QuoteKEN MCGOOGAN
It's time for Scotland to find a new home – in Canada
KEN MCGOOGAN
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Apr. 04, 2017 3:32PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Apr. 05, 2017 12:43PM EDT
95 Comments Print
Ken McGoogan's books include How the Scots Invented Canada, Celtic Lightning, and 50 Canadians Who Changed the World. In September, he will publish Dead Reckoning.
Let's invite Scotland to join Canada. The Scots aren't happy with the rest of Britain. They aren't happy politically with Westminster's shift to the right. They aren't happy with Brexit, and with being frog-marched out of a multinational alliance they don't wish to leave. The Scots, certainly as represented in Edinburgh, want to hold a second referendum on independence. But they're hitting a brick wall.
Read also: Brexit's ending is yet to be written
Now is the time for the Canadian government to extend an invitation. Would the Scots consider becoming a province of Canada? I know, I know. Some Scottish nationalists will throw their hands in the air – as will some Canadians. Please, hear me out.
With a population of 5.3 million, Scotland would become Canada's third largest province, after Ontario (13.9 million) and Quebec (8.3 million). Our country's current population is 36.5 million. With Scotland, in a country of 41.8 million, the new province would represent 12.6 per cent of the population, as compared with 8 per cent of the 65 million people in the U.K. And it gets better. Add the 4.7 million Canadians who claim Scottish heritage and you've got a cornerstone population of 10 million – nearly 25 per cent of the country's total. Isn't that what they call a power block?
Scotland is not contiguous with the rest of Canada. But given current communications technologies and the speed of air travel, distance has become irrelevant. Besides, Scotland is nearer to Newfoundland (3,355 kilometres) than Hawaii is to California (3,977 km). Glasgow is nearer to Halifax (4,250 km) than Halifax is to Vancouver (4,443 km). And Edinburgh is nearer to St. John's (3,450 km) than to Athens (3,825 km).
No, Scotland would not become fully independent. But even as a typical Canadian province, it would have more powers than it does now. Provincial legislatures have jurisdiction over their internal constitutions and direct taxation for provincial purposes, including for municipalities, school boards, hospitals, property and civil rights, administration of civil and criminal justice, and the list goes on. Of course, things get complicated, so let's cut to the chase. Would Scotland control its oil resources? The Constitution of Canada places natural resources under the jurisdiction of the provinces. So, yes. The answer is an emphatic yes.
Obviously, Scotland would not be a typical province. It would be unlike nine of the current ten. But consider Quebec. In 2006, the Government of Canada passed a motion recognizing "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." Quebec has its own ministry of international relations, whose mission is to "promote and defend Quebec's interests internationally." Like Quebec, Scotland would be distinct, but differently. And Canadians know how to accommodate difference.
True, Quebec has refused to sign the Constitution Act of 1982. But constitutionally, Canada has muddled on without that signature for 35 years ... and looks good to go for another 35. Does anybody imagine that, without the overwhelming support of the provinces, the federal government could unilaterally make a change on the scale of withdrawing from the European Union? Be serious.
But let's think about the EU. What if, after Brexit, Scotland applied to rejoin, not as a nation of 5.3 million, but as part of a country of 41.8 million. Obviously, it would have more clout. For Canadians, Scotland would establish a foothold in multicultural Europe. So, while the Tories in Britain and the Republicans in the United States set about creating a neo-liberal Anglosphere – anti-egalitarian, avowedly Christian, pro-Big Business, pro-military – Scotland becomes part of Canada and helps lead the way to a more progressive world. Here comes Ireland, north and south. Here comes Wales. It's a Celtic wave, and yes, it's bringing cheaper whisky.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/its-time-for-scotland-to-find-a-new-home-in-canada/article34583830/
There's some sense to it - rather than be adrift with an EU-less UK, an independent Scotland would now be a part of a new supra-national body - NAFTA. It would have substantially more independence as a Canadian province than it does now - and arguably more independence than it would as a independent member of the EU. It would even maintain a free-trade agreement with the rest of the EU via CETA (Canadian - EU Free Trade Agreement), albeit one with some still significant trade barriers, and no freedom of movement with the EU.
Where the article starts to sound foolish is when it talks about Canada itself joining the EU, and all in opposition to right-wing politics in the US and England. You should never make such wide-ranging decisions based on short-term political swings.
Russia would point to this when they annex the Baltic states.
No. That would be stupid.
Why not-- should be good for a laugh.
That seems pretty silly, Tim.
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2017, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2017, 04:02:35 PM
No. That would be stupid.
Why?
Scotland wants to join the EU, and Madrid has dropped its objections, for now.
Ugh. No more Presbyterians please
Why should Canada take them? I have read somewhere that they are a net money loser. They spend more than they earn in taxes. Ottawa needs to subsidise them if they refuse to reduce their expenditure (who wants to?).
Quote from: Monoriu on April 06, 2017, 05:36:21 PM
Why should Canada take them? I have read somewhere that they are a net money loser. They spend more than they earn in taxes. Ottawa needs to subsidise them if they refuse to reduce their expenditure (who wants to?).
:huh: Scots are the opposite of expensive.
Canada sucks
Goofy idea by a writer trying to gin up book sales.
Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2017, 05:39:38 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 06, 2017, 05:36:21 PM
Why should Canada take them? I have read somewhere that they are a net money loser. They spend more than they earn in taxes. Ottawa needs to subsidise them if they refuse to reduce their expenditure (who wants to?).
:huh: Scots are the opposite of expensive.
:lol:
Quote from: Monoriu on April 06, 2017, 05:36:21 PM
Why should Canada take them? I have read somewhere that they are a net money loser. They spend more than they earn in taxes. Ottawa needs to subsidise them if they refuse to reduce their expenditure (who wants to?).
