Scottish Independence: Quebec Edition

[viper37]

Why is it self-hating to wish to be absorbed into a better, larger, more diverse culture?

Anyway, if you lived in Hungary, you'd probably be self-hating too.

are many culture are really larger and more diverse?  The way it usually works is the dominant culture establish itself and shapes everything to its image.
Look at Canada, it's an english country, not a bilingual one.  The Federal capital is officially unilingual english.  How is it diverse and larger?
The country has an official policy of bilinguism, but in reality, outside Quebec and New Brunswick, getting access to bilingual government services is hard to come by, even in Ontario.
The rate of assimilation for French canadians has been going at a steady pace outside of Quebec, and even in Quebec, despite all kinds of protective measures, the use of French as declined a little in the last 25 years.

What you're really asking is "why not assimilate yourself to the larger culture".  Forget anything about "being part of larger more diverse culture", that's just nonsense.  What you want is dominance of the strongest, most numerous one.

How many people on this forum would be willing to convert to Islam because it's the largest most diverse culture?  I suspect not many.

[viper37]

I would think those with their own personality could find an identity even without their own postage stamps and national bird.

Not really.  Would you really be who you are today have the 13 colonies remained part of the British Empire?  I don't think so.  We're all byproducts of our cultural environment.  Wich is shaped by our history. 

A predominently muslim Austria instead of a predominently christian austria would be a radically different country today.  But that's something for alt-hist fans...

[viper37]

I consider myself a Catalan and I don't really need a passport of border guards for it, really. As long as I live in a democratic state that's respectful of my language and culture, I'm fine. Spain sort of behaves in that regard.

Ultimately "language/nationhood" is only a part of what I am. Should we really make a state for say, gay people? Star War fans? Shy people?

if there was a large concentration of Star Wars fans in a country dominated by Star Trek fans, they would probably seek independance

I feel the same way as you do toward my Québécois identity, but I don't feel the respect of my language and culture coming from Canada.  Not when we have a Constitution that we did not signed imposed on us that no one feels it's a problem.

[Barrister]

I would think those with their own personality could find an identity even without their own postage stamps and national bird.

Not really.  Would you really be who you are today have the 13 colonies remained part of the British Empire?  I don't think so.  We're all byproducts of our cultural environment.  Wich is shaped by our history. 

A predominently muslim Austria instead of a predominently christian austria would be a radically different country today.  But that's something for alt-hist fans...

Viper, the various regions of the US have very distinct cultural identities, despite being part of a larger country.  Try comparing Oregon, to Kansas, to Alabama, to Massechussets - four very, very different states and identities.

[Barrister]

BB I would contend there is more in common culturally between an Oregonian and an Alabaman than between you and me.

En commencant par la langue.

Probably, due to language.

But the point still stands, you can and do see thriving distinct and unique cultures within a single country. 

[viper37]

Viper, the various regions of the US have very distinct cultural identities, despite being part of a larger country.  Try comparing Oregon, to Kansas, to Alabama, to Massechussets - four very, very different states and identities.

The US states also have much more autonomy then a Canadian province.
And people in the various States get to vote for the head of state.  Something I am not allowed to do.
I wonder how they managed to survive for so long...

Anyway. They have the same culture, with small local differences.  Architecture of Oregon, is similar to California. Texas, Nebraska and Oklaohama are very similar.  And they all speak the same language, with little or no difference.  In fact, the difference in speech between a Texan and a Californian could be equated with the difference between a Québécois from Gatineau and one from Saguenay.

If you look at Toronto, it's very similar to New York.  Or Boston, but Boston is prettier.  Similar to Buffallo. To Ottawa.  To St-John.  To Moncton.  Same language, same architecture.  If you look at Quebec, the part that was develop before 1763, it is radically different.  The land division system is not the same, the language is not the same, the architecture is not the same. 

Values, I don't make much of it.  Constitution and language aside, it's not radically different than Ontario or New Brunswick, but there are differences.  Overall, though, there is a radical difference bettween Quebec's culture and Canadian culture.

[viper37]

Hell, compare Saskatchewan, lower mainland BC and Nova Scotia. There's no more similarity there than between any of them and Quebec

Take a plane to Charlottetown.  Walk in the city centre.  Take a plane to Ottawa.  Walk in the city centre.  Ottawa is bigger, it has more space, but aside that, it's very similar.  The buildings look the same.  The streets look the same.  The people speak the same language.

If you visit PEI's country side, it's highly similar to Northern New Brunswick's country side. 
From Moncton to Halifax and St-John, you'll see similar buildings, you'll eat similar food, you'll hear the same language.
Can't tell of the west, haven't been there yet.

