A letter from Quebec
As a French Quebecer belonging to a generation that was deeply influenced by Harry Potter, it was with great interest and concern that I read JK Rowling’s recent letter on why she opposes Scotland’s independence.
Of herself and her fellow Scots, she justly writes that “whatever Scotland decides, we will probably find ourselves justifying our choice to our grandchildren.”
Well, I’m one of those grandchildren previous generations now find themselves having to justify their decisions to, and I can tell you how it went for us.
I was born in 1990 – exactly ten years after Quebec’s first referendum on independence from Canada. I was too young to vote (or read, for that matter) during its second referendum, in 1995.
As Scots are about to live through the same process, it might be tempting to believe that as Mrs. Rowling writes, a No will really be understood as “not this time, but”:
Well, we in Quebec are here to tell the tale. Our extensive experience with the aftermaths of No votes may be of some use to those in Scotland who still hesitate.
Following both 1980 and 1995’s referendum losses, our parents and grandparents were also promised the upper hand in future negotiations. The consecrated phrase was “renewed federalism”; constitutional changes which would recognize Quebec’s distinct character as well as more power and autonomy within the Canadian Confederation.
Attempts at this systematically failed. From the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords (1987, 1992) to the Calgary Declaration (1997), no agreement was ever reached between the two parties. When the Canadian government didn’t arrogantly trample demands, the other provinces made sure we would not step out of line.
Here, the term “Night of the Long Knives” was used to refer to the night of November 4, 1981, when the Prime Ministers of Canada and its provinces agreed in complete secrecy to sign the patriation of the Canadian Constitution – and did so, literally and purposefully, behind Quebec’s back. In the end, the much hyped “offers of extra powers” and “position to dictate terms” amounted to nothing.
To this day, the Canadian Constitution lacks Quebec’s signature. We are still in a constitutional limbo more than thirty years after our first referendum. However, all things considered, these are technicalities.
What is solid fact is that in 2011, in the last federal election, a new Canadian government was elected entirely without Quebec—a first. In the last five years specifically, so many game-changing decisions have been taken against Quebec’s strong collective will that we are now simply used to the dichotomy and annoyed, instead of revolted.
We were made to retract from our commitment to the Kyoto Accord on climate change. We were made to abolish our national Firearms Registry, which had been put in place after the traumatising mass shooting at the École Polytechnique de Montréal. The government in Ottawa uses underhand tricks every once in a while to try to weaken women’s rights.
It has adopted foreign policies which do not represent us, but shame us. It made drastic cuts in culture as well as in research and science. Finally, it seizes every chance it gets to make Quebec more dependable on the dirty tar sands and fossil energies produced by other provinces, a policy that right now means putting a dangerous pipeline – over which we have no power whatsoever – through our most densely populated territory.
No one in the Canadian government feels threatened at all by another referendum. Quebec is The Province Who Cried Wolf.
Meanwhile, we underwent a well-documented phenomenon known as “post-referendum syndrome”. Disillusion, lack of vision and cynicism have plagued our collective space for as long as I can remember; I have never known real political enthusiasm (Except, admittedly, during the 2012 student strike). Social ambition became political corruption. From culture to entrepreneurship everything withered instead of exploded.
If the Yes side had won either time, would we be a debt-ridden, corrupted country? There is no way we can ever know. What we do know is that we are now a debt-ridden and corrupted province. And it is far from certain that we can ever clear away enough cynicism to hold one referendum more, someday. Such a move requires incredible energy and optimism, and those are in short supply. (And charismatic and inspiring political leaders do not come every decade, either.)
Some, of course, will disagree. Many believe that we could be better off if only we were more like the rest of Canada and less attached to our distinctiveness. Others will point out that we can still try to nudge Canada’s nature in the right direction.
However, it’s the world’s nature that Quebecers of my generation would have liked to impact on. The world we live in is going to change, probably drastically – environmental issues will force these changes onto us if we don’t make them ourselves. It would be a fantasy to trust that our children and our children’s children will experience the same paradigms and systems we know now.
Mrs. Rowling mentions that “dramatically differing figures and predictions are being slapped in front of us by both campaigns, so that it becomes difficult to know what to believe.” Probably the answer is no one. Or everyone.
History has taught us that economic trends can only ever really be predicted in hindsight. Numbers can be formed and unformed to the advantage of one side or the other until the day they actually happen. Therefore, once it can be demonstrated that either option offers a reasonable chance of opportunity and success, why not go back to the basics?
Scotland is not Quebec. The UK is not Canada, and Europe is not North America. But believe me, if there’s one thing you don’t want to have to tell your grandchildren 34 years from now, it’s that you thought you were protecting them when you decided to make them experience the next era’s world as spectators, not players.
The argument JK Rowling uses is truly dismal. She could look in at any Women’s Aid shelter and speak to the people there about the benefits of staying in a dysfunctional marriage – only because the spouse promises to reform! She herself walked out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling#Marriage.2C_divorce_and_single_parenthood
We must do the same.
Thanks for the Quebec letter which illustrates the point so well.
Powerful stuff! Thank you for taking the time to tell us your story Viviane.
Excellant summary of the future that could await us on a No vote. Let’s not fall for what’s happened to Quebec. Remember we are getting fed the same scaremongering stories they were fed right up to the day of the referendum proper.
Be brave mes amies.
Good article. Rowling’s comment that:
“I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay.”
..is surely the most facile, counter-intuitive, and (as the Quebec experience shows) demonstrably false claim yet made in the independence debate. And it’s up against the outpourings of Lamont and Rennie, don’t forget.
A Chilling prospect Viviane.
Many thanks for this thought provoking piece, which Im sure will provide much needed clarity for the undecided here in Scotland. No doubt a cautionary tale for the ‘Proud Scots’ leaning towards a no for fear of the uncertainty of a new start.
This perfectly highlights the folly of trusting that things could still improve under a NO vote.
No = No more Scotland folks.
Scotland does indeed face a similar fate should we vote the wrong way. You only have to look back on the last 30yrs to see the evidence.
I wonder if there was a complete failure of the press and TV stations to present the needed information in a reasonable way and fair?
Many thanks for those words of warning – a splendid piece.
Thanks for that, a great insight into the result of a No. The last sentence is a killer.
An all too plausible glimpse into the future of a no vote.
Thanks Viviane.
This is what YES already knows, but a good conformation none the less. It is the No’s who do not really “get it”, party because of love of the Union, despite it being a basket case, others because they are too lazy to think for themselves.
If NO wins, which god willing they won’t, these people will forever regret what they have brought on this land. That is of course excepting the many who profit themselves with the Unionist connection.
However, the UK is in permanent decline, and quite likely to go bust. Then I would suppose it will then dawn in them, that they should have voted YES. Unfortunately by then the damage will have been done to Scotland, their home!
Yes, we all have a choice, make the one to raise your country, decide not to kick it into the gutter, vote yes and we can all build a new and exciting land.
Does anyone know Lorraine Kelly’s views on independence? I’ve been doing a few searches but can’t find anything. Infuriating!
And of course Scotland has been there before in the aftermath of the ‘lost’ 1979 Devolution referendum. In the wake of that the heavy industry was closed with indecent haste as were the coalmines but those after a bitter fight and following on there was the poll tax.
We don’t have to resort to Quebec to drive home the dangers of voting No, though thanks for your input. And buck up, there may be in your generation or the next an Alex Salmond figure who will re-energise and re-enthuse the PdQ or start a better party and undercut them. Just because such leaders do not come along very often doesn’t mean they never will.
Look at New Zealand, currently we have an ex currency spiv as a PM but before him we had Helen Clark who now heads the UN Development Agency and was headhunted for the role. She is also being talked about as a possible new DG. She is a very impressive person. Small places can throw up such persons. Ireland had Mary Robinson.
Your time may well come.
“the province that cried wolf”
This, for me, is what a No vote will reduce Scotland to.
An excellent, thought-provoking piece – thank you Viviane.
Very good read, many thanks.
If anyone votes on the positive assumption that “Things can only get better!” for Scotland within the UK then they should remember that that, was Tony Blairs theme tune.
The thought of my children being ‘Spectators not players’ is frightening.
I’m voting YES for everyone’s children.
It would be really helpful if we could find a few honest Quebecers who voted NO in 1995 and now bitterly regret it.
It’s always difficult to get people to own up to crucial, life-changing mistakes, especially those made in confidence. However, if a few would be willing to come out and encourage us in Scotland not to make the same mistake in September, it could be a greal boost to the YES campaign.
A big ‘thank you’ to Viviane Martinova-Croteau
For 40 years and 4 months come Sept 18th the Westminster Gov has been lying to the Scots about oil & Gas.
And lying too about who knows what.
Now, with only 87 days left, and after 40.4 years of unbroken lies so many in Scotland believe that the London based UK Gov are now telling us the truth.
What kind of person, after 40.4 years of lying and cheating by their other half, would refuse to listen to the truth about the past and pledge renewed commitment to their ‘union’.
Houston, we need a psychiatrist.
Quebec’s advice set to fall on the deaf ears of half a nation.
Minus one.
Really powerful article,I will be directing a few undecided to this.
O/T English Scots for YES are having their official launch this thursday.
Its at 12 pm outside the Scottish parliament building,and there will be speakers and interviews taking place.Coffee and chat afterwards,to discuss next steps.
I don’t know how many English folk are on wings regularly ,but PLEASE try and come along,we need lots of folk there.Thanks!
A good read, we can’t say we’ve not been warned.
Re Lorraine Kelly, if I remember right her name was mentioned as a No however she issued a quick reply saying that she had not expressed her opinion for either.
The argument that we’ll have the upper hand if we vote no is terrifyingly naive for someone who must be politically very intelligent. We’re 8.4% of the UK population and we’ll have specifically voted to keep decisions about us made by an electorate 91% not-living-in-Scotland. That will include many, many voters who want devolution rolled back or abolished. It’s UKIP policy and it’s hard to imagine either Labour or the Tories don’t secretly want that now, just to save being here again.
And as for justifying it to your grand-children, no one in any normal country in the world sits their grandchildren on their knee and tells them how proud they were to stand against their country’s independence or how much they regret being involved in the struggle for independence!
Both those arguments are just weird. But then JK also believes the “blood and soil nationalism” lies and that those who support Yes are death eaters. Very disappointing from someone I would have trusted to raised the level of debate and provide something more intelligent than the usual Better Together offensiveness.
Great article, and demonstrates what happens when you let others dictate and control your destiny. Remember that the Labour Party, the so called party of devolution, set up the Scottish Parliament with a voting system designed to STOP the SNP ever getting a majority. That system failed directly as a result of the people of Scotland having faith in the SNP government that has delivered, despite increasing financial challenges.
The people of Scotland now have confidence and a genuine belief that this is our time. They also know that the next UK government, whether it is Tory or Labour, with Ukip in coalition, will unleash further austerity and many British citizens will suffer. Only a YES vote will deliver independence for us and see the beginning of change in Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England.
“Does anyone know Lorraine Kelly’s views on independence?”
I seem to recall her being pretty No, but I can offer no evidence in support of that feeling at the moment.
Rev – Anyone else see the coverage of ‘The Lords of the new Church’ in the SH ?
Baron/Lord/Earl Reid of ‘who cares’ & Baron/Lord/Earl Haughey of the ‘East End’ Unite as ‘true socialists’ to defeat Scottish Independence !
So much’Proud Scotery’ in one piece, you could just smell the tartan & haggis.
Being a Scot of Canadian (specifically British Columbian) descent and citizenship, I can’t help but read this with some guilt, even though, like the author, I was also not born before the referendum in 1980 and too young to vote (not that I would have had a vote anyway) in 1995.
A fun fact about Canada is that, with roughly one in six of its 35 million population claiming Scottish descent, there are more Scots in Canada than there are people in Scotland. I have to wonder how many of them are supporting Scottish independence that also oppose Quebecois independence.
JK Rowling’s prediction that “I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay,” is utterly delusional. Popular with whom? Who on earth is she speaking about? To stay where, exactly? And what has a political decision of this kind got to do with marriage? She is a mere romantic fantasist.
“Does anyone know Lorraine Kelly’s views on independence?”
That is worthy of The Day Today
You can almost picture a Chris Morris C4 special on Sept 17th “And look how the Scots sway in unison as they await the official recommendation from national heroine Lorraine Kelly. Kelly’s words of wisdom are due immediately after she presents a piece to camera on sequinned boob tubes!”
Any person with any sense will know that there will be no more powers other than tax raising. That means that Scotland is being offered the worst possible measure -to lift more tax from the Scottish people and Westminster will cut the grant accordingly. Its a win win for Westminster
This is a great article, Viviane. It’s easy to see how Scotland could suffer a similar fate.
“Many believe that we could be better off if only we were more like the rest of Canada and less attached to our distinctiveness.”
How long after a No vote before people start suggesting Scotland tries to be a bit more like the rest of the UK? Oh I forgot – Gordon Brown, Andy Burnham and others already have.
Powerful article Viviane, I hope many take the message from it.
Thank you
The BIG problem for JK Rowling is that if Scotland votes NO and then the UK vote Tory she will need that cloak of invisibility.
Only today we learn in evidence from Professor David Heald of Aberdeen in a submission to Holyrood’s finance committee, “There is generalised hostility to the Barnett formula in Whitehall and Westminster, on the basis of what is perceived as excessive levels of public expenditure in Scotland and Northern Ireland”
Combine that with the prospect of huge cuts in UK public expenditure post 2015 and you have the reality that Scotland is going to be severely punished for having the temerity to challenge Westminster.
Somebody ought to remind JK Rowling that domestic abuse is not to be tolerated, such as telling your significant other that they are too wee too poor and too stupid to make it on their own. Zero tolerance, do not believe you are not good enough or it will become self fulfilling. I know nothing of Rowling’s personal life and could care less but I would lay a bet that if she was with her child’s father she would not be enjoying the quality of life available to her and her child now. Why doesn’t she preach what she practiced? If the relationship is wrong, because of eg an abusive partner,then get out. End of!