We already subsidize 8 million people who speak funny, what's another 5.
I think thats a great idea.
While we are at it, let's not forget to extend a invitation to Turks & Caicos.
Prime Emperor Justin Trudeau has a nice sound to it.
Quote from: HVC on April 06, 2017, 08:40:50 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 06, 2017, 05:36:21 PM
Why should Canada take them? I have read somewhere that they are a net money loser. They spend more than they earn in taxes. Ottawa needs to subsidise them if they refuse to reduce their expenditure (who wants to?).
We already subsidize 8 million people who speak funny, what's another 5.
Who's "we"?
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2017, 03:59:56 PM
It would have substantially more independence as a Canadian province than it does now - and arguably more independence than it would as a independent member of the EU.
What is your argument why a Canadian province has more independence than the member states of the EU?
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2017, 03:59:56 PM
QuoteKEN MCGOOGAN
It's time for Scotland to find a new home – in Canada
KEN MCGOOGAN
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Apr. 04, 2017 3:32PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Apr. 05, 2017 12:43PM EDT
95 Comments Print
Ken McGoogan's books include How the Scots Invented Canada, Celtic Lightning, and 50 Canadians Who Changed the World. In September, he will publish Dead Reckoning.
Let's invite Scotland to join Canada. The Scots aren't happy with the rest of Britain. They aren't happy politically with Westminster's shift to the right. They aren't happy with Brexit, and with being frog-marched out of a multinational alliance they don't wish to leave. The Scots, certainly as represented in Edinburgh, want to hold a second referendum on independence. But they're hitting a brick wall.
Read also: Brexit's ending is yet to be written
Now is the time for the Canadian government to extend an invitation. Would the Scots consider becoming a province of Canada? I know, I know. Some Scottish nationalists will throw their hands in the air – as will some Canadians. Please, hear me out.
With a population of 5.3 million, Scotland would become Canada's third largest province, after Ontario (13.9 million) and Quebec (8.3 million). Our country's current population is 36.5 million. With Scotland, in a country of 41.8 million, the new province would represent 12.6 per cent of the population, as compared with 8 per cent of the 65 million people in the U.K. And it gets better. Add the 4.7 million Canadians who claim Scottish heritage and you've got a cornerstone population of 10 million – nearly 25 per cent of the country's total. Isn't that what they call a power block?
Scotland is not contiguous with the rest of Canada. But given current communications technologies and the speed of air travel, distance has become irrelevant. Besides, Scotland is nearer to Newfoundland (3,355 kilometres) than Hawaii is to California (3,977 km). Glasgow is nearer to Halifax (4,250 km) than Halifax is to Vancouver (4,443 km). And Edinburgh is nearer to St. John's (3,450 km) than to Athens (3,825 km).
No, Scotland would not become fully independent. But even as a typical Canadian province, it would have more powers than it does now. Provincial legislatures have jurisdiction over their internal constitutions and direct taxation for provincial purposes, including for municipalities, school boards, hospitals, property and civil rights, administration of civil and criminal justice, and the list goes on. Of course, things get complicated, so let's cut to the chase. Would Scotland control its oil resources? The Constitution of Canada places natural resources under the jurisdiction of the provinces. So, yes. The answer is an emphatic yes.
Obviously, Scotland would not be a typical province. It would be unlike nine of the current ten. But consider Quebec. In 2006, the Government of Canada passed a motion recognizing "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." Quebec has its own ministry of international relations, whose mission is to "promote and defend Quebec's interests internationally." Like Quebec, Scotland would be distinct, but differently. And Canadians know how to accommodate difference.
True, Quebec has refused to sign the Constitution Act of 1982. But constitutionally, Canada has muddled on without that signature for 35 years ... and looks good to go for another 35. Does anybody imagine that, without the overwhelming support of the provinces, the federal government could unilaterally make a change on the scale of withdrawing from the European Union? Be serious.
But let's think about the EU. What if, after Brexit, Scotland applied to rejoin, not as a nation of 5.3 million, but as part of a country of 41.8 million. Obviously, it would have more clout. For Canadians, Scotland would establish a foothold in multicultural Europe. So, while the Tories in Britain and the Republicans in the United States set about creating a neo-liberal Anglosphere – anti-egalitarian, avowedly Christian, pro-Big Business, pro-military – Scotland becomes part of Canada and helps lead the way to a more progressive world. Here comes Ireland, north and south. Here comes Wales. It's a Celtic wave, and yes, it's bringing cheaper whisky.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/its-time-for-scotland-to-find-a-new-home-in-canada/article34583830/
There's some sense to it - rather than be adrift with an EU-less UK, an independent Scotland would now be a part of a new supra-national body - NAFTA. It would have substantially more independence as a Canadian province than it does now - and arguably more independence than it would as a independent member of the EU. It would even maintain a free-trade agreement with the rest of the EU via CETA (Canadian - EU Free Trade Agreement), albeit one with some still significant trade barriers, and no freedom of movement with the EU.
Where the article starts to sound foolish is when it talks about Canada itself joining the EU, and all in opposition to right-wing politics in the US and England. You should never make such wide-ranging decisions based on short-term political swings.
there are already too many English speakers in this country ;)
No. They should join the United States.
Now that's crazy talk.
Quote from: derspiess on April 06, 2017, 10:57:30 PM
Now that's crazy talk.
That's your Irish blood talking.
Or Canada could join the UK?
....
You guys would vote to join the EU right?
If we are voting to join anything Quebec is voting to join the US.
Ain't making that mistake twice.
