Scottish Independence: Quebec Edition

[viper37]

No Viper, Grallon believes we've given more than enough chances to our neighbors to make amends and he is convinced their mind is set to the "our way or the highway" attitude.  They will not accommodate any demands or suggestions coming from Quebec.  Not that our current government would make any such demands of course - witness the general confusion Couillard is mired in whenever the topic is raised. 

Unlike you, I'm an optimist on this issue.
But it takes time and patience, and it will require a referendum where the choice is the best possible deal we negotiated or independance.

As a matter of fact many suspect the treacherous motherfucker is intent on signing the accursed 1982 constitution - proclaimed without the consent of the National Assembly - for the 150th anniversary of the 1867 agreement in 2017.  All that without a referendum and while he's been elected by only 30% of the population.  I loathe that criminal cabal with a passion!

that's wishful thinking from the PQ.  It would give them a just cause to push for another referendum, and this time, get elected by luck.

So in that light there's nothing more to be said and we shouldn't waste any more time in a federation that is strangling us one step at a time.

It ain't as bad as it used to be.  The problem is, we're still dependant on the Feds good will.

[viper37]

I mean was Valmy or any American decrying nationalism as an evil? (Though clearly it can be when taken to extremes) I only recall raising an eyebrow that nationalism was a cause of the American Revolution.

See past threads.  We've been discussing that for 14 years, at least.

[viper37]

I do not recall ever distinguishing between nationalism and patriotism.  You might have me confused with somebody else.  Didn't the US have patriots before there was a state?  Anyway...

The patriot word was used after 1775-1776, iirc, when the colonies decided they would unite together and declare their independance.  I don't think I've ever read about it in the context of the 7 years war.  I could be mistaken.  I'd have to re-watch that Mel Gibson movie...

My point has always been, so far as I am aware, that individuals have rights.  Groups of people do not.  Ethnic nationalism is the idea that states should express the sovereignty of an ethnic group.  Further that ethnic groups require one to express their will and protect their interests somehow.

It's not solely ethnic.  Nowadays, it's more much regional, territorial than ethnic.  I don't think the Scots will expel all Englishmen from their newlyformed country, if that happens, because it's the Land of the Scots from now on.
Just as Quebec will not expel English speakers if it attains independance in the next century.
The recent charter fiasco aside (wich was a political ploy, not a real conviction, as we can see from the current PQ debates that it's nowhere to be seen), Quebec nationalism has always been inclusive, even of those who reject us, like English speaking indian tribes and some english montrealers who still cling to the idea that Britain's policy is to make the world British.

I believe that decisions affecting people should be taken at the local level.  If it were up to me, I'd decentralized Quebec rather than having all decisions taken in Montreal with Montreal's interests in mind.
I believe I am better placed than someone in Ottawa or Toronto or even Montreal to decide what is good for me and how to achieve it.

Ideally, we'd be all in some libertarian paradise where people organize themselves without government and form ad-hoc association to solve more complex tasks.  But that's just bullshit utopia and we know it.

We need rules, we need governance, we sometimes - and it pains me to admit it - need government intervention in the economy.

Now, if we pool our resources together, we are indeed, theoritically, stronger.  However, once the money is in the pot, there's just no way to know who contributed what.  If we all put 1$ in a pot, we can't easily trace back whom that exact 1$ bill belong to in the first place. All we know is we put 1$.
Things get murkier when not everyone puts 1$.  We decide it should be pro-rata split for what we give back.

But in a large country, you don't have the same interests, the same value.  What if part of a country is heavily urbanized and don't see the need for firearms?  Let's forbid those, they are evil, unnecessary and only used to kill people.  When you happen to have another part of the country wich is more rural, then conflicts arise.  These poeple want their guns, they need it for hunting and for self defence, since it takes 10-20 minutes to get a cop at home when you dial 911.

