil and the Canary Islands - back to Morocco - then we in Gibraltar will have a big problem. Until then, Rule Britannia. The Gibraltarians are not a transplanted population like that of Australia. Not all the Spanish Gibraltarians left Gibraltar in 1704.
The descendants of these are still here and I can assure you, they have no intention of being Spanish again. They are now fully-fledged British citizens.
Tito Vallejo - Gibraltar

There is no territorial dispute regarding Spanish possessions in Africa. We were there before the Kingdom of Morocco began its timid formation. Of course, there is no logical connection between Gibraltar and them. Do not change the subject because you have nothing sound to say in support of your illegal occupation of Gibraltar. You are squatters. The fact that a few renegade Spaniards found a comfy position with the invaders doesn't change things one bit.
You can be British if that soothes your inferiority complex, but the issue is legitimate possession of the land. The day we close the fence, you can go and live anywhere else with your people.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid

Daniel, your government is doing down here to shroud the big problems Spain is going through. Wake up, open your eyes and look around you, your country is starting to crumble. Yes we sit on the fence and watch at the greatness that Spain is offering us.
Let us look at the places Spain had once upon a time, Most of South America, the Philippines, Mexico, Cuba, parts of North America, Spanish Sahara and parts of Europe. Look at the majority of these places today. How are they doing?
Revolutions galore, dictatorships three a penny, killings and the governing class bleeding the workers. Shall I continue? This is the legacy inherited from the Spanish occupations. This is the track record Spain wants to offer Gibraltar.
Shall we look at those places once belonging to the British Crown? I think I had better not, enough said. I wish you luck Daniel in your venture and remember that when you have another conflict in your country, our door will always be open to save you as we have always done.
Tito Vallejo - Gibraltar

D.A.Jaimen - Morocco was formed by King Idris the 1st in 788. Are you saying that Spain claimed Ceuta and Melilla before it existed? That's rich.
Ken - Gibraltar, UK

Daniel A Jaimen - whereas we are all human and bound to make mistakes, A mark of intelligence is not repeating the mistakes. On the other hand, a popular and accepted definition is the repetition of the same actions in the belief that a different outcome will result.
Need I say any more? However, for those who are not steeped in the Spanish collective obsession with my tiny but very worthwhile country I will explain that there have been numerous sieges of Gibraltar.
Closing borders does not work with Gibraltar and the reason is that we have a fortress mentality when threatened. What many Spaniards do not understand is that we do not hate them. In fact, Gibraltarians have Spanish family but the reverse is not true; most Spaniards do not have the benefit of Gibraltarian relations.
How could they when there are only 30,000 Gibraltarians and more than 54 million Spaniards? Still, feel free to close the frontier if the EU will let you - turn off the water and electricity, which you are told you supply us with, and see if it matters a jot to us.
The sad thing is that the situation Gibraltar finds itself in brings shame to the EU, Spain and the UK too. In this day and age, when we are encouraged to think that we live in a free society - Spain bullies 30,000 people because they were born in Gibraltar. The great European Union caves in to Spain's demands and the UK stands by and monitors the situation.
Calpean - Gibraltar, UK

For Tito Vallejo: Even if what you said regarding my government's circumstantial motivations to address the issue of Gibraltar now, it wouldn't change a bit whatever rights Spain has under treaty and law. So, again, irrelevant. Spain has left the highest record of all empires. Only after the independence of our former colonies, these have experienced their terrible decline.
In Spain, people live a lot better than they do in England and our former colonies stand out over former colonies of yours such as Nigeria or Pakistan. But again, nothing to do with the gross violation of treaty and law by the British.
For Ken Whatever. Mr. Whatever: The land where today sits Morocco has been inhabited by various peoples and divided in countless fiefdoms.
The only historical and, most importantly, legal continuity between Morocco as we know it today is with the Alaui dinasty dating back to the XVII century, a time when the Spaniards and Portuguese were settled all over North Africa already.
The obvious difference is that while we never had to sign any treaty with Morocco regarding our presence in North Africa, you had to sign one with us. And, of course, shame on you, only to engage in a string of violations from day one all the way to the XX and XXI century.
For Calpe. We do not bully you but we do not have to tolerate that the so-called judiciary of Gibraltar doesn't cooperate with ours like the rest of the world does to begin with. If the illegal occupation is offensive, the criminal behavior of Gibraltarian enterprises and others that find shelter there is outrageous.
The reason why there are territorial limits to the principle of self determination is to prevent military encroachment from committing a fraud of law by invoking it. In other words, the very fact that your people scream when closing the gate is proposed shows that you have no entity, besides having no identity, to act as if you were a nation or anything of the sort.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid

Jaimen - we have violated the treaty? Hello. Spain signed the treaty giving Gibraltar in perpetuity; that means forever and then seiged us around 14 times to recover it back. Is that not breaking the treaty? Or is that different because Spain is different? And the only reason Spain does not cooperate with us judicially or any other way is because that would mean recognising Gibraltar as a separate entity to UK.
As far as Spain is concerned, they will only deal with UK for any matters relating to Gib. That shows how concerned Spain are about fighting crime. And I resent the insinuation that Gib is a criminal paradise, considering the amount of drugs that enter Spain via Algeciras port - and the recent history of corruption with many town mayors coming recently to light.
Ken - Gibraltar, UK

Jaimen - by the way, we will never be Spanish. Get over it.
Ken - Gibraltar, UK

Ken, The treaty was violated from day one. First of all, it was part of a general peace treaty but the British continued with their relentless attacks on Spanish soil. Contrary to what was stipulated, the British allowed for the settlement in Gibraltar of specific nationalities hostiles to us for a long time.
Additionally, the British beseeched us to let them for humanitarian reasons to let them use part of the uninhabited istmus to place the corpses and the sick from a pest outbreak only to, shamefully later on, occupy formally that land cession. The British seized additional land to build the airport during the Spanish Civil war. Therefore, the only legal remedy is to surrender back Gibraltar to us.
Since you don't seem to be willing to do that in good terms, you should expect us to eventually enact whatever coercive measures to effectively reassert our jurisdiction as established by the article X of the pertinent treaty that reads - no jurisdiction and no communication by land.
I recommend you read it, as well as history of North Africa, before coming back here or to any other venue with flimsy allegations. Gibraltar is very easy to take without firing a single shot and it hasn´t been done yet because of a web of interests beyond the grasp of the average dude.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid

The status of the territory between the North Front of The Rock and La Linea was settled militarily and diplomatically more than 200 years ago. Let's not have any more arguments about this topic, read the truth about what happened and let's stop spreading more lies.
In 1713, at the time of the cession of Gibraltar in perpetuity to the British Crown, various fortifications were established and occupied by British troops in the area which came to be known as 'the British Neutral Ground'. This was the area to the North of Gibraltar, militarily conquered and continuously occupied by the British except, during time of war.
After the Spanish attack (In breach of Spain's written promise in the treaty of Utrecht) in 1727 was repulsed by the British, the treaty of Seville (1729) was the scene of long arguments between the Government of Spain and the United Kingdom as to how far north the 'undoubted right' of Britain extended from the North Face of the Rock and it was finally accepted that a distance of 600 Toises, being more than two cannon shots distance between the British guns and the Spanish guns, would be considered 'the neutral gound', and so it continued thereafter. Paolo Narvaez Guarnieri defines a Toise as a unit equivalent to length of two arms. Equal to 1.949 meters.
After the 14th seige ended in 1783, the British resumed the occupation of the British half of the neutral ground, and at least since 1838, when permenant sentries were posted along the line of the then existing frontier, the entire area has been exclusivly occupied and administered by the Gibraltar authorities.
In 1908 the British constructed a fence along 'the British edge of the neutral territory at Gibraltar' (actually, to avoid offending Spain it was put one metre inside the British territory) and, for reasons of courtesy, gave notice to the government of Spain before doing so.
During the construction of the border fence, the governor of Algeciras was instructed to complain that it was being built 'one or two metres in advance' of the British line, and he explained in his letter to the Governor of Gibraltar 'I should not have called your excellency's attention were it not that such construction has gone beyond the line of British sentries'.
As has often been the case, statements made by the Spanish government are less than accurate and cannot be relied upon. The British foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey had the matter looked into and in 1909 wrote to the Spanish ambassador in London to draw to his attention and request that he inform his government in Madrid that 'It is perfectly clear that the fence will be entirely upon British territory'. The Spanish government did not seek to argue the contrary and in any event gained one metre of the soverign territory of Gibraltar, which they continue to occupy today.
Tito Vallejo - Gibraltar