Bienvenue en Amerique. :hug:
I was thinking more like asking Canada WITHOUT Quebec to join the US....
We could take Scotland as well.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2017, 10:26:57 AM
I was thinking more like asking Canada WITHOUT Quebec to join the US....
They fought you twice to prevent freedom from overtaking monarchy. Why would they join you now?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 06, 2017, 11:03:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 06, 2017, 10:57:30 PM
Now that's crazy talk.
That's your Irish blood talking.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F880%2F932%2F474.gif&hash=9bb95e8e957c7c169f50ad3355694803d814fc3b)
Quote from: Zanza on April 06, 2017, 09:53:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2017, 03:59:56 PM
It would have substantially more independence as a Canadian province than it does now - and arguably more independence than it would as a independent member of the EU.
What is your argument why a Canadian province has more independence than the member states of the EU?
I don't know where he gets that, Canadian provinces have zero autonomy. Whatever autonomy we have is what the Feds have decided we could have.
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 11:46:55 AM
I don't know where he gets that, Canadian provinces have zero autonomy. Whatever autonomy we have is what the Feds have decided we could have.
So maybe they decided you could have more than zero.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2017, 11:54:21 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 11:46:55 AM
I don't know where he gets that, Canadian provinces have zero autonomy. Whatever autonomy we have is what the Feds have decided we could have.
So maybe they decided you could have more than zero.
Well, Scotland is part of the UK, so the UK decides what Scotland can do. I see no reason to imagine that Scotland would join the EU for less autonomy than other member countries.
But let's compare the UK, pre-Brexit with Quebec
- UK has a foreign policy and is allowed to maintain and deploy its own military where and when it wants.
- UK has its own postal service
- UK can establish environmental norms stronger than what the EU proposes
- UK is not dependant on Federal funding (coming through various form of taxations) for its schools and its healthcare system
- The United Kingdom is a country with its own head of State
- The UK has its own seat at the UN, the EU does not speak for the UK
- The UK has its own sports teams competing in olympics and world tournament
- The UK has its own embassies, it does not rely on EU embassies where the only language spoken is not their own despite the promises of multi-lingual services
- The European court can not strike down a UK law relating to domestic affaires under the guise of exclusive European power.
- The UK is master in its own land. No French politician running for the EU would ever say something like "English is not important because I know most young and dynamic British can understand French".
- The Germans would never try to pass historical propaganda depicting British as war criminals for a documentary.
And there are many other things where Quebec has no word to say but the UK can freely do under the European Union.
If I had the choice between belonging to the Canadian Federation or the European Union, it seems pretty clear to me, that geography notwithstanding, the EU is a much better deal.
No matter what you think of both organizations, the facts do not support BB's statements: EU members get much more rights than any Canadian province.
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 12:32:28 PM
- The Germans would never try to pass historical propaganda depicting British as war criminals for a documentary.
You are forgetting about the time the perfidious Albion forced Germany to invade Belgium.
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 11:46:55 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 06, 2017, 09:53:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2017, 03:59:56 PM
It would have substantially more independence as a Canadian province than it does now - and arguably more independence than it would as a independent member of the EU.
What is your argument why a Canadian province has more independence than the member states of the EU?
I don't know where he gets that, Canadian provinces have zero autonomy. Whatever autonomy we have is what the Feds have decided we could have.
Not sure if you are serious or just your usual hyperbole
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2017, 06:28:05 PM
Not sure if you are serious or just your usual hyperbole
viper37's hyperbole is always serious
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2017, 06:28:05 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 11:46:55 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 06, 2017, 09:53:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2017, 03:59:56 PM
It would have substantially more independence as a Canadian province than it does now - and arguably more independence than it would as a independent member of the EU.
What is your argument why a Canadian province has more independence than the member states of the EU?
I don't know where he gets that, Canadian provinces have zero autonomy. Whatever autonomy we have is what the Feds have decided we could have.
Not sure if you are serious or just your usual hyperbole
There is no exclusive powers to the provinces, the Federal government is free to spend whatever money he wants, how he wants in any provincial field and stop making transfer payements (our taxes).
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2017, 06:28:05 PM
Not sure if you are serious or just your usual hyperbole
I'll have you know that Viper and Grallon have heavily influenced my view on Canada.
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...
You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2017, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...
You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.
I was going to say...
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2017, 10:23:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2017, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...
You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.
I was going to say...
You also suggested that these powers in the BNA somehow make Canadian provinces more independent than EU member states. How did you come to that statement?
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2017, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2017, 10:23:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2017, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...
You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.
I was going to say...
You also suggested that these powers in the BNA somehow make Canadian provinces more independent than EU member states. How did you come to that statement?
If I were to guess, my guess would be he was thinking that Provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over what could broadly be characterized as civil law matters - so labour laws, regulation of provincially regulated businesses - that sort of thing.
Can Canadian provinces unilaterally leave Canada?
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2017, 08:57:57 AM
Can Canadian provinces unilaterally leave Canada?
Quebec has tried to obtain enough support within that province to do it. Yes.
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2017, 08:57:57 AM
Can Canadian provinces unilaterally leave Canada?
Didn't Quebec have a vote on that before?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 08, 2017, 09:00:38 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2017, 08:57:57 AM
Can Canadian provinces unilaterally leave Canada?
Didn't Quebec have a vote on that before?
Two times. The last one was very close.
Once Putin decides it's worth investing in, Quebec will leave.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2017, 08:59:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2017, 08:57:57 AM
Can Canadian provinces unilaterally leave Canada?
Quebec has tried to obtain enough support within that province to do it. Yes.
Does the rest of Canada agree that should Quebec clearly wish to leave, they would be allowed to do so without any recourse on the part of Canada proper?
