Scottish Independence: Quebec Edition

[Berkut]

I have no idea what that means.

Back in EU-OT times.  When we were both moderators.  Because I was french speaking, you assumed Chirac was my President,

So I assumed some one that spoke French was from France, and that is evidence of my ignorance? Right.

you did not know who was Canada's prime minister, and you seemed unaware that there was a French speaking minority in Quebec.

Lol. That is just pure bullshit.

Given this, and given this:

My vision of Quebec politics is mostly informed by you and gallon and such.

it seems you have distorted view of Canadian politics shaped by your opinion of the people talking about it rather than objective facts.

I admit my ignorance of these facts you speak of and keep asking for them so you can enlighten me, but you never actually articulate them. So I remain ignorant do these theoretical facts and can only conclude that the reasons that HAVE been articulated are the primary reasons.

Those who want independence are primarily motivated by their desire to create a more homogenous ethnic  nation - in other words, they want to be able to discriminate against others more effectively. Hence my happiness that only 42% of the people feel like that. Over time, the humanist in me believes that those kind of bigoted views will continue to decline,

And y mso far, the only concrete complaint I've seen is that you aren't allowed to discriminate against those who are not French enough. I am sure there are better reasons, surely there must be, but you've failed to articulate them with any specificity at all.

And again, you are either ignorant of the facts, or you are distorting them on purpose, as many English Canadians like to do.  The English Speaking Quebecers have much more rights than any French speaking minority in Canada.

Oh? Wow, I had no idea there were different rights for each group! Now we are getting somewhere!

What rights do the English speakers have that the French speakers do not? This is fascinating, how does the state enforce these extra rights? What if the French speakers can speak English as well, can they trick the Feds in that case to get those extra rights?

Please tell me more about these rights that the French speakers are denied!

It is all very general - "we are different!".

Well you know, you could all be just one giant state down there instead of a multitude of tiny different territories with each their own laws and peculiar tax rules.

We could, but why? Our current system works ok, and nobody is wailing about wanting to secede so they can more effectively discrimante against people not sufficiently like them, and when some states do try to betray what the USA is about there is an effective check on them - they have to pass federal legal muster and review. I would certainly oppose, say, Arizona demanding that the Feds let them discrimante against Spanish speakers or they will secede,

[Berkut]

I am sitting here in Toronto airport talking about this. Across the aisle from me us a French Canadian couple and a female friend. And both women are just seriously beautiful.

Heading to Edmonton again?

Yep. Maybe we can get that game of Twilight Struggle in this time...I brought it...

[Razgovory]

Again exactly what rights and powers do the people and government of Quebec want?  What is the National government preventing you guys from doing.

Oh, and here's a tip.  Don't compare yourselves to the US south.  That isn't going to help you one bit?

[mongers]

Canadian politics is rather like a poor quality port or sherry, it doesn't travel at all well. 

[viper37]

Again exactly what rights and powers do the people and government of Quebec want?  What is the National government preventing you guys from doing.

Oh, and here's a tip.  Don't compare yourselves to the US south.  That isn't going to help you one bit?

I gave a link to Berkut 10 pages ago.  Not my problem if you don't read.

[Tamas]

So, how about them Scots? 

Who cares when there is the odd chance that Quebec has only 95% say in her own stuff?!!!

[viper37]

Lol. That is just pure bullshit.

I remember it, because it was part of a discussion we had on you, Yi and I, when we met in Quebec city in the early 2000s.
I usually have a long and good memory for stuff I read.

I admit my ignorance of these facts you speak of and keep asking for them so you can enlighten me, but you never actually articulate them. So I remain ignorant do these theoretical facts and can only conclude that the reasons that HAVE been articulated are the primary reasons.

I gave you a link to Lake Meech accord, wich was rejected as being too much by English Canada and led directly to the PQ victory and the second referendum.

If you want an explanation on why there was a referendum in 1980 and the rise of an independantist movement in Quebec in the 1960s, I will, again, provide you of examples that happenned in the early part of the 20th century.  At wich point you will declare them silly, because they are past acts from so long ago.

If I give you possible acts for the future, since unfortunately I can not accurately predict future events down to the small details, you will, just like Malthus, say that is "theoritical" and has no ground in reality.

Either way, I'm fucked.