Now what happens when one part of the country experience an economic boom and the other part is barely keeping it's head out of the water?  How do you adjust economic policies, like interest rates, currency value and wich industries to subsidize?  That last part will make you laugh, but we know that even in fiscally conservative societies, like some parts of the US electing GOP candidates or Alberta, they do like their subsidies for sure.  So long as it's for their industries.

And then you got the social programs.  Some states want more government funded stuff, other states want less of that.  If everything is decided by one big government wich collect funds and redistribute it to local communities, you'll have a fiscal imbalance at some point.  Some communities will never receive enough money to fund the stuff they want, and the government to appear "fair", will have a tendancy to finance unuseful stuff in some communities that want less government funding just to appear as the "good" guy and not only the paychek thief.

Add this cultural differences, and unless the country is decentralized, it's a recipe for disaster and eternal conflicts.

Wich is when ideas of independance arises.

Not only do I find this idea absurd (why would people represent my interests and share my policy preferences just because we are of the same ethnic group?) but problematic.  Because then minorities represent a threat to the 'rights' of the group.  There is something pretty visceral about ethnic state aspirations that seems to me makes very good people do very bad things.  And then you have impacts like people who have been living in a town for five hundred years still be considered foreigners.

Wich is not the way of the Scots, nor the way of Quebec, not even the way of the Catalans or the Flemish.
Well, maybe not the Flemish.

It's based on language and/or local culture.  The idea that one person living in an area should adapt to that area, not the other way around.

My preference is that states should be formed around political ideas

There lies a problem of geography.  If people are grouped around political ideas and geography, that's great.  Otherwise, you end up moving people.  Like the Loyalist exodus after your independance.  People who believed in the wrong idea were often expelled, or harassed.

In their case, they emigrated to Canada and Florida.  Geographical division, because the political idea that formed the country wasn't too keen on having a bunch of royalists at home.

Is it less silly than those who are expelled for their religion? ethnicity? culture?  I think it's all the same to me.

Also remember I live in a state where my ethnic group is no longer a majority but a plurality.  And I see people freaking out about it and it fills me with a certain amount of amusement and contempt.

What will happen when the Spanish speaking population asks for Spanish public (as in, government funded) schools and colleges?
I'm betting there'll be fierce resistance to that idea.

In any case, English, American English, even if it's no longer a majority in some states, is not about to disapear.  And I'm betting that what you see in Texas, is not people leaving english for spanish, but simply spanish speaking immigration and increased birth rate compared to the english speaking population.  Wich is different than a steady decline worldwide of your language.

Eventually, I guess, Texas will either offer full bilingual services to both languages, equal fundings for schools, colleges and hospitals, or more likely, try to restrict the use of spanish by various measures.

[viper37]

Languish has only been around for about 11 though.

Paradox forum was there before.  There was that thing we called EUOT.  Ask Berkut and Malthus, they certainly remember that place

[Valmy]

The patriot word was used after 1775-1776, iirc, when the colonies decided they would unite together and declare their independance.  I don't think I've ever read about it in the context of the 7 years war.  I could be mistaken.  I'd have to re-watch that Mel Gibson movie...

1773 actually.  Before independence was seriously considered.  Please never watch that horrible Mel Gibson movie.

It's not solely ethnic.  Nowadays, it's more much regional, territorial than ethnic.  I don't think the Scots will expel all Englishmen from their newlyformed country, if that happens, because it's the Land of the Scots from now on.

Nonsense.  It is something but it is not "territorial".  Scotland is not voting for independence because of some sort of geographical concern.

Just as Quebec will not expel English speakers if it attains independance in the next century.

No.  But it might, say, pass restrictions on them to protect the Quebec identity.  But we are talking about a new world country, not an old world one.  Is a Quebecois really an ethnicity?  Ah well you make some interesting points and I want to address those.

The recent charter fiasco aside (wich was a political ploy, not a real conviction, as we can see from the current PQ debates that it's nowhere to be seen), Quebec nationalism has always been inclusive, even of those who reject us, like English speaking indian tribes and some english montrealers who still cling to the idea that Britain's policy is to make the world British.