Tito. Sorry, no mention whatsoever of the repeated complains by the Spanish military governor as the fence was built during the Spanish civil war, or how the epidemies of 1815 and 1854 were used by the British to occupy the neutral ground that was always outside the limits of the cession. There is no such a thing as British neutral zone. All of the neutral zone was established first as a buffer north of the original limits of the town and within Spanish territory.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid, Spain

The UN lists Gibraltar as a territory that needs to be decolonised by the UK. It is besides the point to refer to the treaty of Utrecht as this treaty created the British colonial enclave in the first place. Moreover, British occupation of the isthmus and its failure to implement all of its provisions means that the UK is in breach of the treaty. The UK cannot ignore international law by relying on a treaty, which it has itself invalidated by its own actions.
Frank Martin - Brisbane, Australia

Gibraltar will not be decolonised by annexation to Spain. It already has a post-colonial relationship with the UK, which needs to be recognised by the UN. Utrecht did not create a British enclave within Spain. It created a British territory perpetually independent of Spain 'without any exception or impediment whatsoever'. Both Britain and Spain have violated various aspects of the treaty, sometimes by mutual consent.
Spain should be compensated financially for the British occupation of the isthmus. Demolishing the airport and re-establishing the neutral zone is not a sensible solution. Gibraltar should be compensated for Spanish violations of British Gibraltar territorial waters. The democratically expressed wishes of the Gibraltarian people are paramount. The views of PP-apologists are irrelevant.
George - UK

The hypocrisy of Spain - while it retains enclaves in North Africa is quite frankly gobsmacking. This is clearly a political ploy to divert attention from the economic disaster, which unfortunately Spain has become.
Dave - US

George - the UK does not have a post-colonial relationship with Gibraltar. Gibraltar conducted a referendum in the late 1960s. However, that referendum was declared invalid by the UN when it adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), which observed that the referendum was contrary to the various resolutions which had been adopted by the UN General Assembly requiring the UK to decolonise Gibraltar.
Under international law, there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves. This is the case with Gibraltar. The UN has repeatedly invited the UK to participate in discussions to achieve the de-colonisation of Gibraltar.
Unfortunately, the UK continues to rely on a discredited interpretation of the principle of self-determination to turn a deaf ear to those requests, and the requirements of the Brussels process in a clearly self-serving way. By the way, it's worth noting that the current British enthusiasm for the principle of self-determination in the case of Gibraltar was certainly not matched by the response to the inhabitants of Diego Garcia - also a British overseas territory - who were evicted by the UK in 1971 against their wishes because the United States wanted the island as a military base.
Frank Martin - Brisbane, Australia

Gibraltar has no territorial waters. Neither has it a jurisdiction. They have no right to self determination either according to pertinent treaty, territorial limitations to such right and lack of entity and identity as a people. Three reasons, not just one, for you. Please, read, read and read before expressing anything that runs contrary to historical texts and treaties. Britain must return to Spain the illegally occupied isthmus to begin with, simply because it is not British.
Could it be more sensible than to return what's not theirs? Any hypothetical compensation would depend on a price agreed upon beforehand, never after the fact, or else we can freely and legally ask for the moon - not the scraps you may wan to offer. Spain has never ever violated any international law. That's not our style. That's British style and the stinky string of examples is there to prove it.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid

Did you ever hear about democracy, Daniel? It's quite popular in most of Europe. Gibraltar belongs to the Gibraltarians.
George - UK

Frank - the 1967 referendum was nothing to do with post-colonialism. The Gibraltarians were asked whether they wanted Gibraltar to be British or Spanish. And 99.2 per cent voted for Britain. As a democratic country, the UK would of course have respected a vote for Spain.
Max Tammbeck - London