Depends what you mean by recourse. Would we be petty and ensure that they're not part of any existing treaty signed by Canada, probably. But I don't think we'd actively try to stop them as in denying them the ability to leave.
What becomes more interesting is the First Nations. If Quebec has the right to leave Canada can the tribes leave them and join Canada? Any reasoning Quebec can use (separate culture, separate history, past abuses) surely the natives can use too.
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2017, 10:19:34 PM
Does the rest of Canada agree that should Quebec clearly wish to leave, they would be allowed to do so without any recourse on the part of Canada proper?
I think yeah - there's been some conversations, and I believe legislation, around whether 50% + 1 vote is sufficient to be acceptable, which to me implies an acceptance of the basic premise. Personally I agree that Quebec's fate is for the inhabitants of that province to determine.
But as HVC says there's the issue of to what degree Native populations would/ should be obliged to go along with the Québécois in the case of separation. I find it hard to think of any compelling argument in favour that is not odious, but I may have missed some.
There's also the issue of the Ungava district that was given to Quebec in the late 1880s and early 1900s from the old north west territories (Ontario, Manitoba,and Saskatchewan was also given land). Makes up 2/3 of modern Quebec.
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2017, 12:18:35 AM
There's also the issue of the Ungava district that was given to Quebec in the late 1880s and early 1900s from the old north west territories (Ontario, Manitoba,and Saskatchewan was also given land). Makes up 2/3 of modern Quebec.
You open that can, we open the one about labrador.
isn't the part of newfoundland that's an issue part of the ungava district anyway, or am I misremembering? anyway, i'm sure Newfoundland would be ok with that trade :lol:
But more seriously, grey fox, what the common mans perception of the native issue? would they be "allowed" to leave?
It would certainly look less silly on a map with a native secession from secessionist Quebec
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2017, 07:36:52 AM
But more seriously, grey fox, what the common mans perception of the native issue? would they be "allowed" to leave?
Can't recall ever seeing the point raise in an official talk or document but I'd bet everything on how they are not going to be allowed to leave.
That's a bit hypocritical :P
And then what if there's a French enclave in the native area-- would they be able to leave and rejoin Mother Quebec?
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2017, 11:21:12 AM
And then what if there's a French enclave in the native area-- would they be able to leave and rejoin Mother Quebec?
And what is a native family owns a house in the enclave? Can they then secede and join Canada? And what if there is a Quebec-sympathizing house pet inside that house...
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2017, 10:19:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2017, 08:59:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2017, 08:57:57 AM
Can Canadian provinces unilaterally leave Canada?
Quebec has tried to obtain enough support within that province to do it. Yes.
Does the rest of Canada agree that should Quebec clearly wish to leave, they would be allowed to do so without any recourse on the part of Canada proper?
The Supreme Court of Canada has weighed on in this topic. Quebec can not succeed unilaterally. Any independence would have to be negotiated, however the rest of Canada (TROC, in the lingo of the mid-90s), would have a duty to negotiate in good faith the terms of succession.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2017, 11:23:57 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2017, 11:21:12 AM
And then what if there's a French enclave in the native area-- would they be able to leave and rejoin Mother Quebec?
And what is a native family owns a house in the enclave? Can they then secede and join Canada? And what if there is a Quebec-sympathizing house pet inside that house...
They would be asked to move :glare:
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2017, 11:36:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2017, 11:23:57 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2017, 11:21:12 AM
And then what if there's a French enclave in the native area-- would they be able to leave and rejoin Mother Quebec?
And what is a native family owns a house in the enclave? Can they then secede and join Canada? And what if there is a Quebec-sympathizing house pet inside that house...
They would be asked to move :glare:
So much for self determination :weep:
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2017, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2017, 10:23:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2017, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...
You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.
I was going to say...
You also suggested that these powers in the BNA somehow make Canadian provinces more independent than EU member states. How did you come to that statement?
It was just a notion. Canada is usually described as being a very decentralized confederation. A lot of the caselaw describes the powers of s. 91 and s. 92 of the Constitution Act (it hasn't been the BNA Act for 35 years CC) describes the various enumerated powers as being "watertight compartments" - that is the powers of the provinces are exclusively those of the provinces. And beyond that Quebec has negotiated several unique carve-outs for itself. Quebec runs its own tax agency and national pension plan, for example.
It's confusing though to compare that to a state of the EU - as most areas seem to be described as "shared competencies".
Anyways, I think the point is better stated as a Scotland within Canadian Confederation would have far more autonomy than it does as part of the UK, and would be much easier to negotiate than would independent admission into the EU.
Trying to do some research...
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2017, 11:23:57 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2017, 11:21:12 AM
And then what if there's a French enclave in the native area-- would they be able to leave and rejoin Mother Quebec?
And what is a native family owns a house in the enclave? Can they then secede and join Canada? And what if there is a Quebec-sympathizing house pet inside that house...
This is why the mantra of "self-determination!" is so over played. It doesn't actually work in any practical sense, or rather it ONLY works if you accept that it has significant practical limitations, and cannot really be a foundational principle.
It requires you to define some arbitrary political entity for which it matters, and at no level below that. So Alabama can cry "self-determination! Secessarion!" while at the same time putting down, with force, a part of the state that wanted nothing to do with their succession. Same thing in Tennessee, and of course Virginia.
If you accept that there is some political entity of some particular size or configuration under which self determination no longer applies, what is so special about the "state" or "province" that intrinsically defines THAT entity as the determinative one? Why not the country? Why not the county, or town, or region?
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2017, 11:21:12 AM
And then what if there's a French enclave in the native area-- would they be able to leave and rejoin Mother Quebec?
