Western Separatists

Do you honestly think Quebeckers didn't know what the hell they were voting for, based on the referendum question? Come on, the debate has been raging for 30 years and Quebecers literally say "separation" or "sovereignty" when refering to it on a daily basis, all of them. Even the 1995 question itself left little doubt as to the outcome of an unsuccessful new partership negotiation: "Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?" "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?" We're going off topic now, but I just wanted to set this straight.

Gosh, so you KNOW 5 million Quebecers and WHY they voted how they did, my you're a sociable fellow. Try READING remarks, did I write that they "didn't understand"? Find that remark for me would you please? If not, then quit blabbering on about things you make up. I said people have all kinds of motives behind how they vote. You'll note that the question mentions a partnership (political and economic) with Canada, well, duh, what else IS Canada but a political and economic partnership? So that can be read any which way. What about 'sovereignty', that's different, but it doesn't say 'separate', in fact it doesn't even mention a new country of Quebec. YOU can assume all kinds of things, but don't come on here and claim to speak for all Quebecers any more than I speak for..anybody but myself. People vote for all kinds of reasons, in fact one of the biggest pushes in the polls came from when Bouchard took over, and got even more support from the disease that took his leg. You can start making a list and including all the names of the people and why they voted the way they did, when you get to 5 million let us know. Going back out west the same thing goes, which is why polls are notoriously unreliable. People can make all kinds of weird decisions even at the polling booth, a telephone poll simply is a way for a person to 'vent' at the feds. 30% is still a substancial number, IF it's true, and that's a mighty big if, since it puts it at only 20% lower than Quebec, which is well on it's way to another referendum. In the end, we may be left with have and have not COUNTRIES.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc]Only half voted yes in the referendum but people knew that the question wasn't "Do you want to separate and form a new country".[/QUOTE] No, people knew that the question was "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign...". If that leaves you with doubts as to people's comprehension of the word sovereign, they've been debating it for 30 years. Why you believe Quebecers didn't understand this while the ROC were painting their lovin signs in panic is beyond me.

Did I WRITE that I doubted people's comprehension?? Are your logic circuits not wired up or what? I said people can VOTE for any number of reasons and there are dozens of meanings for 'sovereign'. Canada HAS a political and economic partnership with the US, you can go to the Emery thread and read all about the discussion about whether Canada HAS any sovereignty-at least in this case. How can a country even BE sovereign when it has trade agreements? Those are just two questions in an issue that has thousands more. YOU seem to think all quebecers think and do as you do, you can believe that if you want, but don't expect people to believe you. There's considerable evidence that many voted against the 92 Charlottetown Accord simply because Mulroney wanted it and by that time so many people despised him-that doesn't mean I'm saying that 'people didn't comprehend the Accord'-though no doubt SOME didn't, and SOME voted cus they hated Mulroney, and SOME voted for any other fifty thousand reasons. Because that's what PEOPLE do, they're unpredictable and you have no idea what motivates each of them. So drop it, OK.

Just to get back to western separatism for a post or two, I'd say that the numbers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are soft, to say the least. If it came down to a vote here, I'd bet on the 4-12% numbers being the result, not the much higher numbers in the polls. People here don't see much advantage in being run out of Calgary instead of being run out of Ottawa, and the reality is that is the choice they would be making. Might as well be alienated from the monster you know, after all.

[QUOTE BY= Reverend Blair] Might as well be alienated from the monster you know, after all. [/QUOTE] Sounds like apathy rather than alienation in your part of the West. What is most effective anyhow?

Don't mean to sound dogmatic, but there really is no point in arguing polls. Every person will have their own ideas on 'how many people' support such and such. But after all, how many people does the average person know? Far more relevant is the issue of WHY ANYBODY would support such a drastic move, because all of a sudden we find very good reasons. There are GOOD reasons why Quebecers (at least half-probably, maybe more) WANT to separate, and there are good reasons why any person from any province would want to. The numbers and polls are just a smokescreen. The simply question is: what is going wrong in federal politics that makes anybody feel disconnected from their own 'democratic' country?