[viper37]

BB I would contend there is more in common culturally between an Oregonian and an Alabaman than between you and me.

En commencant par la langue.

Probably, due to language.

But the point still stands, you can and do see thriving distinct and unique cultures within a single country. 

And what is different, culturally speaking, exactly, between say, Ontario Saskatchewan?  Architecture? Music? Language? Religion? Republicans vs Monarchists?

[Malthus]

Scottish idependence: so boring a topic, it must be replaced by Quebecs'? 

[viper37]

Hell, compare Saskatchewan, lower mainland BC and Nova Scotia. There's no more similarity there than between any of them and Quebec

They all speak English, they all watch american tv shows, they drink undrinkable coffee at Tim Horton's and they like to listen to a girl swinging on a metal ball (well, considering how out of touch I am with pop culture, they're most likely over that ).

What I see is sligh variation of the same culture.  Southern BC being the exception, with the influx of Chinese immigrants and their descendants.  You could make the argument that there is not much difference between British Columbia and the US West Coast.  Should they merge in their own country because they apparently share a similar culture?

[Zoupa]

Scottish idependence: so boring a topic, it must be replaced by Quebecs'? 

Plus Im sure we'll finally convince each other right? 

[viper37]

Scottish idependence: so boring a topic, it must be replaced by Quebecs'? 

Well, I didn't want to talk about Quebec's independance, that being a non issue for the next 50 years, at least.

[Berkut]

From a total outsiders perspective, they seem not just similar, but almost identical.

A "difference" that mostly exists as a matter of perception and perceived victim-hood/martyrdom where neither "nation" would practically or economically be better off independent, and the injustices that drive the emotional argument seem to be mostly imaginary.

But whatever - knock yourselves out. I wish one of them would succeed, if for no other reason than watching it crash and burn might make the other STFU already with their constant whining.

But hey, I am just an outsider.

[Barrister]

From a total outsiders perspective, they seem not just similar, but almost identical.

A "difference" that mostly exists as a matter of perception and perceived victim-hood/martyrdom where neither "nation" would practically or economically be better off independent, and the injustices that drive the emotional argument seem to be mostly imaginary.

But whatever - knock yourselves out. I wish one of them would succeed, if for no other reason than watching it crash and burn might make the other STFU already with their constant whining.

But hey, I am just an outsider.

I disagree on a couple of fronts.

First, it is possible to argue that an independent Quebec and Scotland would be economically better off.  Primarily by having control over their own currency and central bank they would be able to seek exchange rates and interests rates that would better reflect their own local economy.  You can definitely argue that the Canadian dollar is high because of the demand for Alberta (and Sask) oil, and that Quebec would be better off with a lower exchange rate.  Of course this is the exact opposite of what the Yes side is arguing, but it doesn't make it wrong.

As for the "imaginary injustices" - I don't think there's any independent way of measuring "injustice".  If you feel like you're being unjustly treated, almost by definition you are.  As everyone has said, a lot of the motivation is emotional, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

[viper37]

10 days to save the Union.   


How do you fight this, can you even? :

By pointing out that it guarantees Tory rule to the south for the forseeable future, and the likely exit from the EU of independent Scotland's most important economic partner.
To think that won't impact Scotland is bonkers. 
Are these the best arguments "Yes" has?  Seems incredibly poorly thought through.

Most Scots wouldn't be bothered by that, which is incidentally my principle concern and some might even take pleasure in it.

I don't think a political argument needs to be logical or sound, it just needs to be strong enough to move people, primarily on an emotional level, to get them to change their vote. 

I think history shows plenty of poorly thought through arguments have won at the ballot box. 

if in this modern day and age, in a liberal democracy, you can move people's emotions sufficiently to make them seperate for their country, it has to be grounded on at least some facts.  Overblown, maybe, but not totally imaginary.

Imho, the failure of the United Kingdom here is dismissing these scottish concerns at being irrational and not caring about them until it's too late.

The Scots maybe swayed in by a massive lovefest where bureaucrats from all across the country get a free plane ticket and a paid day off to show their love for the Scots, maybe the promise of change will sway them, I don't know (and it's not my place to tell them, and it won't change anything for my life, it affects Scots and other British), but if all this is genuine, why didn't it happen before?

That's the question I'd be asking myself if I were a Scot.  Not so long ago, many British were even denying there was a problem with out Scots perceived themselves inside the British Empire.  Seperation was only the idea of a few lunatics waving Braveheart's DVDs menacingly toward London.
And now...