Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Countries for the most didn't and don't seek and receive independence. Countries ''take'' their independence.
And to pick a couple of examples, Pakistan or Tanzania, would the countries have "taken" their independence without some assurance that the kleptocrats that led them would have access to lots of hard currency for their Swiss bank accounts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
The Westminster Statute of 1931 granting de facto independence to British colonies like Canada, Australia, etc. is a pretty unique historical circumstance. It's not the way things normally happen.
Unique in what way? That it worked?
Oh, I forgot the U.S. It was also not receiving handouts on independence. Is that what's unique?
And to pick a couple of examples, Pakistan or Tanzania, would the countries have "taken" their independence without some assurance that the kleptocrats that led them would have access to lots of hard currency for their Swiss bank accounts?
Unique in what way? That it worked?
Oh, I forgot the U.S. It was also not receiving handouts on independence. Is that what's unique?
You're still hard to follow. Somehow I doubt that Canada-sans-Quebec or the US would give handouts to an independent Quebec. Why would they do this?
Is your whole experience centered in downtown and west-island MTL ?
You should tour the Eastern Townships, once an anglo fortress it is now a study in vacated spaces, disembodied communities, and mournful memories.
The last anglo stronghold is the western part of the island but it is nowhere as monolithic as it once was and with the current laws and regulations will go the way of the Townships sooner or later no doubt.
Yes that way Quebec could allocate the bulk of its sovereign budget to prop up its homegrown legion of singers and stand up comics or else hire some more public servants with iron-clad deals and retirement pensions.
One of the main problems in Quebec between the anglophones and francophones is the vilification of each other. It is typical for anglophones to see the francophones as seeking their eradication, just like it is typical for francophones to see the anglophones as cultural imperialists. There is some truth in both of these stereotypes, but for the most part they are exaggerated.
Many, if not most francophones, want Canada to work as a bi-national state. But in order for this to work, the weaker of the two nations (the Quebecois) needs to be protected and restored to a healthy state after two centuries of colonization. Since Quebec lacks borders and complete control over her own destiny, she is forced to use the tools at her disposal to achieve these goals. The most powerful of these tools is the provincial government. Without using the provincial government and it's power to protect and restore the Quebecois nation, Quebec would revert to it's pre-1980's situation where a college educated bilingual francophone made less than even an unilingual anglophone with a menial education. The product of all of this is zealous government-mandated promotion of the French language aiming to secure the future of an "equal" partner of a bi-national country.
Your average francophone in Sherbrooke or Saguenay isn't going to wake up in the morning and brainstorm new ways to squash the Anglos. What they are seeking is security for the future of their nation, not the eradication of the anglophone minority. If they could provide security for Quebec without suppressing the anglophone minority, then they would do this. But thanks to the current political circumstances in Quebec this is not feasible. If all of this is too much, then there is still another option. This option hasn't been tested and reasonable discussion of it's benefits and negatives are typically blurred in a sea of emotion and misinformation.
It is not unrealistic to believe that independence would benefit Anglo Quebecers. This is ultimately because independence would provide the ultimate security for the Quebec nation and accordingly render zealous language protection unnecessary. The historical community of Quebec anglophones would be part of the most privileged minority in the world: with English language universities, English language universities, and the right for their children and their children to attend public schools in English. This along the lines of what many in the PQ have said, but of course with all the emotion tied up in the debate their promises are usually not taken seriously by anglophones. Sooner or later Quebec needs to put emotion and petty ethnic conflicts aside and sit down and effectively deal with the situation.
It is not unrealistic to believe that independence would benefit Anglo Quebecers. This is ultimately because independence would provide the ultimate security for the Quebec nation and accordingly render zealous language protection unnecessary. The historical community of Quebec anglophones would be part of the most privileged minority in the world: with English language universities, English language universities, and the right for their children and their children to attend public schools in English. This along the lines of what many in the PQ have said, but of course with all the emotion tied up in the debate their promises are usually not taken seriously by anglophones. Sooner or later Quebec needs to put emotion and petty ethnic conflicts aside and sit down and effectively deal with the situation.
Do you believe that Quebec will eventually find a way to separate in the future in its current state? What about if their economic position was stronger? I personally think the odds are low because it is not in a position to be a viable independent country. Scotland, I wonder, may have been an interesting analogy. I think if Quebec were stronger economically, the independence movement may be stronger than what it is today. Today, as it stands, the benefits of being part of Canada outweigh the costs, and if Quebec can continue to successfully wrestle for even more independence as a Province then this is the best option for them to thrive. The process and costs of separating are high, including arguing about their portion of debt, so it has to "worth it" so to speak. What appears to be overzealous language laws that stifle English speakers is a way of protecting their nation from anglo cultural domination - something they have had to contend with since the 1700s. I understand the fear at the core but one can always argue the double standards on the flip side. It is also something much easier to implement as a separate country versus being part of a larger anglo country, as anything Quebec wants will always be construed as "special treatment" or "complaining" by the ROC, especially the further west you go. I wonder where we will be say 50 years from now, any guesses?