While I understand the idea behind it, that is not possible. The Native are very racist when it comes to home ownership & living on their land.
Atleast the southern ones. The Inuit are more laid back about it.
To be fair there is a history of white people moving in and claiming land as their own :D
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2017, 12:06:36 PM
To be fair there is a history of white people moving in and claiming land as their own :D
Only by right of conquest!
Oh...that's not a thing anymore? Damn it.
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2017, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2017, 12:06:36 PM
To be fair there is a history of white people moving in and claiming land as their own :D
Only by right of conquest!
Oh...that's not a thing anymore? Damn it.
sure it is
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2017, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2017, 12:06:36 PM
To be fair there is a history of white people moving in and claiming land as their own :D
Only by right of conquest!
Oh...that's not a thing anymore? Damn it.
It's just called "eminent domain" now. Here's a check with an arbitrarily low number on it, thank you for your cooperation, citizen.
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2017, 11:55:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2017, 11:23:57 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2017, 11:21:12 AM
And then what if there's a French enclave in the native area-- would they be able to leave and rejoin Mother Quebec?
And what is a native family owns a house in the enclave? Can they then secede and join Canada? And what if there is a Quebec-sympathizing house pet inside that house...
This is why the mantra of "self-determination!" is so over played. It doesn't actually work in any practical sense, or rather it ONLY works if you accept that it has significant practical limitations, and cannot really be a foundational principle.
It requires you to define some arbitrary political entity for which it matters, and at no level below that. So Alabama can cry "self-determination! Secessarion!" while at the same time putting down, with force, a part of the state that wanted nothing to do with their succession. Same thing in Tennessee, and of course Virginia.
If you accept that there is some political entity of some particular size or configuration under which self determination no longer applies, what is so special about the "state" or "province" that intrinsically defines THAT entity as the determinative one? Why not the country? Why not the county, or town, or region?
I've often wondered about that. I have no idea either.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2017, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...
You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.
Feds can not pass laws in exclusive provincial powers. But they can invalidate provincial laws and Federal laws have supremacy over provincial laws, something not happening in Europe right now everywhere.
See the recent business with the Federal funding of healthcare. They can't pass a law, but since they perceive whatever taxes they want and then distribute the money to the provinces, they can starve provinces into submission to force them to do whatever they want. With our money. And that's totally legit.
As the UK been forced to do something against its will under threat of not receiving the money taxed by the EU on their own territory? I don't think so.
It's no wonder there were many (failed) attemps to limit the Federal spending power. But hey, you voted Liberal, so you're fine with all that :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2017, 08:40:07 AM
If I were to guess, my guess would be he was thinking that Provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over what could broadly be characterized as civil law matters - so labour laws, regulation of provincially regulated businesses - that sort of thing.
Civil law, yes.
Labour laws: subject to federal authority for most of them, far from being exclusive. Also, any company operating under a Federal charter is not subject to Quebec's civil laws.
And criminal law is exclusive to the Federal government. Quebec could not decriminalize something that Canada judges illegal or vice-versa, no more than we could decide the penalty for a crime.
While tribunals are administered by the provinces, the Federal is naming the judges in Superior courts, the ones judging the criminals. Which makes murderers go free now, since they aren't prosecuted on time.
Scotland would get much, much less autonomy as a Canadian province than as a EU Member nation. It would get more power than by staying inside the UK, for sure, but not staying a full fledged member of the EU.
How are you being starved? by far you get the most equalization payments. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
Quote from: viper37 on April 10, 2017, 04:59:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2017, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...
You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.
Feds can not pass laws in exclusive provincial powers. But they can invalidate provincial laws and Federal laws have supremacy over provincial laws, something not happening in Europe right now everywhere.
See the recent business with the Federal funding of healthcare. They can't pass a law, but since they perceive whatever taxes they want and then distribute the money to the provinces, they can starve provinces into submission to force them to do whatever they want. With our money. And that's totally legit.
As the UK been forced to do something against its will under threat of not receiving the money taxed by the EU on their own territory? I don't think so.
It's no wonder there were many (failed) attemps to limit the Federal spending power. But hey, you voted Liberal, so you're fine with all that :)
Invalidate provincial legislation - when was the last time that happened - 70 years ago? 80 years ago?
I don't even understand the second bit about Federal government having supremacy over provincial laws.
And I knew you would come back to spending powers. You know what? The province has all the ability to tax and spend all it wants.
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2017, 11:52:12 AM
(it hasn't been the BNA Act for 35 years CC)
It must be my conservative outlook that compels me to use its traditional name -_-
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2017, 05:12:40 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 10, 2017, 04:59:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2017, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...
You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.
Feds can not pass laws in exclusive provincial powers. But they can invalidate provincial laws and Federal laws have supremacy over provincial laws, something not happening in Europe right now everywhere.
See the recent business with the Federal funding of healthcare. They can't pass a law, but since they perceive whatever taxes they want and then distribute the money to the provinces, they can starve provinces into submission to force them to do whatever they want. With our money. And that's totally legit.
As the UK been forced to do something against its will under threat of not receiving the money taxed by the EU on their own territory? I don't think so.
It's no wonder there were many (failed) attemps to limit the Federal spending power. But hey, you voted Liberal, so you're fine with all that :)
Invalidate provincial legislation - when was the last time that happened - 70 years ago? 80 years ago?
I don't even understand the second bit about Federal government having supremacy over provincial laws.
And I knew you would come back to spending powers. You know what? The province has all the ability to tax and spend all it wants.
There is a glimmer of understanding in Viper's post. But it is a good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. In areas of Provincial jurisdiction where a province has not legislated the Federal government may step into the gap and pass its own legislation. But that doctrine has essentially been abandoned in favour of the legal theory of cooperative federalism where the courts try to harmonize the laws in each jurisdiction rather than reasoning from the position of Federal Supremacy.