For George and Max. Not only I have heard of democracy but I can tell you that people's power doesn't directly correspond with our contemporary concept of democracy. In any case, the first democratic country in Europe was the Kingdom of Leon in the XI century, way before the English Carta Magna. Historians know that.
The General English public doesn't. Additionally, democracy is not above justice just like who or what wields power has nothing to do with, or at least doesn't preclude, how power is used; for good and right or not. Democracy is void outside a pre-existing legal superstructure natural law based and otherwise.
Of course, Hitler was democratically elected. On the other hand, there is nothing more ridiculous than the UK as an example of democracy with its distorted electoral districts and set of rules never democratically challenged etc. And a financial elite smothering an impoverished and repressed working class, not to mentioned the racially and socially discriminated.
So before making easy allegations, it is advisable to brush up one's knowledge political science. Besides, any election in Gibraltar is a fraud because the votes are bought by welfare money for some and unspeakable privileges for others.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid

So you support democracy in Leon in the 11th century, but not in Gibraltar in the 21st century. Okay, enough said. Good luck with the political science degree. If you fail, I believe Burger King in Gibraltar are looking for staff.
George - UK

No George, I do not support historical institutions that do not exist anymore. I mention it to show how your sarcasm and baseless assumptions about what others do, hold, or know doesn't lead us anywhere. I support what's right and just and I do it whether it is democratic or not. Under specific circumstances only, what's right is to have vote and let the majority decide.
Additionally, as a prerequisite for democracy, there must be a 'people' first. An urban tribe or a bunch or squatters in a flat in town are not a 'people'. Nevertheless, how does the so-called 'right to self determination' ever apply to an uninhabited piece of land stolen in the XX century to build the airport?
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid

Daniel - I think there are different concepts of democratic legitimacy in the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking worlds. To the British, it is obvious that the nations of the UK and the overseas territories have a right to independence if they want it. The same applies to the states of the USA, or the provinces of Canada. From my Anglo-Saxon point of view, I find it hard to see why Spain would deny the same right to the Catalans, Basques or Gibraltarians. To my mind, they are all 'peoples'.
Max Tammbeck - London

No Max, these are universal concepts dating back to a time when there were no Spain and no England. Unless, you mean that you can expel previous settlers but others cannot. Our contemporary concept of democracy in Europe as well as in the rest of the western world and non-western but western inspired political systems has, however, evolved out to two distinct stems.
1) the limitations to royal power or even the power of majorities such as the Bill of Rights and 2) the idea of the universal vote. as an effective and just mean to convey the will of the people into concrete decisions. The latter doesn't supersede the former never in any country no matter what language they speak. Besides, since I am using English to communicate with you, you may as well assume that I am handling the same repertoire of concepts.
The regional issues in Spain are not a matter of self-determination, although this right has been invoked by those who wish a partition of Spain or want to use it to extort concessions for the benefit of the local polititians. Anybody who knows the history of Spain knows that neither the Basques nor the Catalans had ever had any national existence, any state of their own and that they stuck tight to the Spanish national unity for centuries for their own economic interests, captive markets etc.
And, of course, they migrated to our colonies, they intermarried all over the country etc. Their fate was long ago intertwined and sealed. Their self-determination was exercised through the centuries. Any attempt to independence is an attempt to backstab the very entrails of a large familial nation. In the case of Gibraltar, by contrast, there is a treaty, they knew full well that the terms of the cession do not allow for a transfer of the property to a third party different from Spain by the UK. And of course, you have no jurisdiction either. The very fact that they howl whenever the border is slow proves that they are nothing but a peculiar quarter within Spain.
Of course the wishes of the people never supersede right or wrong, property, basic rights, territorial integrities, and agreed upon conditions. In the case of Quebec or New Mexico, for example, what we have is a completely different scenario and it must be known before making groundless comparisons. For example, the British deported inland and expropriated without compensation the Acadians and other Quebecois in violation of the pertinent Treaty of Paris. Nothing ever similar happened within Spain.
The Americans undertook a similar program but included extermination and more cultural repression. Nothing like that ever happened in Spain except, of course, at a smaller scale in Gibraltar. These are the facts and ignoring them is not an Anglo-Saxon point of view but an Anglo-Saxon bad habit.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid

Max - you're joking when you state that: "I think there are different concepts of democratic legitimacy in the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking worlds. To the British, it is obvious that the nations of the UK and the overseas territories have a right to independence if they want it." Right?
How then do you explain British behaviour towards the inhabitants of Diego Garcia (also a British Overseas Territory) who were involuntarily, and in some cases forcibly, relocated to other islands in the Chagos Archipelago, or to Mauritius or Seychelles by Britain in 1971 to satisfy the requirements of a UK/US Exchange of Notes signed in 1966 to depopulate the island when the US constructed a base upon it.
The Chagossians have been fighting an uphill battle to obtain justice through the courts. Verdicts in the English courts had gone in favour of the Chagossians in 2000, 2006 and 2007 until the House of Lords overturned them all and ruled in favour of the British government. The Chagossians have now petitioned the European Court of Human Rights. Possibly as a pre-emptive action in case they win at the European Court, the last British Labour government declared the Chagos Archipelago a "marine protection area", which would restrict fishing and therefore human re-settlement. So much for the British concept of democratic self-determination.
Frank Martin - Brisbane, Australia

Frank - Yes, Britain has plenty of skeletons in its closet. There must be better examples than Diego Garcia, though. With a population of 2,000, it would not be a viable independent state. The island is not even a British overseas territory, but part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. I will probably never understand why Scotland or Quebec have a right of self-determination, but Catalonia doesn't.
No name supplied

To 'No name'. The realities, histories, and stories of Quebec, Scotland and Catalonia are totally different one from the others. In order to understand what applies to one but not to the other, you must first know their respective histories and realities instead of simplistically assume that it is all the same and complaint that you do not understand what you haven't even taken the time to minimally study.
Scotland is a separate Kingdom. Catalonia has never been a Kingdom but always part of the Kingdom of Aragon. Scotland was annexed through bribery of the Scottish parliament, against the will of the people and only 300 hundred years ago or so. The case of Quebec is also different from that of Catalonia.
To begin with, the Quebecois have been exporpriated without compensation, deported inland, treated as citizens of second class, denied all forms of opportunity etc. Never, ever anything of the sort happened in Catalonia. Catalans have been enthusiastic Spaniards for centuries and have taken well advantage of it. They were industrialists and merchants protected by the Spanish crown who protected their markets within Spain and its colonies.
They intermarried and emigrated whenever they wanted. They were not culturally and physically massacred like the Catalans north of the French border but instead, like the rest of the peripheral regions of Spain, adopted progressively the use of Castilian as their language too. The whim of a generation or two instigated by the perfidious political racket and its quest for more extorsion booty from the central government is not a legitimate exercise to the right to self determination.
Additionally, there have been illegal but nevertheless failed votes on independence held in Catalonia but to the embarrassment of those who called them. But first and foremost, people's will (assuming that that's what a referendum expresses) is never above justice. To begin with, an independent Catalonia would be capable of paying back to the rest of Spain the profits from captive markets (the same applies to the Basques).
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid

Daniel - Scotland is not a kingdom but part of the United Kingdom. James VI of Scotland became James I of the United Kingdom, so it was really a Scottish takeover of England. If Scotland becomes independent, Elizabeth II will become Queen of Scotland, a title she does not currently hold. By comparison, she is already 'Queen of Gibraltar'.
Independence is also an issue in Wales and Jersey, and to a lesser extent Guernsey and the Isle of Man. None of these nations have been independent in the past, but no-one would seriously challenge their legitimate democratic right to become independent, if they so chose.
Your comments on Quebec are correct but irrelevant. If any other Canadian province desired independence, it would have the same opportunity as Quebec. I assume as a Spaniard, you will have some knowledge of your neighbours in Catalonia. Your comments are interesting, but you have failed to demonstrate why any vote on Catalan independence should be illegal.
I read recently that 60 per cent of Catalans would vote 'yes' given the opportunity. So what is the real reason for Spain's lack of respect for democratic legitimacy? I think it is quite simply that Spain is an immature democracy, which fears losing territory. Spain has chosen to group its self with other new democracies like Russia, rather than with the mature democracies of western Europe and North America.
Max Tammbeck - London