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] [QUOTE BY= Reverend Blair] Might as well be alienated from the monster you know, after all. [/QUOTE] Sounds like apathy rather than alienation in your part of the West. What is most effective anyhow?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say that it's apathy. Manitoba and Saskatchewan aren't going to separate into their own country, they would be part of a larger western separation. Such a separation does nothing for us because we would still have a much lower population, and much less representation. We would still be run out of a capital that is far-removed from our day to day reality. Within confederation as it is now, we share some issues with Alberta, some with Ontario (especially NW Ontario), and some with the Maritimes and so on. We have various allies on various issues. That would be reduced if we were to separate. We also have quite a different political history than Alberta, with NDP governments being office about half the time in recent history. Even a lot of the conservatives here don't want a single conservative party governing without a real challenger, which is the political reality in Alberta and would be the reality in a separated western Canada. Joining a western separatist movement is antithetical to giving Saskatchewan and Manitoba more of a voice federally. It would actually reduce our voice. It's very easy to say that we should separate when we're mad at Ottawa or feeling outnumbered by the huge population of Ontario and Quebec, but when push comes to shove we know that separation won't solve those problems and will create new ones.

"Separation" is the best way IMHO to negotiate a massive decentralization of the federal powers. Ottawa should be the one begging for financing from the provinces rather than the other way around.

[QUOTE BY= gaulois]Ottawa should be the one begging for financing from the provinces rather than the other way around.[/QUOTE] And we should promise it to them, but after the election, conveniently forget about it and give ourselves raises instead. Irony at it's penultimate.

Dr. Caleb: I can see that the west coast counter-culture is spreading eastward. Damn virus (not). <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> Was that a dose of "counter-moderation" showing on the horizon?

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] Was that a dose of "counter-moderation" showing on the horizon?[/QUOTE] Absotively posilutely G. It's time the west got pushy. Being moderate doesn't seem to work if no one's paying attention. It's time to run naked across the soccer pitch. (oh yea, there's a mental image everyone wanted <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> )

Please spare us from a change of icon.