Do you believe that Quebec will eventually find a way to separate in the future in its current state? What about if their economic position was stronger? I personally think the odds are low because it is not in a position to be a viable independent country. Scotland, I wonder, may have been an interesting analogy. I think if Quebec were stronger economically, the independence movement may be stronger than what it is today. Today, as it stands, the benefits of being part of Canada outweigh the costs, and if Quebec can continue to successfully wrestle for even more independence as a Province then this is the best option for them to thrive. The process and costs of separating are high, including arguing about their portion of debt, so it has to "worth it" so to speak. What appears to be overzealous language laws that stifle English speakers is a way of protecting their nation from anglo cultural domination - something they have had to contend with since the 1700s. I understand the fear at the core but one can always argue the double standards on the flip side. It is also something much easier to implement as a separate country versus being part of a larger anglo country, as anything Quebec wants will always be construed as "special treatment" or "complaining" by the ROC, especially the further west you go. I wonder where we will be say 50 years from now, any guesses?
I mostly agree with this. The "non" side rests heavily on the economic argument. That is the argument that Quebec needs Canada for economic success. This has drawn many would-be separatists into the "non" camp, at least temporarily. But despite voting to remain part of Canada, Quebec's economy is in a downward spiral, and is in as bad of a position as it has ever been in. With it's crushing taxes and perpetual political instability Quebec just isn't an attractive place to invest in. Add on to this the fact that proportionately fewer Quebecers work than other Canadians, work fewer hours on average, earn a lower hourly pay than most other Canadians, and have among the highest debt in the world.
To be blunt, the economy of Quebec is a bad joke whether part of Canada or not. Whether independent or part of Canada, Quebec will continue it's heavy-handed government interference. Quebecois will continue to work less than Canadians, and let's be honest, they will continue to work fewer hours and pay very high taxes. At least with independence, Quebec can remove one of primary factors that is destroying it economically. That factor is Quebec's perpetual political instability. The incessant political instability is without question a serious detriment to potential investment. In an independent Quebec the uncertainty of the business climate can at least be partly solved. As it stands, no one wants to create a start up in a place that may or may not become independent in five years.
Anyways, I see Quebec as becoming inevitably independent. Whether in ten years or fifty years, it's going to happen. In fact, I see Quebec as already in the process of becoming independent, much like Canada in 1890 was (unbeknownst to the contemporary inhabitants) in the process of becoming independent. Look at the "non" side now, and compare it to the "non" side of 1980 or even 1995. There isn't even a hope for reform anymore, and "non" votes now support Quebec as an independent nation within Canada (a radical idea in 1980, and even 1995). The "non" camp today has run out of solutions, yet clings to their conservative stance. Only the "oui" side has any solutions, and that is the one big solution that has always been on the table, but is the only one that hasn't been tried. It reminds me of the war on drugs in the US where the policies clearly aren't working and the situation kept getting worse, but nonetheless supporters of the war still refused to consider legalization.
I find it interesting that people claim that Quebec couldn't survive as an independent nation, when it already has a higher standard of living than most countries and has a comparable per capita GDP to most Western countries. Nobody questions whether Israel or Chile are viable countries and yet somehow the idea that a country like Quebec with vast natural resources and an educated populace can't survive is always bandied about.
Yeah. I am not aiming this at anyone in particular on here, but the idea you sometimes hear that you take the current standard of living in Quebec, and that if it should become independent of Canada, maintain a democratic system and not change its progressive capitalist economic structure, that everything would totally collapse virtually overnight, is actually borderline racist when you really think about it long and hard.
It smacks of: "So the natives here in the raj want to be a country, eh? Bloody hell, these godforsaken people can't even get the trains to run on time!"
Yeah. I am not aiming this at anyone in particular on here, but the idea you sometimes hear that you take the current standard of living in Quebec, and that if it should become independent of Canada, maintain a democratic system and not change its progressive capitalist economic structure, that everything would totally collapse virtually overnight, is actually borderline racist when you really think about it long and hard.
It smacks of: "So the natives here in the raj want to be a country, eh? Bloody hell, these godforsaken people can't even get the trains to run on time!"
I think asking whether or not Quebec can survive on its own as an independent country is a very fair and legitimate question. Not just for Quebecers but for the ROC. I believe the crux of the answer can determine the future of the province. For the record, I believe Quebec can survive on its own if certain changes are made that will help improve its economic situation and the ROC doesn't deliberately isolate it. I understand it doesn't have to post Massachusetts-type GDP per capita numbers to survive. Believe me, many people probably think it will turn into a Greece and fail. What do you think about Quebec's ability to survive as country in its current state? Or perhaps even after some changes?
I think asking whether or not Quebec can survive on its own as an independent country is a very fair and legitimate question. Not just for Quebecers but for the ROC. I believe the crux of the answer can determine the future of the province. For the record, I believe Quebec can survive on its own if certain changes are made that will help improve its economic situation and the ROC doesn't deliberately isolate it. I understand it doesn't have to post Massachusetts-type GDP per capita numbers to survive. Believe me, many people probably think it will turn into a Greece and fail. What do you think about Quebec's ability to survive as country in its current state? Or perhaps even after some changes?
The use of the word "survive" is odd as there are 200 countries in the world and all of them survive in their own way. An independent Quebec would be in the top 30 richest countries in the world. If some type of disaster befell it I suppose it might fall to the level of the Czech Republic or something.
As far as those who expect an independent to inevitably like Greece, I'd call that pre-emptive schadenfreude. Quebec has a high debt ratio but also has way more resources, better access to markets (more on that in a minute) and a more educated population than Greece has.
As for the ROC isolating Quebec that sounds like a dumb move. 25% or so of every single thing that is produced for the Canadian domestic market by southern Ontario industries goes into Quebec. Probably three quarters of the stuff in my house was either made in Ontario or transited through there.
If the ROC wants to isolate Quebec and shut its borders, well Quebec also has a land border with another rather large country it can trade with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