Max. Regarding Scotland, I won't oppose your correction. It is a matter of nuance and definition engineering anyway. The merge of the parliaments certainly go beyond a simple dynastic union.
Spain is a very mature democracy and that's why we understand the limits of people's vote as a source of legitimacy. A people's vote cannot legitimate anything, cannot legitimate occupation, cannot legitimate dispossession, cannot legitimate minority oppression, cannot legitimate violation of agreements or international law etc.
I didn't therefore fail to demonstrate why neither Catalonia nor Gibraltar - being two totally different cases - have any right to self determination but I may have failed to convey it to everyone. After all, demonstrations are arguments that have to be customised worded and are, as well, subject to recognition in good faith on the part of the target interlocutor.
Catalonia cannot pay back to the rest of Spain for all the profits and the capital formation they afforded because of Spain protectionism. It would be just too unjust but that, of course, doesn't concern those who, like the British, sigh for the partition of Spain for centuries. By the way, the referendum actually held on the independence was a total blunder for the independents.You probably read that in the BBC or any other either anti-Spanish media or the kind of media that sells blood.
One more thing, Catalonians are not my neighbors, they are my friends, my family, my close business partners, etc. The French are my neighbors. Using loaded language -the one that presupposes what's meant to be proved - is a fallacy known as petition of principle but in disguise.
Furthermore, I am Madridian, of Andalusian stock, direct descendant of the kings of Aragon and Counts of Barcelona, have roots in the Basque and Celtic areas of Spain etc. On moral and historical grounds, I cannot accept an ablation of Spain and I am not alone or a rare case. No degenerate politician can superpose a referendum of fluoride heads and TV hypnotised zombies on that.
Daniel A. Jaimen - Madrid

"Gibraltar has no territorial waters. Neither has it a jurisdiction. They have no right to self determination." One wonders if Spain would have such a dismissive attitude towards the democratically expressed wishes of the Gibraltarians had they voted in favour of Spanish rule?
Archie - London

Daniel A Jaimen - 300-plus years and still counting. Have you got a clock with extra long life batteries? Because that's what you will need.
Nigel Bassadone - British Gibraltar

Gibraltar belongs to the people of Gibraltar and is neither Spain's to claim, nor Britain's to give away.
Nigel Bassadone - Gibraltar

@George, UK. Unfortunately, the word 'democracy' in Spain does not reach the same meaning and is not understood in the same way as in Europe or other parts of the civilised world. For instance, just to put two examples that take place in Spain, the right of self-determination of a territory - such as Gibraltar or Catalonia - is only understood by the force of arms, let alone their understanding of the 'Empire of the law'.
Gibraltarians, and very soon Catalans, do very well by not being subjects to such an inappropriate and anti-democratic country. There is no need to speak and try to reason to any Spaniard because they would not understand you, just bark louder than they do and you would have won the argument.
It is obvious that the Gibraltar question has been reopened because the economic and social situation in Spain requires it. It is a cycle that repeats itself as required, especially when Spain needs an extra injection of capital. It is the typical country that built itself from the looting and exploitation of the colonies, so expect that to happen in the eventuality that Gibraltar became Spanish.
It happened in South America, Philippines, African territories and it is now seen in Catalonia. Spain was able to deplete a whole continent from almost any wealth in around 300 years, until the descendants of the Spanish colonisers had enough from robbery and looting in form of extortionate taxes, levies and duties and yet receive no returns in form of investments and public services that would have ensured the continuation of business in those territories and their remaining in the Spanish crown.
I laugh very loud when a Spaniard tries to make me believe that they still are a 'great Empire', having lost most of all their colonies already in the 19th Century. What can we do against irrational arrogance?
Jordi Margalef - Worthing, UK

If Spain wants Gibraltar, they have to give up the two Moroccan cities. Ceuta and Melilya. They are purely Moroccan. Spain has no chance, Gibraltar its100 per cent British and will stay forever. So spain keep you nose out, we are ready to defend England.
a. f - Worcester, UK

To all of the Spanish please note Gibraltar is British for ever, Spanish never, so grow up and sort your own problems out first and leave Gibraltar alone.
david - gibraltar

Let Gibraltar be declared a new and separate country altogether. End of Story. See? It's a simple solution.
Ron - South Africa

Ceuta and Melilla have belonged to Castille Kingdom since the beggining of the 16th century. Both cities are pretty old, more so than Morocco.
Talking about colonialism, why does nobody claim the conquest of occidental sahara by Morocco? Spain left there in 1975, and giae them independence, didn't give it to Morocco.
Gibraltar is a crappy rock full of people disturbing us. Why you don't take it and bring it to your land? Oh, sorry, you're interested because of strategical causes and for better control - you made an airport during our civil war. The UK stinks.
No name supplied