" 

 My two cents as food for thought, as I will most likely not participate in subsequent debates due to lack of time. First, regarding the order of the languages, it really doesn't matter which comes first (and one could argue endlessly as to why Catalan or Spanish should come first). But, I do argue for consistency, in which case, if you stick to Spanish>Catalan (or vice versa), this order should be kept throughout the article, instead of alternating. It is more encyclopedic, and less confusing. This is not an issue about neutrality. It is simply an issue of style.  

 Now, regarding ""nationality"", I disagree with Icallbs. ""Nationality"" does make sense in English, and it is indeed extensively used. I would advocate for its use in the introduction based on the following points: 
 * Unlike the controversial word ""nation"", ""nationality"" is the legal definition for Catalonia, within that same section of the Statute which does have -pardon my translation- ""judicial value"" (valor jurídico)..  Moreover, the term, ""nationality"" is fully constitutional and was supported by the Constitutional Court in its latest ruling. There is nothing controversial about a fully constitutional term.  
 * In English, the word ""nationality"" does convey the same meaning as it does in Spanish. , and its used not only to refer to the Spanish nationalities, but to the nationalities within other countries as well.  
 * It has been used in non-Spanish, non-Catalan Academic literature in English to refer specifically to the nationalities of Spain (e.g. Federalism and the Balance of Power in European States (2006) from the OECD, or Institutions of Modern Spain, by the Cambridge University Press, some results amongst many that a simple query in Google Books or Google Scholar would produce, with or without quotations (i.e. the ""inverted commas"", as they have been referred to above).  
 * The term ""nationality"" is even used by the Encyclopedia Britannica when referring to Catalonia in the main article of Spain (requires subscription, but let me quote, just one sentence: "" [...] The three regions that had voted for a statute of autonomy in the past—Catalonia, the Basque provinces, and Galicia—were designated “historic nationalities” and permitted to attain autonomy through a rapid and simplified process. ""  

 To me, if reputable academic sources have no issues with the term ""nationality"" (in English) and being the word chosen by the Spanish Parliament in 1978 and being a constitutional term, I don't see why we shouldn't use it. It is fully referenced in primary, secondary and tertiary sources.  

 Last but not least, other autonomous communities that usually receive less attention (for whatever reason) have used the word ""nationality"" in their introductory paragraphs (e.g. Galicia, the Valencian Community) without any controversy. 

 Ahh, as a PS, the Constitutional Court upheld the term ""national symbols of Catalonia"" (8th article) as fully constitutional, in the sense (I quote), ""of their condition of symbols of a nationality constituted as an autonomous community in exercise of the right acknowledged and guaranteed by the 2nd article of the Spanish Constitution [...] they are, in sum, the symbols of a nationality without any pretension [...] of contradiction to the symbols of the Spanish Nation"". Later on, the resolution also adds that the 8th article is ""constitutional"" (conforme a la constitución) interpreted in the sense that the said term is exclusively referring in its meaning and use, to the symbols of Catalonia ""defined as a nationality"" and integrated into the ""indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation"".. Ergo I don't see a problem with using ""national symbols"", when the term itself has been declared constitutional. But of course, you cannot avoid using this term without also making reference to the definition of Catalonia as a nationality, so we are back to square one.  

 And as a final side note (a second PS), I noted that someone said that the functions of the states of the USA and the autonomous communities in Spain are almost identical. Not true, precisely because the former is a federation and the latter is not. In a federation powers are transferred from the states to the federation and anything not explicitly transferred (i.e. collectively transferred as written in the consti