Quebec

Maybe it is easier for people to be united if they're more or less the same, but being different doesn't make being united impossible... Otherwise how could Switzerland be a nation? There are four different languages spoken there, and I'm sure there's cultural differences between the language groups. And yet they have one nation and it works! I don't think anyone is losing their cultural identity there, either. One of the language groups is Rhaeto-Romanish, which isn't exacly up there on the list of most spoken languages. These people have managed to retain their language and culture while remaining a minority. So why is it so impossible in Canada.

Also, Shanamir, you tend to paint all English Canadians with the same brush. Just because one speaks English and comes from Canada does not mean they have the same culture as another English-speaker. The Ukranians in the prairies may speak English but they have managed to retain elements of their culture. You also seem to forget the Acadians. They're a cultural minority but have managed to retain their language and culture.

"You don't have to be arrogant to make a point"

But it helps.

"I'll NEVER consider to have same ancestors as a canadian or a british, point."

Two things.

Firstly, I will very rarely say this, but this smacks of racism.

Secondly, you're denying the truth.

"As I told you, and I tell you again, you could find a common ancestor with a african would you go couple of thousands years before. So don't common ancestor me."

We're all people. And why do you assume that I'm English? You know I'm English-SPEAKING, but for all you know, I might be Chinese or African. Or I might just have FRENCH blood running in my veins.

I don't suppose you considered that, did you?

"The fact is that you were raised in english and me, in french. That makes us different."

And the fact that I'm most likely seventy-five pounds heavier than you makes us different too. It doesn't mean we can't be part of the same country.

"EDUCATION FROM YOUR PARENTS, duh. Unless you learned nothing from them?..."

I gained my values by my own volition. My parents only played a supporting role.

"Ok... now I know why you have no respect."

No respect for you?

You may think you know, but it's most likely for markedly different reasons than you think.

"Sorry but I don't know what's a Stampede breakfast..."

It is a PERFECT example of Western hospitality.

""[Eliminating a stage is] a positive side-effect of separation.""

Oh, I'm very sorry. I thought you were suggesting that the existance of that second stage was the positive thing.

"That's your guess... or your hopes should I say?"

Why on earth would I wish economic disaster upon anyone?

"If you want to insult people, go elsewhere."

If you feel you have been insulted, please point out specific examples.

"Unless you can prove what you say, I'd like you to take it back."

The William the Conqueror/Norman Invasion is historical knowledge.
Most of my economic speculations can be easily defended or confirmed on demand.
"I didn't get my values from the education system." - Ask IronParrot to vouch for me on that one.
Come to Calgary next year and you can take part in the Stampede Breakfast for yourself.

"if you wanna argue, bring your own points instead of trying to only break mine. (That don't mean you can't try... just don't do only that)"

I'm breaking yours because I've already brought forth mine... economic ruin.


Eruve, thank you for bringing in a whole bunch of stuff I forgot about.

"You don't have to be arrogant to make a point"

"But it helps."

I don't see how... explain yourself

For the racism speculation, I just don't think we share common ancestor and whatever you might won't make me change my mind on that. If our ancestor didn't make war to each others the issue might be different, but I think all the wars between french and english settled that we were no longer of common blood.

"We're all people. And why do you assume that I'm English? You know I'm English-SPEAKING, but for all you know, I might be Chinese or African. Or I might just have FRENCH blood running in my veins."

You can have 3/4 of your blood that is french, if you were raised in english, in an english country and with english values, that makes you an english.

"I don't suppose you considered that, did you?"

Yes I did. When you talked about how you loved french class at school

"I gained my values by my own volition. My parents only played a supporting role."

Are you so sure? Didn't they taught you respect, honesty, courage, morale... etc.? Who can talk of supporting role when you're 5 years old? Sorry but go out there and see kids with their parents... tell me they don't have a big, important role after that with what you are now!

"No respect for you? you may think you know, but it's most likely for markedly different reasons than you think."

I'd like to know. I don't know what I did to you but it seems you're taking it pretty personnal.

"It is a PERFECT example of Western hospitality."

That doesn't say much

"Why on earth would I wish economic disaster upon anyone?"

You tell us.

"If you feel you have been insulted, please point out specific examples."

The "I-bet-my-computer-on" thingy pretty insulted me. Is that specific enough?

