Quebec Sovereignty: what is new?

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Take a country like Norway, which has a much smaller population, higher standards of living, less unemployment and poverty, and fewer natural resources and they have NO debt. It all depends how you manage your resources and how you distribute income. [/QUOTE]Just for the record, Norway is the third largest exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia and Russia. To say they have no resources is so off the mark, it's laughable. In fact, the government of Norway's main concern is using oil revenues to diversify it's economy before the stuff runs out. If Canada had a population of 5 million and was the world's third largest oil exporter, we would also be a debt-free quasi-utopia.

[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] PERTURBED [QUOTE]Delenda, separation is not something oyu "try." You talk about it like you are "trying redwine." There's no guarantee you coudl ever go back.[/QUOTE] You tell that to the many countries that got their independence since WW2. I admit it is scary to step into the unknown. My choice of word might not have been the best, but I guess you get the idea. None of these countries have ever wanted to go back. Say Hi to Dr.Caleb for me. [/QUOTE] Wrong. Some countries DO want to go back. Which ones? MANY of the Soviet-bloc countries did better under communism, as depressing as that is. When Czechoslovakia split up--the Slovakians got pretty wel screwed, and wondered how they let it happen. This is why Quebec speratism must be dealt with.

[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] Here is an article in The Gazette by Don McPherson. "Sovereignty debate claims new casualty DON MACPHERSON The Montréal Gazette November 16, 2004 Tuesday Recent polls put support for sovereignty at just under 50 per cent. They have sovereignist parties leading in popularity at both the federal and provincial levels. Half of the province's elected representatives in Ottawa and Quebec City combined are sovereignists. So it's clear the death notices for the sovereignty movement that appeared in English Canada after the election of a federalist government in Quebec last year were premature. And nine years after the last referendum, the sovereignty question is still a divisive and paralyzing force in Quebec politics. The opposition Parti Quebecois is well on the way to polarizing the next provincial election on the question, at the expense of health, education, the environment, taxes, public finances and the role of government. It will do this by making sovereignty the main, if not the only plank in its platform, whether the electorate is ready or not. And on the weekend, the sovereignty question almost destroyed a new left-wing movement at its founding meeting. Option citoyenne is one of several small groups seeking to fill what they perceive to be a void on the left end of the spectrum created by the rightward shift of the two main parties in recent years. Most of their supporters formerly supported the PQ and are nationalists. But they tend to see sovereignty not as the PQ does, as an end in itself, but rather as a means to the full achievement of their goals. And they emphasize social issues over the constitutional one. Option citoyenne survived the weekend only by postponing taking a position on the sovereignty question for a year, though it is not clear what its members expect to learn during that period that they don't already know. Some impatient sovereignists immediately walked out. The movement's co-ordinating committee, led by prominent feminist Francoise David, had proposed that Option citoyenne endorse sovereignty as being necessary to achieve its social project. But it soon realized many of the 300 members at the meeting in Quebec City didn't see it that way. Some thought the sovereignist label would obscure the movement's social program and alienate potential sympathizers who are not sovereignists, especially nonfrancophones. David said a movement such as Option citoyenne that wants to become a party has no choice but to take a position on sovereignty. But the committee realized it did not have the support of a consensus and retreated, withdrawing its proposal in favour of having members spend the next year discussing it. David gave an indication of how divided the members were when she said, "It would have been a lot worse if we had forced a vote and ended up adopting it with 52-per-cent support." The uncertainty could jeopardize Option citoyenne's proposed merger with an existing left-wing party, the Union des forces progressistes, which is already on record as favouring sovereignty. A third left-wing party, the environmentalist Green Party, is remaining independent but says it is open to co-operate with the others. If the left remains divided, then the PQ will be pleased. Since it lost a 2001 by-election partly because it lost votes to a left-wing candidate, the PQ has been worried about a threat from the left. It has tried to keep left-wing voters in line by warning them that splitting the progressive vote helps elect a right-of-centre government. In last year's election, PQ defeats in four close races could be attributed to the progressive vote - that is, the PQ candidates lost by fewer votes than went to the candidates for the left-wing parties. But those parties are still a long way from winning seats of their own and having more impact than occasionally playing a spoiler's role in a riding where the numbers break just right. Neither the UFP nor the Green Party was able to field a full slate of candidates in the last election, and those they did run received an average of only a little more than 500 votes. And while the Charest government is considering reforming the electoral system for the election after next, the kind of changes it is considering would not have given the left-wing parties any seats in the last one. [/QUOTE] Remember, the Montreal Gazette is an Asper paper--horrible for accuracy. Support is up and down. The National Post lies about polls--this is no different.

