2014 Quebec General Election + General Separatism Discussion

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yes and no. Various regions are going to organize independence referendums in Europe (Catalonia and Scotland for sure; Flanders and Veneto would like it too, at least some of their people), and it looks like Catalonia is going to secede from Spain this autumn (it's less probable in the case of Scotland), which, if you had asked me only 1 year ago (about Catalonia), I would have thought frankly impossible.

I imagine that this will make the people of Québec think. Imagine for instance if Scottish voters voted YES in the independence referendum this autumn.

I've never thought that Scotland was a good model for Quebec, and I still think the "No" vote will win, but the timing is interesting in that Quebec voters would be able to observe not only the vote result (if "Yes"), but the first three years of the aftermath before the next Quebec provincial election. I suspect that MOUK's post referendum positions on things like currency, borders, etc, etc, etc would bear a strong resemblance to those one could expect from MOC if Quebec were to vote to secede. The key practical difference is the UK nuclear submarine base, which is in Scotland. That could give Scotland negotiating leverage post-referendum that has no equivalent in a Quebec-Canada scenario. Spain/Catalonia, I have no idea, but I doubt it would be as civil as a MOUK/Scotland process.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I've never thought that Scotland was a good model for Quebec, and I still think the "No" vote will win, but the timing is interesting in that Quebec voters would be able to observe not only the vote result (if "Yes"), but the first three years of the aftermath before the next Quebec provincial election. I suspect that MOUK's post referendum positions on things like currency, borders, etc, etc, etc would bear a strong resemblance to those one could expect from MOC if Quebec were to vote to secede. The key practical difference is the UK nuclear submarine base, which is in Scotland. That could give Scotland negotiating leverage post-referendum that has no equivalent in a Quebec-Canada scenario. Spain/Catalonia, I have no idea, but I doubt it would be as civil as a MOUK/Scotland process.

You say a lot of smart things here as usual, but what still sticks in mind most from your message is MOUK!

[MolsonExport]

True the province has moved way beyond the grievances expressed very cogently by Pierre Bourgault in 1980:
• Video Link

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ashok

Except, there isn't any real grievance in Quebec... Quebeckers are the masters of their own home, we have a relatively high status of autonomy within Canada already - we have very high standard of livings... so sovereignty in Quebec is up for a challenge.

It's no longer so much a question of grievance for people as it is one of incompatibility. It's not 1975 anymore.

And I would venture to say that in places like Catalonia and Scotland it's mostly a question of incompatibility as opposed to grievance as well.

None of the three places can be said to be oppressed by the country they are a part of, but all three have at least some dissatisfaction with the way power is exercised on their territory and by whom, a situation which is exacerbated by perceptions of cultural difference as well.

But sure, none of these situations are like Kurdistan under Saddam Hussein.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You say a lot of smart things here as usual, but what still sticks in mind most from your message is MOUK!

Well, I'm very pleased with "MOC" and want to see it spread. Plus, as a proud ethnic Scot, the idea of referring to the Sassenach as "MOUKs" is just too good to pass up!

[Ashok]

^ There is an extra dimension that poses challenge to sovereignty in Quebec. Now, I speak a bit out of my ass - but still, I sense some logic.

The Charter of Value has set sovereignty back a few years. Allophones like me were open to the idea of sovereignty especially since there was a rightful place for us within a Quebec Nation. A blow to sovereignty is that the Charter has made a link between sovereignty and ethnic nationalism (well, the link was always there but it has made it much more strong,) and has question our place within a Quebec Society - the Charter has made some groups feel vulnerable. Mind you, I am not religious but I, and I am sure many, saw the charter as an attack on minority rights.

That was a mistake - There is low natural birth growth for the Francophone population. So, if support for sovereignty hovers around 40-45% amongst the Francophone population, it needs the votes of the Anglos + Allophones to succeed. Especially because the allophones growth would be high due to immigration + higher birth rates. I read in stats Canada, that by 2030, Allophones are to make up 1/3rd of the Quebec population.

I do not think the Charter would be easily forgotten. People will remember that their rights were once made vulnerable, almost taken away. The charter was a dumb move by the PQ - they shot themselves in their feet.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Ashok

^ There is an extra dimension that poses challenge to sovereignty in Quebec. Now, I speak a bit out of my ass - but still, I sense some logic.

The Charter of Value has set sovereignty back a few years. Allophones like me were open to the idea of sovereignty especially since there was a rightful place for us within a Quebec Nation. A blow to sovereignty is that the Charter has made a link between sovereignty and ethnic nationalism (well, the link was always there but it has made it much more strong,) and has question our place within a Quebec Society - the Charter has made some groups feel vulnerable. Mind you, I am not religious but I, and I am sure many, saw the charter as an attack on minority rights.

That was a mistake - There is low natural birth growth for the Francophone population. So, if support for sovereignty hovers around 40-45% amongst the Francophone population, it needs the votes of the Anglos + Allophones to succeed. Especially because the allophones growth would be high due to immigration + higher birth rates. I read in stats Canada, that by 2030, Allophones are to make up 1/3rd of the Quebec population.