Gillie
Sadly looks like it will be a bigger problem if the JK Sponsored Labour Party got in?
Makes you wonder how someone so lauded and with an opinion thats meant to be highly respected (and grounded) cannot see exactly what sort of potential society she is actively currently funding and campaigning for with millions of pounds of donations.
Solidarity between the various independence movements is a great thing and will only help to strengthen relations between Scotland and the rest of the world (besides rUK, of course). The story above is a lesson for what could, god forbid, happen in Scotland and I appreciate the time taken to tell it. I am sure, that the people of Quebec and other regions elsewhere, would be as equally deserving of independence, if it were truly what the people wanted.
The similarities between the no movement in Quebec and Better Together have already been proven to be striking. Utterly unsurprising of course, it was obvious to everyone interested that the No campaign in Scotland would be completely moronic and only capable of trying to scare the populace.
I do however take a little umbrage when comparisons are drawn between the independence movements in Scotland and those of regions in other countries. I’m going to make myself very unpopular here, but…
The situations in Quebec, Catalonia etc. and Scotland are all utterly dissimilar. Scotland is the only one of the three to have reasonable and provable historic reasons to want independence for starters, the others don’t have half as strong a claim. Returning Canada to it’s indigenous population would be more appropriate. (along with the USA, Australia and the rest of the former British Empire).
The fact for Scotland is, that independence should be seen and treated as a matter of urgency, the Yes movement itself isn’t doing enough to state this case. In order to avoid the worst that Westminster can and will do to us, it should be seen to be a matter of the utmost importance.
I don’t mean to invalidate the independence movements of anywhere else, but comparing Scotland to these other regions is folly.
Excellent article Viviane and thanks for this invaluable input. There seems to be people on here that are automatically thinking the Quebec experience will now be ours. Time, I think, for you to get out from behind the key boards and start canvassing! We, in the YES campaign, have the momentum. The tide is turning, Independence is within our grasp. Don’t sit around waiting for the big party – get out and earn it!
Forgive me, but I ‘ve been away a long time. Who is Lorraine Kelly and why is her view so important?
Schiehallion! Schiehallion! says:
Er, no! she is simply a close friend oh Moron Brown’s wife.
Exactly Dan. Scotland is a country, a nation. Other regions can and do make the same claim – Catalonia in particular seems to have a good claim to it. But even then Catalonia isn’t “a country in a union with other countries to make Spain”. And that is a fundamental difference with the UK. It is made up of 3 home nations, or countries and Northern Ireland, which is conquered territory and a bit of a mess really.
There is simply no reason in the 21st century for a country like Scotland to not be running its own affairs as a default and speaking for itself on the world stage. Yet we have far LESS powers than federated states and provinces in the US and Canada.
So yes, it’s not only necessary but massively long overdue. Scotland should have been an independent country decades ago.
JK Rowling’s prediction that “I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay,” is utterly delusional. Popular with whom? Who on earth is she speaking about? To stay where, exactly? And what has a political decision of this kind got to do with marriage? She is a mere romantic fantasist.
Maybe the question we should ask is who she is speaking to?
It’s either honest naviety, from the heart, or something more calculated, more sinister.
Well,see what happens when you vote no? Make a Yes, please.
Thanks for your observations, Viviane. Always wanted to get some insights into what was actually happening in Quebec from the point of view of the ordinary inhabitants and here we have it and it confirms what I suspected and also confirms what lies in store for Scotland if the vote is No.
All of Westminster’s forces – Tory, Labour and UKIP (Lib Dems won’t be there) – will join together to make sure Scotland is in no position to bother them again. We will be an irritating irrelevance needing to be curbed. The media will also muster to suppress any notion of difference and ideas of social democracy will be made to wither on the vine.
No doubt they have been taking ideas from Quebec on how this is done.
Dan Watt says:
Dan, you are quite right, none of them are in a formal Union, they actually are separatists,and if that is the will of their people, I of course support them.
However, for me, for once, charity begins at home, to look after our own is our first priority.Then, if appropriate, we can support others. First, let’s get this done.
Time later to magnanimous.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite pour L’Ecosse.
I was in Montreal the evening of the referendum in1980. I also met M. Levesque! So much energy and hope on display from the Québécois and it is sad to see that independence has still not come.
Your message for us is direct : do it now.
Where Rowling is mistaken is to assume that bargaining should be about Scotland’s position. It should be about ending and remodelling the defunct, rotten UK. The establishment will never accept this until we actually break it apart, so Yes it is,and no thanks forever to more crumbs insincerely and grudgingly handed down from the table.
There is a good post this morning on Bella Caledonia which graphically describes the state of our 18 the century relic.
I suppose we should remember that JK Rowling writes fiction and obviously believes in fantasy !
Why is JK Rowling being treated as an intellectual heavyweight? We have Alasdair Gray, James Kelman, Liz Lochhead etc., on our side.
Thank you viviane.
Lets hope Scotland votes YES
The No vote would be a nightmare now. It’s been a rotten dream up till now.
Why have you not posted my comment on Quebec?
Rowling’s welcome in Scotland was a Trojan horse.
“Dear J. K. Rowling” grousebeater.wordpress
If the Quebecois actually wanted to go there would be another vote. There is no practical pressure for it.
Iain – the one above at 4.51? It may be if you’re a new poster, the Rev has to manually approve it, or it could be DOS attacks, or you maybe mistyped your details. Without a warning, it’s very unlikely to be owing to the content of your post.
@ Les Wilson
Er, no! she is simply a close friend oh Moron Brown’s wife.
Great, just great. I wonder why we need to vote at all. JK and Sarah could get it all sorted out on our behalf. The Separation Angels.
Tch. You’d think she could have just said so. Saved all this fuss.
More re Miliband’s visit and Labour back bench disquiet
.
John Denham, Miliband’s former parliamentary aide, has privately said that workingclass voters “don’t believe they are in any story that Labour is telling about the future of this country”. He told an event earlier this month: “If they’re not part of our story, I don’t know what the Labour party is for.”
A Labour frontbencher said: “We communicate in a language most people neither speak nor understand. It is the language of the Westminster bubble. Ed is surrounded by people who have not lived ordinary lives but have lived in the Westminster bubble.”
The critique also applies to Miliband, who worked as a researcher for Harriet Harman and special adviser to Gordon Brown before becoming an MP.
Miliband’s office has been created in his own image. His closest aides are Stewart Wood, a former Oxford academic who shares his analysis that untrammelled Anglo-Saxon capitalism has failed, and an old Oxford friend, Marc Stears, who writes his speeches.
Miliband’s campaign director, Spencer Livermore, policy director, Torsten Henricson-Bell, and strategy director, Greg Beales, are also at the wonkish end of the spectrum.
Shadow cabinet members complain that Miliband’s team refuse to get their hands dirty. “They think there’s this great machine that will make things happen and then they go to lunch. There is no one who really understands the Labour party,” said one.
The Sun photograph was a case in point. The decision to do it was taken, without any consultation of Liverpool MPs, by Anna Yearley, Miliband’s political secretary, who was under fire again yesterday amid reports that she had been accused of bullying a colleague. Allies of Yearley and Bob Roberts, the communications director, heaped blame on each other for the Sun debacle.
“Our problem is that we either take three months to make a decision or just three seconds,” said one aide.
In a lacerating blog, the former spin doctor Damian McBride said Miliband’s team were “well-spoken, wellread, well-connected and if you stay on their right side, quite genial . . . But what they are not is fighters.” The blog was widely circulated among disgruntled MPs.
Miliband’s inner circle is also accused of excluding most of the shadow cabinet from decision making. Its meetings are choreographed. “Everyone Ed wants to hear gets contacted in advance and asked to prepare talking points. It’s all stagemanaged,” said a source. “He’ll say: ‘Gloria or Chuka or Sadiq, have you got anything you want to add?’ People don’t even pipe up unless they’ve been called upon by Ed.”
Miliband’s aides say they “plead guilty to being organised” but insist it is “ridiculous” to say that frontbenchers cannot state their views.
Yet the organisational dysfunction is such that some of those who are close to Miliband cannot imagine working for him in government. One of his inner circle was recently asked what he would do if Miliband became prime minister.
The reply: “I’d get the hell out of there as fast as I could.” IF MILIBAND himself is one impediment to Labour success, the other is the consistent view of voters that Labour cannot be trusted with the economy. Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, does not want to commit himself to final spending plans until January at the earliest.
A senior member of the shadow cabinet said: “It’s fine to save the precise announcements until January or February of election year. That’s what Gordon [Brown] did. But Gordon also spent months and months talking about how we would spend wisely, not excessively.”
An internal election strategy document leaked last night has added to Miliband’s woes, revealing his lack of ambition for the 2015 election. It confirmed that Labour is hoping a “35% strategy” will win the day, ditching new Labour’s policy of reaching out beyond the party’s core vote.
Underlying all the internal tensions is a belief among Miliband’s allies that Balls, his wife, Yvette Cooper, and Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, are plotting against him and keeping their heads down to avoid blame later. Balls’s allies acknowledge that when Miliband goes, Balls will try to secure the leadership for Cooper. But they deny he would ever act against Miliband.
They also counter that Balls has submerged himself because he has been quietly trying to repair the damage Miliband has done to Labour’s reputation with business by a series of announcements that his government would intervene in the markets. Balls’s frustration is shared by Lord Mandelson, the former trade secretary, who said last week that the party needed to explain “how we’re going to bring about economic growth”.
O/T Just got home to find HMGs wee referendum information booklet on the doormat. No postage, simply delivered as a leaflet drop and stuffed through the letterbox. It has suffered the fate of all unsolicited junk mail.
O/T , apologies.
A british minister of state is in Costa Rica today and there is a football match tomorrow. Mmm.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-minister-of-state-makes-inaugural-visit-to-costa-rica
@Sinky
Whoa. That’s some summary of where Labour are at. Total internal in fighting and in dissary.
More wee jibes on the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10918559/Alex-Salmond-agrees-to-TV-debate-with-Alistair-Darling.html
More wee jibes on the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10918559/Alex-Salmond-agrees-to-TV-debate-with-Alistair-Darling.html
The Quebec letter warns caution believing No strengthens democracy’s hand.
Rowling’s idea that No means Yes in the minds of a corrupt and venal British power elite is utterly ludicrous and delusional. Scotland’s history with the English government is one long pitiful list of betrayals and exploitation.
Her children’s novels are fantasies of flying and solving problems big and small by magic. Political struggle is way beyond her understanding. Fraternising with the powerful and being flattered by them is more to her liking.
conan it;s monday
what happened to the new mouse for the comp
or are you just showing off
J.K. Rowling writes fiction.
Westminster speaks it.
Scotland is reaching out to grasp HER own reality.
Its very possible that a yes vote in Scotland will once again galvanise Quebec to try again. Its no coincidence that Scotland Quebec and Catalan are all seeking to become Independent from right wing Conservative Government and ideals. Had our Governments been socialist in nature I do not believe the movements for Independence would have the strength they have now.
Merci, Viviane. Merci beaucoup.
J K Rowling is entitled to her opinion, but when she decides to make her views VERY public, then those views are open to challenge – that is the nature of a democracy.
So far as I am concerned, J K Rowling and every bleeding heart so-called Scottish ‘socialist’ who opposes Scottish independence should be dragged by the scruff of their necks to one of Scotland’s many foodbanks, and be made to tell us all, what is so freaking great about this cursed union, that condemns OUR people to abject poverty, dependent on food charity, in an oil rich nation. What is so great about this cursed undemocratic union, that makes them think for even one freaking second that a NO vote will mean more powers?
Then those same people should be made to read the letter above. A NO vote will not mean more powers, it will be the end of ANY chance Scotland has ever had to get more powers. It was only because the SNP managed to get an outright majority in the Scottish Parliament that a referendum ever happened. What are the odds of that happening ever again?? Pretty slim, I’d say. ‘Scottish’ Unionists will simply block any further referendums in the Scottish Parliament as they did before.
So what will force London to concede more powers? NOTHING. It really is that simple. A NO vote, means to London, ‘panic over, carry on as before, ignore Scotland as usual, the threat of independence has gone, bl**dy whinging jocks’. Anybody who thinks London will give more powers because ‘it’s the right thing to do’, really needs to see a head doctor.
More than all that however, is the main point of the article above. A NO vote will literally destroy the self confidence of Scotland and its people. The whole world will be watching, and simply think, What the F?? Scotland will be a global laughing stock, a process no doubt cheered on by the Scotland hating unionists and London.
There is no more powerful a statement than the article’s last sentence;
‘..if there’s one thing you don’t want to have to tell your grandchildren 34 years from now, it’s that you thought you were protecting them when you decided to make them experience the next era’s world as spectators, not players.’
What a superb article. Thanks
Rowling is a British Nationalist, fair enough. For her things are good, she has made a lot of money and is materially well off.
I have little knowledge of her background but I am guessing that she lived in Scotland after a time in England, made her money here and thinks that this would not have been as easy had there not been a British State.
She looks at the world and the referendum through the prism of what she perceives to be her own interests. For her the status quo is good – so why not for everyone else?
No attempt to picture the Scottish democratic deficit, no attempt to see the economic impotence of Scotland as a result of devolution which is little more than an exploited energy rich province.
Her assumptions about the future generosity of the Union State post NO are a real tell. She is exposed here as a political simpleton. She either willfully and knowingly fails to understand the dynamics at play here and the loss we face similar to that of Quebec or on the other hand she is just plain thick and only good for writing stories.
If Scotland post NO faces the kind of isolation and studied neglect Quebec has suffered from along with a Tory victory in 2015, more poverty, more income inequality, more privatisation, cuts in Barnett and an economic bust because of the Debt – questions will be asked.
Much like the British State and public in 1940, after Dunkirk, sought to condemn the “Guilty men of Munich” whose failure to deal with Hitler in the 1930’s had brought the Nazi armies to the channel coast.