[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] For those of you who understand French, here is a study done by 2 researchers at Harvard. Economically speaking, an independent Quebec would be very well viable. "Sur le plan économique, le Québec pourrait devenir indépendant, affirment deux chercheurs de Harvard Raymond Giroux Le Soleil samedi 13 novembre 2004 Ottawa - Grâce au libre-échange, l'argument économique contre le souveraineté du Québec ne ferait pas le poids dans un nouveau référendum, soutient le directeur du département d'économie de l'Université Harvard, Alberto Alesina. "Le fait de participer à une vaste zone de libre-échange permet aux pays de prospérer, à la condition évidente de demeurer très ouverts aux autres économies, dit-il en entrevue au SOLEIL. Ce contexte enlève de la pression au Québec, dans le cadre de l'ALENA." "Sur un plan strictement économique, soutient M. Alesina, il ne serait pas tellement difficile pour le Québec de devenir indépendant. Cela peut se faire à un coût très bas pour tout le monde et je ne vois pas pourquoi il ne réussirait pas. "La décision est strictement politique et si le Québec veut se séparer pour des raisons linguistiques, par exemple, l'économie ne sera pas un facteur dans la décision, dit-il. "Des petits pays comme le Danemark, l'Islande ou Singapour sont prospères parce qu'ils ont une économie ouverte, ajoute le professeur. Il n'y a aucune raison pour qu'un petit pays ne réussisse pas." Coauteur d'un ouvrage intitulé The Size of Nations, M. Alesina dit s'être intéressé à la question de la taille des pays dans le contexte du démantèlement de l'Union soviétique et du développement croissant des régionalismes dans l'Union européenne, le tout dans le cadre de la mondialisation de l'économie. Équations savantes à l'appui, M. Alesina et son collègue Enrico Spolaore ont développé des modèles économiques (tout aussi complexes que la formule de péréquation) qui leur permettent de conclure que des petits pays peuvent se révéler en théorie plus efficaces que de grands États hétérogènes. "Il y aura certainement un moment où le Québec et le Canada devront décider s'ils veulent demeurer ensemble une fois dépassé le sommet de la courbe de rentabilité de la vie commune", dit-il. Les deux économistes écrivent d'ailleurs qu'il "faut s'attendre à ce que la possibilité de l'accession du Québec à l'indépendance s'accroisse" à la suite de son intégration économique au reste du continent. Même s'il y a toujours des coûts assortis à la création de nouveaux pays et à l'ajout de frontières, comme il l'écrit, M. Alesina n'y voit rien d'insurmontable dans le cas du Québec, à la condition qu'il demeure membre de l'ALENA. La seul inconnue dans ses équations, admet-il, est le poids de ce que les économistes appellent "l'effet frontière", le résultat étant la prééminence au Canada du commerce interprovincial sur le commerce international malgré les distances, alors que la géographie devrait normalement imposer le contraire, soit un axe nord-sud. Déjà cet "effet frontière" a nettement diminué depuis la signature du traité de libre-échange avec les États-Unis, mais l'économiste n'a aucun moyen de prévoir l'impact de la souveraineté sur ce volet du dossier, sinon pour le qualifier de peu important. "Ce serait là le seul coût réel de l'indépendance du Québec", dit-il. Le reste du Canada, par ailleurs, ne souffrirait pas plus que le Québec d'une rupture, au plan économique, si elle se fait dans la paix et la coopération. Le départ du Québec causerait cependant un "vide" entre l'Ontario et les provinces atlantiques dont il ne peut juger les conséquences. Cette situation, affirme-t-il, a donné un poids supplémentaire au Québec au fil des ans. Si le Québec se trouvait géographiquement à une extrémité du pays, il serait possiblement déjà souverain. Si la question du déséquilibre fiscal entraîne par ailleurs des effets pervers, croit l'économiste, il estime qu'il n'y a pas de solution parfaite à ce problème. Idéalement, chaque niveau de gouvernement devrait percevoir les impôts nécessaires pour tenir ses responsabilités, mais une telle solution ne permettrait plus de soutenir les provinces les plus pauvres par la péréquation, dit-il. Alberto Alesina et Enrico Spolaore, The Size of Nations, publié au Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 262 pages. [email protected] [/QUOTE] COULD be viable--but why leave the 2nd bigges ouctry in the world? There's no point. Quebec already has more autonomy than the countries in Great Britain, and last time I checked Iris is still spoken.