"Unless you can prove what you say, I'd like you to take it back."

"Most of my economic speculations can be easily defended or confirmed on demand."

That's exactly what I ask you. (And by the way with the sentence in Italic, I was referring to your CRASH prediction)

"Come to Calgary next year and you can take part in the Stampede Breakfast for yourself."

No thanks. Come here we'll welcome you well.

"I'm breaking yours because I've already brought forth mine... economic ruin."

No you only stated what you tought, without anything to back it up.

Shan

""You don't have to be arrogant to make a point"

"But it helps.""

I don't see how... explain yourself"

Ooh, could I take this one?

"If our ancestor didn't make war to each others the issue might be different, but I think all the wars between french and english settled that we were no longer of common blood."

So if wars separate cultures, could fighting together in a war bring them together? Think of the 20th-century World Wars. Did the English and French not fight with and for each other?

"You can have 3/4 of your blood that is french, if you were raised in english, in an english country and with english values, that makes you an english."

I won't speak for JL but I wasn't raised in English or in an English country (unless colonies count) or with English values, and I have neither English or French blood in me. I'm still an Anglo-Canadian. However, I'm a fine example of why you can't set a criterial definition of "English" and "French" in terms of people.

"Are you so sure? Didn't they taught you respect, honesty, courage, morale... etc.? Who can talk of supporting role when you're 5 years old? Sorry but go out there and see kids with their parents... tell me they don't have a big, important role after that with what you are now!"

There is a difference between "involvement" and "influence". They are different quantities. I think JL was talking about "involvement" there. And I can vouch for him on that one.

""It is a PERFECT example of Western hospitality."

That doesn't say much"

The Calgary Stampede is the Western equivalent of the Quebec's Winter Carnival (don't remember what it's called in French, but I don't recall it's just directly translated from "Carnival d'hiver"). The Stampede Breakfast is a tradition where companies, communities and individuals voluntarily take entire mornings off to set up free pancake breakfasts all over the city over the period of a week and a half, at no monetary gain to themselves. Just try telling me that's economy over hospitality, as you're implying.

"The "I-bet-my-computer-on" thingy pretty insulted me. Is that specific enough?"

[ IronParrot switches into Admin Mode] That doesn't constitute a flame, but I see where you're coming from - if things get really out of hand, I'll handle the situation sans any bias towards one side. Good enough?

""Come to Calgary next year and you can take part in the Stampede Breakfast for yourself."

No thanks. Come here we'll welcome you well."

Sure thing. I always wanted to visit Quebec. My mother has and she told me it was nice.

Yes, IronParrot, you can take the one about arrogance.

I will hold myself to saying that when you've already explored your viewpoint, and you're convinced of its merits, behaving as such can aid your performance in debates considerably.

"I just don't think we share common ancestor and whatever you might won't make me change my mind on that."

Do you know how long the French and English intermingled in both France and England? Check out their history (specifically that of Normandy), and you'll find out that your bloodline isn't as pure as you had hoped.

"if you were raised in english, in an english country and with english values, that makes you an english."

What if you were raised in French, in an Indian country, with English values? What are you then?

"When you talked about how you loved french class at school"

That quote was the first time the word "loved" or "class" were used in this thread. Please try to use an actual quote next time. I believe the closest to what you were referring was where I said, "Perhaps a bit too much, even." about how much French I had taken in school.

So you could tell my culture and/or my racial composition by a quote about the educational system which I just demonstrated you misinterpreted?

"Are you so sure?"

Yes. I am so sure.

"respect"

I don't remember when I picked that up. Perhaps at church.

"honesty"

This was twofold - one part had been in me since birth, and the other part developed through my early theological studies.

"courage"

I learned that on the football field.

"morale"

Bleh. Never learned that.

"Who can talk of supporting role when you're 5 years old?"

I sure as heck can.

"tell me they don't have a big, important role after that with what you are now!"

Of course they have a "big, important role" - providing food, shelter, and other essential needs for children.

But they weren't the primary influences on my values.

"I'd like to know."

Okay.

In a nutshell, it is this.

You are willing and supportive of making a decision which will, in all probability, bring financial ruin to your province, and perhaps mine.

You also do not seem to understand the problems with this decision.