The same process could well happen here with those who promised that we were better together.
Guys, believe me, as Viviane I am an independantist from Montreal, Quebec and the only thing that happened afer the two No’s is the constant but sure weakening of Quebec in the Canada. The ROC (rest of Canada) are no longer taking our request and sees us with contempt.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that things wil lbe better. Your childrens and grandchildrens will reproach it for decades. You’ll get nothing. Everything is a ratio of power and if you vote No, you will lose it.
To you victory. Vote Yes.
@Robert Louis
You are 100% correct. People should keep out of this debate unless they are truly informed… that means they fully understand the numbers and systemic poverty that blights Scotland….
and they should be able to recite a list of the deceit and broken promises to Scotland in the last fifty years.
“ Maun dae is a fell fella”
@Robert Louis
Commendable, heartfelt anger. Speaks for me.
Thank you, Viviane.
@Robert Louis.
I share your anger – nay, rage.
Too many years of looking at 12 – 16 year-olds sitting in front of me with their spirits broken and no hope in their eyes.
Couldn’t vote any other way but YES for all the children of Scotland.
It’s a symbol of our times, ruled by the powerful and the wealthy, that a single, extraordinary wealthy person feels free to tell an entire nation to dispense with genuine democracy, and for her to think she is being benign.
Labour thinks it played an inspired hand, catching the female and the youth vote in one person.
What does it amount to? ‘Political philosopher’ J K Rowling says, shoosh! Keep quiet, lie low, and we won’t get hurt.
A useful, if depressing example of what would follow a no vote. There is no earthly reason to offer new powers if we vote no. The only bargaining chip we’ve ever had with Westminster is the threat of independence, remove that any we’re at their mercy.
If anyone feels like complaining about the pack of lies our poor postmen are forced to shove through our letter boxes, you can complain direct to the Scottish office on 0131 244 9010.
Will Darling appear?
https://twitter.com/HughWallace74/status/481114466290245632/photo/1
Not comfortable outwith aunties arms.
@Robert Louis @Grouse Beater
Excellent posts and the truth about Rowling. No idea of Scotland’s history and the plight faced by many living here day to day. She is in my opinion an absolute fraudster and charletran.
Vive le Québec libre ! Vive l’Écosse libre !
As a Quebec’s person, I’m old enough to reply every words written by Mrs Vivianne.
I was 16 on the first referendum. God knows how much I founded my people extremely lucky to vote for the whole control of their own tools. Unfortunately, they said no. And then, I was 31 on the second referendum. It was so deceiving, by less than 1% of difference, we lost.
I don’t know the whole situation in Scotland. I don’t know if a no would have the same meaning statement that our no to Quebec’s independence.
This young lady was way to polite to describe the big Quebec’s federalist’s people who though that reforming canadian federalism would be possible. Unfortunately,as long as that point of view will be accurate, there are people who will always believe canadian federalism is possible to reform, in spite of the constitutional events of 1987, Meech Lake,(1990), and Charlettown (1992).
The other Canadians don’t see it that way. Quebec is a province like all the others canadian provinces.
People have the right to desagree with the actual movement in Scotland. But it is up to Scotland’s people to decide what best for them. Giving 1 million pounds would make impression, but not exactly the proper impression. I was surprise by that donation. It’s certain that as a Quebec’s independantist, I’m following the evolution of what’s going in Scotland and in Catalonia.
The idea of deciding ourselves, controlling our tools is a statement who would never die. If Britain is independent and that’s a good idea, why not Scotland being independent, too. Good luck.
And to those who discussed the idea that Scotland is the only viable place for independance. Don’t forget this: in Quebec, the movement took place as of 1759. It took us 221 years to place such movement in our land and the other viabilities are our language, our culture and our education.
It took Scotland 800 years to place.
The idea of being independent is the same common goal for those who believe in it.
And in Quebec, we are treating the First Nations in a much more better way than Ottawa, even if everything is not perfect.
Cynical Highlander,
You know, when I heard that the debate would happen with Darling instead of feartie Cameron, I thought, I bet Darling has just choked on his coffee.
Better together, and Alisatir Darling didn’t actually expect Salmond to take them up on their much trumpeted offer.
Unlike the writer, I was on the NO side of the referendum in Quebec. Like many other Canadians, I had a special fondness for our Quebecois brothers and sisters. I did not want them to leave our federation as they offered a clear social democratic balance to the right wing fanatics of Alberta and the Western Canadian provinces. This balance and the fear that a shift away from the balance would drive Quebec out of Canada prevented the worst of the neo-Liberal extremes found south of the border in the USA.
This attachment to Quebec and to our principles attracted many Canadians to the NO side. We believed the Federalist politicians when they professed their love and admiration for Quebec and urged Quebecois to not leave the family.
I am sure that this sounds very familiar to many Scots today.
I remember the 100,000 plus Canadians from across the country who descended into Montreal on the night before the vote, proclaiming their love of Quebec and urge a NO vote. It was not a message of fear but one of hope and brotherhood.
However, it was a sham. As soon as the vote was counted and threat of Quebec sovereignty removed (like Scots we saw term separtism as pejorative and still do), all the love evaporated and it was back to business for the Federalist and especially the right wingers.
Now we have neo-Liberal governments in all provinces even Quebec as those who supported sovereignty withdrew from the political system and stopped voting.
This shift has lead to our Federal Government (just like Westminster) being dominated by neo-Liberal politicians and worse. The American Tea Party movement is already dominating western Canadian politics and is creeping into central and eastern Canada in ever increasing numbers.
Those who tell you that Scotland and the UK are “better together” are perpetrating the same sham as was done to Quebec in 1995.
It is said that if you fool me once, shame on you but if you fool me twice, shame on me. This should be what Scots remember on September 18th.
The difference in 1995 between Quebec sovereignty and the NO vote ended up being 50,000 votes out of a total of 4 million cast.
Do not let the same margin sentence more generations of Scots to the future that Quebec is living with today.
The sovereignty slogan was “Maitre chez nous” … Masters in our own house. Let all Scots remember that when they vote.
I, too, was born in Quebec & have lived my whole 45 years here. Just to give you perspective, only about 30% of the population here are pro-separation. In our last provincial election, the party in power (PQ) that has separation in its mandate, didn’t want to even mention separation when campaigning because so few of the population actually support it. So it doesn’t seem like there are very many here that actually regret not having voted yes, nor are interested in any future promise of separation. Especially when we had the chance to see how the PQ ran the province for 18 months (they did not get re-elected, even despite their biggest opposition being accused of massive corruption). They made such a huge mess of things that the thought of them running this province as a country, was very, VERY scary.
Anytime separation has been an issue, the province has suffered greatly economically. No new businesses want to invest with all the uncertainty, real estate agents have buyers in a holding pattern, many people opt to move away for fear there may be a yes vote, etc.
So while Viviane makes valid points, keep in mind she is only 1 voice out of 30% of the population in Quebec.
Dear Viviane
a very thought-provoking article, however only telling half the story. Have you highlighted the vast areas who wish to remain within Canada? For example the population of Montreal wants to remain in Canada.
http://www.mtlblog.com/2014/03/if-quebec-separates-montreal-stays-in-canada/#
sigh, more division.
To others reading the article:
Quebec has many problems which are so different from Scotland, notably the language difference. People are brought bi-lingual sometimes, most very often there are large pockets of English-speaking who cannot speak French and visa versa.
What if you asked a English speaker? This is not to be confused with English/England/Westminster. I am talking about an English speaker in Quebec or indeed Canada. As this other blog shows Montreal would try to remain part of Canada.
We cannot compare Governments as the provincial governments in Canada are run differently to Holyrood.
As thought provoking as this is, it only tells part of the story and you must find out the other half. As with all of the articles posted in Wings Over Scotland it only tells one side.
Rgds
Penny
O/T
On the back of a BBC report about a “Jihadist” from Bangladesh, brought up in Aberdeen (before moving away) and turning up in an ISIS video, we get Sarah Smith advertising her show tonight, “just how safe is Scotland”.
No doubt the line will subtly be that we are more secure and able to counter these “threats” from within the Union.
It’s so predictable…..
@ bald eagle
There, that’s better 🙂
Well said Robert Louis.
macart763m says:
Just return HM Government unsolicited mail to
Better Together, FREEPOST RTAU-ZCRB-TELS, 5 Blythswood Square, Glasgow, G2 4AD
GraemeMenzies , absolutely spot on, much will be made of this young man hiding his jihadi light under a bushel in Aberdeen and not a baggage handler in sight to beat some sense into him.
Very predictable and utterly disheartening.
Quebec separatists will always argue about how Quebec didn’t sign the constitution and how Quebec doesn’t have extra power but will never say how Quebec refused once refused an offer to get extra powers (Victoria charter). This year Quebec will get 9 billion dollars from the other provinces since Quebec’s economy is bad at the moment. So I as the separatist, where do we get those 9 billion if Quebec separates ?
Dependent, not dependable.
Mais pas mal d’accord à part ça.
I am from Quebec and I was inspired so much when I read the life of Robert the Bruce. Be strong Scotland the brave, you have to set yourself free in honor of your ancestor.
As with all of the articles posted in Wings Over Scotland it only tells one side
Well Penny it’s good to see that you have read all of the articles on WoS but at least the articles on this site have verifiable links to third party sites and commentators. Not really sure your reason for posting.
But let me just say that Scotland is a historic nation and we will right a historical wrong in our referendum whether it suits your agenda or not.
Croompenstein
Obviously, my reason for posting is to show what would happen – Montreal wishing to be part of Canada is like Aberdeen saying, “that’s my oil, go away central belt children!”
Where does the sub-division end?
I do not have an agenda. Why do you assume I do? Why does it matter if I did?! I thought this thread was about Quebec.
Totally lightweight I know but it is a Monday and there is a long working week ahead so I have to get some humour from somewhere. Brian Nicholson’s final paragraph “Maitre chez nous” brings to mind the great song “Master of the House” from “Les Miserables”. We could do with a catchy punchy song for the final campaign run up. So maybe some of you skilled people out there can cannibalise the original to give us something to lighten the day and get the message across?
Brian Nicholson from Quebec exhorted us to note:
The sovereignty slogan was “Maitre chez nous” … ‘Masters in our own house.’ Let all Scots remember that when they vote.
Aye, we are not a region seceding, but a nation that was once a state deminding the return of our sovereignty.
@Sinky
Cheers Sinky, but its already got the scrapings of tonight’s dinner on top of it.
Penny it was the snidey wee remark about WoS that makes me think you have an agenda, this site has been invaluable to people like me who was undecided but now am determined to see my country free and equal among the family of nations.
Don’t come on here and slag it off or else you may be accused of having an agenda
I agree with Rose, Penny Millar and others who point out that the proportion of people in Quebec who favour independence has been stuck at 30% for quite some years since the failed referendum.
Whereas the SNP at Holyrood have done a pretty good job in government so far, the Parti Québécois have not been so well-judged by their own constituents. Bad government is not the sole domain of Westminster, so as much as we may criticise the status quo, an independent Scotland is not guaranteed to have better or worse government.
I came to read Wings Over Scotland hoping for balanced views to be presented but it seems to be overwhelmingly Nationalist in character. Hopefully, posts from those on both sides of the debate will be continued to be heard here in mutually respectful dialogue.
Penny said: As with all of the articles posted in Wings Over Scotland it only tells one side.
One side of what?
Many show both sides by quoting verbatim or in part from the No side and then analysed here.
(have a look at what Hood is offering on Off-topic)
“I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay.”
The quote from JK Rowling above has mystified me. What is it all about? It got lost somewhat in all the cybernat abuse headlines. But seriously? Why and how will we be in better position if we vote No? Dictate terms to Westminster after voting No? You have got to be joking.
Sarah Smith advertising her show tonight, “Just how safe is Scotland”.
Groan!
Surely can’t be an investigation into the corrosive effects of skulduggery, disinformation, and sheer lies on sections of Scotland’s population, now could it?
Beautiful article Viviane. Thank you.
I have not and don’t need to slag this site off – pointing out that it is a very one-sided is not slagging it off! This is obviously to be the case as it is a pro-iScot page, and I wouldn’t expect otherwise. If this site has been invaluable to you that is great news for you, but lots of others like to read two sides to each discussion.
I will bypass your comment about free (we are already free) and return to the thread –
What you think of Montreal wishing to remain in Canada? Do you see a similar issue being a problem in iScot? why/why not?
@Penny Millar
Not sure what you mean? If there is a Yes vote Scotland will be independent. The partition of one of Europe’s oldest nations is not going to happen. Period.
Penny said: pointing out that it is a very one-sided is not slagging it off!
And I pointed out:
It subject matter posted as topic material it’s not one-sided. In dissection of that material it often is, in commentary it is usually pro-democracy.
Would you prefer we use the British press and be under constraint in space and what can be said?
That’s kind of the point of Wings Over Scotland, to tell the other side of the story that the media ignores. If you want the “other side,” just switch on the TV or pick up a newspaper. Then you can compare both stories to the facts, which don’t change based on who’s telling them.
“Schiehallion! Schiehallion! says:
23 June, 2014 at 4:09 pmJK Rowling’s prediction that “I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay,” is utterly delusional.”
Can anyone give me a historical example of where losers get to dictate terms?
Next novel: ‘Harry Potter and the Conquest of Scotland.’
Hi folks,
I’m not trying to hijack this thread so apologies in advance if anyone is offended. But – any chance some of you kind people could repost this link on your Facebook or Twitter accounts to try and raise a wee bit of cash for the Yes Stirling campaign office?
http://igg.me/at/Yes-Stirling-Office/x
We’re still a wee bit short and your extraordinary generosity will make a difference as it has in the past for so many other similar worthy causes on this site.
Ye flippin gods, can you find someone who actually knows what they are talking about instead of someone who has written a polarizing opinion piece with an intense distortion of facts?
Or maybe Scots should heed this as a warning: this is what happens when political judgement replaces educational judgement in teaching history and current events to your children.