I do not think the Charter would be easily forgotten. People will remember that their rights were once made vulnerable, almost taken away. The charter was a dumb move by the PQ - they shot themselves in their feet.

But the Liberals will pass their own Quebec Charter, without the offensive bits, no?

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Reading coverage from ROC and Quebec over the past day, it seems to me now that this election has almost nothing to do with federalism or Canada. It seems the people are voting as if this was already a national election in an independent Quebec, choosing the domestic platform that best reflects their values and desires. It's Quebec voters saying the PQ's current platform (especially the charter) is not the Quebec they want - the key word being Quebec.

Um, just like every other provincial and territorial election?

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Um, just like every other provincial and territorial election?

Sort of, yes.

Let me give a different example: Danny Williams' ABC campaign. The PC Party of NL shut the federal Conservatives out of the province, and people loved them for it. Many of the votes cast for the PC Party of NL during that period were votes against Harper and against Ottawa, especially in rural Newfoundland where the Liberal Party of NL is dominant.

That doesn't appear to be the case this time in Quebec, despite what some in the media are saying. It seems to me this wasn't a win for Canada or federalism, and many of those who voted Liberal did so with only Quebec in mind.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

But the Liberals will pass their own Quebec Charter, without the offensive bits, no?

I am not sure of this. The Liberals did put forward some proposals, but these were the conditions they wanted to see met in order for them to support a PQ-led Charter. It wasn't something they were proposing to go ahead and do on their own.

My bet is that this Charter issue is dead for the time being.

Or at least until some public swimming pool in Montreal bans men during certain hours or something like that...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ashok

That was a mistake - There is low natural birth growth for the Francophone population. So, if support for sovereignty hovers around 40-45% amongst the Francophone population, it needs the votes of the Anglos + Allophones to succeed.

.

Not really. Of course if you're a sovereignist a Oui vote is a Oui vote no matter the demographic profile of the person who cast it. But there is no indication that the non-francophone population will anytime soon attain a level where it could thwart the will of the francophone majority if that's what it wanted to do. There is still ample room within the francophone majority to move the Oui into majority territory. (And that's not counting the gravy that comes from the odd Oui vote from allophones - not so many from anglophones of course.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ashok

Especially because the allophones growth would be high due to immigration + higher birth rates. I read in stats Canada, that by 2030, Allophones are to make up 1/3rd of the Quebec population.

I am not sure of this, or at least I am not sure of what you are suggesting.

The allophone population is not a base block that is simply built upon from generation to generation. From one generation to the next people who were allophones are replaced with people who are either francophones or anglophones. Not everyone who is allophone today will have descendents in 2030 who will be allophones. Some will, but there is also a good chance their descendants will be either francophone or anglophone at some point down the line.

It is very likely that in 2030 the Quebec population will be proportionately less "French Canadian" in its ethnic origins than today, but that's not necessarily the same thing as being allophone as you seem to understand its implications and does not exclude the fact that many people of diverse origins end up virtually indistinguishable from the French Canadian origin population in behaviours, attitudes and even voting...

[kwoldtimer]

I am pleased that Couillard and the PLQ won, but I don't envy them the next couple of years, or even the next couple of months. Couillard will have a heavy burden in demonstrating that he's truly turning a page on corruption, that he's "defending Quebec's interests" and that he's on the path toward addressing underlying problems in Quebecs economy and public sector. Any of these could fill the plate of most provincial politicians - having to tackle all three seems a very heavy burden. Expect Couillard to age visibly over the next year.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dado

But if I understand my history correctly, the Gatineau Valley was settled first by English-speakers. The francophones came later.

Whereas in Eastern Ontario, the francophones arrived first or simultaneously with anglophone settlers.

.

Correct for the Gatineau valley. This is also true for most of the Ottawa River shore communities on the Quebec side at least as far east as Thurso.

As for eastern Ontario communities in Prescott-Russell, the popular assumption is that they were settled by francophones originally and that the reason many towns have English names is the same reason some places in Quebec have names like Drummondville and Victoriaville (they were anglo company towns and names were chosen regardless of massively francophone demographics).

But in actual fact most of the majority francophone parts of Prescott-Russell were originally anglo. The anglo population was small but its settlement pattern was reasonably comprehensive. In addition to the all of the towns with anglo names that are mainly francophone today, even some of the towns with French-sounding names like Alfred and Plantagenet were British-inspired and chosen by anglo settlers. Even L'Orignal was originally an anglo town - perhaps those settlers thought the French name of an abandoned seigneurie that was once there, sounded better than The Moose!

In historical terms, the late 19th century anglo-dominated era of Prescott-Russell counties was extremely short-lived. For some reason many of them decided to leave the area for points west in Ontario and western Canada. And this coincided with a huge influx of francophones from Quebec into the area. The transition was very quick and soon the francophone population was much much larger than the anglo population had ever been.

