Time passes quickly, even more so after two years so slow and weird by the pandemic. The Scottish Prime Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, announced at the end of June his intention to conduct a further consultation on the country’s independence in October 2023, which leads us to become aware that there are already nine years after the previous referendum. In 2014 the Scots had a consultation on independence and three years later, in 2017, the referendum was in Catalonia, as it is known and with a response known by the Kingdom of Spain. Both votes formed, in some way, the new wave of independence and secession in the European context, and we look at that wave with great interest from other countries where national conflicts are strong.

In Euskal Herria, the wave influenced a lot, especially the Catalan catfish. I am not referring specifically to the referendum and solidarity, but to the processes initiated in both countries to arrive at these votes and to the theoretical innovations: new justifications for independence, to underline the population together with the nation, to delineate the nation with new and open forms, to place democracy at the centre of the debate, etc. In Euskal Herria, in this context, there was optimism regarding the national issue, in relation to the transformation that the conflict experienced here since 2011. Conferences, debates, reflections on the innovation of Basque independence were abundant and the concept of the Basque State became important.

Of all these debates and contributions, the main conclusion I think is that national identity, if you want nationalism, is not the only axis when we talk about independence or the creation of a new state. It surely cannot be denied that it is a motor, but there are many ways of understanding and interpreting it. There is nothing more to do with the forms of membership or the conditions under which they can be understood. Moreover, the multiplicity of these interpretations of the nation and nationalism should be understood as a strong point.

But, as we have said, these debates and novel contributions are no longer as novel and, paradoxically, I believe that in Euskal Herria we still do not make our contributions at all, or sometimes without understanding them. For example, when we say that we have to distinguish between nationalism and independence, even if it is analytical, what are we talking about? When it is said that we must also look for the Spanish independentists of the Basque Country (when it was?) Do we understand its implications? Sometimes, without going into this type of approach, the reaction to them has had a great force in the Basque Country. Too strong when we talk about undeveloped approaches, I believe.

These ‘new’ speeches may not be the only ways to think and theorize the independence of Euskal Herria, nor the main ones, but I also believe they are necessary. In the coming months, again, the process of secession and ways of thinking about independence can be important. Scottish or other Irish waves can be seen if movements occur. What impact will that have on the Basque Country? Who knows, but at least let us look forward to the innovations of other countries, because we need.