Those who want independence are primarily motivated by their desire to create a more homogenous ethnic  nation - in other words, they want to be able to discriminate against others more effectively. Hence my happiness that only 42% of the people feel like that. Over time, the humanist in me believes that those kind of bigoted views will continue to decline,

If that is your belief, who am I to argue?  You tell me you see fairies in your backyard, I tell you there are no fairies to wich you reply there are fairies, I just don't see them because I don't believe in them...
You see what you want to see, despite any facts to the contrary.

Oh? Wow, I had no idea there were different rights for each group! Now we are getting somewhere!

Of course there are.

What rights do the English speakers have that the French speakers do not? This is fascinating, how does the state enforce these extra rights? What if the French speakers can speak English as well, can they trick the Feds in that case to get those extra rights?

Quality public education.  Making you own decisions about it, not being subject to an english schoolboard.  Adequate fundings for schools.
Healthcare in your own language.  Bilingual services from the provincial government, albeit not officially.
The right to work your own language (wich is nearly impossible for any French outside of Quebec, even in the theoritically bilingual Federal government).
The right to not be thrown out of an airplane for asking to be served in French.

Heck, Ontarians will protest when an hospital wants to hire bilingual staff in an hospital.  Quebec anglophones refuse to have bilingual hospitals, they need their own english hospitals, at twice the cost.  But we are horribly and actively discriminating them...

In Ottawa, the provincial government merged the subburbs with the the central city.  the new city, the capital city, is not even officially a bilingual city.  It creates too much controversy, apparently... But we're the intolerant one
You remove rights to French citizens in predominantly french areas by merging them with the english majority, and that's ok.

Doing that in Quebec gets you called a nazi, see the Federal government threaten intervention and ultimately a referendum on de-merger is allowed, with the predicted result that predominantly english suburbs will choose to un-merge from Montreal, while Montreal keeps paying for the services they all benefit and there's a strange super structure added with two levels of governance inside the city that paralize everything.  But it's ok, it was done to protect the Anglo minority rights of being unilingual english.  I guess that was ok, they were English speakers.  It doesn't matter if Montreal's governance is now a mess and all of Quebec has to pay for that, we got to please the poor, discriminated anglos.  How terrible that would have been for them to hear other people speak- gasp, french!  Horrible!

Please tell me more about these rights that the French speakers are denied!

Since you don't believe me, why don't you try reading about it for yourself?

We could, but why? Our current system works ok, and nobody is wailing about wanting to secede so they can more effectively discrimante against people not sufficiently like them, and when some states do try to betray what the USA is about there is an effective check on them - they have to pass federal legal muster and review. I would certainly oppose, say, Arizona demanding that the Feds let them discrimante against Spanish speakers or they will secede,

If that how you see your fairies, again, who am I to argue with your visions?

[viper37]

But I can tell you that in negotiations over anything with Quebec, the issue of sovereignty always sneaks in.  Even when it's a federalist government, there's always the notion (sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes not) that if the federal government doesn't give Quebec what it wants, then "that will only play into the PQ's hands".

So to some, I guess it feels like blackmail.


As for the latest opinion polls still show a narrow but consistent lead for "No", 48-42%.

http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker

don't deviate this thread with  politics Mister!


Playing in the "PQ" hands has been successfully used by Federalist politicians to toughen their stance toward Quebec.
See 1982.  Most of the Premiers had a deal with Levesque.  One by one, Trudeau and his team rallied them: "Do you really want to side with the seperatists?".  And that worked like a charm, isolating Levesque, who felt betrayed by his partners.

As for the blackmail thing, it is possible the Liberal government tried that.  But neither Charest nor the actual Premier were very nationalist themselves, so, imho, it was more to try and secure their own political carreer by appearing to make gains at the expanse of the Federal government than for anything else.  The PQ, and the Bloc, have been on the decline for a decade now, with the occasional come back to almost life following extreme&dire circumstances.

To get the the 1980 referendum, we needed the FLQ crisis, the subsequent massive arrests and the army patrolling the streets to finally push Lévesque into power.  In 1995, it required the double rejection of Meech and Charlottetown to push people close to independance.  Charlottetown was especially seen as a slap in the face, since it basically shackled the province to the Feds with the Canada clause, yet, it was felt as still being too much.