"That doesn't say much"

Oh, but it does.

"You tell us."

You alleged it, now you can prove it.

"The "I-bet-my-computer-on" thingy pretty insulted me."

So I said I was convinced to the point of material risk on one outcome of a decision, and that insulted you?

"That's exactly what I ask you."

"No you only stated what you tought, without anything to back it up."

I backed it up with logic. I can accept that this is insufficient for you, and so you can anticipate me fleshing out my arguments a great deal tomorrow.

Good night.

I'm tired of arguing about insignificant details. Honestly. I sure I was insulted for nothing with the I-bet-... Sorry for overreacting. But I'm not just able to discuss when a side like the necessary respect I think we all deserve.

I don't really mind where you're from, where you even from Zyrkon raised in an Alpha-centauri culture. The fact is that you're trying, as I said earlier, to tell me we're alike! You gotta accept we're not.

As I don't really know how to translate this, you'll have it in french.

"On peux continuer de discuter des heures sur le contenant, les mots, mais ce qui est important, c'est le contenu"

Anyway, IP and JL you're supposed to both know enough french to understand that. Let's stop arguing about how I word my ideas, you seem to forget that english is not my native language and I'm not pretending to be bilingual.

"You are willing and supportive of making a decision which will, in all probability, bring financial ruin to your province, and perhaps mine."

And now I know why you are so aggressive. You fear for yourself. Why? We'll debate about that.

By the way, I'd like you answer all my questions instead of just the parts of my posts you prefer. I'm talking about that: " "No respect for you? you may think you know, but it's most likely for markedly different reasons than you think." "I'd like to know. I don't know what I did to you but it seems you're taking it pretty personnal."

And PLEASE try to see a stage beyond the words, what I mean. When I talked about how you loved your french classes, I was ironic. That why I put loved like that.

I can understand that you don't want sentences taken apart word-by-word, and I for one am trying to avoid that here...

However, your posts WILL be taken apart "idea-by-idea" - and as such, not all of your questions can be responded to all at once until some are settled first.

Also, we're getting off-topic.

"The fact is that you're trying, as I said earlier, to tell me we're alike!"

Not really. I didn't try to claim that me, personally speaking, and you, personally speaking have the same _culture_. However, we do have reasonably recent common ancestors, two shared languages... you thought those two were significant, so they must have been significant enough to refute.

As far as values go, I don't know you, so I can't make a comparison.

Perhaps you need a bit of a "reality check" here...

Not all born-and-bred francophones share the same values. Nor do all born-and-bred anglophones.

And the split along anglophone/francophone lines is NOT as firm as you seem to have been claiming.

Your claim to know where my values came from was also incorrect.

"You gotta accept we're not."

I am not the same as IronParrot. I'm of a markedly different racial makeup than him, lived in different cities (save four years), gone to different schools (save three and a quarter years), and I even have a different religious affiliation than him.

By all of your arguments, we are virtually incompatible.

However, we're close friends. And our value systems, despite all the above, are remarkably similar.

People who, on first glance, have nothing in common can get together and be prosperous.
And I contend, so can peoples.

"On peux continuer de discuter des heures sur le contenant, les mots, mais ce qui est important, c'est le contenu"

And here's the counterquote for you...

"The medium is the message."

"Let's stop arguing about how I word my ideas"

You have pillars that support your arguments. Like it or not, I'm going to demolish those pillars. Will I split hairs? Not always.

"you seem to forget that english is not my native language and I'm not pretending to be bilingual."

Uh... unless you're using BabelFish for all of this, you _are_ bilingual...

"And now I know why you are so aggressive. You fear for yourself."

I am aggressive because it's part of my nature. I developed it on the football field. And I've refined my aggression into well-tuned bursts on bulletin boards such as this.

Fear has nothing to do with this.

Concern could, on some level.

"And PLEASE try to see a stage beyond the words, what I mean."

The problem was not with your "words", it was with mine.

You misquoted me, adding non-existant hyperbole. The irony is really irrelevant.

"Why? We'll debate about that."

I've decided that now would be a good time to do my little spiel on economics.

----------------------------------------

Laying it down...

