To put this into context with your comments on the EU - the EU is not one big country, it is a union of distinct countries which have distinct identities, and histories involving war and atrocities against one another over thousands of years, but have been able to learn from the past and work together peacefully. The EU may be striving for an even closer union, but I sincerely hope that the countries in the EU do not lose their indigenous languages, customs and cultures as a result. Europe would become a very boring place if it did.

It can't really be compared with the UK's EU referendum because it's a completely different situation - the UK is leaving a union of countries it voted to join by referendum; they're not part of a unified country trying to separate themselves.

Technically speaking, any referendum in the UK is advisory (non-legally binding). The fact that it was non-legally binding had no impact on the result of the Brexit vote, or the EU accepting the outcome. But I won't drag this off topic by getting into those details.

Take the Scottish independence referendum of 2014. In order for that to take place, the UK and Scottish governments signed the Edinburgh agreement in 2012 to make it legal for the Scottish government to have a referendum by the end of 2014.

In contrast, Spain declared the Catalan independence referendum of Oct 1 illegal. I won't pretend that I know or understand all the developments running up to this referendum, but there obviously was no legal agreement beforehand.

In the Scottish referendum, there was an 85% turnout with 55% voting to 'No' to independence.

In the Catalan referendum, just a 42% turnout with 90% voting 'yes' to independence, but poll stations were being closed, ballot boxes being seized and voters turned away by police.

Despite the Catalan results I am reading reports that a low percentage of Catalonians want independence. If this is correct, then IMO it is right for Spain to have snap regional elections. I understand that the Spanish foreign minister has even said that the Catalan leader is still entitled to stand for election - provided he is not in jail.

I'm beginning to doubt he will stand, now the news is that he and other Catalan officials have fled to Brussels.

You're right, the EU is not fully a country as say the US is and I kind of get carried away and already see it as one. At least in my opinion the whole EU dream is for it to become one country eventually, don't know when but eventually. We already got a level of union that is beyond any other association of countries anywhere. We got at least in some countries a common currency which was unthinkable only 10 years before it actually happened. But yeah, this is just my opinion but I would hope to see the EU become one day some kind of United States of Europe. One of the reaons why the US is so powerful as a country is precisely because they are a bunch of states that are UNITED.

So I'm curious as to that last part of your comment which I underlined: I understand what you are saying but I have to wonder, would you by the same logic say that the US who mostly speaks one language only, that it is a boring country because of that?

-They want to create a superstate because there is a natural trend towards uniting because union makes us stronger and if we think of the others as being part of us, chances are low on war with the others. In a divided Europe as past history overwhelmingly demonstrates, war is at every corner, all the time, division causes hatred and jealousy. One of the main reasons for the EU's existence is peace and people do not realize this but there has never been so much peace in the countries that are part of the EU. NOBODY in any EU country today would think that a neighboring country will attack and invade, it's totally unthinkable and that is because we are all together part of a new country called the EU. Nationalism and separatism threatens that peace because it means creating borders and "others" that are not "us" anymore, therefore sooner or later others become the enemy and war ensues.

-As for your second paragraph: giving nationalists what they want is precisely risking instability for the reasons I just explained.

-As for ethno-linguistic nationalism, I think I despise that kind of nationalism even more than the regular kind and here is why:

To me a language is a tool for communication and the more people speak a language the wider the audience for expressing ideas and communicating. (Why of all the languages in the world do you think I learned English for? To communicate and understand as many people as possible) That is the smart thing to do, the good reason to learn a language. But linguistic nationalists are people who think a language is tied to a land and they want that language to be spoken there and nothing else. By that logic we should all speak different languages and no one could understand what others say cause you must include all the dialects too. Such a situation would yield the opposite effect and make languages a political and social tool for regional identity instead of a tool for communication and that is an ignorant use of this fantastic tool that is language. And that's not even mentioning the fact that different languages are also a cause for division and distrust of the others in turn pushing for even more borders and potential wars.

-Look at my country for instance: Belgium. To make a long story short, we got mainly two communities here. Us French speaking people in the south and Flemings in the north and we don't get along, why? A lot of complex issues granted but at the end of the day the only true difference between us is LANGUAGE and that's all there REALLY is to it over here. The north a bit richer than the south complains that money from taxes trickle down towards the south and that they want independence because of that. But that is only an excuse for the simple reason that no two regions have the exact same economic level and you can find differences INSIDE the Flemish part of the country. In other words, money trickles down TOO between different parts of the Flemish side of the country cause not all sections have the exact same level of riches. But you will never hear a person there complain about that because when money trickles towards a different part of the Flemish land, nobody thinks of it as money going away because they all speak the same language THEREFORE they all think of themselves as one country, one people but in the south we don't speak their language, we speak French so we are in their minds STRANGERS, other people.

So you see linguistic nationalism is even worse than the regular kind of nationalism, very dangerous, divisive and counter effecting progress. In a globalised modern world, in this internet age, linguistic nationalism is obsolete and irrelevant yet nationalists are struggling to keep it alive.

And finally ethnic nationalism: This is just a fancy way to say RACISM. So I'm not a fan.

-So you're seeing a future with just one global country, right? If so, how centralized? And how do you see the future?

-I understand, but what about democracy, what if they really want independence, like 80% in favour? Surely, at some point not giving in would cost more than surrendering. 

-Although i agree that language is divisive, people won't just stop speaking the language of their ancestors, not even in a thousand years, especially the lower class. It seems that it is the least offensive way people have naturally divided themselves (the alternatives being race, religion, class). It would be best if people didn't do any of that, but i don't see it stopping even in a globalized world.

-A solution would be to create a mix of French and Dutch, a real Belgian language, maybe then Belgium would become a real country ;)

And in doing so exposing the entirety of the west as massive hypocrites to the rest of the world!