Also for some reason the anglo population of neighbouring Glengarry, Stormont and Dundas counties (think of Cornwall and Alexandria and the area roughly south of Highway 417) remained in place and did not decamp. This area also got a fairly big influx of French Canadians but for some reason there the linguistic hegemony of English has persisted, and francophones in that area conformed to it much more than they did in Prescott-Russell (where they tended to create a miniature Quebec in many places).

For some reason the linguistic dynamic changes when you cross the 417. For example, in Alexandria (south of the highway, but close to majority francophone), French is surprisingly discreet when compared to many places north of the highway.

[Ashok]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not sure of this, or at least I am not sure of what you are suggesting.

The allophone population is not a base block that is simply built upon from generation to generation. From one generation to the next people who were allophones are replaced with people who are either francophones or anglophones. Not everyone who is allophone today will have descendents in 2030 who will be allophones. Some will, but there is also a good chance their descendants will be either francophone or anglophone at some point down the line.

It is very likely that in 2030 the Quebec population will be proportionately less "French Canadian" in its ethnic origins than today, but that's not necessarily the same thing as being allophone as you seem to understand its implications and does not exclude the fact that many people of diverse origins end up virtually indistinguishable from the French Canadian origin population in behaviours, attitudes and even voting...

Yes, but I am generalizing - I cannot treat non-francophone votes as a single block, but the voting pattern shows that we collectively tend to be Federalist + we voted for Liberals (75%).

Anyhow, the PQ's model is outdated. Quebec Solidaire / Option Nationale are more modern sovereigntist parties with more inclusive agendas.

*

The Liberals aren't going to put forth a charter that will ban any religious wear. They risk alienated a good chunk of their base voters. Beside, Couillard speech was about a Quebec for all.

[Ashok]

Also, the non-francophone votes matter a lot. It is simple math ....

Say the % of Oui is 40% in Quebec - 47.5% Francophones + 10% from non-francophone. Then, for a 50% + 1 vote, you need convincing 12.5% more Francophones to vote yes. That is assuming 80% of Quebeckers are Francophones.

In comparison, if we shift to 2030 - 47.5 % of Francophone + 10%, now the % of oui vote in Quebec is 36.35%.

You would need an jump of 20% for the Oui vote on the Francophone side - thus, non-francophone vote becomes very important when we talk about Sovereignty.

This is why I feel the Charter of Value was a bullet through their foot. It alienated a lot of non-francophone folks.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Just look at how Iceland handled its financial collapse. They were brilliant - jailing bankers, bailing out those hurt most by their actions, the works. And their recovery is far outpacing any other place in the developed world. Had they been hemmed into a "Canada", they'd still be miserable.

Had they been hemmed into a "Canada", they wouldn't have had a financial collapse, because they would have had a much larger, stronger, and more diversified economy. And a far better regulated banking system. Iceland's problems stem almost entirely from being too small as a country.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Had they been hemmed into a "Canada", they wouldn't have had a financial collapse, because they would have had a much larger, stronger, and more diversified economy. And a far better regulated banking system. Iceland's problems stem almost entirely from being too small as a country.

I disagree. They gambled and lost, no differently than did the United States, Ireland, and numerous other countries. It wasn't their size that got them into that mess, it was their decisions.

Luckily, their laws were strong enough to at least clean up the mess after the fact, and in a way that benefits the greatest number of Icelanders, not just the extreme upper class as in the U.S.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I disagree. They gambled and lost, no differently than did the United States, Ireland, and numerous other countries. It wasn't their size that got them into that mess, it was their decisions.

Luckily, their laws were strong enough to at least clean up the mess after the fact, and in a way that benefits the greatest number of Icelanders, not just the extreme upper class as in the U.S.

Guys, it's really impossible to say how it would go. Of course Newfoundland does not control banking or monetary policy so it's a bit moot to do a comparison.

On the other hand, I am not sure that it's a given that down-on-their-luck parts of a country always get the help they need.

So if Iceland had been part of Canada perhaps they would not have gotten in trouble with their financial system in the first place, but if they had been part of Canada and trouble of another kind had beset them, there is also the possibility that Canada might have simply suggested that they all move to Fort Mac "where the jobs are".

[SignalHillHiker]

What's an example of something that may have gone better had Quebec been independent?

Gun control, perhaps? Or maybe renewable energy?

Here, the fishery is a good example. We could not possibly have mismanaged it to the degree Ottawa did. The two main points of contention that we definitely could have controlled: protecting the capelin and reducing quotas. Fishers in this province begged Ottawa for both beginning in the 1980s, but these requests fell on deaf ears. Canada let foreign overfishing continue, and only reduced each year's quota to whatever the fishers had managed to catch the year before. They're going to make text books about how to intentionally destroy fish stocks this way.

Another common theme in our fishery is selling it to Europeans to benefit industries in other provinces. Right now, CETA is another great example of this. Newfoundland has to drop its minimum processing requirements while Europe gives industries elsewhere in Canada a better deal in exchange.

Whether we could have saved it or not, I don't know... but we certainly would have at least tried and either succeeded or failed of our own policies and merit, not as some Canadian pawn, kicking and screaming for better the entire time.