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] For those of you who understand French, here is a study done by 2 researchers at Harvard. Economically speaking, an independent Quebec would be very well viable. "Sur le plan économique, le Québec pourrait devenir indépendant, affirment deux chercheurs de Harvard Raymond Giroux Le Soleil samedi 13 novembre 2004 Ottawa - Grâce au libre-échange, l'argument économique contre le souveraineté du Québec ne ferait pas le poids dans un nouveau référendum, soutient le directeur du département d'économie de l'Université Harvard, Alberto Alesina. "Le fait de participer à une vaste zone de libre-échange permet aux pays de prospérer, à la condition évidente de demeurer très ouverts aux autres économies, dit-il en entrevue au SOLEIL. Ce contexte enlève de la pression au Québec, dans le cadre de l'ALENA." "Sur un plan strictement économique, soutient M. Alesina, il ne serait pas tellement difficile pour le Québec de devenir indépendant. Cela peut se faire à un coût très bas pour tout le monde et je ne vois pas pourquoi il ne réussirait pas. "La décision est strictement politique et si le Québec veut se séparer pour des raisons linguistiques, par exemple, l'économie ne sera pas un facteur dans la décision, dit-il. "Des petits pays comme le Danemark, l'Islande ou Singapour sont prospères parce qu'ils ont une économie ouverte, ajoute le professeur. Il n'y a aucune raison pour qu'un petit pays ne réussisse pas." Coauteur d'un ouvrage intitulé The Size of Nations, M. Alesina dit s'être intéressé à la question de la taille des pays dans le contexte du démantèlement de l'Union soviétique et du développement croissant des régionalismes dans l'Union européenne, le tout dans le cadre de la mondialisation de l'économie. Équations savantes à l'appui, M. Alesina et son collègue Enrico Spolaore ont développé des modèles économiques (tout aussi complexes que la formule de péréquation) qui leur permettent de conclure que des petits pays peuvent se révéler en théorie plus efficaces que de grands États hétérogènes. "Il y aura certainement un moment où le Québec et le Canada devront décider s'ils veulent demeurer ensemble une fois dépassé le sommet de la courbe de rentabilité de la vie commune", dit-il. Les deux économistes écrivent d'ailleurs qu'il "faut s'attendre à ce que la possibilité de l'accession du Québec à l'indépendance s'accroisse" à la suite de son intégration économique au reste du continent. Même s'il y a toujours des coûts assortis à la création de nouveaux pays et à l'ajout de frontières, comme il l'écrit, M. Alesina n'y voit rien d'insurmontable dans le cas du Québec, à la condition qu'il demeure membre de l'ALENA. La seul inconnue dans ses équations, admet-il, est le poids de ce que les économistes appellent "l'effet frontière", le résultat étant la prééminence au Canada du commerce interprovincial sur le commerce international malgré les distances, alors que la géographie devrait normalement imposer le contraire, soit un axe nord-sud. Déjà cet "effet frontière" a nettement diminué depuis la signature du traité de libre-échange avec les États-Unis, mais l'économiste n'a aucun moyen de prévoir l'impact de la souveraineté sur ce volet du dossier, sinon pour le qualifier de peu important. "Ce serait là le seul coût réel de l'indépendance du Québec", dit-il. Le reste du Canada, par ailleurs, ne souffrirait pas plus que le Québec d'une rupture, au plan économique, si elle se fait dans la paix et la coopération. Le départ du Québec causerait cependant un "vide" entre l'Ontario et les provinces atlantiques dont il ne peut juger les conséquences. Cette situation, affirme-t-il, a donné un poids supplémentaire au Québec au fil des ans. Si le Québec se trouvait géographiquement à une extrémité du pays, il serait possiblement déjà souverain. Si la question du déséquilibre fiscal entraîne par ailleurs des effets pervers, croit l'économiste, il estime qu'il n'y a pas de solution parfaite à ce problème. Idéalement, chaque niveau de gouvernement devrait percevoir les impôts nécessaires pour tenir ses responsabilités, mais une telle solution ne permettrait plus de soutenir les provinces les plus pauvres par la péréquation, dit-il. Alberto Alesina et Enrico Spolaore, The Size of Nations, publié au Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 262 pages. [email protected] [/QUOTE] COULD be viable--but why leave the 2nd bigges ouctry in the world? There's no point. Quebec already has more autonomy than the countries in Great Britain, and last time I checked Iris is still spoken.[/QUOTE] We don't compare our situation to the countries in Great Britain. If Irish is still spoken, good, although you make it look as if it were on an artificial breather. We know what is good for us and we know the only way to preserve our identity is to go sovereign especially when there is every proof that it is feasible.

