Scottish Independence: Quebec Edition

[Berkut]

I am really curious - it has to be something pretty terrible. Grallon said they were being "strangled", and apparently he didn't mean literally, but he does mean something pretty horrific.

I am surprised that in our modern times a western, liberal nation like Canada is cruelly oppressing a significant portion of their population in such a manner, but I can't quite figure out exactly what that manner of strangling oppression is...

[garbon]

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?

From a few searches of "what does Quebec want from Canada" - it sounds like they just want to be primarily in charge of their own affairs. Distrust that Canada (as a whole) has Quebec's best interests at heart with a dash of Quebec could do it better if they were given free rein.

[Barrister]

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.

But I don't want to "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?

From a few searches of "what does Quebec want from Canada" - it sounds like they just want to be primarily in charge of their own affairs. Distrust that Canada (as a whole) has Quebec's best interests at heart with a dash of Quebec could do it better if they were given free rein.

That is completely vague though, and hardly the basis for dissolving a political union.

What in particular is Canada doing to strangle Quebec that if only they would let them go Quebec could stop doing or having done to them?

Honestly, the only thing concrete I've heard from the pro-independence "crowd" is that they want more power to create a more intolerant society towards those who are not French enough, or god forbid, dirty furriners.

But I know that is just a fringe element, and most of the pro-independence crowd have much less contemptible grievances. I just want to know what they are...

[garbon]

That is completely vague though, and hardly the basis for dissolving a political union.

Hey that's what kept popping up. Along with spirited defenses that it is a fiction that Quebec would be intolerant.

I could kind of dig it, insofar as if one thinks that one's nation would be better off when independent - as opposed to hitched to a federal government that doesn't care about it, then one could be inclined to separatism. Trouble for me is that I don't think either of those assumptions are true.

[Grallon]

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?

Here we go again - there has been countless threads about this where I and Viper and Oex and Rex Francorum tried in our various ways to explain this - only to have our explanations thrown back in our face with a contemptuous dismissal as expressions of tribalism, xenophobia, etc.  That gets old after a while.

But to answer your question, they will not agree that as the heartland of the French Canadians Quebec should be more than merely a province like the others.  Which means it should have a different status within the federation - and that in turn means more powers and less interference from the federal govt. in those areas that pertain to the maintaining and furthering of our national culture.  They will not agree that whatever 'national policy' they cook between themselves - according to their values and culture should not be automatically applied to Quebec-a-province-like-the-others.  And they will not do these things because, as I've stated numerous times, they don't recognize us as a nation.  They actively deny it.  They're so mired in the Trudeau ideology of state mutliculturalism they can't even fathom it - for them we're merely another minority.  And if some do aknowledge the fact it's only to deride the notion as a relic of the past.

When you have a Malthus pompously quoting the dogma of the Canadian state religion that 'ethnic identity will fade overtime' - it's not conducive to further dialogue.  And I for one will not have my identity dismissed as irrelevant by people strutting about and crowing about their *own* brand of identity as something 'ball-of-light' superior.   And when we speak of identity it obviously means more than folk songs - it means a way of life that is unique.  According to those people Quebecers or Scots or Catalans should simply abandon who they are to disappear in whatever dominant culture they are surrounded with, which in recent years also imply surrendering everything to the globalization process, its institutions, and those (mostly unelected and unaccountable) who control it. 



G.

[Malthus]

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?

Here we go again - there has been countless threads about this where I and Viper and Oex and Rex Francorum tried in our various ways to explain this - only to have our explanations thrown back in our face with a contemptuous dismissal as expressions of tribalism, xenophobia, etc.  That gets old after a while.

But to answer your question, they will not agree that as the heartland of the French Canadians Quebec should be more than merely a province like the others.  Which means it should have a different status within the federation - and that in turn means more powers and less interference from the federal govt. in those areas that pertain to the maintaining and furthering of our national culture.  They will not agree that whatever 'national policy' they cook between themselves - according to their values and culture should not be automatically applied to Quebec-a-province-like-the-others.  And they will not do these things because, as I've stated numerous times, they don't recognize us as a nation.  They actively deny it.  They're so mired in the Trudeau ideology of state mutliculturalism they can't even fathom it - for them we're merely another minority.  And if some do aknowledge the fact it's only to deride the notion as a relic of the past.

