Quebec Seperatism

Nice response, thank you for the post. I'm glad we are making progress that the real issue is one of nationality. The key point regarding colonization was to address the "culture doesn't matter" type issues. I'm arguing culture is a lot of what the whole game is about. In terms of colonization, I can see the objection to the word. Let me just start off by saying many colonial situations have strong support from the local population. That's not uncommon. Colonization is about money, the later stage of ongoing widespread repression is extremely expensive. If that were the norm, or even common, colonization wouldn't make financial sense. Generally colonization looks like a financial confederation where one nation directs the economics of another nation, for mutual benefit. Even in famous cases there isn't the degree of widespread dislike for colonization I think you are picturing. For example at the time of the American Revolution essentially 1/3rd of the population wanted independence, 1/3rd wanted to remain in the empire and 1/3rd were indifferent. Had their been a referendum, with campaigning and minor concession from the British they could have turned a good chunk of that neutral 1/3rd against the revolutionaries and won the referendum easily. English-Canada in handling Quebec choose a better strategy that doesn't prove a different objective. As an aside, a good chunk of the English speaking population in Quebec are the descendants of that 1/3rd of of Americans loyal to the British that had sided with them in the war and had to flee after. As fas drawing the border, its a national thing not a political thing. Québécois that would rather be part of Canada can be integrated easily into the nation-state of Quebec were it to go independent. Having a different political opinion doesn't cause someone to not be part of French Canadian culture. A different culture is a different way of conceiving of politics, the fact that the Quebec arguments for independence seem stupid irrational to you, is precisely the signs that you are looking at a cultural division. In short:I disagree -- not a problemI don't understand how you can think that. I'm not sure I even understand what you mean -- big problem I'll address the practical issues you raised below. But the key is this. Once we agree that the Québécois are a nation, the issue becomes what should the nation do in their situation. There are a few basic options. 1) Lose more territorial integrity and move from a nation in a federation with English-Canada to a minority culture in English Canada. Identify as French Canadian (Canadien français) not Québécois. That's essentially the affirmative case you presented. Its also what you are advocating for in the comparison with the United States or Argentina. That's assimilation not biculturalism. So what you are asking from them is national suicide that is to voluntarily cease existing as a nation. Moreover for this not to become an unstable alliance, as per the examples of Belgium and Switzerland we talked about, they would want to intermix, intermarry which means to cease to exist voluntarily even as a culture. America assimiliates away culture, it doesn't preserve it. What you want is a lot to ask. So what you've failed to point out is anything that a united Canada offers that justifies this cost of moving from a nation to a minority to a historical record. This is my big challenge for you in round 3. Just to put to rest the option of Canada has having a "bilingual identity", English Canada has no real desire for that. After decades of government encouragement and subsidy 9% non Quebec Canadians speak French. English Canada has proven that they do not consider unity a high priority. They just aren't willing to actually adopt a bicultural ideal and won't without extensive intermarriage. 2) The next option would be to separate peacefully with strong integration with Canada. This would look like an enhanced federalism with stronger cultural protection measures than exist today. English Canada won't go much further on cultural protection. But a independent Quebec can go much further in protecting the national culture and can do so long term. As you are writing your round 3, I'd ask you to contrast this federated model. 3) Genuine independence where Quebec thinks and acts like an independent country with a desire for trade but not tight relations with English-Canada. This is something most Québécois are not asking for, but it is the usual outcome when nations split. Since we only have one more round I do want to acknowledge that I agree in advance with your likely point that this is a very likely outcome of a split and Québécois need to be aware of that. Now in terms of the practicalities I agree with your comments regarding separation and referendum. I think the moment has passed for now the Québécois lack the numbers and too many French speaking Canadians identify as French Canadians, voting subtly for option-(1) without realizing quite what they are voting for. As of today: 75% of all the French speakers live in Quebec. But bilingual people hare already seperated, the issue is unilingual French and English. Certainly there would need to be some movement of people's if there was separation. But lets be clear according to the data: (. http://www40.statcan.gc.ca...). Canada has 3.95m French only speakers3.83m of them live in Quebec. In terms of the division from the English speaker's perspective. Quebec has 7.2m people. 300k or under 5% are English only. Breaking off Quebec and moving populations (if desired) is pretty clean. Most of your arguments were based on the referendum not the underlying culture. I think the data makes the break easy. I'd just close with interim head NDP Nycole Turmel controversy as evidence of the problem. How can Quebec possibly feel itself part of Canada when a political activity that 80% of all Québécois has engaged in is considered by many English Canadians to be permanent disqualification for office? Even the United States coming off the civil war allowed former confederates to serve and by 1880 you had a former pro-slavery confederate running for Vice President. Are you really sure that English Canada actually wants Quebec, that is Quebec as it really exists? ____Finally you asked a great question about Quebec interests diverging from English Canadian interests, what is the goal they can't achieve? The main thing is National survival. Basic things like creating a French curriculum in Quebec are still forbidden. In a small provence with 7m people surrounded by over 300m English speaking Canadians and English speaking Americans it takes drastic action to preserve a french culture. That means strong state support for cultural intervention to advance French culture. French schools, French dress, taxes and disincentives for English culture. .. . Second area is domestic economic policy. English Canada wants a government substantially more right wing than the Québécois. The Québécois do not want to live in the sort of state that English Canada wants to create which is in line with the Anglo-American economic traditions. The third area is foreign policy. English Canada has a familial relationship with the United States. There is a closeness that creates issues and at the same time creates a strong bond of trust. English Canada has to create artificial distance to prevent itself from being absorbed. French-Quebec would not have that unnatural relationship. It wouldn't have to worry about that sort of absorption. Thus its relationship with the United States would be an exotic foreign country that is naturally in the European sphere ideologically.