From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 01:01:49 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

mre@teal.Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Eisler) writes:
>In article <=16-W3_@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>[discusses how Russia backed off of land claims from the Ukraine, and
>how the world does not support Serbia's land claims from Bosia-Hercegovinia]
>>How is Canada/Quebec significantly different from these cases?  How
>
>The major difference I see is that the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were
>essentially artificial unions whose peoples did not enter into on their
>own free will.  [etc...]

An inconsequential difference (and not even true wrt. Yugoslavia).

>All ten provinces entered into the union freely. All ten provinces
>therefore share in the assets and liabilities of the union.  So for one
>thing, Quebec has its share of the national debt to deal with when it
>separates. An IOU is likely not acceptable to the other 9 plus Ottawa.

I would assume that Quebec would have the same mechanisms available to
pay its debts as the current Canadian gov't does.  All any creditor ever
gets is a little piece of paper and a promise to redeem it -- pretty much
an IOU.

>I'm assuming that the statesmen of Canada and Quebec can work this out
>amicably. That leaves land ... the revenue producing variety.
>
If Canada demands land, Quebec will take the same route Croatia took:
declare independence and let the chips fall where they may.

>>will we get the Quebecois and/or the world community to back our
>>claims to (what is now) Quebec territory?
>
>English speaking Quebecois arguably have as much right to separate
>Mount Royal from Montreal and Quebec as the whole of Quebec does from
>Canada.  Quebecois will have a glorious opportunity to start their

Quebec anglos can argue all they want that they have a right to separate.
The hard lessons of Yugoslavia and Kurdistan are that chunks of land
without pre-existing governments don't get much support from the world
community when push comes to shove.  Quebec isn't about to let Montreal
fall apart, and the only way it will happen is if someone takes up arms.

>nation debt free, yielding a AAA rating from Standard and Poors.  Our
>creditors *are* the world community, and would like to paid more than
>75 cents on the dollar. They will most certainly back our claims, or be
>willing to assign 1/4 of our debt owned to them to Quebec ... in pesoes
>from the People's Republic of Quebec.
>
Debt that Canada owes is debt that the world will look to Canada to pay.
When Quebec leaves, any debt it assumes will become debts Quebec owes
to Canada.  If Quebec can't pay, then Canada won't be able to pay, and
we'll both go down the tubes.  The separation will hurt both parts' 
credit ratings.

>Anyway the preceding is a just a devil's advocate argument for significant
>changes in the borders. However, I do strongly believe that the border
>between Labradour and Quebec is one of things that would absolutely
>have to be settled. Otherwise at minimum relations will be hampered
>over this nit the way Japan and Russia argue over those islands (forget
>the name).
>
The Kuriles.

Quebec's claim to Labrador (if it still makes it) will become pretty much
like Canada's claim to the North Pole.  The world will pretty much ignore
it, and nothing consequential will happen.  Quebec is not about to press
the issue, especially if that leads to Canada getting tough on the Cree
claims in Nouveau Quebec.

...mark young