[Jacob]

Canadian politics is rather like a poor quality port or sherry, it doesn't travel at all well. 

I normally care about Canadian politics, but right now in this thread it's pretty damn tedious.

[mongers]

Canadian politics is rather like a poor quality port or sherry, it doesn't travel at all well. 

I normally care about Canadian politics, but right now in this thread it's pretty damn tedious.

Yes it is rather killing off us Britisher's interest in the thread. Pity as the content could possibly turn out to be a Languish 'historic document' if we get a dramatic result.

[Razgovory]

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?

The minimal conditions that were rejected by English Canada, under the influence of intense Liberal Party's campaigning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord#Agreement
It led directly to the second referendum.

Is this what you mean?  It is kinda vague, does not contain any "rights" as I know them, and as you said is the minimum conditions.  What else do you want?

As I far as I can tell the demands are a bit odd.

The recognition that French speaking Canada is important and fundamentally distinct.  In the US that would be a fluff piece like naming a state fossil or something.

Parliament and provincial legislatures are to be devoted to preserving these fundamental characteristics.  Exactly who decides that is fundamentally distinct that needs preserving.  And what is the government going to do about it?  That seems arbitrary and open to abuse.

The next bit is about immigration.  Quebec wants a bigger say in immigration.  What does it mean that government will guarantee certain numbers of immigrants to Quebec?  And why does Quebec want Canada to withdraw support for services of immigrants in Quebec?

The last part is about the Supreme Court.  There must be a guarantee that at least 3 of 9 of the Supreme Court members are part of the civil Bar.  Is that proportional to the population of Canada or is this in reconigintion that the people who practice civil law are more unique and important?

[DGuller]

How did the discussion about Scots turn into a discussion about primitives and Quebecoise?

[Grey Fox]

But I don't want to "fuck up" our federal government.   

that's a common belief in Canada, that any change to the way the country is governed will fuck up things.  Canada is perfect, it should not change.  In the off chance that it would not be perfect, it should certainly not change to accomodate the desire of a predominently francophone province.

It's been the dominant factor in Canadian politics since Trudeau came to power.

I would not have expected an Albertan to share his point of view though...

You forget my politics though - there are plenty of things I'd like to see changed in Ottawa (and in Edmonton, for that matter).

But what I'd like to see are concrete proposals - what specific areas would be better run by the province, rather than the federal government, and explanations why.  It's just I don't typically see that - demands from Quebec (and Scotland) are just for "more" powers.

Having worked for both the federal government, and the provincial government, I don't see any as more virtuous or capable than the other.

I am willing to discuss a reformation of our federal system, not tainted by the independantist movement and bias, any time. Maybe in the Canadian thread?

@everyone, We did it! we turned another thread into Canadian politics, well done people.

[Grey Fox]

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?

The minimal conditions that were rejected by English Canada, under the influence of intense Liberal Party's campaigning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord#Agreement
It led directly to the second referendum.

Is this what you mean?  It is kinda vague, does not contain any "rights" as I know them, and as you said is the minimum conditions.  What else do you want?

As I far as I can tell the demands are a bit odd.

The recognition that French speaking Canada is important and fundamentally distinct.  In the US that would be a fluff piece like naming a state fossil or something.

Parliament and provincial legislatures are to be devoted to preserving these fundamental characteristics.  Exactly who decides that is fundamentally distinct that needs preserving.  And what is the government going to do about it?  That seems arbitrary and open to abuse.

The next bit is about immigration.  Quebec wants a bigger say in immigration.  What does it mean that government will guarantee certain numbers of immigrants to Quebec?  And why does Quebec want Canada to withdraw support for services of immigrants in Quebec?

The last part is about the Supreme Court.  There must be a guarantee that at least 3 of 9 of the Supreme Court members are part of the civil Bar.  Is that proportional to the population of Canada or is this in reconigintion that the people who practice civil law are more unique and important?

Immigration : Since the Federal gov. decides how many total immigrants gets in, Quebec wants a fix number that will be aimed for Québec immigrations (French speaking).
Judges : proportionnaly would be 2.5, I guess they rounded up.

[Grey Fox]

How did the discussion about Scots turn into a discussion about primitives and Quebecoise?

Because the thread title has the word independance in it & it's what we do.