To whit:
There is no way Rene Levesque was going to sign the 1981 constitution. Quebec could have been guarantee half the seats in the House of Commons and a veto over all constitution change and it wouldn’t have been enough, and every Quebecer admits it.
It wasn’t in secret — Levesque was part of the negotiations between the feds and the provinces and was there the entire time.
Despite this, Quebec is not and has never been in constitutional limbo except in the eyes of the failed separatist movement.
On a federal level, the 2011 election was the first time since the ’90s that the majority of Quebecers actually stopped voting for a provincial-only party (the almost defunct Bloc Quebecois) and instead voted for a national party — the NDP.
The NDP are the official opposition thanks to Quebec — but don’t pretend that the rest of Canada completely agrees with the ruling Conservative party, which was elected with only 38% or so of the vote.
I’m still shaking my head how someone could say that Quebec is being “forced” to take oil-sands money. Quebec is responsible for its own spending and if one thing is clear, it’s that 40 years of arguing over separation has led to a Quebec that has steadily increased its deficits and debts as the separatists and feds try to bribe voters with their own money — stripping cash from essentials like road maintenance and creating the most generous social programs in the country — programs which mean Quebec gets more money than other province as a result of federal transfers.
Quebecers of all ages are now turning their backs on the separatist movement, and we are better off for it.
Rose
The fact that Quebec is having a bad time economically whilst other provinces are have a good economic says to me that different provinces have different economic cycles and requirements and thus require different fiscal policies? Is that compatible with the current settlement?
Canadian provinces and cities have a greater control of the economic levers of their locales than Scottish Government have over the Scottish economy; every thing is driven by the subsidy funneled into overheated economy of the S E of England, overt and hidden.
The Scottish Government has no powers to borrow money, unlike the municipality of Montreal.
I believe that the current provincial arrangements mean that Quebec is close to being independent except for Defence and probably, social policies and major economic policies.
My guess is that the national economic decisions are taken with regard to where the money lies, Toronto and some western provinces?
It could be worse?
You could have had the Mayor of Toronto as a francophone?
Taranaich – I know that is the point of this site – I say that above and do not have a problem with that! (And you use the word stories, not me! I agree that it is stories on here!) I haven’t posted before because I don’t really want any agro – (I am not going to change your mind or visa versa!) so I thought this would be a good thread to post on – ie it is about Quebec, not Scotland – therefore neutral. The other side of the Quebec discussion is of course the english-speaking population. What do you think about Montreal wishing to remain in Canada? Do you think that would happen here? etc etc
I will bypass your comment about free (we are already free)
just keep telling yourself that Penny it’ll make you feel better when you’re voting no
What you think of Montreal wishing to remain in Canada?
I don’t profess to know a whole lot about the Quebec/Canada situation but I’m pretty sure that Quebec is not an ancient nation/kingdom subsumed by it’s larger neighbour. I could be wrong I’m sure you’ll correct me. But as Montreal is a city in the province of Quebec I would assume that there wouldn’t be a lot it could do if the majority voted for independence.
Penny Millar said: “Obviously, my reason for posting is to show what would happen – Montreal wishing to be part of Canada is like Aberdeen saying, “that’s my oil, go away central belt children!”
Where does the sub-division end?”
My local MP, Pamela Nash, has been putting forward the same silly point. Sub division to the nth degree can make any reasonable argument stupid, but is done so for stupidities sake. You reduce it from a nation, a country with hundreds of years of history, to a city, then a town, then a village, then a street, then a house. ‘Oh, look how silly this is!’ she then cries. Then, without a hint of irony she shouts about how it’s great being British, that British borders are fine, British values are supreme, British politics as better for us than Scottish politics.
It’s just utter crap. She and her ilk don’t give a toss about us. So long as the personal gravy train stays on track, they will lie, lie and lie again.
Penny opined: Where does the sub-division end?”
The inverted version of the ‘domino’ theory.
Following independence, Quebec would not be divided if we follow the international law concept of Uti Posseditis Juris (“as you possess”) and (non) vacuum juris. Partition is only another scare tactic in the big toolkit of federalists in Canada.
Quebec used to be a colony of France called New France (very original), which was established in 1608 and conquered by the British in 1760 during the Seven Year War. New France lost most of its territory when it became the Province of Quebec under British authority but has nonetheless been recognized since that time, including its language, law system and, religion. Quebec therefore predates Canada itself by over a century.
Several researches have been done and many believe that Canada is suffering more and more from the Dutch disease because the Canadian government has been investing so much resources in the oil industry and therefore Canada is slowly becoming a petrostate. Quebec and Ontario are the provinces that suffer the most from those policies since they are the industrial heart of Canada.
I was 25 years old in 1995 when the second referendum took place.
I voted YES out of the pragmatic belief that a culture that differs so much from the Rest Of Canada (ROC) ought to part ways, because putting an end to the endless disagreements would benefit both Quebec and the ROC. Once separated, each entity could finally achieve the unity it needs to achieve its own goals.
This being said, I never believed in the PQ’s ability to lead a nation, because the party’s only reason to exist is a protracted fight towards an utopian dream. Something tells me that most Quebecois who believe in Quebec’s independence nonetheless also find themselves at odds with PQ’s random bouts of gross incompetence and stopped believing in the dream as a result, just because the dream has been associated with that particular party.
Nevertheless, I still think that independence will happen. Whether it takes the form of a Quebecois awakening or (more likely) of the ROC deciding that it has had enough with Quebec’s dissenting voice and kicking it out of the confederation, that remains to be seen.
Myself, after 16 years abroad, I’ve gotten sick and tired of people correcting my “Quebecois” with a “Canadian” or of having to emphasize that Quebecois have always been a nation of their own, existing apart from the ROC, separately developing their own foreign trade relationships via their own embassies abroad, etc. Basically, most people don’t realize that Quebec exists or why. Nobody knows about the divergent voices that have existed between the French and the English since the colonial days. Besides, Canada has such a great public image abroad that people cannot comprehend why anyone would want out of it.
This recently got me to participate in an Art project about ethnic identity, a movie called “True Finn – Tosi Suomalainen” where 9 members of minorities (natives and immigrants) ponder how their own ethnic background contrasts with Finnish cliches. Through the shooting process, I came to the conclusion that, even though my daily preoccupations mostly focus on Finland, being a Quebecois remains an integral part of who I am, but then again so does the pain of coming from somewhere that is constantly misrepresented as being a part of another country that I cannot even remotely begin to identify with.
The day Quebec’s independence would have been achieved, I could finally sleep at night, rather than wake up every morning wondering how many idiots will rudely shove me into the Canuckstan box today, instead of embracing me as the Finnish Quebecois that I am.
Heck, I would already be happy if Quebec at least had Scotland’s status as a non-sovereign country. At least, people would know where to put Quebec on the map and not mistake me for a Canadian!
Then again, as Viviane said, this would be no consolation for constantly giving unwarranted second chances to the ROC, only to repeatedly find ourselves deceived.
I can only hope that Scotland will not fall into the same trap with Westminster as Quebec did with Ottawa.
There is surely implicit reference there to self respect when talking to children and grand-children.
As Grouse Beater says :
“(Scotland is) a nation that was once a state” seeking the return of our sovereignty. The Union of 1707 has worked out so relatively badly for us that it has now become very unequal and we are now virtually ruled by another country. Are we really saying that we want to continue being mis-ruled in this way?
Will our national self respect allow us any other vote than “Yes”?
Tom
Hello. I am from Québec. I don’t pretend to know much about the political situation in Scotland. What I do know is that I blame my parents for voting NO. And that Scotland independence would give me hope.
I am also one of those real Canadiens – not anglo – from the (still) province of Québec who was too young to vote in 1980 but did vote YES to our sovereignty in 1995. I can not emphasize this enough to Scotland : DO NOT BELIEVE ANY PROMISES they make and DO NOT FEAR ANY THREAT either because THOSE ARE ALL FAKE. If you say NO to yourselves you will show a weak side to England and you will pay a thousand times more than whatever you fear the cost of separation would be (its not a cost, in fact, because power is wealth and that is the reason why they want to keep you under their power).
If they really meant to give something to you, they would have done it already.
If they really mean to arm you then they are no friends and they are going to hurt you for sure if you remain submitted to them.
Go Scotland ! Be Scotland and nothing else !!
from quebec says (23 June, 2014 at 7:29 pm) : « This year Quebec will get 9 billion dollars from the other provinces since Quebec’s economy is bad at the moment »
The kind of lies that imperialist use to keep people submitted. Québec gets 9 billions from the federal gov’t while the federal gov makes 90 billions off of Québec. That is the reason why our economy is worst than average, of course.
May I just remind YES voters to strongly doubt any information the anti-Quebec independance canadians say. Support for independance usually hovers between 40 and 54% depending on the news of the day. The 30% mentioned above is only a result of a recent non-referendum context election. As for Montreal not wanting independance and somehow having some other status, that is not really a debate in Quebec…there are only a few hundred angryphones(angry anglophones) trying to get that going. I have one big piece of advice for you. IF you lose your referendum, DON’T DO NOT get depressed about it! Celebrate how much you advanced your cause…AND GET BACK TO WORK! USE THE MOMENTUM! Unfortunately, this is not what happened in Quebec, and peoples spirits are clogged by canadian politics, canadian media, and big business. (Quebec’s media and big business is nearly all anti-independance)
As a 1st generation Scotsman that had lived in Québec for 45 years and has lived through and voted in the referendums there, IMHO there is no comparison to the referendum in Scotland. First off Scotland is a Counrty is always and always will be, Québec is not and never was, Canada is! In the last election that just transpired the PQ lost and lost bad because of there racist and xenophobic ideologies (there charter of values and language police for example) there should be no comparison to the referendum in Scotland. And as it has already been pointed out in another comment, the PQ lost with only 30% of the vote, the Premier couldn’t even hold on to her seats. I agree that Scotland should separate from the UK, and be an Independant country the way it was. I would never agree to the separation of Québec with a racist xenophobic government at the helm. So when you compare the two research the facts. I don’t claim to know all that has transpired in Scotland. But I have seen and been delt what transpired in Québec.
The defeat of Quebec was led by General Wolfe, who also took part in the defeat of the Jacobite rebellion in Scotland. Wolfe is credited with using Scottish troops in Quebec because “they are hardy, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country, and no great mischief if they fall.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wolfe
We have much in common with the Quebecois.
http://home.comcast.net/~llefler/clavell.htm
Tried posting this last night but keep disappearing !
This short story speaks for itself.
Quebec has had two referendums. In 1995, the result was 50-50 and Canada broke every rule in the book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995
The New Democratic Party (NDP), which is the left equivalent in Canada to Labour in the UK, was part of this process!
“Jacques Parizeau’s bestseller “AN INDEPENDENT QUEBEC”
http://www.barakabooks.com/catalogue/an-independent-quebec/
It has been nearly 15 years since Jacques Parizeau helped lead the Yes side to near victory in a referendum on Quebec Sovereignty. And he’s back, undeterred, with a new blueprint for an independent Quebec.
No stones are left unturned: Why become independent? What is the role of the state and how should it be administered in a global economy? What new challenges face Quebec sovereigntists; their English Canadian counterparts; and their neighbours in the United States?
Kevin says as posted as 23 June, 2014 at 8:59
“Quebecers of all ages are now turning their backs
on the separatist movement, and we are better off for it.”
That’s not true at all.
Don’t believe a word of that sentence.
The PQ has a strong membership of 90 000 members. And there are a lot people who are still believe in it.
That is false information. Sorry, I had to correct.
Mr Kevin don’t know the Quebec people at all. He is taking his dreams for the reality.
Effectively, we don’t have the political control, actually.
Mr. Kevin will love to see the independantist movement deseapper, but much to his chagrin, that movement will renew its forces.
The idea of being independent, in itself, is a very strong appealing and noble prospect. That will never deseapper.
Even Justin Trudeau, chief of the Liberal Party of Canad, said it the morning following our defeat.
PLEASE do not believe that only 30% of the quebec population are for the Sovereignty it’s false! We lost the last referendum by 1% because of the ”Montreal love-in propaganda”
I voted no and I deeply regret it. I am now à spectator, reduced to watching the people elected, for whom I did not vote for, trample my culture, my language and my French heritage, treating Québécois like third-degree citizens. I was so wrong to vote no. I wish I could vote again. It would be a resounding OUI!
Sandra and Julie B
Don’t worry! We are aware of these propaganda tricks. We’re being bombarded every day with lies and misinformation. The stakes are too high. Lucklily we have the internet and sites like Wings. Bon chance!
@Sandra Lefebvre : Philippe Couillard said that. Justin Trudeau said that he could become a sovereignist if the Conservatives keep wrecking Canada.
@Mariette Pagé : I was not old enough to vote in 1995 but your “testimony” here today is so heartwarming. It confirms me that this is fight worth fighting. Thank you 🙂
Nicolas B.
John D says: 24 June, 2014 at 5:27 am : « PQ .. racist and xenophobic ideologies .. »
It’s not the PQ that has deported the Acadians, killing two thirds of them in the process.
It’s not the PQ that has massacred the Métis.
It’s not the PQ that has completely dipossed the Natives and that keep them in concentration camps, still today, for more than two hundred years now.
It’s not the PQ that has kidnapped several generations of Native youths to force them into assimilation institutions where they were beatten into speaking english.
It’s not the PQ that has starved the Natives for « scientific experiments » (the Nazis didn’t invent that, no)
It’s not the PQ that has used anti-Canadiens apartheid for over a century to eradicated the Canadien language from all over non-Québec Canada.
It’s not the PQ that has degraded the real Canadiens to white-ne*er status, forcing more 70% of them into permanent exile for plain survival.
It’s not the PQ that had the federal police putting bombs in Montréal to make believe in a terrorist separatist organization.
It’s not the PQ that uses systematic hatred propaganda and incites into violence against the real Canadiens.