Was that really Britain's policy?  We wanted to be British but they were having none of that

But in a large country, you don't have the same interests, the same value.

I would agree with other Texans on their interests and values more if Texas became independent?  Why?  Pretty sure most of us would be just as insane as before.

What if part of a country is heavily urbanized and don't see the need for firearms?  Let's forbid those, they are evil, unnecessary and only used to kill people.  When you happen to have another part of the country wich is more rural, then conflicts arise.  These poeple want their guns, they need it for hunting and for self defence, since it takes 10-20 minutes to get a cop at home when you dial 911.

Well theoretically cultural issues like this would be decided on a local level in my perfect state.  We have this pesky deal where being heavily armed is one of our founding principles.  But in a smaller state why would this not be an issue?  Unless we are talking about a microstate but those countries have policies heavily at the mercy of their neighbors.

Now what happens when one part of the country experience an economic boom and the other part is barely keeping it's head out of the water?  How do you adjust economic policies, like interest rates, currency value and wich industries to subsidize?  That last part will make you laugh, but we know that even in fiscally conservative societies, like some parts of the US electing GOP candidates or Alberta, they do like their subsidies for sure.  So long as it's for their industries.

And if you had a bunch of small countries you would have deal with those same issues, only it would be even more contentious and probably even more counter-productive.  Economics do not stop at the border and subsidizing industries can lead to costly trade wars and WTO battles.  In a federal system certain economic powers are left in the hands of locals.  In a more centralized one you would need mechanisms to ensure each part of the country has the means to let its interests be known.  But Quebec and Scotland, for example, are both dominated by southern urban centers with sparsely populated areas to the north.  Why wouldn't these cities just dominate everything in the country?  How did independence lessen these problems?  And if you break them down into even smaller countries you run into that state rivalry business.

And then you got the social programs.  Some states want more government funded stuff, other states want less of that.  If everything is decided by one big government wich collect funds and redistribute it to local communities, you'll have a fiscal imbalance at some point.  Some communities will never receive enough money to fund the stuff they want, and the government to appear "fair", will have a tendancy to finance unuseful stuff in some communities that want less government funding just to appear as the "good" guy and not only the paychek thief.

Um dude if Scotland goes independent it will be commie as hell and plenty of communities in Scotland will think that sucks balls.  Even if just Edinburgh became its own city state I am pretty sure there would be disagreements and debates on this sort of thing.  You can actually form a polity where everybody agrees with how government spending is done?

Add this cultural differences, and unless the country is decentralized, it's a recipe for disaster and eternal conflicts.

Wich is when ideas of independance arises.

Yes but nations do not have friends, they have interests and they squabble.  Are disastrous external conflicts superior in some way?  Independence does not transfer you to Mars where Canada is gone and no longer impacts your life.  Except now Canada will be a rival and not a state that, however grudgingly, has to consider your interests its own.  And yes I think a decentralized federal polity where local customs is the way for local issues.  The central government should only be for economic and security issues to coordinate things in such a way as to give the ruling party as much patronage...err....I mean devise policies that benefit all.  Still better than a bunch of squabbling states.

Wich is not the way of the Scots, nor the way of Quebec, not even the way of the Catalans or the Flemish.
Well, maybe not the Flemish.

Interesting cherry picking.  Also note that none of those ethnicities presently has an ethnically based state.

It's based on language and/or local culture.  The idea that one person living in an area should adapt to that area, not the other way around.

No both things should adapt.  Now I think people will adapt to the culture eventually.

There lies a problem of geography.  If people are grouped around political ideas and geography, that's great.  Otherwise, you end up moving people.  Like the Loyalist exodus after your independance.  People who believed in the wrong idea were often expelled, or harassed.

In their case, they emigrated to Canada and Florida.  Geographical division, because the political idea that formed the country wasn't too keen on having a bunch of royalists at home.