A certain lawyer was able to convince the Feds to back off regulating a certain Provincial industry using that very logic a few short years ago. :)
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2017, 11:52:12 AM
It was just a notion. Canada is usually described as being a very decentralized confederation. A lot of the caselaw describes the powers of s. 91 and s. 92 of the Constitution Act (it hasn't been the BNA Act for 35 years CC) describes the various enumerated powers as being "watertight compartments" - that is the powers of the provinces are exclusively those of the provinces. And beyond that Quebec has negotiated several unique carve-outs for itself. Quebec runs its own tax agency and national pension plan, for example.
It's confusing though to compare that to a state of the EU - as most areas seem to be described as "shared competencies".
The EU has been delegated sovereign powers by its member states for points 2, 12 (market), and partially for 4, 5, 6, 14-20, 22 & 23 (banking, currency, parents, public debt) of your Constitution. However the member states keep stuff like 1 (fiscal policy), 2A (social policy), 3 (taxation), 7 (military), 25 (immigration), 26 (family), 27 (criminal) to themselves with some minor exceptions. Another major difference is of course that the EU has no mechanism on the federal level to start an amendment of it's constitutional order (Part V of your constitution) but rather uses the international law on treaties for that and thus needs unanimous consent to adopt changes.
Quote
Anyways, I think the point is better stated as a Scotland within Canadian Confederation would have far more autonomy than it does as part of the UK, and would be much easier to negotiate than would independent admission into the EU.
The EU has a defined entry process ("Copenhagen Criteria") and set of provisions that Scotland currently mostly fulfills ("Acquis Communitaire"). We've added three new members in the last decade and are in active negotiation with some more. How does the process work to join Canada?
Quote from: Zanza on April 10, 2017, 08:36:26 PM
The EU has a defined entry process ("Copenhagen Criteria") and set of provisions that Scotland currently mostly fulfills ("Acquis Communitaire"). We've added three new members in the last decade and are in active negotiation with some more. How does the process work to join Canada?
There is none. BB wasn't arguing that they are equivalent. Only that there is a general argument that provinces withing the Canadian Federation have more autonomy in certain areas than member states in the EU.
He just made a new argument, namely that it would be easier to join Canada than the EU. So I wondered about the process for the former as he must have something to compare to the EU accession process to make such a statement or else he just made an unfounded assertion, which I obviously do not want to allege here.
Quote from: Zanza on April 10, 2017, 08:56:22 PM
He just made a new argument, namely that it would be easier to join Canada than the EU. So I wondered about the process for the former as he must have something to compare to the EU accession process to make such a statement or else he just made an unfounded assertion, which I obviously do not want to allege here.
I read his statement as their level of autonomy being easy to negotiate since we have a ready made formula in our constitution already. If he is saying that becoming a Province is easy, then no. It would be an impossibility given that we would have to amend our constitution to make the addition. And there is no way Quebec would agree to that.
I focused on the last half sentence of his statement. I can believe the rest, namely that Canadian provinces have more autonomy than devolved British countries. British devolution seems to be a half-baked compromise between England and the other countries.
Quote from: Zanza on April 10, 2017, 08:56:22 PM
He just made a new argument, namely that it would be easier to join Canada than the EU. So I wondered about the process for the former as he must have something to compare to the EU accession process to make such a statement or else he just made an unfounded assertion, which I obviously do not want to allege here.
Canada does have some history of regions joining Confederation - from the purchase of Rupertsland, to British Columbia joining, right up to 1949 and Newfoundland joining Confederation.
Now those expansions were not trivial by any sense. But the Newfoundland example is probably the most useful (and also the only one not from the 19th century). It involved negotiations between Canada and Newfoundland, and ultimately only required the passing of an Act in London. Now of course it would require the passing of an Act in London, Edinburgh, and Ottawa, but still a reasonably straight-forward process.
Admission to the EU however is a complex process requiring the consent of the majority, if not the unanimous consent, or all 27 (26?) members.
Now, if Scotland were to demand wholesale changes to the standing Canadian constitution that would affect the other 10 provinces, then you'd need to get the 7/50 amending formula a work out. However if Scotland just signs up and then negotiates one off deals with Ottawa (like QUebec did for immigration, or Newfoundland did for oil (important for Scotland!)), it only requires Ottawa's consent.
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2017, 05:08:47 PM
How are you being starved? by far you get the most equalization payments. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
Ontario gets the most of Federal investments, and Alberta benefits from slack environmental rules from the Federals that allowed her to pollute the country at low cost while we all foot the bill and make the sacrifice to reduce our greenhouse gaz emissions. Just compare two identical situation. Olympic candidacy. Quebec receives 200 000$ from the Federal government to submit a candidacy. Ontario gets 8million$ for Toronto.
If we're talking specific federal transfer, not just equalization, I've already alluded to the recent deals with the Federal govt and the provinces considering health care transfers. The Federal will give the provinces their money but only if they invest it as Trudeau sees fit. Regardless of what the provinces need.
And I'm not talking specifically about Quebec. I'm talking about the balance of power between the Federal government and the provinces, as BB alluded that Scotland would get a lot more autonomy inside Canada than inside the EU, while it is not true at all.
A Canadian province has more power than what the British government allows Scotland to, but the EU grants far more power to the France than Canada does to any province.
Quote from: Barrister on April 11, 2017, 01:45:06 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 10, 2017, 08:56:22 PM
He just made a new argument, namely that it would be easier to join Canada than the EU. So I wondered about the process for the former as he must have something to compare to the EU accession process to make such a statement or else he just made an unfounded assertion, which I obviously do not want to allege here.