If you care about human rights and respects for all nations, then forget about denigrating a people that’s among the most tolerant and respectfull on earth and, instead, educate yourself about the three centuries of anglo-supremacist ethnic cleansing against everyone who was in Canada before the anglos.
Kevin says: 23 June, 2014 at 8:59 pm : « There is no way Rene Levesque was going to sign the 1981 constitution. »
And nobody else did either. Not even the federalists Québec governements. Not Robert Bourrassa, and not the totally submissionve John James Charest.
Saying that even federalists would never sign the federal constitution is plain b.s. They want to but anglo-imperialist occupants have NOTHING to offer to the real Canadiens that we are and to the real Canada that Québec is.
Viviane’s text is so true. After a ”no” to Quebec, the mermaid song of a new deal fall a part (4 times in a row!) and Quebec fall into a political disaster.
After 800 years of ”England” promises, who can can ever believe an English man (or woman, for that matter) when he said now he is not on the payroll?
Anyone who know Scotland history know the definition of being ”deceived”. Do not fall into another English trap, whatever side of the Atlantic ocean you are!
The writer of this note was a failed political candidate in the recent provincial elections for Optional Nationale. Her party received less than 1% of the popular vote.
“The writer of this note was a failed political candidate in the recent provincial elections for Optional Nationale. Her party received less than 1% of the popular vote.”
And?
“The writer of this note was a failed political candidate in the recent provincial elections for Optional Nationale. Her party received less than 1% of the popular vote.”
Does that mean if it’s not popular it must be wrong? Or it shouldn’t be supported!? Your argument is weak. I say this article shows the lady in question knows all too well the predicament of her home. She also is probably aware it might not happen in her lifetime. Does it stop her? NO. Obviously you are a ‘follow the crowd’ person. Good luck with that.
This is about as one-sided as you can be with respect to Quebec’s independence movement and history. I am not for or against an indenpendent Scotland – that is a decision for its own people. I do, however, know and understand Quebec and Canada’s history. This text does not present a fair view of that history.
RENTON: I hate being Scottish. We’re the lowest of the (bleep)ing low, the scum of the earth, the most wretched, servile, miserable, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some people hate the English, but I don’t. They’re just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. We can’t even pick a decent culture to be colonized by. We are ruled by effete arseholes. It’s a shite state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world will not make any (bleep)ing difference.”
That’s an awesome line from the 1996 movie ‘Trainspotting’ that sums up the movie for me in terms of colonialism and it hits home for me as a Quebecois demonstrating how a nation, stripped long enough of its power to self govern, ultimately loses its pride and self-esteem, right down to its very last individuals, with everything that ensues (perdition).
I was 19 years old during the 1995 referendum campaign. When we lost, I broke down and cried, entirely realizing the chance I was missing to flourish into adulthood in a new and free state for my people and me, with limitless possibilities and all the tools in the world to make a change for the better for all and for me, my family.
Unfortunately, its been hard and ugly, and has gotten uglier and harder since. Not looking likely to get better any time soon either.
Your wish for independence gives me hope. Scots have hope. Your youth craves liberty and self realization as do all youth around the world coming to age. Don’t deny them. Let them steer this major change however they see fit and they will be the first to make something meaningful of it. I admire how you’ve read and appreciated the comments my fellow Quebecois have posted before me and encourage you to actively demonstrate your desire for independence. Nobody will give it to you; if anything, the interested ($$$) parties will do everything to stop you! Be strong! Be convinced and convincing! Its the time to do it!
Like Clare Lally she is not just an ordinary citizen, but a partisan. That really needs to be mentioned.
In addition the political positions, historical revisionism, hysterical characterizations, put forward by this correspondent have little currency with the public as evidenced by her party’s dismal performance and non-existent support.
So instead of countering her points one by one, you resort to trying to discredit her as a person? That’s really cheap.
I think knowing the person’s affilation is important in this context. I understand her article much better because of it. Nothing cheap in that.
Again, she is a political engaged actor, not a mere citizen.
Suzie laruezi says: 25 June, 2014 at 8:15 pm
“The writer of this note was a failed political candidate in the recent provincial elections for Optional Nationale. Her party received less than 1% of the popular vote.
And what are you attempting to defend, here”?
You way of line If I may express myself?
In French, we have an another colorful and joyful expression commenting sentence like yours.
If you’re living in Québec, you might have just a little, tiny, bitsy idea of if!
Sometimes, saying nothing is better than talking or writing.
But you will always be allowed to think whatever you want think.
Suzie laruezi says: 25 June, 2014 at 8:15 pm
“The writer of this note was a failed political candidate in the recent provincial elections for Optional Nationale. Her party received less than 1% of the popular vote.
And what are you attempting to defend, here”?
You way of line If I may express myself?
In French, we have an another colorful and joyful expression commenting sentence like yours.
If you’re living in Québec, you might have just a little, tiny, bitsy idea of if!
Sometimes, saying nothing is better than talking or writing.
But you will always be allowed to think whatever you want think.
Suzie laruezi says: « knowing the person’s affilation is important in this context. I understand her article much better because of it. »
This simply proves that you have no judgement.
Yes, because evaluating sources of information is such a bad thing. Sounds like some people just take anything at face value as long as the person supports their pet ideology.
Thanks for the permission Sandie! I feel so much better.
If I was reading an analysis of Barack Obama’s presidency and I read an article like this one I would find it useful to know that the writer was a Tea Party candidate, for example. That would explain some of the characterizations, language and tone that was employed by the writer.
To Suzie laruezi
You are really quite something.
Don’t write that word partisan, because this is exactly who you are, partisan and bigot.
You are answering because you are angry that someone like Mrs Vivianne is adressing herself to Scottand people.
You are, yourself, a partisan of the canadian federalism and you don’t say it. What a pity.
And arguing that her party don’t have any supported, any non-existent performance is entirely false.
Some people do believe in it, even if it’s a very small minority of the Québec francophones people.
At least, they are bothering, you and I’m ok with that.
You are treating her as hysterical, (very funny coming from you), a historical revisions, (who is doing that right now).
I will tell you this: don’t write those words. You don’t help yourself.
Stop arguing and defending your point of view.
It’s rutheless and unproductive and prove for what it worth, that we are very ok to believe in the independance of Québec.
As I will remind you: Scotlan’s people will choose what best for them, who are you for saying otherwise.
Thanks for reminding me why I do not believe in Canada on a such of an examplery manoeuver
There is nothing remotely bigoted in pointing out that the letter writer is part of a fringe ideological community that does not enjoy broad support. Only bigoted in your persecution complex mentality.
It’s clear Sandra that you only tolerate views which are compatible with your own victim narrative. Your earlier statement that I am entitled to my views was obviously not sincere.I guess only as long as I can play some big bad boogey man to your separatist rhetoric.
You seem to want to attribute words and ideas to me that I have never stated. The Scottish independence movement has nothing to learn from its counterpart in Quebec, except perhaps how not to pursue independence.
In the most recent election in the Province of Quebec, Option Nationale garnered 30,697 votes. A decline in support from the previous election, and well under 1% of the overall vote. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Sandra et al, stop trying to silence people who don’t believe your victim-laden rhetoric. You do not speak for all Quebecers. You are basically extremists.
Wow, judging by the repeated postings by one individual, it seems people in Quebec are plagued by the same kind of silly anti independence, disingenuous, astroturfing we have in Scotland.
Of course the simple fact is, that constantly repeating the same thing over and over again, does not make it any more correct or relevant. (sighs…).
Just wondering when we will see Godwin’s law being invoked.
Anyway, thanks to the original author of this article, it made some very pertinent points, which do relate to Scotland’s desire for the restoration of Scottish independence. I just wonder if the UK Government will completely follow the anti independence script from Canada in 1995 to usurp democracy, and actually pay people to fly up to Scotland to tell us all how much they ‘love’ us.
So far the UK Government, it’s Scottish unionist lapdogs and the opponents of the restoration of Scottish independence, have followed the Canadian anti independence script pretty closely.
The example of the so called “love in” as the usurpation of democracy is ridiculous.Destroying ballots, as was done to NO votes in Quebec in 1995 was an actual affront to democracy.
The author of the original piece represents a fringe political party. That needed to be pointed out.
Suzie,
Merely mentioning that the author was a candidate for Option Nationale would have been sufficient for context.
Pointing out the context clearly wasn’t your goal.
What you instead did was to call her a failed candidate, then later accused her of revisionism and hysteria, again bringing up the party’s poor results up as if it lessened her credibility.
That’s what undermines your own credibility here.
Obviously I disagree. I think the perspective of a failed candidate, she lost in the riding she ran in, and the very small percentage of her party’s overall vote, all speak to context when assessing this article.Neither of which necessarily negates what she is saying. But I think readers would benefit from knowing this.
The situation described in the article, and the comments section, of a besieged Quebec at the mercy of a borg-like English speaking Canada is hysterical and frankly untrue. This would actually more closely resemble with the current and centuries old situation that Gaelic speakers find themselves in the UK and Scotland.
I’m a proud quebecois and I want the independance of Quebec. Be advised that the British government consults canadian advisors on strategies to win the referedum. They will cheat, lie and intimidate if needed as canadians did in 1995 and 1980. The canadian governement delivered thousands of citizanships months before the referedums because the knew they woukld vote NO. Be aware and defend yourselves. We lost by only 50 000 votes in 1995. Our country was stolen from us!!
The french have celebrated the 400th anniversary of their presence in Quebec a few years ago. Canada will celebrate it’s 150th anniversary in a few years. We have taken care of oureselves for 250 years whitout Canada.
After the 1995 defeat in Quebec, the governement flooded our society with immigrants (50 000 per year) and poured millions of $$ in sponsarships to Quebec to promote Canada.
I wish the best to the people of Scotland.
As independantists in Quebec say:
Independance is not the end of nothing, it’s the beginning of something else.
I wish we can organize a walk for Scoltland independance in the steets of Montreal so you know the support you have here.
Bravo to Viviane for her incredible article.
The Quebecois were naive and beleived our opponants would respect the referendums rules concerning financing and other things.
Be carefull Scots. In Quebec, canadian national airlines flew in, for free, thousands of canadians days before voting day and we never knew how many of them voted. The British may do the same. Family and friends of the No side may arrive in Scotland days before and be on the voting list.
62% of the french voted YES in 1995, 99% of anglo-canadians voted NO and 85% of immigrants voted NO. The key to a YES victory is good preparation and not being naive about your opponants.
Canada sounds a fun place !!!
Oor Jola would love it there.
Another warning to Scots. During the 1995 referendum the Canadian governement created a secret fund called ‘Option Canada’. This money was to be available very quickly to buy anything that could encourage a No vote. The rules of over financing were prouved before an inquiry commision to have been violated. But as are opponents say:« there is no price for saving Canada.»
Also, the No side bought almost all the public publicity signs on road sides month before the vote leaving no space to the Yes side.
Do all you can to prevent this in Scotland. Good luck!!
Very interesting text, and it does strike true. I would only mention that Canada and the UK have totally different constitutional regimes. To grant Quebec more autonomy in the event of a “NO” vote, it had to be a constitutional amendment approved by the population of all 10 provinces. For the UK to grant more power to Scotland, the only thing that Westminster has to do is legislate to that effect.
What I’m saying is that after the 1995 referendum “NO” vote, we had 10 hostile counterparts to negotiate with : 9 provinces and the federal government, all of whom had to be in agreement. In the event of a “YES” victory we would have had 3 “partners” : Canada as a whole, our Anglophone minority and the First Nations, the latter holding titles on a lot of Quebec land and who would have undoubtedly “counter-seceded” back to Canada, leaving us with a rump state. After their own referendum, Scots will have to negotiate with just one, the Westminster Parliament, no matter how the result goes.
Thus I feel the analogy is not exactly apt. I wish the best for the Scots and I hope they get their independent country as we should have had ours, but in the event that the referendum fails, they will have a much less hard time getting additional powers delegated to them than we did. In the end, a “NO” victory in Scotland will not be the end of the world as it admittedly was here.
Once the referendum is underway, I echo the warning to the effect that Scotland’s Electoral Commission equivalent should watch for evidence of electoral fraud from the “NO” side very closely. Countries usually don’t like being dismantled. Maybe London will even steal a few pages from Ottawa – history has a tendency to repeat itself.
Still, as a Scots-Quebecer (my grandma was Scottish), I do have great sympathy for the plight of my overseas cousins. Never let anybody tell you that you can’t hack it on your own ; nobody said it wouldn’t be difficult or unstable at first, but in the end, you’ll be glad you took the right decision. Do not repeat our mistake and think you need any sort of help from others as a justification for your current bondage.
That was not the purpose of that text, too.
Don’t try to disturb it purpose.
You do understand Quebec and Canada History, by writing this, you showed the exact opposite of your point of view.
Because, you might be not aware that Quebec independantist movement is may be an answer of a certain reality missing in Canada. Do you ever think about that?
derp commented.. in response to RevStu:
« To grant Quebec more autonomy in the event of a “NO” vote, it had to be a constitutional amendment approved by the population of all 10 provinces. »
First, Québec as never agreed to the current constitution.
Second, an imposed – anti-democratic – constitution has zero weight against the will of a nation expressed in a referendum.
.
« .. the First Nations, .. holding titles on a lot of Quebec land »
I would like to see more substance to that. First off; the St-Lawrence valley where more than 80 % of our population lives was practically inhabited when Canada was founded by Champlain in 1608. At this moment, I know of no Native claim on Québec territory while there are lots in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, etc.
Moreover, Québec has already concluded two important treaties with first Nations : La Convention de la Baie-James(1974) and La Paix des Braves(2002) that settled land ownership in favor of the Natives, institute Natives self-governments and laid the frame of how lands could be exploited by the province. Those conventions allowed important development in Natives land’s in agreement with them and brought a lot of benefits to them.
Just compare the Crees on east side the James Bay (in Québec) – who now educate their children in Native language, have entrepreneurs, private companies and even an airline – with the Crees on the west side of the bay (in Ontario) who still starve in misery reserves (concentration camps) so much that their leaders started the Idle No More movement two years ago and went on a hunger strike demanding respects for the nation.