Firstly, Quebec will have a small population - I believe we're working under the assumption that it'll be 7.5 million at the instant of independance. However, you're very likely to see an exodus, per se, when all of those who fear the consequences of separation (crashing currency, governmental and economic instability, possible oppression against anglophones, lost jobs and relocation for fed. employees). How big will it be? I won't make a formal prediction. However, you can expect a sizeable chunk of Quebec's businesses, tax base, skilled employees, etc., etc. to vacate immediately, with more to follow.

A small population means that not only is the industrial base inherently reduced - less workers for the factories, less factory-owners - there are also fewer consumers. These factors together would reduce Quebec's GNP, tax income, governmental budget, and trade influence.

Secondly, trade would most likely be severed (except for smuggling and black-market) altogether until there is a government in control of Quebec with which negotiation is possible. I assume that I don't need to go into detail about the negative consequences of isolationism...

Thirdly, the government would be destabilized for an indeterminate period. Quebec would most likely find itself without all the money coming from the fed. gov - with Ottawa demanding payment for a share of the national debt, most likely - without any Crown corporations or federal facilities. Furthermore, Quebec would have no military, no upper court system, no RCMP support in rural areas... There would most definitely be a great deal of other losses - any place in which the federal government was, there would then be a gaping hole.

This government would also be unstable to an unpredictable degree - it may be exposed to rebellions, extremist takeovers, etc., etc...

And without Revenue Canada, the Quebec national taxation system would have to be more-or-less established on the fly... making the government's economic survival questionable as well. Add to this the question of whether Quebec would be able to find any lenders willing to take on the debt which it is GUARANTEED to accrue.

And bear in mind that Quebec would not be covered by the national safety blanket in which a struggling province can be aided by another.

That about sums it up.

I reenter briefly this thread.
I believe you are all wise enough to know that my views are my own alone, although some may come from elsewhere, and that I do not necessarily partake in the opinions of all my compatriotes.
----------------------------------------------

Nice scenario you have presented Lurker; not totally impossible, on the contrary.

And the thought comes to me that even if the Quebecers were totally justified in wanting seperation/independance/sovereignty-association, that apocalyptic scenario would still apply nevertheless.

So, this is the world we live in: where economic imperatives and weight always outweight cultural ones.
And Canada (in general; french and english) still want to counter American cultural influence...

Just to add to my thought, I will make a analogy - and admitedly imperfect one.
Let us say that in the abortion rights debate the only (or much strongest) argument was economic reasons (eg that financially poor single women can't take care of baby etc...). Now, I am not saying that this would be sufficient to grant the right of choosing an abortion, but IF (I know, bif "if", but only for sake of argument) it was sufficient for the Courts to allow the right to choose abortion, then the moral issue would be totally obscured by a single economic imperative.

Now I didn't make this analogy to start another abortion debate, but just to give a taste of the situation economic arguments by themselves only give.

So, this is not really a counter-argument to your scenario, Lurker; I believe there may be a lot of truth to it.
I just want to point out how sad a situation this is, not only for Quebec, but for Canada in general (if not some other parts of the world).

Your scenario Lurker shows only that we live in a world where the "Might" of money makes it "Right".
And those that dream of separation/independance/sovereignty-association are those that do not want to live in such a world.

This was just my 2 cents... which is barely more than 1 american cent...

And just to add to what Johnny was saying... My husband, as I've mentioned is probably as pure laine as Shanamir and yet is against separation. Why? Because the likely economic realities of separation by far outweigh the "gains" of separation, which, he feels, are largely emotional, and to which he himself does not feel particularly emotionally attached. So you see, you can't even paint all Francophone Quebeckers with the same brush... And we would leave if separation occurred; most likely we'd go to the States.

For Shanamir. We've been talking mainly about the past and present, but I'd like to address the future. Let's say that Quebec wins its independence from Canada. For argument's sake let's say it was done amicably. YAY! Shanamir has a big party! So once the celebration is over, Shanamir, I'd like to know what you, personally, think you will have in your new country of Quebec that you don't already have now.

Ok... I understand what you mean with you and IronParrot. That can work well with individuals that want to do it. When a side don't want, it won't work.