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] Here is an article in The Gazette by Don McPherson. "Sovereignty debate claims new casualty DON MACPHERSON The Montréal Gazette November 16, 2004 Tuesday Recent polls put support for sovereignty at just under 50 per cent. They have sovereignist parties leading in popularity at both the federal and provincial levels. Half of the province's elected representatives in Ottawa and Quebec City combined are sovereignists. So it's clear the death notices for the sovereignty movement that appeared in English Canada after the election of a federalist government in Quebec last year were premature. And nine years after the last referendum, the sovereignty question is still a divisive and paralyzing force in Quebec politics. The opposition Parti Quebecois is well on the way to polarizing the next provincial election on the question, at the expense of health, education, the environment, taxes, public finances and the role of government. It will do this by making sovereignty the main, if not the only plank in its platform, whether the electorate is ready or not. And on the weekend, the sovereignty question almost destroyed a new left-wing movement at its founding meeting. Option citoyenne is one of several small groups seeking to fill what they perceive to be a void on the left end of the spectrum created by the rightward shift of the two main parties in recent years. Most of their supporters formerly supported the PQ and are nationalists. But they tend to see sovereignty not as the PQ does, as an end in itself, but rather as a means to the full achievement of their goals. And they emphasize social issues over the constitutional one. Option citoyenne survived the weekend only by postponing taking a position on the sovereignty question for a year, though it is not clear what its members expect to learn during that period that they don't already know. Some impatient sovereignists immediately walked out. The movement's co-ordinating committee, led by prominent feminist Francoise David, had proposed that Option citoyenne endorse sovereignty as being necessary to achieve its social project. But it soon realized many of the 300 members at the meeting in Quebec City didn't see it that way. Some thought the sovereignist label would obscure the movement's social program and alienate potential sympathizers who are not sovereignists, especially nonfrancophones. David said a movement such as Option citoyenne that wants to become a party has no choice but to take a position on sovereignty. But the committee realized it did not have the support of a consensus and retreated, withdrawing its proposal in favour of having members spend the next year discussing it. David gave an indication of how divided the members were when she said, "It would have been a lot worse if we had forced a vote and ended up adopting it with 52-per-cent support." The uncertainty could jeopardize Option citoyenne's proposed merger with an existing left-wing party, the Union des forces progressistes, which is already on record as favouring sovereignty. A third left-wing party, the environmentalist Green Party, is remaining independent but says it is open to co-operate with the others. If the left remains divided, then the PQ will be pleased. Since it lost a 2001 by-election partly because it lost votes to a left-wing candidate, the PQ has been worried about a threat from the left. It has tried to keep left-wing voters in line by warning them that splitting the progressive vote helps elect a right-of-centre government. In last year's election, PQ defeats in four close races could be attributed to the progressive vote - that is, the PQ candidates lost by fewer votes than went to the candidates for the left-wing parties. But those parties are still a long way from winning seats of their own and having more impact than occasionally playing a spoiler's role in a riding where the numbers break just right. Neither the UFP nor the Green Party was able to field a full slate of candidates in the last election, and those they did run received an average of only a little more than 500 votes. And while the Charest government is considering reforming the electoral system for the election after next, the kind of changes it is considering would not have given the left-wing parties any seats in the last one. [/QUOTE] Remember, the Montreal Gazette is an Asper paper--horrible for accuracy. Support is up and down. The National Post lies about polls--this is no different.[/QUOTE] What is the purpose then of a poll with "pro sovereignty" results? Scare people into thinking sovereignty is a very possibility, so they will panic and vote no?