Canada does have some history of regions joining Confederation - from the purchase of Rupertsland, to British Columbia joining, right up to 1949 and Newfoundland joining Confederation.
Now those expansions were not trivial by any sense. But the Newfoundland example is probably the most useful (and also the only one not from the 19th century). It involved negotiations between Canada and Newfoundland, and ultimately only required the passing of an Act in London. Now of course it would require the passing of an Act in London, Edinburgh, and Ottawa, but still a reasonably straight-forward process.
Admission to the EU however is a complex process requiring the consent of the majority, if not the unanimous consent, or all 27 (26?) members.
Now, if Scotland were to demand wholesale changes to the standing Canadian constitution that would affect the other 10 provinces, then you'd need to get the 7/50 amending formula a work out. However if Scotland just signs up and then negotiates one off deals with Ottawa (like QUebec did for immigration, or Newfoundland did for oil (important for Scotland!)), it only requires Ottawa's consent.
I'm pretty sure the 7/50 amending formula is required to accept any new territory. Scotland or some carribean island.
Quote from: viper37but the EU grants far more power to the France than Canada does to any province.
The EU has no powers to grant as the sovereign entities are the member states that confer part of their inherent powers to the EU.
Quote from: viper37 on April 11, 2017, 01:48:46 PM
I'm pretty sure the 7/50 amending formula is required to accept any new territory. Scotland or some carribean island.
I really don't think so.
At first I was worried because House of Commons representation is set by the Constitution, but it actually has been amended numerous times by a simple act of Parliament (including post-1982). The one thing that can't happen is take provinces below the thresholds set out in the original BNA Act (which is why Quebec, PEI and the Territories gets seats that over represent them in the commons). But I can't see anything that would require a full-blown constitutional amendment to add a jurisdiction to confederation, and the historical precedents seem well established.
BB, you got a couple things wrong.
First, the Constitution does expressly require an amendment using the 7/50 amending formula in order to add a new province.
Quote42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
(f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces
s. 38(1) is of course the 7/50 formula.
Second, you misunderstand how Newfoundland came to be a province. It was not simply through negotiations in the 20th century. Rather the original BNA Act expressly provided for its inclusion if and when the legislature of Newfoundland agreed to join Canada. That, of course, did not occur until 1949.
As a result the notion that Scotland could simply negotiate with Parliament is a bit of a fairy tale.
Quote from: Zanza on April 11, 2017, 03:48:48 PM
Quote from: viper37but the EU grants far more power to the France than Canada does to any province.
The EU has no powers to grant as the sovereign entities are the member states that confer part of their inherent powers to the EU.
Viper has a similar misconception regarding the Canadian Federation. The powers of the provinces were not granted by Canada. They are the creation of the British Parliament in the BNA Act.
To Viper, that's the same thing.
Quote from: Zanza on April 11, 2017, 03:48:48 PM
Quote from: viper37but the EU grants far more power to the France than Canada does to any province.
The EU has no powers to grant as the sovereign entities are the member states that confer part of their inherent powers to the EU.
I took a shortcut, yes.
The sovereign nations confer powers to the Federal (EU) authority.
In Canada, the Federal government was given authority by the British authorities and chose to give some of that power to the provinces, while still maintaining powers to fuck things up. The EU could never do to Scotland what Canada can do the provinces. The EU can't decide where Scotland should spend its healthcare money. The EU can't complain about Scotland maintaining embassies around the world or sharing them with another country, even non EU and then cut its transfer payments because of that. The EU can't send the army into Scotland to arrest members of the opposition parties.
Basically, it's like Scotland would be an independant nation delegating part of its power to another sovereign nation, namely the EU, where as, as a Canadian province, it would submit itself shackled and naked to be done with whatever pleases Canada.
Quote from: HVC on April 06, 2017, 05:18:32 PM
Ugh. No more Presbyterians please
And anglophones. :ph34r:
Quote from: Rex Francorum on April 12, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 06, 2017, 05:18:32 PM
Ugh. No more Presbyterians please
And anglophones. :ph34r:
have you ever heard a true Scotsman? Anglophone is debatable :D
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2017, 07:36:52 AM
But more seriously, grey fox, what the common mans perception of the native issue? would they be "allowed" to leave?
Of all those those who "threaten" to leave if Québec becomes independant, I think the Natives have the better case. The other one who threatened to leave is a bunch of angry anglo-Montrealers. Even if local gouvernements (cities, villages) have a legal status, they cannot pretend to have a national status like the Natives and they are directly under control from the provincial government.
Quote from: HVC on April 12, 2017, 01:47:39 PM
Quote from: Rex Francorum on April 12, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 06, 2017, 05:18:32 PM
Ugh. No more Presbyterians please
And anglophones. :ph34r:
have you ever heard a true Scotsman? Anglophone is debatable :D
Ha ha I know that from a foreign point of view, UK = all a bunch of Anglos but it is lived very differently in UK with English, Scots, Irish and Welsh peoples.
Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2017, 01:07:20 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 11, 2017, 03:48:48 PM
Quote from: viper37but the EU grants far more power to the France than Canada does to any province.
The EU has no powers to grant as the sovereign entities are the member states that confer part of their inherent powers to the EU.
I took a shortcut, yes.
The sovereign nations confer powers to the Federal (EU) authority.
In Canada, the Federal government was given authority by the British authorities and chose to give some of that power to the provinces...