For the bilingual thingy, if one that can say "yes no toaster" and understand what he's talking about, then I am bilingual. Or you might say, and that would be even better, that I'm a bilingual with a small vocabulary. Yes, I think so. I had to search in the dic some words you wrote (about 3) and constancly change my sentences because I don't know a particular word and am too lazy to look up for it. Add to that the high count of grammatical and syntax errors. That about why I don't want you to destroy my "pillars", because they are weak. If you can respect that I'll be happy. Another thing we could do is argue in french. Then I promise to respect your pillars

"Firstly, Quebec will have a small population - I believe we're working under the assumption that it'll be 7.5 million at the instant of independance. However, you're very likely to see an exodus, per se, when all of those who fear the consequences of separation (crashing currency, governmental and economic instability, possible oppression against anglophones, lost jobs and relocation for fed. employees). How big will it be? I won't make a formal prediction. However, you can expect a sizeable chunk of Quebec's businesses, tax base, skilled employees, etc., etc. to vacate immediately, with more to follow."

I Agree with that... but being prepared could lessen the blow.

"A small population means that not only is the industrial base inherently reduced - less workers for the factories, less factory-owners - there are also fewer consumers. These factors together would reduce Quebec's GNP, tax income, governmental budget, and trade influence."

Agree with that too.

"Secondly, trade would most likely be severed (except for smuggling and black-market) altogether until there is a government in control of Quebec with which negotiation is possible. I assume that I don't need to go into detail about the negative consequences of isolationism..."

I don't agree with that tought. In my opinion, separation is not a hit and run project. You have to prepare it. That includes negotiating with other country (Including rest of Canada) already having treaties with Canada. To be able to maintain the same deals with them.

"Thirdly, the government would be destabilized for an indeterminate period. Quebec would most likely find itself without all the money coming from the fed. gov - with Ottawa demanding payment for a share of the national debt, most likely - without any Crown corporations or federal facilities. Furthermore, Quebec would have no military, no upper court system, no RCMP support in rural areas... There would most definitely be a great deal of other losses - any place in which the federal government was, there would then be a gaping hole."

First, I don't know what is RCMP, (english acronyms are often hard for me to understand as we don't have the sames)

Second, I know we would have no more money from fed-gov, but that money already comes from us, don't forget that. The money the federal gives us comes from our pockets and is, generally (and hopefully) distributed equally to contributors. So we would have about the same amount of money.

Third. We sure would have a part of the debt, that's normal. It can't be worst than what Canada already have.

Finally for the military, you seem to forget that a great deal of Canadian soldiers comes from Quebec. Valcartier Base (15 minutes from my house) is really big. And we would surely retain a part of of military equipment.

"This government would also be unstable to an unpredictable degree - it may be exposed to rebellions, extremist takeovers, etc., etc..."

We cannot predict that. It could, as it could not. This is so unsure that it's not worth debating, altough I understand what you mean.

"And without Revenue Canada, the Quebec national taxation system would have to be more-or-less established on the fly... making the government's economic survival questionable as well. Add to this the question of whether Quebec would be able to find any lenders willing to take on the debt which it is GUARANTEED to accrue."

As I said earlier, you have to prepare a separation, lenders MUST be found before, taxation established before too and lots of others technicalities too. Sadly, I don't know how it the project as it is of now, is Lucien Bouchard doing a good job? Don't know, haven't seen his plans. And if he didn't yet prepared what I talked about, then he's no-good.

"And bear in mind that Quebec would not be covered by the national safety blanket in which a struggling province can be aided by another."

Yeah, that's sure. How many does it happens? I never heard of any province lending money to another one. Maybe you could give an exemple(example?) ? And if you're talking material (like Quebec's CF215),technical help, I think as neighbours, we still could help each others.

"That about sums it up."

That about sums it up for me too, for now.

I'm reading the others posts now.

What you say Juntel is mostly true... sadly. But I must ask, are you for or against? In other words, if you had to vote again what would you vote?

Ok... I'm answering to Eruve now...

I do hope we cannot paint everyone with the same brush! Aye, what would it be if everyone would be the same!

And for your last question (and yeah I'd have a BIG, REALLY BIG, Party) I'll have to quote someone I like very much

"Now is our chance. if we join, we can win. I we win, well then we'll have what none of us have never had before: a country of our own."

W. Wallace

Some Quebeckers feel they already do have a country, Canada. As for Wallace, remember what happened to him...

RCMP= GRC.

"As for Wallace, remember what happened to him..."

