He completed his PhD in Florence, at the European Institute of Universities. His thesis (Judicial Federalism from a comparative perspective: Spain, the United States and the United Kingdom) was based on comparative law: in particular, it compared the Spaniards, Scotland and Catalunya, Spain, from the point of view of the judiciary, with the reality of the United States. The issue was: the judiciary and plurinational states.

After a time of teaching at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, he is currently a professor of Law School at the University of Edinburgh. He is known in Euskal Herria, as last March he participated with Juan José Ibarretxe and other experts in the round table in favor of the right to decide.

Scotland, Catalonia… Is there any historical characteristic that justifies the emergence of these two processes?

It must be made clear from the outset that two processes are entirely different. Here the SNP, the idea of a party that comes from being a minority, based on the devolution process – a law that was signed in 1997 for the creation of the Parliament of Scotland and whose spirit is to progressively achieve greater shares of sovereignty – and the success of its leader, that is, the success of Salmond, has driven the process, where the impetus of civil society has been decisive. Then, I believe that the influence of what is here, there is evident, because suddenly the possibility of the referendum becomes real, because the Catalans look here and say: If possible in Scotland, why is it not going to be possible in Catalonia? The reference of Quebec already existed, but that was much further away; however, the case of Scotland has sparked a lot of reticence: it is not the end of the world, nothing happens, the process can be carried out in a totally civilised way, as has happened here... Because everything is happening on the same ground, in Europe.

The case of Scotland strikes us as curious to many of us who are looking from the outside: when it was decided that the referendum would be held, he was not a majority with much difference, although then it seems that the difference is decreasing. It is surprising, to some extent: How does the SNP make that decision when, at least apparently, it's a bet that you can get very politically wrong?

The SNP has been a independence party from the very beginning. It was originally a minority party, which in the 2007 elections achieved an absolute majority, but not an absolute majority. However, the SNP continued its independence strategy. What is happening is that Salmond's idea was, in principle, to hold a referendum on two questions, as has been raised in Catalonia: one on devolution and the other on independence. With this initial approach, the surveys did not go so badly to the SNP, because it was seen that, in number, three similar groups emerged: the group of those who wanted the situation to continue, that of those who wanted more autonomy and that of those who wanted independence. In this way, if these two questions were asked, it became clear that the attitude of devolution, which would also add the votes of the independentists, if necessary. In fact, the constitutional culture here is very much in favour of taking successive steps, much more than of a very long break. So, if independence did or didn't do, the polls weren't that good for Salmond, but if you looked at the situation as a whole, the environment wasn't that bad. In the 2011 elections, the SNP achieved an absolute majority.

What a great success, right?

Yes, even more so if we bear in mind that the electoral system here is quite rebellious – there are representatives elected by constituencies and others by right vote – designed to ensure that no one achieves an absolute majority, but to force a pact between the parties. So, in that sense, Salmond's success was historic, because no one thought there could be an absolute majority, in Scotland, with that system. Then Salmond saw himself very strong and decided that he would hardly be presented with another opportunity like this and decided to move forward. We must not forget that the referendum was part of your programme.

But in the end, how many questions will be asked?

In the end, there will only be one question. That was the imposition of the British Government: OK, they decided, we will give them the power to do the referendum, but what we are asking in return is for it to be the only question and the answer, yes or no.

Therefore, the competence to hold the referendum did not lie with the Parliament or the Government of Scotland.

That was not very clear. Here, in principle, every citizen has the right to go to court when he considers it unconstitutional. In order not to do so, the British Government expressly gave Scotland the power to convene a referendum so that no one could go to court.

What does the British Constitution say about the degree of sovereignty of the nations that make up the state?

Britain does not have a written constitution. Here the constitutional framework is sufficiently flexible and consists of a number of documents – laws, jurisprudence, documents, principles, conventions, practices. In this respect, there were also doubts, great discussions and debates in relation to the referendum. In other words, the question was whether or not the Parliament or the Scottish Government had the power to convene a referendum on the independence of Scotland. In fact, what the 1998 Scotland Act says in this respect can be interpreted in one way or another. Others took into account the Union Treaty of 1707, which establishes the unity of Scotland and England, in order to resolve what falls within the competence of the referendum. Therefore, there was a debate on who was responsible for organising the referendum and on what basis it reached that conclusion. In any case, there is no culture here to decide such debates in the courts. For example, a conflict of competence between the Scottish Parliament and the British Parliament or governments has never been brought to the courts. In the end, however, they chose to reach a consensus rather than, of course, go to the Supreme Court, without case law. In Spain this is impossible.

From a legal point of view, how does it view relations with the European Union, the right of veto that some countries could exercise…

This was also a very much debated issue, and in this case Salmond made a small mistake, because it was shown that he did not have a legal report saying that Scotland would remain within the European Union… Now, among the experts, the majority is of the opinion that the European Union not only grants rights to Member States, but also grants rights to European citizens, and that a process of independence does not have European rights as European citizens. They therefore believe that it can be a political negotiation and that, through it, mechanisms can be created to continue within Europe. Because, seen in its entirety, it would not only be Scotland that would have a problem. The United Kingdom would also change, by territory, by population… The nature of the United Kingdom within the European Union should therefore also be readjusted, because it would not be the one before… Therefore, as two new states would be, both would have to readjust their status through negotiation. Many experts, such as Sir David Edward, who is a professor here and has been a member of the Court of Justice of the European Union, have made it clear that this would be a political issue, which makes no sense for a country already in Europe, Scotland, to have to leave.