That's awesome and I applaud you for trying to turn this on its head.  However the primary people who were murdered and harassed who were loyalists primarily happened because of an ethnic conflict between the English Patriots and the Scotch-Irish Loyalists in the south.  And the Scotch-Irish just stayed in the Appalachian highlands doing their own thing, nobody forced them out.  Granted we just had a civil war but I don't think it was the systematic expulsion of people you are presenting here.  We saved that for ethnic conflicts with the Native Americans.  Hard for me to see the Loyalists were worse off for not sharing the values as opposed to the far worse crime of being born in the wrong ethnic group.  Besides a lot of the loyalists came back later.  However, like I said, once you have class enemies things get ugly. 

Is it less silly than those who are expelled for their religion? ethnicity? culture?  I think it's all the same to me.

It is easier to change your mind about being loyal to King George than it is to magically become ethnically Polish. 

What will happen when the Spanish speaking population asks for Spanish public (as in, government funded) schools and colleges?
I'm betting there'll be fierce resistance to that idea.

I honestly have no idea, public education is funded and governed in this bizarre decentralized way here.  I know we used to have German speaking schools and Spanish speaking schools.  There is fierce resistance to educating certain people because the assumption is they are all illegal immigrants of course.

In any case, English, American English, even if it's no longer a majority in some states, is not about to disapear.  And I'm betting that what you see in Texas, is not people leaving english for spanish, but simply spanish speaking immigration and increased birth rate compared to the english speaking population.  Wich is different than a steady decline worldwide of your language.

Well it is not just Spanish speakers.  We have shit tons of Asians coming in who are not about to learn Spanish.  That is what is nice about having a multi-ethnic state.

Eventually, I guess, Texas will either offer full bilingual services to both languages, equal fundings for schools, colleges and hospitals, or more likely, try to restrict the use of spanish by various measures.

We do offer lots of bilingual services.  And equally funding schools is just not something we do, each district funds its own schools which gives us the fantastically dysfunctional educational system we have today.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Well, maybe not the Flemish.

No one will be expelled from Flanders if and when we achieve independence. It's rather well known that francophone press is not shy of blatant (and no so blatant) lying when it comes to portraying Flanders. No wonder when you know that they get their queue from francophone politicians.

[Grallon]

Europe is competing with massive continent-spanning entities like US, China, India, Russia, and here everyone is busy breaking up into smaller and smaller states.

There's more to life than making money you grubby fool! 




G.

[garbon]

Languish has only been around for about 11 though.

Paradox forum was there before.  There was that thing we called EUOT.  Ask Berkut and Malthus, they certainly remember that place

I echo, V's statements of the vague summary then. Hard to combat such a loose statement.

[garbon]

Europe is competing with massive continent-spanning entities like US, China, India, Russia, and here everyone is busy breaking up into smaller and smaller states.

There's more to life than making money you grubby fool! 




G.

Well I doubt defense of a state becomes easier as one becomes weaker.

[HVC]

The big bad "other" is such a big part of the Scottish and Quebecer mythos that you'll never convince the separatist that separating could actually harm their beloved nation. Economic realities (subsidies and common currency), political realities and the like mean nothing when someone is focused on the wrongs done 100 plus years in the past.

[Tamas]

Europe is competing with massive continent-spanning entities like US, China, India, Russia, and here everyone is busy breaking up into smaller and smaller states.

There's more to life than making money you grubby fool! 




G.

Smug feeling of national pride hasn't fed anyone.

Worst of this is of course, that if Scottish/French American independence becomes a reality but these states fail or at least end up worse than before, that will do zero to convince the likes of you. It would still be the fault of the English/Canadian state, not yours.

[Grey Fox]

Of course, it won't Tamas.

Grallon's and all other independantiste reasons to want a Free Quebec, none of them are economical.

As for the Canadian Federal system. I really wish Alberta, BC & Sask get down from their high horses and stop crying about péréquation and start dialogue with Quebec so We, together, can reshape(fuck up) our federal government.

[Berkut]

What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?

What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?

[Tamas]

What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?

What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?

[Malthus]

Honestly, if the French Canadians want Mel Gibson, they can have him.