When you have a Malthus pompously quoting the dogma of the Canadian state religion that 'ethnic identity will fade overtime' - it's not conducive to further dialogue.  And I for one will not have my identity dismissed as irrelevant by people strutting about and crowing about their *own* brand of identity as something 'ball-of-light' superior.   And when we speak of identity it obviously means more than folk songs - it means a way of life that is unique.  According to those people Quebecers or Scots or Catalans should simply abandon who they are to disappear in whatever dominant culture they are surrounded with, which in recent years also imply surrendering everything to the globalization process, its institutions, and those (mostly unelected and unaccountable) who control it. 



G.

This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading. The fact is that Canada is already about as decentralized a federation as one could find, and Quebec already exercises all sorts of powers within that. Note the lack of any specifics as to what, exactly, Quebec needs additional powers *for* that it does not have *right now*. What could Quebec do when it is its own country, that it can't do now? You will never see an actual answer to that question, just more Grallonesqe huffing and puffing.

Also it is "ethno-nationalism" I hope to see fade, not "ethinic identity". Sad that Grallon apparently can't tell the difference.

[derspiess]

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.

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

Then cut the French Canadians loose.

[Grey Fox]

I am really curious - it has to be something pretty terrible. Grallon said they were being "strangled", and apparently he didn't mean literally, but he does mean something pretty horrific.

I am surprised that in our modern times a western, liberal nation like Canada is cruelly oppressing a significant portion of their population in such a manner, but I can't quite figure out exactly what that manner of strangling oppression is...

You can read Grallon's explanation.

I will try to make it way more simpler.

We are different, much different. Culturally, politically, economically, etc from Rest of Canada. They have trouble with that fact.

Independantist believe we are being opressed and the only way to fix that is too gain independance. I believe differently that creating a less powerfull with a lot less spheres of responsability Federal government (with no taxation power!*) is a much better idea.


*It can have tax revenue & set a rate but Provinces will collect the money & redistribuate.

[viper37]

Please never watch that horrible Mel Gibson movie.

too late for that.  I even made the mistake of buying it on Blu Ray.  This is what happens when you drink a lot and watch movies, your memories of it are always positive.  I had the same problem with that horrible movie on a masked twin to Louis XIV with DiCaprio.  Meh.  Glad this period of my life is over and done.

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

I must be expressing it wrongly.
Trying to correct it...
They will vote on independance because they feel "Scottish", not "British".  From there, there are other issues that arises with the central government in terms of governance.  Because they feel different, they feel the policies of the central government are misadapted to their reality, wich is mostly a geographic one: how they are felt by those in this particular territory.  And once independance is declared, I doubt there will be two classes of Scots: those whose ancestors fought with William Wallace and those who came later...

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.

Ah, but it seems to me the general consensus among anglo-saxons is that language is just a tool, not a basis for identity.
As such, if Quebec were to pass legislation promoting the use of French, it would simply a matter of deciding wich hammer is the best...  And shouldn't cause any concern to the population...

Anyway, this is slightly off-topic.

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

I don't know, honestly   It's just my favorite quote from The Last of the Mohicans
Later policies in Canada where certainly to keep the place British.  American colonists like Franklin were arguing we should be deported and make room for Loyal Subjects of his majesty (how things changed quickly in a decade! ).

The rights we were given (rights to hold a state job, right to practice religion) where to prevent us from joining the American rebellion, first, and later, to avoid Quebec joining the United States, as other British colonies&territories were starting to think.  But the official policy of the British was that French was a non-culture, English culture&history was superior and we should be assimilated for our own good.  Wich is something that persisted until the second half of the 20th century.  But you'll find people who are still seriously advocating that, albeit a minority.

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 the case of Scotland and Canada, these issues are decided by the central government.  And calls for change mostly go unanswered for.
Over time, these little grievances accumulate.

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.

See agricultural and oil subsidies.  All countries, do it, even the US.  Even conservative Alberta is attached to its oil&gaz subsidies by the Federal government (or rather, generous tax credits).  No WTO battles here.  No NAFTA problems either.
Some US States, like, recently, Tennessee, like to heavily subsidized their industry to attract them.  California, Quebec and British Columbia offer very generous tax credits for the film industry, but these are done at the local level, so they do not cause any issues.  Same for video games.  Again, no issues with WTO or NAFTA here.

