We are increasingly talking about sovereignty and independence, at least those of us who are in favour. In my view, however, it does not correspond to the importance and content that has been given to these words. We put more strength in words than in the orderly development of content. That worries me. These kinds of global words that require a profound change, without thickening with a suggestive map of route of content, can be insignificant, reassuring to those of us who are in favour of them from a political point of view, but with difficulties in extending them further. Today’s scenario is an example of this, we are limited.

Independence is an option that we can make as sovereigns, with other options. Therefore, in my dictionary I prefer the word sovereignty to the other. Sovereignty, by definition, does not need a special explanation, as the meaning of the word is very understandable. Independence, on the contrary, has a greater demand, even more so in a confusing and complex European model. Therefore, today and here, I am in favour of global words that are easier to understand and prioritise sovereignty. Furthermore, this gives us time for the supporters of the Basque State to be characterised, since the process of creating the State is not as simple as we often imagine. Why insist on the use of terminology that can be difficult to assimilate in different sectors?

If we are talking about a new way of understanding and making policy, we should also refer to the need to update the dictionary itself. For example, it is not necessary to “attract” citizens to the sovereign process, but to open the process itself in society, sharing the need for sovereignty. But to do so, beyond words, we have to make it clear that the process is not only viable, but it is also a necessity for a dignified society: to decide firsthand. And in that I still feel a great lack of pedagogy; I say it as I feel. Perhaps nationalism itself, in its classical sense, has become an obstacle to a majority betting on social sovereignty.

There is something that I find significant. In the last season I have read a number of reflections in the nearby press on the sovereign process. And I accept it, I have felt more freshness in the texts of those who are not “political” than those who are “political”. I think it's significant because writing is a consequence of thought. Comprehensive socio-political training for social sovereignty should “attract” that freshness, now it is appropriate, and the creators of freshness should become more involved in politics to consolidate new and renewed approaches. In my view, the most important debate in the near future is that of social sovereignty.