Well, that supports my post about the sadness of the situation, doesn't it?
...Does it?
Unless you were cheering for Patrick McGoohan...
(I had only eyes for Sophie Marceau!)


Shanamir, the issue is for me, personally, a non-issue. I annulled my vote at the boot at the referendum, as well at the elections.
Blanc bonnet, bonnet blanc.
All the same for me.
I am really as shocked at the imbecilities of anglo extremists as at those of the franco extremists. And none is greater than the other.
I do believe in a possible cooperation, and I do believe that MeechLake, as far as I comprehend it, was an acceptable solution (although it was not for our native hosts, which I understand).

I does really hurt me that I behave like this at a voting booth, in a democracy such as ours; voting is something that one shouldn't take lightly. So I did think about what action to take, and nullifying my vote was better I think than not to vote, although it undeniably goes unnoticed.

The next federal elections might be quite a surprised; we'll see how much can the Refo... heu the Alliance can take away from the Liberals, and how much can the Bloc can keep in Quebec.
That will depend on how well the Alliance will treat openly and officially the Quebec issue: bending one way and you make one group of canadians angry, bend the other way and you make angry enough quebecers that they end up voting Bloc in disgust...
These will be very interesting elections indeed.

If the NDP (c'est-Ã*-dire le NPD, Shan) can find some direction, maybe I'll consider voting for them. But they'll never win anyway...
Might makes Right in this world...

That was a very striking comparison. I'm impressed.

"That about why I don't want you to destroy my "pillars", because they are weak."

If you take some care in choosing your words, your "pillars" won't be weakened by them - and remember that you'll have a fair bit of latitude, simply because this isn't a proverbial "shark tank"... If you pick a bad choice of words and admit it, I feel I can speak for the majority that we'll let it slide.

However, if the ideas behind the words are weak... then they need to be demolished.

"Another thing we could do is argue in french. Then I promise to respect your pillars"

Interesting. Not without merit. I'll think about it.

"but being prepared could lessen the blow."

Yes, preparation will ALWAYS lessen the blow to some extent or another. I do have some further remarks about preparation - I considered it - but I'll save those for later.

As for now, Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 just finished installing, and I need to reboot.

(Finished that, no immediately apparent system damage, so I'll resume)

"In my opinion, separation is not a hit and run project. You have to prepare it. That includes negotiating with other country (Including rest of Canada) already having treaties with Canada. To be able to maintain the same deals with them."

I figure it's high time to talk about the problems with "preparation" in the Quebec issue.

Let's see...

Firstly, preparing for a country's creation before the fact takes a great deal of time and manpower - and usually money. Now, even if the separatist forces put all this into preparations beforehand, they CANNOT establish formal treaties, loan agreements, etc., etc. until they have OFFICIALLY separated.

Secondly, since these preparations take time, the plans become obsolete. Obviously some things remain in tact, but if the plans are based around a certain referendum being "successful", they will require an overhaul if it takes until the next referendum.

Thirdly, specifically about the trade issue... Negotiations for things such as entrance into NAFTA will NOT be open-and-shut. They will most likely take YEARS. And remember, these can ONLY begin once the referendum is "successful".

Fourthly, also regarding the trade issue, it is VERY presumptuous to assume that treaties with Canada will be reached within the forseeable future of separation. There will be a HUGE amount of resentment and general "bad blood" between Canada and Quebec, and my guess is that the only thing Canada will be negotiating for is free passage to the Maritimes through Quebec - and we do have the States for that.

"First, I don't know what is RCMP"

Royal Canadian Mounted Police - the national police force.

"I know we would have no more money from fed-gov, but that money already comes from us, don't forget that."

The federal government is a bit of an "equalizer" as far as budgets go... if a province slips into a greater level of economic troubles than the others, more money will be allocated to it... a "safety blanket".

Secondly, although the money would technically still be there to be taxed, the cycle would be interrupted for an indeterminate period of time.

"Finally for the military, you seem to forget that a great deal of Canadian soldiers comes from Quebec."

Now, would a soldier who signs up to defend Canada, under the Canadian flag, be more likely to be federalist or separatist? Also, you would have to re-enlist all of those soldiers - unless Canada is to maintain a contingent in Quebec. I personally very much doubt that Canada would just hand over the Quebec division of the armed forces...