All these treaties contain loopholes that still let the states finance an industry the way they want.  Even if you are prevented from subsidizing an industry directly, you could still be able to tax it at 0% and make it a refundable tax credit so it can be used when you finally turn a profit.

Now, in a big country, it stands that some places will have a dominant industry different than another part of the country.  When the central authorities decide to favor one industry over another with its fiscal policies, they hurt the other industries.  It gets even worst when the tax credits and subsidies are industriallyy & geographically linked.  Example: Quebec once a tax credits for video game makers and film producers.  It applied only if you built a studio in a specific area of Montreal.  What it did was crushed the burgeoning video game industry of Quebec city and helped Montreal established itself as the capital of movies and video games for Quebec.  And it let one entrepreneur take subsidies to build movie studios denied to other and today he can impose his will on anyone else trying to shoot a movie in Montreal (the case of Mel's Studios is quite documented).

This is the kind of stuff that create resentment.

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.

And when that does not happen, you give rise to an ethnic and geographic nationalism.
More often than not, central authority fears that decentralization will lead to a loss of "national feeling".

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?

The closer the center of decision is, the more effect you can have on it.
Does that solve everything?  Of course not.  In the case of Scotland, I don't really know the differences.
In the case of Quebec, there are conflicts, and there are places in the province we can't reach by road.  Small thriving communities of white and indian people, despite their isolation.  Independance would not solve any of that.  But massive federal centralization is even worst.

It all depends on the level of decentralization of the new State.  If Scotland replicates the UK model once it's independant, it might be a failure.  If Quebec replicates the Canadian federal structure in its independant country, no matter when it happens it will be a failure.

And if you break them down into even smaller countries you run into that state rivalry business.

You find your niche and you develop it. This is how smal businesses survive.  My company is small, smaller than most of our competitors, but we have found our niche that many people do not want to touch.  If I wanted to, I could again work in Montreal, because there's close to zero competition.  But since I hate working for dishonest people, I don't do it.

This is what small countries do.  They find a niche, they specialize in it.  Swiss financial services being one example. Had Switzerland been divided between Italia, France and Austria, it is doubtful any of these countries could have developped extensive financial services that ultimately benefited many of their citizens.

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?

You said yourself that a state based on sharing political ideas was better...

For better or for worst, Scots feel they need to be more to the left than the actual United Kingdom is.  They believe that by seperation they will be able to preserve their social programs so dear to them.  I actually doubt it,  I believe it more likely that they will follow the Slovakian model and gradually move away from socialism as they realize it is a failure.
But it will be their choice.

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.

When you reach a point where the idea of independance reach a large part of the population, it is because you consider the central authorities' decision to be mostly against your own interests.  Doesn't have to be 100% of the time, but this is generally grounded in facts.  Wether or not making your own decisions would give a better result is a matter for debate.

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.

That's like asking a question: "Do you like apple pie?". Not many people will say no.
Of course, everyone wants an ideal state.

But neither the United Kingdom nor Canada are decentralized states, at least, no up to what you propose.  Remember that both in the case of Scotland and Quebec, we have much less autonomy than a US State.  And you went to war because some States felt the Fed gov was too powerful...  And given that you'll reply that their rebellion was a failure due to lack of a centralized effort, the obvious answer would be that you require a balance between centralization and autonomy.

My own ideal version of governance is close to the US, but a tad more decentralized.  I would be against any federal initiative in health care and leave the matter entirely to the States.  Except maybe for coordination of local efforts in a pandemic situation, I don't see how a central authority should decide for everyone what level of healthcare should a state offer to its citizens.  Even if I wish to preserve the publically funded health care of my country, I disagree with the Federal law forcing it on the provinces.

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

We do not really exists as pure individuals.  We are byproducts of the society we live in.  A Québécois Garbon would be a different individual, all things being equal.

Nationalism in a democratic country is bound to be different than in a place where force was use to push people in a united federation/empire.  I admit I was unprepare to Serbian nationalism invoking events of the 15th century (in all seriousness) to justify their 20th century conduct.

I don't want to cherry pick, but I will insist on a difference between a democratic nationalist movement and a military nationalist movement.

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

It's been 255 years since the first British settlers established themselves in Quebec.  As of 1976, when bill 101 was implemented, there were still many unilingal anglophones in a predominantly french Quebec, and it was very difficult for french speakers to find decent paying job in Quebec without speaking english.  In a time where international contacts were still pretty limited...