Dave commented on A letter from Quebec.
in response to RevStu:
« I do, know and understand Quebec and Canada’s history. »
Just the fact that you make a distinction between Québec and Canada proves that your totally ignorant about the truth.
The truth is that Québec IS Canada and Canada IS Québec. For more than 400 hundreds years now. The rest is some North America anglo-imperialist dominion that has stolen our name in order to hide it’s dirty medieval identity and to make us disappear more easily.
It’s getting pathetic reading the foreign PQ nation…
« Dominique Dumas says:
29 June, 2014 at 2:31 am
It’s getting pathetic reading the foreign PQ nation… »
What else than personal attack does a federalist has to convince its people to remain into submission ?
If you had intelligent comments or questions we would know it by now. But no, just trolling a fine discussion.
Actually, I wrote 2 or 3 long messages to rectify somes lies that were spilled by the foreign PQ nation (foreign to Quebecers), but it seems that if the message doesn’t serve some separatist purpose, it gets censured…
So there is only the PQ nation, whose victimhood and hate for Canada is totally foreign to Quebecers, that pretends speaking for Quebecers on this page…
…it seems that if the message doesn’t serve some separatist purpose, it gets censured…
Its a common problem with the Akismet wordpress plugin. Plenty of people comment that they have had posts go missing.
https://wordpress.org/plugins/akismet/
It has nothing to do with censorship of free speech, but from time to time we all lose they odd comment.
In a certain way, yes.
Canada become a complete stranger to Quebec and Canadians. You are not there, yet.
Think about multiculralism and how it has been defined since it’s implementation.
Multiculturalism is the negation of the majority culture where multiculralists peoples don’t sense the need to be integrated to one of the two founded culture in Canada.
Those people don’t neee to integrate and they could leave on their own beliefs.
Dominique Dumas says: « it seems that if the message doesn’t serve some separatist purpose, it gets censured… »
Perhaps if you were not intending to denigrate others you would have more success.
« PQ nation, whose victimhood and hate for Canada .. »
Look at the poor victim blaming other to play the victim here.
You, poor victim, have to suffer some people who do not think the way you do. You have to suffer some people who do not want to submit to three centuries of ethnic cleansing against everyone who were in Canada before the anglos.
You are perfectly in lone with your imperialist master : Hatred, rejection, denigration, lies, etc. Perhaps you would be ready to segregate and kill to satisfy your hatred for others.
How can I be a victim? Ok, maybe from boredom from reading your dying PQ nation’s schizophrenic rant.
You read that Scotland? There is ethnic cleansing happening in Canada! 😛
I’ll try another time: “In Quebec, canadian national airlines flew in, for free, thousands of canadians days before voting day and we never knew how many of them voted.”
That’s a lie. Canada isn’t a third world country. Not anymore in Quebec than any other province (even with all the ethnic cleansing going on…). There is laws surrounding a vote and only Quebec residents registered can vote in Quebec. There can always be some fraud, but by any side.
Speaking of, there was a abnormal amount of votes rejected in “No ridings” in 95…
Also, days before the referendum, there was a SOM poll asking people what they thought would happen with a YES vote. ALOT (if not the majority, I sincerely don’t remember) of people thought they would still be Canadians, with the passport and everything, even if they voted Yes. And it’s not that surprising…
Unlike Scotland, the separatist government did not ask Quebecers a simple question like: “Do you want Quebec to become a country?”. No! Even if then Prime Minister wanted to do so, his strategists convinced him to opt for some screwy question rejected by more than 40% of Quebec’s legislative assembly (for whom 45% of Quebecers voted).
Here’s the question: “Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”
A complete joke aiming to deceive Quebecers to vote Yes even if they didn’t want to separate. Kudos to Scotland’s separatists for being more honest.
Finally, separatists still pretend the referendum was stolen because of the Sponsorship scandal, but it was a corruption scandal mostly to reward friends… Also, we learned through the years, that both sides did exactly the same thing… Separatists just don’t want to understand what Quebecers have been saying for years. Nowadays, only the most extreme ones can live in denial with separatist parties less and less popular and the remaining separatists being generally older and older.
Dominique Dumas says: « How can I be a victim? »
You’re the one complaining about people around hwo make you suffer so much that you fell justified to denigrate them.
Réjean Drouin says: « You read that Scotland? There is ethnic cleansing happening in Canada! »
There were ZERO anglos in Canada and now they are 80 % of the population while anglo immigrants account for only 20 % of that. Only propagandists could pretend that this happened without coercition.
There is a permanent hatred and incitation to violence propaganda in Canada – which you convey very well thank you – against the founding Nation of the country. All anglos and half franco (collaborationists) medias are using lies and disinformation every day so that the anglo-imperialist masters can hold their domination on us, using immigrants in the process, and make us disappear.
The Natives are in concentration camps right now and they’ve been there for more than two centuries after their land were confiscated by force.
The language of the founding people of Canada has been eradicated all over non-Québec by use of language apartheid regulation for more than a century. **ALL** non-Québec provinces and territories had regulations banning French language.
The real Canadiens were made white negros; disposable manpower living in worst conditions that any other cultural groups and immigrants except for the Natives who were starving in misery reserves. That pushed more than two thirds of our people into permanent exile.
The Métis were massacred massively.
The Acadiens were deported from their homes, 60 % died during the process.
Those facts are all part of the definition of ethnic cleansing.
If it were not for that, there would be more than 30 millions not speaking english in this country. More than 75 % of the population.
Dominique Dumas says: « That’s a lie. »
Then why is it that the federal government had to use its suprem court to impose a law to force Québec authorities to stop investigations on the crimes and illegal expenses engaged by the NO camp and by Option Canada during the referendum campaign ?
.. Exactly like, in the ’70s, the federal gov’t stopped Québec investigations and trials against the federal police (RCMP) putting bombs in Montréal to fake the FLQ separatist terrorism.
Can you explain that without lying or denigrating anyone ??
“There is a permanent hatred and incitation to violence propaganda in Canada”
And what % of it are you responsible for?
As I said, only the most extreme ones…
Dominique Dumas says: « there was a abnormal amount of votes rejected in “No ridings” in 95… »
More anglo imperialist propaganda …
There were less votes rejected during the 1995 referendum than during any election before or after that.
Also, it is likely that the 80000+ freshly oathed immigrants that the immigration authorities from all over Canada certified in Montréal during 1995 – a number never seen before of after that year – just didn’t know how to vote properly.
Réjean Drouin says: ALOT .. of people thought they would still be Canadians, with the passport and everything, »
Anglo-Canada allows double citizenship. Ignorant.
Dominique Dumas says: « Unlike Scotland, the separatist government did not ask Quebecers a simple question .. »
.
Unlike the separatists, the federalist **NEVER** asked ANY question to the populations : IMPERIALISM
Clean the pile of dirt and crimes that’s in your own backyard before you attempt to give lessons to one of the most respectful and tolerant on earth.
Dominique Dumas says: « Separatists just don’t want to understand what Quebecers have been saying for years »
The Québec people was NEVER asked to be part of anglo-canada, even less to stay in it. That was all done by force and deception.
“Then why is it that the federal government had to use its suprem court to impose a law to force Québec authorities to stop investigations on the crimes and illegal expenses engaged by the NO camp and by Option Canada during the referendum campaign ?”
That is also a complete figment of your imagination.
“Exactly like, in the ’70s, the federal gov’t stopped Québec investigations and trials against the federal police (RCMP) putting bombs in Montréal to fake the FLQ separatist terrorism.”
Actually, there was alot of those trials and we still can access documents from those trials… There was questions on how the RCMP acted while fighting REAL terrorism from FLQ. The abduction and murderS (we always only remember one, but there was 8) are not inventions. The worst is, we still have old FLQ members and murderers totally free and even living public lives today…
@Dominique Dumas,
Réjean Drouin has a point indeed even though he comes out a little as aggressive (my personal impression).
Check out the works of Maryse Potvin, an university professor at UQAM about neo-racism targeted at French speakers, Québécois in general and sovereignists some specifically.
Remember the David Levine episode? He was forced to resign as a hospital administrator in Ontario after it was “discovered” that he is a Quebec sovereignist. That gives the nasty impression of “McCarthyism.”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Some+racist+slips+about+Quebec+in+English+Canada+between+1995+and…-a082883506
Bonne lecture !
Nicolas B.
Dominique Dumas says: « Nowadays, only the most extreme ones can live in denial with separatist parties less and less popular and the remaining separatists being generally older and older. »
More personal attacks and denigration. If you had valid facts you would not feel the need to express hatred to make a point.
« Nowadays » the whole world is made of separated peoples in separated countries. « only the most extreme ones can live in denial » of human rights and democracy.
“Unlike the separatists, the federalist **NEVER** asked ANY question to the populations : IMPERIALISM”
British, French, Germans, etc. were never asked if they wanted to be part of their country…
Leaving was rejected twice and separatist are rejected more and more election after election, but why bother to understand?
“Check out the works of Maryse Potvin, an university professor at UQAM about neo-racism targeted at French speakers, Québécois in general and sovereignists some specifically.”
Actually, separatist often try to victimize all of Quebec or every francophones for their own rejection. They call francophobia what is really ill sentiments against separatism. That’s why most Quebecers never experience it at all. And yes, it’s not surprising (or abnormal) that Canadians rejects separatists… This being said, McCarthyism was against anybody government pretended was a communist… David Levine, who later became a PQ minister for some time (before losing his election) was a real separatist.
“« Nowadays » the whole world is made of separated peoples in separated countries. « only the most extreme ones can live in denial » of human rights and democracy.”
The world can do whatever it wants! Quebecers said twice democratically they didn’t want to separate! Who isn’t respecting democracy but you?
Also, I forgot in my answer Nicolas that the deepest racist sentiments expressed in the last 30 years against anybody in Canada was in the last year and coming from the leading separatist party with their “values charter” that went against alot of human rights!
Dominique Dumas says: « As I said, only the most extreme ones… »
More denigration… like if that could fix your denigration problem. …
Why do you discuss another topic which is not the purpose of this article?
To answer to you, 60% of the Quebec was all for it.
What we hear the most about are those who were against it?
– put that charter in a referendum: I bet it will pass?
And by the way, were you aware that the universal charter of freedom and the Quebec charter’s article 9.1 did allow the PQ’s government to go with such a redefinition of the statement work of his/her employees working with no religious objet.
Do you happen to know that in France, some of those visible objects aren’t allow.
Again, you are demonstrating your incapacity to discuss properly.
British, French, Germans, etc. were never asked if they wanted to be part of their country…
Confused. Britain is not and never has been a country. The people of Scotland have never been asked to join the existing political Union. That was done by those in power behind closed doors. There was an uproar when the populous found out.
I also find that those that using the word ‘separatist’ in their argument dislike the validity in a movements right to self determination. In an age of free speech were many more are naturally moving to a view of determining their future on their own terms such terminology can be corrosive and divisive for their own point of view.
Dominique Dumas says: « That is also a complete figment of your imagination. »
.
Quebec referendum, 1995 :
«« An obscure Montreal-based lobby group called Option Canada was incorporated on September 7, 1995, eight weeks before the vote. Its goal was to promote federalism in Quebec.[31] Option Canada was created by the Canadian Unity Council, a group devoted to “strengthening Canada”.[32] .. Option Canada received $1.6 million in funding from the Canadian Heritage Department in 1994, $3.35 million in 1995 and $1.1 million in 1996.[34] The Montreal Gazette reported in March 1997 that the group also had other funds from undeclared sources.[31] »»
.
«« Robin Philpot, co-author of the book “Les secrets d’Option Canada”, claimed former federal minister Brian Tobin, chief organizer for the rally, told him that various Canadian corporations had helped to fund the initiative.[41] Two days prior to the rally, Canadian Airlines had announced its “Unity fare: up to 90% discounts for people who want to purchase tickets from anywhere in Canada”.[36] »»
.
«« A Committee to Register Voters Outside Quebec was created .. The Committee, which operated during the referendum campaign, handed out pamphlets including a form to be added to the list of voters. The pamphlet gave out a toll-free number as contact information, which was the same number as the one used by the Canadian Unity Council.[35] »»
.
«« After the referendum, the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, Pierre F. Côté, filed 20 criminal charges of illegal expenditures by Option Canada and others on behalf of the “No” side, which were dropped after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that parts of the referendum law were too restrictive on third-party spending. »»
.
«« The Directeur général des élections du Québec asked retired Quebec court judge Bernard Grenier in 2006 to investigate Option Canada, and allegations of illegal spending by the “No” side.
He determined that C$539,000 was illegally spent by the “No” side during the referendum, although he drew no conclusions over the “Unity Rally” specifically. Grenier said there was no foregone evidence that the rally was part of a greater plan to sabotage the sovereigntist movement.[43] »»
..
«« Citizenship Court judges from across Canada were sent into the province to work overtime to ensure as many qualified immigrants living in Quebec as possible had Canadian citizenship before the referendum, and thus were able to vote. »»
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995
British, French, Germans, etc. were never asked if they wanted to be part of their country…
Come on be a little serious.
Britain lost basically all of his colonial territories, vastly by distance and one by war.
Britain fought over France for not being a vassal in Medieval times.
France lost all her colonies because of war.
And until Philippe IV, France wasn’t a vey well organize territory.
Germany, I don’t think you know the history of that nation to go in that direction.
And in 1990, when the two part of the country were reunited because of social tribulations from East-German people.
British, French, Germans, etc. were never asked if they wanted to be part of their country…
Come on be a little serious.
Britain lost basically all of his colonial territories, vastly by distance and one by war.
Britain fought over France for not being a vassal in Medieval times.
France lost all her colonies because of war.
And until Philippe IV, France wasn’t a vey well organize territory.
Germany, I don’t think you know the history of that nation to go in that direction.
And in 1990, when the two part of the country were reunited because of social tribulations from East-German people.
