| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| livier |
What Québec can learn from Scotlandhttp://www.vigile.net/spip/vigile2652.htmlA text published in yesterday's National Post, Toronto. What Québec can learn from Scotland. Is Quebec crying with his stomach full? |
||||
| garye |
"By contrast, the Scots are arguing about hard-headed matters of power and influence : They know they are a nation and they don’t give a tossed caber what the Sassanachs think"
I like that bit. 
|
||||
| Gung-ho |
So did I | ||||
| Cymro |
What gets me is that often I hear within Nationalist/Minority Language circles here in the UK people using Quebec as an example of good bilingual country, and as another 'country' that should be indepedent etc. I think this is largely run because of a belief that Canada = English language and former colony = Bad. French = minority in Canada and not former British = Good.
This is far to simplistic. Personally I don't think Quebec is something we should be using as a good example. It isn't. The French Quebecois are like the English speaking white Canadians - they are immigrants. They where part of a wider European Imperialist which moved across the world to civilise people and nations. The true Canadians are the Native Americans and Innuits which lived off the land long before Europeans from every corner of Europe moved over to their land, expelled them from the land and imposed their way of life on them. The French Quebebois are essentially trying to create a new MicroState in an allready artificial state. One thing can be certain in Canada or an indpendent Quebec, they wouldn't bother with the Minority Native people or their language. In reality they are both as 'bad' as eachother. |
||||
| IF Convenor |
First Nation Native Americans get much better treatment in Canada than they do in the USA. At least the Canadian government recognises who was there first and pays "treaty money" as a sort of annual lease on the country. | ||||
| Cymro |
That doesn't alter the fact that talks of the poor old French Quebecois being run by the Naughty English Speaking Canadians is pure rubbish. They are both as bad as eachother - European Colonists who ruined the nature of the continent they colonised. | ||||
| IF Convenor |
Even though there are problems with the way the settlers acquired Canada, it is still true that Quebec is a minority enclave surrounded by a larger country which speaks a different language and has a different culture and different origins. Doesn't any of that sound familiar?
The biggest problem the Quebecois are likely to face if they ever achieve independence is that about 2/3 of the province is actually native land and the first nations have strongly resisted the idea of their lands becoming part of not-Canada. |
||||
| Cymro |
I appreciate that. My main problems is that people often use Quebec as an example of good bilingualism - shops and restaurants etc have French and English signs. When they have signs in the native American languages I will use Quebec as a good example, because the case is the the French and English languages both see themselves as being 'proper' Canadian languages. | ||||
| Shadowman |
I can't believe someone can actually have such a simplistic and bigotted worldview. Both French and English speakers have been living in Canada for over 400 years, so in what sense can they be considered immigrants? National identity is an esentially subjective idea, so if they feel they are Canadian, they are Canadian. You don't have the right to lecture Canadians about the veracity of their nationality, just as they have no right to lecture you about Welshness: national identity is a personal concept. |
||||
| George |
Because French and English speakers were migrants from another continent.
Is that right shallowman, so we can have any national identity we choose then regardless of where we or our parents are born or raised? |
||||
| Cymro |
Talk about missing a point! The 'culture' bought into what we called Canada by the French, English, Scots, Welsh, Irish and other Europeans is an immigrant culture. That isn't biggoted that is plain fact. Am I arguing that they have no right to be there? No. Am I arguing that they should all be only following native American culture and languages and not speaking English and French? No! So next time Shadowman I suggest you read what is written as opposed to what you think what I wrote! All I am saying is that this country and the 'Candian French' province of Quebec should not see themselves as being the 'Proper' Canadians at the expence of the Native Americans who where negatively affected by their arrival. Or course people born in Canada are Canadian if that is what the believe, be they or Chinese, European, or African origin that though isn't what was being discussed here. |
||||
| livier |
That is the first time I read of somebody saying Quebec is a good example of biliguism. Canada, maybe. Did you hear about bill 101? The bill called charte de la langue française, making Quebec an unilingual 'country'. The same bill that encouraged neoquebeckers to be tought in the french educational system. Because of that law, the number of french speakers in Quebec keeps on growing. And Canada is not the best example neither. Its bilinguism is strong on paper, but weak in real life. It is said that one can get served in any of the two languages all across Canada, it can't be further from the truth. French language in Canada is dramatically decreasing, leaving less than a million of francophones outside the borders of Quebec. Counted in this number are also people who 'understand french relatively good'. Leaving a small number of people who could get into the Académie Française. Bilinguism works only in Montréal; metropolis of Québec and Ottawa; capital of Canada. And for the First People, the canadian government recognises all inuits and natives as nations, (but doesn't recognise Quebec) and they have special treatment within their reserves, like free schooling, medicare and have to pay no tax. In Quebec, last Parti Québécois government signed La Grande Paix (the great peace) with all thirteen Quebec indian and inuit nations, proclaming their right to self-governing and self-determination (read autonomy) As natives are governed by the Federal Government, nothing can be done before Quebec independance. About the signs, in Quebec, companies have to advertise in french. Other languages such as english and native languages are also permitted, but french has to have a predominent size. English only signs are forbidden. |
||||
| livier |
I would call myself a proper Quebecker, never a proper Canadian.
And by the way the First Nations call themselves; innu, mohawk, cree, abénaquis, but would never refer to Canada, wich some nations don't even recognise. |
||||
| Corby Boy |
I am sure Quebec could learn a lot from the Scottish experience and the process of the Scottish constitutional convention being an instrumental force for change, pre-devolution.
Who is to say the Quebecois couldn't or shouldn't become an independent state, as long as they inculde the views of the native population along the way? The southern, confederate states in the US tried it in force in the c19th. As always peaceful means are those that work best in the long run. |
||||
| Dave Coull |
There is no point in making any comparisons between Scotland and Quebec, because they are such completely different entities. Differences include :
(1) Scotland has a long history as an independent kingdom (2) Quebec is merely the remnants of the French colony of Canada. (3) There is no "language problem" in Scotland. While Gaelic and Scots will both be encouraged, nobody who has any chance of getting into power in Scotland is going to try to force any language down our throats. (4) Quebec has a HUGE language problem. Not only does the enforcement of French speaking cause resentment amongst the two million native Quebeckers who are English-speakers, it also causes major problems for immigrants to Quebec, who, generally speaking, would much rather learn English. Immigrants to Scotland find it much easier to fit in. (5) Scotland has clear, well-defined, and undisputed borders. (6) Quebec's boundaries are certain to be disputed in any bid for independence. (7) Scotland has a population which is remarkably homogenous by international standards. There is no "Six Counties", or even five, or four, or even one, there is no region of Scotland which will seek to 'opt out' if the nation as a whole chooses independence. (  In Scotland, while we have strong regional identities, there are no native national minorities with their own national territories. In Quebec, there are twelve different native-Canadian ("red indian" and "eskimo") nations with their own national territories.
(9) All twelve of the native-Canadian groups of Quebec have made it clear that, while they can just about put up with French rule while Quebec is part of Canada, they will secede from an independent Quebec. The territorial claims of the twelve native-Canadian groups that say they will secede from an independent Quebec amount to over fifty percent of the land area of Quebec. (10) Quebec has already had numerous referendums in which independence lost. Even if there should be a referendum in which the independence option should win, this is certain to be hotly disputed. By contrast, we in Scotland have not had a single referendum, but, when we do finally get one, independence will win easily, and this will be accepted without dispute by the unionist minority, for the simple reason that they are, first and foremost, Scots. |
||||