This might be a grammar problem, but the British did not give authority to the Federal Government which then gave some of its power to the provinces. The British Parliament decided the division of powers. The British Parliament passed sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act which creates the division of powers. The British expressly decided against creating a Unitary state and instead decided to create a federation of provinces.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2017, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2017, 01:07:20 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 11, 2017, 03:48:48 PM
Quote from: viper37but the EU grants far more power to the France than Canada does to any province.
The EU has no powers to grant as the sovereign entities are the member states that confer part of their inherent powers to the EU.
I took a shortcut, yes.
The sovereign nations confer powers to the Federal (EU) authority.
In Canada, the Federal government was given authority by the British authorities and chose to give some of that power to the provinces...
This might be a grammar problem, but the British did not give authority to the Federal Government which then gave some of its power to the provinces. The British Parliament decided the division of powers. The British Parliament passed sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act which creates the division of powers. The British expressly decided against creating a Unitary state and instead decided to create a federation of provinces.
It wasn't the British who decided this - it was the Fathers of Confederation at Charlottetown.
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2017, 10:17:32 PMIt wasn't the British who decided this - it was the Fathers of Confederation at Charlottetown.
The Fathers Confederation weren't British?
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2017, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2017, 10:17:32 PMIt wasn't the British who decided this - it was the Fathers of Confederation at Charlottetown.
The Fathers Confederation weren't British?
Well in those days Canadian was merely a subset of British.
Not British Parliamentarians, in any event.
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2017, 11:24:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2017, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2017, 10:17:32 PMIt wasn't the British who decided this - it was the Fathers of Confederation at Charlottetown.
The Fathers Confederation weren't British?
Well in those days Canadian was merely a subset of British.
Not British Parliamentarians, in any event.
Well, I suppose it has been 150 years and so memory of what actually happened has dimmed. In fact what happened is that the "Fathers of Confederation" sent a number of resolutions in favour of confederation to London for consideration by Parliament. The BNA Act was drafted in London and passed by Parliament.
And I continue to call it the BNA Act when we talk about it during this period of time, because that is exactly what it was called. In fact it is still called the BNA Act in Britain. It is only proper to use the phrase "Constitution Act" after Britain no longer had legislative authority over Canada - which occurred in 1982.
Mais qu'est ce qu'on en a a foutre, bordel. Finalement c'est vraiment un pays de Belges, le ROC.
Never change Zoupes
Quote from: Zoupa on April 13, 2017, 10:32:58 PM
Mais qu'est ce qu'on en a a foutre, bordel. Finalement c'est vraiment un pays de Belges, le ROC.
I'll translate this, with my excellent French skills!
"Alas, but what quest is the cheese in the brothel on. Finally, there is clothing for the land of Belgium in the Republic of China.
Pays de Belges is really quaint, not so used nowadays but still understood. :frog:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2017, 08:53:23 PM
The British expressly decided against creating a Unitary state and instead decided to create a federation of provinces.
actually, that was part of the compromise between Cartier and McDonald to get Quebec in the Confederation. McDonald wanted a Federal government only, with all the powers. Cartier (and others) insisted on devolution to the provinces to get Quebec on board.
I get viper and grallon being separatist, I don't agree, but I get it. Zoupa being one annoys me for some reason :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on April 14, 2017, 12:07:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2017, 08:53:23 PM
The British expressly decided against creating a Unitary state and instead decided to create a federation of provinces.
actually, that was part of the compromise between Cartier and McDonald to get Quebec in the Confederation. McDonald wanted a Federal government only, with all the powers. Cartier (and others) insisted on devolution to the provinces to get Quebec on board.
I agree that Cartier is the person in the Colonies who is most responsible for having provincial powers. After the Act of Union, it was the only thing that was going to make sense for what was to become Quebec. But if the British government had wanted Canada to become a unitary state, that is likely what would have happened - just like the Act of Union.
Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2017, 12:18:49 PM
I get viper and grallon being separatist, I don't agree, but I get it. Zoupa being one annoys me for some reason :lol:
When I read posts by Oex and Rex, separatism makes a lot of sense. When I read posts by Grallon, I wonder about the extremists attracted to the cause. Zoupa just strikes me as grumpy and frustrated the vote didn't work out.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2017, 08:50:17 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 13, 2017, 10:32:58 PM
Mais qu'est ce qu'on en a a foutre, bordel. Finalement c'est vraiment un pays de Belges, le ROC.
I'll translate this, with my excellent French skills!
"Alas, but what quest is the cheese in the brothel on. Finally, there is clothing for the land of Belgium in the Republic of China.
Cheese is fromage. :frog:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 16, 2017, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2017, 08:50:17 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 13, 2017, 10:32:58 PM
Mais qu'est ce qu'on en a a foutre, bordel. Finalement c'est vraiment un pays de Belges, le ROC.
I'll translate this, with my excellent French skills!
"Alas, but what quest is the cheese in the brothel on. Finally, there is clothing for the land of Belgium in the Republic of China.
Cheese is fromage. :frog:
Centurian: "'Fromage'? Nominative? 'Cheese in the brothel', this is motion towards, isn't it, boy?"
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2017, 11:43:17 AM
When I read posts by Oex and Rex, separatism makes a lot of sense. When I read posts by Grallon, I wonder about the extremists attracted to the cause. Zoupa just strikes me as grumpy and frustrated the vote didn't work out.
I am. Nobody should ever come to me for the Whys and Hows of independance. I do agree that Oex has the writing skills and mastery of english to explain Qc's "feelings" 10 times better than me. I bet you GF feels the same way.
About Oex language skills? Of course.
I am not grumpy about the 1995 referendum. I was 11 & firmly in the no camp back then. (My grand father was a PC mp in the 80s)
But explaining the feeling of Francophones in Quebec to Americans is usually a lost cause, especially when some RoC anglos are around.