« questions on how the RCMP acted while fighting REAL terrorism from FLQ. The abduction and murderS »
Pierre Laporte was only killed AFTER the FLQ left him in the trunk of that car and told the RCMP where to find him ALIVE. No one would put a pillow under the head of a dead corpse
Nicolas B. « Réjean Drouin has a point indeed even though he comes out a little as aggressive (my personal impression).
Check out the works of Maryse Potvin .. »
Merci Nicolas. I think that my tone is appropriate for the matter and the kind of person I am specifically talking to. Maryse Potvin’s work describes benign things compared to the worst that has happened. Please see this fro more details : http://canadalibre.ca/divers/le-canada-des-anglos-cest/
Come on be a little serious.
I was being serious. The days of Empire are past. It started with Germany after the end of WWI and has gathered pace throughout the twentieth century.
As we move through the early twenty first century there are a number of movements around the world but particularly in Europe that advocate self determination. Scotland as a country has one of the easiest and most peaceful movements. Others are watching, given hope that they to can use Scotland as a basis for their own model.
Dominique Dumas says: « Quebecers said twice democratically they didn’t want to separate! Who isn’t respecting democracy but you? »
The majority of all Québec voters said **YES** to separation in 1995. It’s only the cheating, manipulations and crimes of the federal side that the couple hundreds thousands votes of illegal votes to made the NO win.
Dominique Dumas says : « why bother to understand? »
Good question.
Why bother to understand that anglo-kk-nada is built on three centuries of ethnic cleansing against whoever was in Canada before the anglos, despite the numerous evidence of historical and contemporary facts ?
Why …
Britain fought over France for not being a vassal in Medieval times.
This is actually interesting that you bring this up. It is exactly the problem that Scotland had. Titles and land given to the few in exchange for a political Union between Scotland and England.
There is an ‘auld alliance’ that the Scots and French have to this day. England fought against the French and Scots. The French and Scots fought with each other on several occasions – this has not been forgotten by many in Scotland and France. There are bonds of kinship between the people of both countries that have never been forgotten.
Time has moved on, but there is still an underlying positive relationship that man has kept alive down through the years by story telling.
You will find similar tales of story telling in Iceland, Greenland and Scandinavia that have no doubt led to some similar bonds down through the years.
Dominique Dumas says : « it’s not surprising (or abnormal) that Canadians rejects separatists »
Do they ?
Anglos of towns like Westmount, Baie-d’Urfée, Kirkland or Stanstead have voted for separation from Montréal ten years ago.
Canada is a separated country and anglos are very comfortable with this fact.
Anglos are as separatist as the rest of the world is : 200 separated people in 200 separated countries. What they reject is that some nation that is currently submitted to their power wants to do the same thing as them.
Imperialism.
Dominique Dumas says : «« the deepest racist sentiments expressed in the last 30 years against anybody in Canada was in the last year and coming from the leading separatist party with their “values charter” that went against a lot of human rights! »
Says who is perfectly comfortable with the fact that his nation keeps the Natives in concentration camps.
Says who is perfectly comfortable with his nation imposing federation, constitution, suprem court, charters, taxes and a lot more to other nations without ever asking for and even less obtaining their consent.
Says who is perfectly comfortable with a permanent hatred propaganda and incitation to violence against the founding people of his country.
Typical …
This discussion should highlight to all Scots what will most probably happen to Scotland if the NO vote wins. It will not be the end of the political idea of independence. It will a simple “until next time” and the bickering will be unending.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand” – Lincoln. We are seeing that happening in Québec right now.
If Québécois voted NO twice for independence, it is obviously not out of love for Canada. It is mostly the power of inertia at work that made it happened. So that the YES side obtained 49,5% in 1995 is in itself a huge victory.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2014/03/20/lawrence-solomon-canada-needs-quebec/
Québec also never signed the constitution and Québécois voted NO against a proposed reform of the Canadian federation at 56,7%. This was a net improvement of Québec situation within Canada and yet Québécois said no clearly. It reveals how Québécois are deeply dissatisfied with Canada and its relationship with Québec. In short, we are stuck in a political no-man land until either Québec independence or vast and genuine reform of Canada happens.
As for the link I gave you Dominique Dumas, clearly you did not read it. I can tell from the nonsensical answer that you gave me which was more of a political accusation that anything else (and also because it is a very long research summary). Take the time to read, it might open your eyes to some of the “thought processes” that you are yourself internalizing.
I would also recommend you reading the work of Charles A. Calomiris about the banking history in Canada and how, English political and economic oppression of French was at the center of the development of Canada. The Globe and Mail produced an article about that.
To finish, never forget those basic but very important facts.
– Quebec independent is a legitimate project that is recognized by both the Supreme Court of Canada and the House of Commons. Your attempts at making it look like some kind of extremist project contrasts with the above mentioned institutions.
– Sovereignists have rights just like federalists. Objecting to someone candidacy based on his or her political preferences, and not competency, is called discrimination which is obviously unacceptable in a country that wants to be a democracy.
– Just because Québécois have never felt discriminated against does not mean that neo-racism is not taking roots in Canada. Last week, a candidate to the Winnipeg mayor election received heinous comments because he dared to speak in French during a debate organized by a French organism. Or, Montreal city councilor Jeremy Searle who compared “separatists” to insects needing to be exterminated. I fear that Canada is going down a very dark road…
Nicolas B.
Oh god… This will be my last answer cause I really have better things, things that actually mater, to do than to answer to an irrelevant PQ nation.
@Sandra Lefebvre 1) Sorry, but there was never any poll saying 60% of Quebecers were for the charter of values. The best number it got was 52% for the general idea of a charter of values, but the same poll said people were against the most extreme parts suggested by the PQ government.
2) Alot of jurist and judges would disagree with you and that’s why the PQ never wanted their opinion in the first place. Then, knowing it would never be able to comply to OUR charter of rights, PQ said they would amend the charter… Without ANY referendum on the subject. Extremists like Mathieu Bock Côté said it was a great thing that a government could change our natural rights. Because the principle behind the human rights and freedoms is that we own them because we’re humans, not because some government allowed us to have any of them!
3) I really don’t care what France does and I don’t know why separatist love France so much and always want to be like them… It is a foreign country FAR from what Quebecers are. We have WAY more in common with the Brits thant with the French. Also, the way they deal with immigrants is a complete failure.
4) I was talking about the main land. You could add alot of countries in the list.
@Adrian Separatists don’t like the word “separatist”. They think it’s negative because in their mind they want to create a new country and would like this to be what defines them. But they can’t form a new country without separating from their old one. That’s a fact. So don’t like the word, but it’s still the right one.
@Réjean Drouin
1) Thanks for proving my point. The federal government didn’t “use the supreme court” to stop anything, it got up to the supreme court and the charges were dropped. It’s what the supreme court does it takes positions on legal maters.
2) You forgot to mention that we just found out lately that the Yes side was also illegally founded. http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/infos/national/archives/2013/07/20130711-061906.html
And the PQ was also included in the sponsorship scandal witch was a corruption scandal like we have so many in Quebec!
3) First, that’s one of the terrorists version of things, witch could never been proven. They also claimed that Laporte strangled himself with his neck chain… I’m not surprised you believe them. Also, like I said, 8 persons were killed by the FLQ, not only Laporte.
4) “The majority of all Québec voters said **YES** to separation in 1995.”
That’s a complete lie, except if you consider that only francophones are “real” Quebecers. Then, why stop there? Only separatists are “real” Quebecers and you got a 100% Yes vote! Hurray! And we come back to the dying PQ nation, foreign to Quebecers.
5) “It’s only the cheating, manipulations and crimes of the federal side that the couple hundreds thousands votes of illegal votes to made the NO win.”
“Why bother to understand that anglo-kk-nada…”
That is what I mean by living in denial! Quebecers got so sick and tired of hearing these things, this hate and anglophobia, that they want to get rid of separatists in government!
6) “Anglos of towns like Westmount, Baie-d’Urfée, Kirkland or Stanstead have voted for separation from Montréal ten years ago.”
As did the francos in Ancienne-Lorette and Saint-Augustin in Quebec City… Btw, it’s again the PQ that screwed Quebecers with forced fusions of their cities… It seems that for PQ, if they get more power, it’s ok to join entities together…
7) “What they reject is that some nation that is currently submitted to their power wants to do the same thing as them.”
With your black and white separatist version of history, it’s not surprising that you spill such things. What they actually reject, is that a very vocal minority want to steal a province away from Canada. No there never was any referendum to join Canada. Back in 1867, our leaders (from Quebec and from other provinces) thought it was normal to form a new country without any referendum. And btw, this IS the constitution we live in! 1982 was only amendments to this constitution (written by a Quebecer).
But I digress. It’s easy to pretend (forgetting how Quebecers rejected leaving the country 2 times) that we were “forced” into Canada with a 2014 view of history. But it’s always the biggest error with history: Analyzing it with contemporary eyes. Btw, NOBODY voted for it. There was never any referendum in any province. When some say “Quebec never signed”, they mean our politicians never signed. But like Quebecers, other Canadians deal with it because it’s not perfect, but it ain’t that far from it either.
8) First of all, you look like an idiot when you compare indian reserves to concentration camps. I live near the Huron reserve in Quebec city and they probably live in better conditions than most Quebecers. There is some reserves like that around Canada. Normally, they’re situated near big cities.
Others, for urban people, look like they live in poor conditions, but it’s most of the times the same or better than other people living there, far from big cities.
Finally, there is some reserves that look from a third world country. Most of the times, it’s because corruption and violence has taken over. The right thing would probably be for the government to intervene, but if they do, the corrupt and violent leaders will go crying to the UN that Canadians are Nazis or something…
Most Canadians and probably most “indians” would like a better deal permitting everybody to live together with the same freedoms and rights, alot leave their reserve and actually live like any other Canadian (we like our “concentration camps” pretty loose on who comes in and out of it). But unfortunately, it seems that with all the different tribes asking for something and everything in return of a “fairer” deal, it never goes anywhere.
@Nicolas B. I’ve been reading for years the victim speech from separatist. It’s nothing new. Your “I fear that Canada is going down a very dark road” tells pretty how much you believe it, so far from any Canadian’s reality. You want hate? Go back on twitter since the last elections. Separatist are spilling their hate for Quebecers because they didn’t vote for the “right” party. That’s why I call them the foreign PQ nation. They been telling for years any Quebecer (even more the ones not coming from the pure Quebec race) not thinking like them to leave the province. Today, I say they’re the one who should leave because they hate Quebec and Quebecers as they are!
But yeah, independance is a legitimate project, just not a popular one. I said that only extremists like Rejean still believe the victimhood speech and the hate for anglos. With separation being less and less popular, it’s people like him that are left and it’s sometimes funny, but most of the times pathetic.
To Scotland: Do whatever you want. It’s your referendum. Not anybody else’s (but it’s only normal that UK and EU have their opinion). Your situation doesn’t have anything to do with Canada, Spain, Belgium or any other country. So chose wisely and let’s all hope for the best.
So why did you intervene so much by giving Scotland people so many wrong informations.
We had to correct each of them.
Particurlarly the ones regarding the 1995 referendum.
@Adrian Separatists don’t like the word “separatist”. They think it’s negative because in their mind they want to create a new country and would like this to be what defines them. But they can’t form a new country without separating from their old one. That’s a fact. So don’t like the word, but it’s still the right one.
Haha
Scotland is a country. The UK is not. We are not creating a new country. We are reclaiming our state.
I still think that separatist says more about those that try to resist change. The bigger state is best mentality is no longer a good model.
Dominique Dumas : « I really have better things, things that actually mater, to do than to answer to an irrelevant PQ nation. »
This discussion did matter enough to you until each and every of you pseudo facts are demolished. Typical.
Dominique Dumas says : « .. steal a province away from canada »
Everybody can see the imperialist view expressed here : Anglo invaders who occupy our country OWN us and they OWN our destiny. Making the democratic choice to have our future free of their domination is unacceptable crime to them.
Again : IMPERIALISM.
Merci, Dominique, for such a candid display.
Sorry Scots for taking the Quebec debate in your court.
But you may prevent scandals that can cost you your country.
Sandra Lefebvre says that the airlines flying in a few days before is a lie.
It is confirmed that 25 000 airline tickets (Air Canada and Canadian airlines)were available for 90% rebate, the national train company, Via rail Canada, gave 60% off and the bus companies also offered major rebates. All the details have never been revealed.
This is a fact not fiction.
Take every precaution Scots because under the blankets, it will be ugly.
I can only renforce what Viviane wrote. I am 63 year old Québécois who has lived through both referendums (1980 and 1995). Both times I voted yes, but my option lost. Viviane’s analysis is strikingly pertinent, thoughtful and summarizes brilliantly what happened to our community as the consequence to saying no to oneself, to refuse to become a mature people and nation, preferring to remain an eternal adolescent.
If you want my point of view please don’t refuse this opportunity. Second chances are
Never easy. And please don’t make our mistake by listening to Ms Rowling’s arguments. We have heard the same over and over without any material change to our situation.
And than you to Viviane, for her enlightening piece. It
Is even more surprising and gratifying when you understand her age and become aware that she did not even have the age to participate directly.
Thank you Viviane and the best of luck to all our Scottish friends in the decision they are about
To take.
Marcel Barthe
Isle of Orleans
Quebec
Though eloquently stated, Viviane’s comparisons are a bit of an over-reach and more likely a rallying cry to potential future allies.
With Scotland’s manufacturing & oil platforms, I see a viable chance of financial independence. And being the northern tip of Great Britain, there seems a clean cut from the rest of the U.K. would be a reasonably easy geographic independence. If Scots believe that they should go it alone I wish them well & hope they have the ability, determination, and patience to become great.
I only fear Scotland’s win will become Quebec’s loss.
Quebec is not Scotland. We can never have a clean break from Canada; geographically nor financially. We are a province surrounded by Canada & peppered with Native Reserves. Also, contrary to Scotland, Quebec is a Net Importer who’s already mired in debt.