[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] For those of you who understand French, here is a study done by 2 researchers at Harvard. Economically speaking, an independent Quebec would be very well viable. "Sur le plan économique, le Québec pourrait devenir indépendant, affirment deux chercheurs de Harvard Raymond Giroux Le Soleil samedi 13 novembre 2004 Ottawa - Grâce au libre-échange, l'argument économique contre le souveraineté du Québec ne ferait pas le poids dans un nouveau référendum, soutient le directeur du département d'économie de l'Université Harvard, Alberto Alesina. "Le fait de participer à une vaste zone de libre-échange permet aux pays de prospérer, à la condition évidente de demeurer très ouverts aux autres économies, dit-il en entrevue au SOLEIL. Ce contexte enlève de la pression au Québec, dans le cadre de l'ALENA." "Sur un plan strictement économique, soutient M. Alesina, il ne serait pas tellement difficile pour le Québec de devenir indépendant. Cela peut se faire à un coût très bas pour tout le monde et je ne vois pas pourquoi il ne réussirait pas. "La décision est strictement politique et si le Québec veut se séparer pour des raisons linguistiques, par exemple, l'économie ne sera pas un facteur dans la décision, dit-il. "Des petits pays comme le Danemark, l'Islande ou Singapour sont prospères parce qu'ils ont une économie ouverte, ajoute le professeur. Il n'y a aucune raison pour qu'un petit pays ne réussisse pas." Coauteur d'un ouvrage intitulé The Size of Nations, M. Alesina dit s'être intéressé à la question de la taille des pays dans le contexte du démantèlement de l'Union soviétique et du développement croissant des régionalismes dans l'Union européenne, le tout dans le cadre de la mondialisation de l'économie. Équations savantes à l'appui, M. Alesina et son collègue Enrico Spolaore ont développé des modèles économiques (tout aussi complexes que la formule de péréquation) qui leur permettent de conclure que des petits pays peuvent se révéler en théorie plus efficaces que de grands États hétérogènes. "Il y aura certainement un moment où le Québec et le Canada devront décider s'ils veulent demeurer ensemble une fois dépassé le sommet de la courbe de rentabilité de la vie commune", dit-il. Les deux économistes écrivent d'ailleurs qu'il "faut s'attendre à ce que la possibilité de l'accession du Québec à l'indépendance s'accroisse" à la suite de son intégration économique au reste du continent. Même s'il y a toujours des coûts assortis à la création de nouveaux pays et à l'ajout de frontières, comme il l'écrit, M. Alesina n'y voit rien d'insurmontable dans le cas du Québec, à la condition qu'il demeure membre de l'ALENA. La seul inconnue dans ses équations, admet-il, est le poids de ce que les économistes appellent "l'effet frontière", le résultat étant la prééminence au Canada du commerce interprovincial sur le commerce international malgré les distances, alors que la géographie devrait normalement imposer le contraire, soit un axe nord-sud. Déjà cet "effet frontière" a nettement diminué depuis la signature du traité de libre-échange avec les États-Unis, mais l'économiste n'a aucun moyen de prévoir l'impact de la souveraineté sur ce volet du dossier, sinon pour le qualifier de peu important. "Ce serait là le seul coût réel de l'indépendance du Québec", dit-il. Le reste du Canada, par ailleurs, ne souffrirait pas plus que le Québec d'une rupture, au plan économique, si elle se fait dans la paix et la coopération. Le départ du Québec causerait cependant un "vide" entre l'Ontario et les provinces atlantiques dont il ne peut juger les conséquences. Cette situation, affirme-t-il, a donné un poids supplémentaire au Québec au fil des ans. Si le Québec se trouvait géographiquement à une extrémité du pays, il serait possiblement déjà souverain. Si la question du déséquilibre fiscal entraîne par ailleurs des effets pervers, croit l'économiste, il estime qu'il n'y a pas de solution parfaite à ce problème. Idéalement, chaque niveau de gouvernement devrait percevoir les impôts nécessaires pour tenir ses responsabilités, mais une telle solution ne permettrait plus de soutenir les provinces les plus pauvres par la péréquation, dit-il. Alberto Alesina et Enrico Spolaore, The Size of Nations, publié au Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 262 pages. [email protected] [/QUOTE] COULD be viable--but why leave the 2nd bigges ouctry in the world? There's no point. Quebec already has more autonomy than the countries in Great Britain, and last time I checked Iris is still spoken.[/QUOTE] We don't compare our situation to the countries in Great Britain. If Irish is still spoken, good, although you make it look as if it were on an artificial breather. We know what is good for us and we know the only way to preserve our identity is to go sovereign especially when there is every proof that it is feasible. [/QUOTE] There's no soubt England rules Ireland and Scotland--but I was pointing out how they have less power than Quebec, yet their language and culture is under no threat.....it's all about economics nowadays, and separatists only think in terms of language. I also wouldn't say "we" when the majority of Quebec is federalist.