So 35% of Western Canadians are INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING the issue of separation. That's hardly an expression of an intent to separate. It's just people getting called up and saying "yeah, I wouldn't be completely closed-minded to that debate, were it to be brought forth by politicians." That said, I'm a LEFT WING Western Canadian and I understand the separatist sentiment. And again, like Quebec separatism, it has more to do with the federal government being systematically incompetent than it does with a particular unity of Western Ideology. Think about the federal government's responses to major issues in Western Canada in years past. Peaceful protestors in Vancouver get handcuffed THEN pepper-sprayed by RCMP officers - Jean Chretien quips "Pepper, I put it on my plate". A single Albertan cow is found to have Mad Cow - the federal government has no solution, responds weakly to the continued US closure of the border, and doesn't even call the US on their chirade after their own cows are found to be infested. The US tacks taxes onto our softwood lumber exports South, is found to be in violation of NAFTA in every NAFTA ruling and appeal, all the way through the process, and our government has yet to take a hard stance. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) mismanages the East Coast cod fisheries, then follows to do the same with BC's West Coast salmon, rock fish, shellfish, and flatfish industries (not to mention fish allowing fish farms). Now the Western Provinces are affluent and there's a sentiment that we don't need to continue sharing our wealth with provinces that continually mismanage our affairs, ignore us, and dominate the political direction of the country. Why should we bail Ontario out of its fiscal and infrastructure (electricity) mess when THEIR federal Liberals have done nothing for us in our times of need? As to the issue of Quebec Sovereignty and Western Separation, it's important to look at how people define themselves. The Quebecois see themselves as belonging to the culture of Quebec. The ROC tends to see themselves as belonging to the culture of Canada (including Quebec). If push comes to shove and Westerners are particularly dissatisfied with the federal government, they can be coaxed into defining themselves by what they're not: we're not federal Liberals, so we're not Ontarians; we're not Atlantic Canadians, who have their own culture; and we're not Quebecois, who also have their own culture. But on the same level, BC'ers are not prairie folk (though many of us share some ideology with them) and we're not Albertans (though the rest of us tend to share THEIR ideologies). Western Canada is not a distinct cultural unit with a shared history. Our geography is extremely varied, and our lifestyle is very much tied to it. Our histories are short and vary greatly from region to region, let alone from province to province. There is no "Western Culture". You can't find cowboys on the coast and you can't find fishermen (at least the commercial kind) in Alberta. And the lifestyles are very different. With no cohesive cultural identity, the idea of a "Western Canada" is nothing more than a spiteful shot from Ontario's federal Liberals - just another bit of evidence that they have no comprehension of what Western Canada is. Like I said above - I understand the sentiment of Western Separation - I just don't agree with it. The sentiment is the effect of poor governance in general. The one-size-fits-all solution of the Reagan/Mulroney era of selectively integrating our economies hasn't proven effective. The disaffected voter remains disaffected because our government found a trick to distract us rather than solve the institutional problems in this country. Their solution was to increase GDP through bilateral free trade. Their solution failed to solve the real problems. Canadians want DFO to maintain long-term, sustainable fisheries. But DFO policy is set by politics, not science, so the sustainability is never ensured and one-by-one our fish stocks die off. Canadians want forestry practices and regulations that create high-paying jobs, but "keep the environment intact" - replanting and reharvesting the same forests, replanting in patterns that are less prone to fires, not clearcutting and thereby polluting streams with massive sediment runoff, etc.... Canadians want a fair set of international trade rules - which can be understood by normal folk and which are somehow enforced. We don't want the rules to apply to us, but the US can make it up as they go along (softwood lumber). Canadians want confidence that their politicians are acting in their interest, not the interest of others. The reason Westerners, Quebecois, and Atlantic Canadians all feel alienated by our federal government is that our government serves corporate interests first and ordinary people second. That is the legacy of Reagonomics (neo-Liberal, aka neo-Conservative economics). The trickle-down effect doesn't work and Canadians are feeling this. They feel the drain as banks make billions but we can't even afford to keep our schools open and our hospitals functional. They feel this when they get locked out of work for asking for a small raise after years without a contract, by a CEO making $15 million annually. And they mistakenly think that it is only their part of the country that is being hurt - thus the sentiments of regional sovereignty. This is an issue of ideological acceptance of an economic policy that simply does not work as promised. Take Privatization as an example: Right Wingers preach privatization as a means to curb government inefficiencies. The logic is that by privatizing an industry or service, we introduce competition, which drives efficiency. All fine and dandy in your expensive economics textbooks, but what happens in the real world? Sell off an electricity utility company and what happens? The new private company jacks up prices, because no one can afford to build a second electrical grid to compete with them - rather than introducing competition, privatizing an electricity utility just hands a monopoly over to some rich friend of the Premier/Prime Minister. That's the problem: that the neo-Con Right Wing preaches privatization ideologically, never actually looking at how it will work in specific cases. Our government is run by ideology - ideology that benefits big corporations at the expense of ordinary people. And ordinary people sense this lack of authentic concern from Ottawa - hence the separatist attitude.

[QUOTE BY= michou] [QUOTE BY= dino] yah and all these people are right wing. big deal. [/QUOTE] 'Separatists' in Canada will now be comprised of left and right wingers, progressives and conservatives, frenchies and anglos, wine and beer guzzlers, well dressed and not-so-well dressed partisans. I think we are being told that there's something amiss with the Canadian federation but is anybody listening ? [/QUOTE] Yet the U.S. had such a similar problem back in the 1800's. Led to a war even. With Canada not facing such a crisis, change can occur to correct the ills. Frankly, I kinda feel this poll is biased. I'm probably being biased saying such, but I would believe it more if a similar poll conducted by a different organization was started.