"Valcartier Base (15 minutes from my house) is really big."

And once it is no longer on Canadian soil, it would most likely be shut down and sold. Again, I very much doubt that the Canadian government would just give up the assets...

"And we would surely retain a part of of military equipment."

Perhaps - if you buy it.

Aside from that, the odds are nearly nothing. And don't expect preferential treatment from the Canadian government... it's not going to happen.

"We cannot predict that. It could, as it could not."

If we were closer to a referendum date, with greater details on post-referendum procedures in the event of a "yes" majority, we could do probability assessments. Just remember that there WILL be _some_ unstability... how much is anyone's guess.

"lenders MUST be found before"

It would be very diplomatically incorrect to attempt to negotiate loan conditions before your "country" is acknowledged as existing. The length of the delay between the "yes" vote and the Canadian pullout is indeterminate... the only factor I can see ensuring there is one is for a chance for the Canadians to try to convince Quebec of its mistake, and to allow Canadian citizens and permanent residents (which is virtually everyone in Quebec) to leave under protection of the Canadian government. After that...

"taxation established before"

How can tax databases be established before a census is taken? How can a census be taken before the flood of migrants has reduced to a trickle? How can auditors be hired to keep businesses honest before a rudimentary payroll is established (bad wording there)?

There is a series of steps that MUST be followed when it comes to taxation (I've seen the system from the inside), and there are some which simply cannot be done beforehand.

"Sadly, I don't know how it the project as it is of now"

I am curious as to whether one plan has actually been accepted, or whether there are multiple plans in conflict with each other.

"And if he didn't yet prepared what I talked about, then he's no-good."

Perhaps, diplomatically, economically, and logistically speaking, he CANNOT do some of the things you have talked about.

He should have ideas written down, but he can't spring into action on most things until AFTER a "yes" vote.

"Yeah, that's sure. How many does it happens? I never heard of any province lending money to another one."

The national welfare system is more or less irrespective of province. If, for example, Alberta has a disproportionately low number of people on welfare and a high number of wealthy oil barons, with, for example, Saskatchewan as the opposite, then Alberta is indirectly funding Saskatchewan's welfare system.

Same deal with universal health care to some extent.

I don't have information on the fisheries controversy out in Newfoundland... would anyone care to supply some info on that?

"And if you're talking material (like Quebec's CF215),technical help, I think as neighbours, we still could help each others."

Person-to-person help will continue. I'll keep funding charities even if they work in Quebec. But interprovincial help is a different matter... and remember that the attitude of Canada towards Quebec will most likely be that of a spouse who has just been served divorce papers.

Sorry to be so brief on my points about preparation.

"There is a series of steps that MUST be followed when it comes to taxation (I've seen the system from the inside), and there are some which simply cannot be done beforehand."

That's assuming the same system will be followed as now. We have no guarantee that it will. In fact, we have no guarantee what sort of government we'll have in a separate Quebec. Will it be a representative democracy or a dictatorship or something else? Hardly anyone ever talks about this and yet, to me, this is one of the scariest aspects of separation.

RE: Military installations. This issue was the starting point of the US civil war. There was a federal military base at Fort Sumpter, South Carolina. South Carolina had seceded from the Union and demanded the federal troops leave and the base be handed over. The Union side refused. Shots were fired; civil war began.
There's no guarantee the Canadian federal government will just hand over military installations.

I like the way this debate is turning. I just can't answer right now as I have to prepare myself (physically ans intellectually ) For the Iron Maiden show this evening.

I just want us to make a distinction before we continue

two different things: Separation and a "yes" at a referendum. Separation may officially happens years after the official yes. That's the way I see it and most probably the way fed-gov sees it too because he'll want to make things illegual and all...

So consider these two different concepts. When I'm talking separation, that's separation I mean and when I'll mean "winning referendum" I'll say so. And that's what we all should do. So we won't be caught in a "sophisme de l'homonimie"

Shan

Actually, Shanamir, it was said (I think by Parizeau, not Bouchard) was that in the 1995 referendum anyway, they planned that a "yes" vote would lead to immediate separation.

Maybe if they have another referendum on separation in the future it might be different, but that's the way it was in 1995.

Shanamir, do you want to debate as to how far apart the two will most likely be?