[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] Here is an article in The Gazette by Don McPherson. "Sovereignty debate claims new casualty DON MACPHERSON The Montréal Gazette November 16, 2004 Tuesday Recent polls put support for sovereignty at just under 50 per cent. They have sovereignist parties leading in popularity at both the federal and provincial levels. Half of the province's elected representatives in Ottawa and Quebec City combined are sovereignists. So it's clear the death notices for the sovereignty movement that appeared in English Canada after the election of a federalist government in Quebec last year were premature. And nine years after the last referendum, the sovereignty question is still a divisive and paralyzing force in Quebec politics. The opposition Parti Quebecois is well on the way to polarizing the next provincial election on the question, at the expense of health, education, the environment, taxes, public finances and the role of government. It will do this by making sovereignty the main, if not the only plank in its platform, whether the electorate is ready or not. And on the weekend, the sovereignty question almost destroyed a new left-wing movement at its founding meeting. Option citoyenne is one of several small groups seeking to fill what they perceive to be a void on the left end of the spectrum created by the rightward shift of the two main parties in recent years. Most of their supporters formerly supported the PQ and are nationalists. But they tend to see sovereignty not as the PQ does, as an end in itself, but rather as a means to the full achievement of their goals. And they emphasize social issues over the constitutional one. Option citoyenne survived the weekend only by postponing taking a position on the sovereignty question for a year, though it is not clear what its members expect to learn during that period that they don't already know. Some impatient sovereignists immediately walked out. The movement's co-ordinating committee, led by prominent feminist Francoise David, had proposed that Option citoyenne endorse sovereignty as being necessary to achieve its social project. But it soon realized many of the 300 members at the meeting in Quebec City didn't see it that way. Some thought the sovereignist label would obscure the movement's social program and alienate potential sympathizers who are not sovereignists, especially nonfrancophones. David said a movement such as Option citoyenne that wants to become a party has no choice but to take a position on sovereignty. But the committee realized it did not have the support of a consensus and retreated, withdrawing its proposal in favour of having members spend the next year discussing it. David gave an indication of how divided the members were when she said, "It would have been a lot worse if we had forced a vote and ended up adopting it with 52-per-cent support." The uncertainty could jeopardize Option citoyenne's proposed merger with an existing left-wing party, the Union des forces progressistes, which is already on record as favouring sovereignty. A third left-wing party, the environmentalist Green Party, is remaining independent but says it is open to co-operate with the others. If the left remains divided, then the PQ will be pleased. Since it lost a 2001 by-election partly because it lost votes to a left-wing candidate, the PQ has been worried about a threat from the left. It has tried to keep left-wing voters in line by warning them that splitting the progressive vote helps elect a right-of-centre government. In last year's election, PQ defeats in four close races could be attributed to the progressive vote - that is, the PQ candidates lost by fewer votes than went to the candidates for the left-wing parties. But those parties are still a long way from winning seats of their own and having more impact than occasionally playing a spoiler's role in a riding where the numbers break just right. Neither the UFP nor the Green Party was able to field a full slate of candidates in the last election, and those they did run received an average of only a little more than 500 votes. And while the Charest government is considering reforming the electoral system for the election after next, the kind of changes it is considering would not have given the left-wing parties any seats in the last one. [/QUOTE] Remember, the Montreal Gazette is an Asper paper--horrible for accuracy. Support is up and down. The National Post lies about polls--this is no different.[/QUOTE] What is the purpose then of a poll with "pro sovereignty" results? Scare people into thinking sovereignty is a very possibility, so they will panic and vote no? [/QUOTE] Yeah, I really think it's possible to manipulate. Remember, not everybody is politically astute. The manipulation is subtle--but it is there. I mean, look at what it said: Separatism is at 50%. Every other poll and discussion I've haeard has said it is not even close to 50%--but they literally lied. Quebec naitonalists are motivated by emotion, and thus stuff can whip people into a frenzy--though people are catching on. In Toronto, I see the National Post headlines all the time, and they often lie--not even mislead--but lie outright. They finally got sued by a Canadian labour union for reporting that the union now supported NAFTA--because the opposite was true, and they kept reporting it. The National Post also once reported that "78% of Canadians wanted to be fingerprinted and retina-scanned for security purposes," even though most Canadians oppose this breach of privacy. That's all. Asper papers lie. Conrad Black admitted the National Post was a poltical tool when he owned it.