We also have another obstacle Scotland isn’t burdened with overcoming, language. In Quebec we are a majority of Francophones (French speaking mother-tongue) spread out over our vast territory with a minority of Anglophones (English speaking mother-tongue) concentrated in the Montreal-area. An independent Quebec would also be a divided Quebec.
This is where I fear that a political candidate for a separatist party, Viviane Martinova-Croteau (Option Nationale), is hoping Scotland can help set a precedence and re-invigorate a movement that, as of last year’s provincial elections was all but destroyed when the separatist parties were humiliated – with the exception of a 200% gain from 1 to 3 seats of 125 for Quebec Solidaire.
I am proud to be Quebecois, as I’m sure you are all proud to be Scots, but the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. The sweet words of a political sophist my help rally you to independence but please remember, Scotland will be made great by the Scots, not Quebecers.
Fight your battle, and find your words of inspiration from the mouths of your brothers & sisters. Let Viviane & her ilk fight their own.
I am looking for Canadian who might be headed to Scotland to Vote in the referendum. Anyone going over?
The article is well written but I think short sighted. Bringing climate change to the agenda is silly, it has nothing to do with the topic and frankly is a way for many people, groups and ENGO’s tocollect grant money and exploit tax breaks while artificially affecting the economy. Quebec gets all provinces get and maybe a little more, my heritage is French and I am from Alberta. My family comes from an area of the province that is predominately French speaking, the exist just fine and are accepted for what they are…good people. I have been to Quebec and I find it a beautiful place, unfortunately with the little bit of power that your political leaders have they have managed to willfully rob from you! That is a Quebec issue and frankly we have some of the same issues in Alberta…send them to jail they are in a position of trust and they breach that trust make them accountable. As for the gun registry going away have you noticed the dramatic increase in violent crime? I thought not! See the issue is CRIMINALS don’t care if a gun is registered or not, actually they would like it if THEY were the only ones with a gun. Take a look south to the states with the most strict gun laws and compare their gun crime rate to states that do not view owning a fire arm as threat…guess what you will find, the opposite of what your argument is, that’s not say I don’t believe in regulation I do and I think that this balance is served at the moment. I would say if you feel other parts of Canada don’t treat you with respect it’s because of people like you that whine, not because of the majority that are good people. No it’s the Minority that sit on a soap box and yell “POOR ME”. You are now 24 years old, if you want a job go get one…a career apply yourself. Referencing Harry Potter and complaining about what might have been, well stop it. Quebec is responsible for Quebec just like every other province. Make good business decisions and you will be able to afford good services. Encourage industry to grow and mandate that they act responsibly and they will. You see Canada is not cheap to do business in, but the HUGE advantage we have is political stability. Make your government stable and you utilize a massive competitive advantage. So what are you doing to make things better? Because from I’m sitting this fine Sunday morning it sounds like your bitching and complaining…and marching in ridiculous protests is not doing something that’s called killing the day. Your 24 now act like it…your an adult.
I am surprise this mention nothing of the last Separatist government and it’s massive failure over Charte des Valeurs, Mme Maroie and so on. You can’t pick the only relevant side of the story.
Spectators? Scots as spectators on the world stage? The last PM of the UK was a Scot. A Scot led one of the worlds largest economy due to being a citizen of the UK. That not sounds like a spectator role to me. Don’t act like different nations can’t live together. There have been Scottish PMs in the UK and French Canadian PMs in Canada. We can live together fairly and justly. Democracy is the rule of compromise; both the UK and Canada are full fledged democracies that support their minorities and the different cultures within them. Yes we have a conservative govt in Canada right now that is incredibly unpopular within Quebec; does that Quebec is not listened? The second largest province in terms of economy and population and you are acting like it is being marginalized. If the issues of sovereignty are based truly on the actions of Harper’s govt, then use the democratic system to take him.
George Giroux « Quebec gets all provinces get and maybe a little more »
Sure, the anglos are so dumb that they lose money over a territory and a nation that are under their control..
.
« I am from Alberta. My family comes from an area of the province that is predominately French speaking, the exist just fine and are accepted for what they are .. »
There is no need to worry about an insignificant 0,6 % minority submitted to a 70 % assimilation rate, thanks to over one century of federal supported anti-French apartheid that has eradicated the French majority population in your province.
.
« if you feel other parts of Canada don’t treat you with respect it’s because of people like you that whine »
You are the one whining right now and you are blaming the victims for protesting instead of accusing the true criminals.
.
« Quebec is responsible for Quebec just like every other province. »
Québec is responsible for the whole country. Ottawa has always used Québec money (over 80B$/yr now) to develop the rest of the country : we have paid for Ontario’s debt in 1840 (60B$ in todays money), we have paid for the mass immigration to the Prairies, we have paid for two 6000km national railways and one national highway, we have pay to subsidize the Alberta tar sand industry (well over 100 billions since 1975 and 3,5B$ more every year), we get nothing for transatlantic traffic passing on the St-Lawrence Maritime Way right under our nose and straight to and from Ontario, we always pay for the nuclear industry which does not exist in Québec, we get nothing for our hydropower development, we pay for saving the anglo banks and ours (Banque Nationale et Caisses Desjardins) never got any help, etc, etc, ..
.
« Make good business decisions and you will be able to afford good services. »
That is so easy to say while sitting on more oil reserve than Saudi Arabia has (but still not being able to balance the province budget)
The most responsible economic choice is to break our submission to your federal government.
.
« the HUGE advantage we have is political stability »
Good for you, but that is built on keeping Québec submitted, weak and poor.
If you were intelligent and honest then you would wish the good things you have to everyone else. Are you ??
Calum Glew : « There have been Scottish PMs in the UK and French Canadian PMs in Canada. »
I don’t know for Scotland but having Canada PM from Québec has sure been the best way for anglos to hit on Québec without causing too much turmoil. That is the « negro king » method used in many other places by anglo-imperialists..
.
« We can live together fairly and justly »
Sure, we can. But we have not. The anglo presence in this country is three centuries of ethnic cleansing against whoever were in Canada before them (deportations, massacres, concentrations camps, apartheid, forced exils, propaganda, forced federations, democracy and justice denials, etc.
« Democracy is the rule of compromise »<
We do not live in democracy, sir. We are in elective aristocracies. Democracy is when the people chose their LAWS, not their masters.
Rejean makes a great victim… Alot of Quebec separatists are eternal victims.
I know economically, Scotland is doing great, but the truth for Quebec is that we got 16,2 billion dollars from the other provinces last year. So Quebec isn’t paying for anything outside the province. We don’t even pay for ourselves.
Separatists just don’t understand that Canada does the same thing with Quebec that Quebec is doing with Gaspésie (even poorer region in Quebec).
Do whatever you want for Scotland. Quebecers don’t understand anything from your situation. Almost none know that you’ll still be queen’s subjects. And they wouldn’t understand either.
Rejean makes « a great victim… A lot of Quebec separatists are eternal victims. »
When there is nothing valid to say attack the person.
.
« Quebec is that we got 16,2 billion dollars from the other provinces last year. »
Yeah ! right !! Anglos really are stupid enough to loose money pver a territory and a people that are under their control. …
.
« Separatists just don’t understand that Canada does the same thing with Quebec that Quebec is doing with Gaspésie »
Gaspesie is not a nation and it is not a state. Ignorant.
“Ignorant”
You’re right! When there is nothing valid to say attack the person. And that is all you got. That and your beliefs.
-You ignore got 16,2 billion dollars more than it sent out.
-You ignore that for Canadians, Quebec is part of Canada as Gaspésie is part of Quebec. So following your train of tought, Quebecers are really stupid to loose money with Gaspésie.
-You ignore pretty much everything about your own country. You just bought the whole victim and pseudo domination speech.
So… Who’s the ignorant?
@Dominique Dumas
– Actually, analyses of Canada Public Accounts (which you may or may not have heard about) show that the amount Quebec “gets” from the federal government is much less lowered and is rather around -2/+2 billion a year (taking many variations into considerations). Stéphane Gobeil does a great job analyzing it for us in his book “Un gouvernement de trop”. I would recommend you to read it but I am guessing that you probably disagree with his book before even looking at the cover since he is a “self-victimizing separatist”.
– History is the study of what happened, not the study of finding in the past, justifications for the future. However, to claim that Francophone in general, and Québec as a province, were disadvantage for most of the time the confederation has existed is not a “victim speech.” It is a historical conclusion that even Charles A. Calomiris, professor at the Columbia University (not a separatist victim), came to that very conclusion. Here us the abstract of his book: “The Political Foundations of Scarce and Unstable Credit” http://www.frbatlanta.org/documents/news/conferences/13fmc_calomiris.pdf, pp. 37-42.
Professor Calomiris used expressions such as “French coffin” when describing the addition of the three new provinces in 1870, 71 and 73. He goes so far as saying: “Systematic malapportionment in the upper house of the Canadian Parliament ensured that the French would always hold a minority of the seats. In short, the need to solve a difficult problem of empire—crafting political institutions so that the French population in Quebec could not hold up the economic development of the Canadian interior—gave rise to a political system in which the central government had the exclusive right to charter banks.”
Were French victims for real or are we only imagining it now to feel better? I think Pr. Calomiris has a very strong academic point. And he is not some “angry French self-victimized separatist”; he is an unbiased American professor.
Thank you very much
Nicolas B.
It’s your right to cherry pick enablers like the former PQ spin doctor (that has no economic studies whatsoever). The PQ always manipulated numbers to make believe Canada is stealing from Quebec. It’s against any economic knowledge we have on Quebec, it’s against Quebec’s own government numbers and against any logic, but they still produce this make believe world every decade or so. Last time, it’s was François Legault. You think he still believes his own bull…?
Btw, I did read Gobeille’s book. To say I wasn’t impressed is puting it midly. But, you can believe what you want.
As for history, it is what it is. There is interpretations of it. Eternal victims like Réjean still think they’re on the plains of Abraham facing british soldiers.
Does all this changes anything for Scotland? No! So to the Scots, choose whatever you will!
@Dominique Dumas
So basically, you attack Gobeil’s credentials but you don’t tell us about your training in economics, an ad hominem at its best. For you, any number that comes from the PQ is “a conspiracy of the separatists trying to destroy the “bestest” country in the world.” That you were impressed or not by his book is irrelevant. The only thing relevant in such conversation are arguments and you provided none so far, but a few fallacies and a lot of ad hominem.
And then you made that claim about History: “it is what it is. There are interpretations of it.” So you are saying that people obtain Ph.D in history to “propose interpretations” without values (I finished your fallacy for you) and that is about it. Well done, you just insulted hundreds of years of historical research and its immense value for human societies in one sentence mired by denial. Again, you are proposing nothing and you are going back to your favorite ad hominem, that separatists are a bunch of “self-victimizing” losers and Canada is the great nation that saves them from themselves. The myth of the “white man burden” 2.0.
The Scots can obviously chose whatever they want. Something both London and Edinburgh understood very easily but Ottawa seems unable to grasp such a concept; as proof of this, its Clarity Act.
Nicolas B.
Dominique Dumas :
I call you ignorant because you ignore that you are. You think like you know the truth but it’s all the propaganda garbage you have been fed with since you were born.
.
« -You ignore [that Québec] got 16,2 billion dollars more than it sent out.
First, what Québec was said to get those 16.2 billions, the federal was 52 billions in deficit adding the same 16 billions to our share of the debt.
Second, « It sent out » only accounts for direct taxes but not for fees and others income that Ottawa collects in Québec like the billions collected from mobile operators for rf bandwidth, the 50$ for every passage of every passenger in a federal airport, the 400 000$ for every boat on the St-Lawrence Maritime Way, custom fees, custom taxes, U-I contributions (45 billions taken by the fed latelys), etc.
.
« -You ignore that for Canadians, Quebec is part of Canada as Gaspésie is part of Quebec. »
keunédians are ignorant, of course. Gaspésie is a region, not a nation.
Everybody in this country are disinformed by a vast and permanent propaganda machine that make them think they are in a respectful democracy while promoting bigotery and hatred towards its founding nation and pretending that anglos are entitled to keep other nations submitted to theirs ; like keeping Québec under their control and keeping Natives in concentration camps forever.
.
« -You ignore pretty much everything about your own country. «
Let me tell you what I know about kk-nada and, then, you can tell me what I am missing :
– Deportation of the Acadians, killing two thirds of them in the process.
– Massacres of the Natives and Metis, parking of the survivors in concentration camps (reserves), internment of their children in forced assimilation institutions, etc.
– Each and every peace treaties broken.
– Natives starved to death for « medical experimentations ».
– Imposed federation of all territories and provinces under one centralized power.
– Anti-French apartheid all over non-Québec Canada to eradicate French speaking majority populations.
– Real Canadians (the French) forced into the status of “white ne88ers” – their main living condition indicators under anglo-imperialist domination equal or worse than those of the blacks in USA -.
– Two thirds of the real Canadiens forced into permanent exile in order to survive while the governments were heavily sponsoring replacement immigration from Western Europe.
– Imposed charter of rights and constitutions to make it impossible for the real Canadiens to protect their language and their culture.
– State terrorism to fake separatist terrorists (FLQ) ; federal police bombs in Montréal, false communiqués, anglo-army occupation, hundreds of people jailed without charge against them, etc. All that to fight the peaceful and democratic Québec independence movements.
– Criminal activities against Québec regulations to win the referendum votes on Québec sovereignty.
– Instrumentalization of the ethnics, obligation to move to Québec to get citizenship, threat of losing it if they voted YES (Parizeau was right !)
– Corruption, bribery, acquaintance with organized crime.
– Permanent anti-Québec, anti-Québécois and anti-French propaganda
…
Dominique Dumas : « Eternal victims like Réjean still think they’re on the plains of Abraham facing british soldiers. »
What is your point with the Plaines d’Abraham ? : That you own our nation hence : We are caught in an imperialist foreign state.
Thanks for making me right again.