We need second referendum based on facts

Sir, - With reference to the letter by William Loneskie (October 14) it may be that the constitution of Spain means the referendum was unconstitutional, but does that really mean illegal?

However, that is as far as it goes if comparing their situation with ours in Scotland. There are grievances behind the Catalans’ wish to be independent, and, yes, in that recent ballot not everyone voted.

But there is no direct definable link between their separation and any assertion of certainty of ensuing financial panic.

That is merely a statement (project fear again) used by those in favour of remaining.

These are the same vague threats that we saw in 2014, but nobody is able to explain why they think that there would be economic disaster with independence.

How is any group of people with a grievance expected to have a say?

Why, instead of sending in police to prevent an opinion poll, did the Spanish government not address those grievances?

Since when is no one allowed to ever leave a partnership that is not working?

The simplest thing for the Spanish government to do was to have ignored the poll, but instead of removing the reasons for independence, their actions have actually legitimised that demand.

Just because people are not allowed to express their preferences does not mean the views will go away.

Those against independence, as in Scotland’s case, have never been able to explain their position other than repeat unfounded fears.

The only way to test those views is to allow a referendum based on facts. Nick Cole. Balmacron Farmhouse, Meigle.

People wave Spanish flags in a protest in Barcelona against Catalan independence moves.