Perturbed But McPherson's article was based on a study done by the CRIC. The Gazette has nothing do with it. So is the CRIC manipulating polls? Federalist papers in Quebec lie. That Conrad Black admitted to lies doesn't surprise me. Paul Desmarais is no better than Conrad Black (Gesca, Power corporation, La Presse). La Presse reported that 60% of ADQ were federalists! I don't believe that for one minute.

[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] Perturbed But McPherson's article was based on a study done by the CRIC. The Gazette has nothing do with it. So is the CRIC manipulating polls? Federalist papers in Quebec lie. That Conrad Black admitted to lies doesn't surprise me. Paul Desmarais is no better than Conrad Black (Gesca, Power corporation, La Presse). La Presse reported that 60% of ADQ were federalists! I don't believe that for one minute. [/QUOTE] You coudl be right--I don't know anything about the CRIC. As for Desmarais, he is an elite, and a big enigma IMO....Canada has been good to him. He can't publicly oppose Canada, although he's very shrewd, he is probably a real federalist. He owns Chinese coal mines, and apparently has a big stake in the James Bay Hydro Project along with Hydro Quebec.....if this damn is used to construct the past-rumoured "Grand Canal Project," Canada would become a tundra, due to the cold water being piped south. I've yet to find out if Desmarais would be willing to do this to Canada....officially the dams belong to Hydro Quebec and the Cree, so go figure.

Of course Gaeilge h'Erean is still spoken, Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam (a nation without a language is a nation without a soul) But Quebec isn't Ireland and canadien French isn't Irish Gaelic. Britain did everything from kill Irish in Ireland from making it illegal to teach it to Irish youth in Ireland to destroying ancient and medivel Irish texts. The nation went from the gaeltacht (fluent Irish speakers) still numbering more than 3 million (in pre-famine Ireland that was about 40% of the population) in 1830 to numbering less than 200, 000 out of a little over 3 million by 1921. Independence was the only way to save the language since mother England was determined to destroy it. But the situation here couldn't be more different. Yes there have been bigoted governments here in Ontario and Manitoba that have tried to restrict French, but nationally the feds have always supported the languages protection and use in Quebec! The Canadian version of French shall never go extinct if Quebec stays in Canada, however if Quebec leaves the future will not be nearly as bright for the French communities out here! Ni heolas go haontios (there is no knowledge without unity) Preturbed, you couldn't be more wrong though by naming all Celtic languages as not being under threat. Irish and Welsh are really the only two that are still alive and flurishing (Breton in N.France as well), Scottish and Manx are practially lost causes! Well I don't want to say that, it is possible that Scotland can save it's language, but it will never become a major language again, as Irish is in Ireland, Welsh is in Wales, or Breton is in Brittanny.

Canadagh Go Bragh!!!

[QUOTE]McDonald Well I don't want to say that, it is possible that Scotland can save it's language, but it will never become a major language again, as Irish is in Ireland, Welsh is in Wales, or Breton is in Brittanny. [/QUOTE] I have travelled and lived in Europe. I have been everywhere in Brittany (Bretagne) and I can tell you that the Breton language is not very present. In fact, I didn't hear anybody speak Breton. So I wouldn't bet a Breton movement would have many supporters.

Really? I had heard that there were still as many as 500, 000 fluent Breton speakers in France! Though if thats correct maybe they are not monolingual Breton speakers! Like for example the 1.3 million Irish who speak Irish, the vAST majority use it as a second language; ie. in the home, on trips to the country, during school, or in private conversations with fellow Irish speakers. The only places in Eire where you will here monolingual Irish speakers are the far western and southern coastal towns, the gaeltacht. Maybe it's the same in Bretagne, I don't know.