And the veto? You know, for example, what is said about that in Spain…

Yes, it is true that this right of veto has existed. But my view is that Spain would have its hands tied, even more so, in the situation in which it finds itself, in order to reverse a political agreement reached between the British and approved by the other states.

Moving on to another topic: Scotland is wonderful, people are extremely caring and friendly, but how does all this affect them in the field of feelings? You think you have to find some tension of breakage, but normality is total. They don't seem to be living in a historic moment.

In Scotland, things are generally not that bad. On the other hand, in Britain no one has ever denied that Scotland is a nation. Cameron, from the outset, and if you want to make a political calculation, he has never denied the right to hold a referendum on the independence of Catalonia. In this sense, there is no room for the popcorn. But the unionist campaign, from the very beginning, has been very negative. People call it the Beldur project. They have not made a positive campaign, they have confined themselves to denying the elements that the nationalists have put forward. Does Salmond say that the economy will improve? Well, they don't, but they don't pose any positive elements. And everywhere like that. This attitude is what is assuming a change of trend in the surveys. Furthermore, the possibility of independence creates uncertainty, but to some extent, because people do not have so much uncertainty about the viability of an independent Scotland.

Economic affairs: North Sea Oil, Pound Extraction, Debt…

There is also the Government of England playing the edge of uncertainty. They do not say to which conventions they are prepared to come. It is your position, agree, vote on it and if you then decide to leave, we will see what agreements we are willing to reach in defence of the interests of those who have decided to remain united.

From our point of view, it is surprising, on the part of the Scots, the approach they do in some things: not leaving the bookstore, accepting the queen and the royal house…

Finally, for some, Salmond's independence project would be quite light. It does not lead to a complete break. It seems that voters who are in the middle of the two options would like to bring the two parties together. As for the Crown, we must not forget that the British Royal House is also the Royal House of Scotland, so they take it. But the approach is related to that progressivity that we have mentioned earlier. That is why the unionist parties have begun to devise alternative approaches, knowing that they have nothing to do otherwise. Of course, an approach to giving Scotland more autonomy if it wins no.

Does Scotland have the power to levy taxes?

Until 2012, I had few competences in this area and had not exercised them. This year’s latest reform of the Scotland Act, however, gives the Scottish Parliament and Government a number of powers in the tax field that are not yet in force. This is one of the issues that unionist parties are discussing.

Apart from that, do you think that the level of autonomy of Catalonia and Scotland, for example, are comparable?

I think they are comparable in terms of competences. But there is a big difference: the recognition of nationality.

Is there polarization of attitudes by region, religion or language?

I would say no. The campaign of Salmond and the SNP is aimed at social welfare and there is the real conflict: more social services, more public services, more just distribution of wealth, etc., from the point of view of the socio-democratic ideology. What is being discussed is whether or not the quality of life will be gained with independence. That is the essential point. Then, as you mention polarisation, there is a very curious fact: they say that there is a difference in terms of gender, that is, that men are more independent than women.

And how is this interpreted?

Some interpretations point to a rather sexist interpretation, but women are accused of a more conservative attitude. Because this situation also has the feeling of a leap into the void: we are not so bad, perhaps we could be better, but what will really happen if we jump? The interpretation of others is that the woman is the one who cares the most about social assistance (the care of the sick and the elderly, etc. ), and hence its position is more prudent, as Salmond promises a much more social state, but the UK Government says it will have no money to deliver on its promises. However, more specific surveys show that women and men are concerned about similar issues, so it is not clear what the reason for that difference is. In any case, the vote of women will be fundamental.

You, as a Catalan and knowing that of Scotland, are you optimistic?

I am very concerned about the situation in Catalonia, because I see that things are getting worse and, in the end, the remaining possibilities are very radical, and I think that is not going to benefit anybody. At this stage, it seems that we will have to go to a plebiscite election and, if we win the option of independence, a unilateral proclamation of independence, which would lead us to a problematic scenario.

Does it reject the possibility of negotiation and a solution?

I believe that at the point where things have come, there is very little to say to the people, look, we have reached an economic settlement, and therefore you will not have to vote. This, too, seems to me to be very problematic. However, the possibility of negotiation must never be ruled out. Perhaps now, if, by means of a negotiation, agreement is reached, that is what should be presented to the people, voting on it and concluding the process.

We're not going to see the tanks on the Paseo de la Gracia, right?

Hopefully not. That is what I want to say: the situation is not easy for anyone. But it will hardly be left behind, even though the central government remains in its positions, because the basic institutions such as the ANC are very powerful and every time it has had doubts Esquerra has been rising considerably. Furthermore, the position in favour of the referendum is widespread among the citizens; the results of the last elections were an order in favour of holding the referendum. For its part, however, the Government of Madrid cannot take advantage of the purely repressive exits that are taking place. It is precisely the processes in Quebec and now in Scotland that show the intolerance of the attitude of Madrid. And meanwhile, people are very angry, angry, waiting, among other things, for recognition as a nation.