So, no, I do no think they will adapt to the culture eventually, unless they receive a small push in the back.  Not when you don't even control your immigration (wich is partly solved now).

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

But most form of nationalism aren't ethnically based.
Everyone can become Polish.  Or American, or Canadian.  You just have to emigrate to the country, live&work there for a while, apply for citizenship.  Some countries ask for knowledge of the local language, and I don't disagree with that.  If you recite a pledge of allegiance, you have to at least understand what you're doing. 

I would argue that if you hate English with a passion, consider Americans to be nothing more than barbarians with writing skills, you have no business emigrating to the USA, even if it's the best job offer you'll ever have in your life.
Replace the language and the people by any other one in the world if you wish...

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.

Asians in Texas, really?  Seems I haven't kept close enough attention to southern US demographics lately
I blame Dallas for not featuring enough Asians on television. 

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.

if it's funded by district, than it is radically different than what I imagined.  I always tought the bulk of the money came from the State, redistributed to local districts.
The argument does not really apply then.  I'm guessing you are seeing predominantly asian or spanish districts wich fund their own schools then.

[garbon]

We are different, much different. Culturally, politically, economically, etc from Rest of Canada. They have trouble with that fact.

Can you quantify that a bit? Seems less like RoC has a problem with Quebec being different and more that Quebec is upset that RoC won't recognize those differences / allow Quebec a more privileged place.

[sbr]

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?

Here we go again - there has been countless threads about this where I and Viper and Oex and Rex Francorum tried in our various ways to explain this - only to have our explanations thrown back in our face with a contemptuous dismissal as expressions of tribalism, xenophobia, etc.  That gets old after a while.

But to answer your question, they will not agree that as the heartland of the French Canadians Quebec should be more than merely a province like the others.  Which means it should have a different status within the federation - and that in turn means more powers and less interference from the federal govt. in those areas that pertain to the maintaining and furthering of our national culture.  They will not agree that whatever 'national policy' they cook between themselves - according to their values and culture should not be automatically applied to Quebec-a-province-like-the-others.  And they will not do these things because, as I've stated numerous times, they don't recognize us as a nation.  They actively deny it.  They're so mired in the Trudeau ideology of state mutliculturalism they can't even fathom it - for them we're merely another minority.  And if some do aknowledge the fact it's only to deride the notion as a relic of the past.

When you have a Malthus pompously quoting the dogma of the Canadian state religion that 'ethnic identity will fade overtime' - it's not conducive to further dialogue.  And I for one will not have my identity dismissed as irrelevant by people strutting about and crowing about their *own* brand of identity as something 'ball-of-light' superior.   And when we speak of identity it obviously means more than folk songs - it means a way of life that is unique.  According to those people Quebecers or Scots or Catalans should simply abandon who they are to disappear in whatever dominant culture they are surrounded with, which in recent years also imply surrendering everything to the globalization process, its institutions, and those (mostly unelected and unaccountable) who control it. 



G.

Ah, the I'm-a-Special-Snowflake Doctrine.  A very powerful force to those that subscribe.

[Grey Fox]

We are different, much different. Culturally, politically, economically, etc from Rest of Canada. They have trouble with that fact.

Can you quantify that a bit? Seems less like RoC has a problem with Quebec being different and more that Quebec is upset that RoC won't recognize those differences / allow Quebec a more privileged place.

I can try.

Culturally. There is obviously the language. That is the driver of most of the differences. We, as customers, consume a lot less American cultural products than the rest of Canada. Our TV, Movie & Radio industry are more popular than their English-Canada counterparts. We don't get married anymore. Religion is not talked about in the public sphere(unless to try to minimize the small influence it has).

Politically. We are more socialist then the RoC. As provincial parties go, none are really right. In Federal Election, while Alberta votes PCC blindly, Ontario votes Liberals & PCC blindly. Last election, Quebecers elected a majority of NDP mps(because the Bloc Québécois wasn't an option anymore) and the Liberals had a deadstart Leader.

Economically. I am not sure how it works in all provinces but the Quebec government is involved in many spheres. We, has a province, don't really have non-governemental Venture Capitals.

[viper37]

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

I'm not so sure about that...

[viper37]

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

than surrender to my superior arguments & feelings and we'll call it quits