My nationalistic pride

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Adebisi
Hurricane, I definitly disagree on your statement that the Russo annexation was a "streak of luck". Had the border stayed the way it was in 1808 it had been worse, yes, as part of Finland would be left in Russia. With the way things went at least Finland was united. But, had Sweden won the war of 1809, they could have teamed up with Napoleon some time later and taken back all land lost since 1714. And probably get some more, such as the Eastern part of Carelia, which was still populated by Finns at the time. Assuming of course that King Gustav IV Adolf would have been overtrown. Bearing that in mind you cant claim that Finland was lucky to get annexed by Russia.

That´s making a lot of speculations. Remember that Napoleon´s army was defeated in Russia.

The continuos wars between Sweden and Russia had driven Finland to extreme poverty, and even if Sweden had won in 1809, Russia would most certainly have attacked again later. Sweden was always well aware of this, and with the bankrupt Swedish economy, nothing was made to put Finland back on its feet. Russia would never have allowed Sweden to be so close to S:t Petersburg. And Finland had already been occupied by Russia for almost 100 years, and what had Sweden done about it? Nothing. They had more pressing concerns.

So what if Carelia had been inside Finland´s borders? In your scenario, Finland would have stayed as a rural part of Sweden, with an own language but more or less no own culture. It probably would have turned communistic during the bolshevik revolution and asked to be a part of the new fantastic bolshevik Russia. Just think about what happened to the Baltic countries.

As for the "independence"; No independence was given as a result of the mercy or good will of the tzar.

It seems you did not read my post very carefully. I never said czar Nicolai gave Finland independece. I said autonomy, which gave Finland a lot of room for self-government. Later (late 19th century), when the russians noted that Finland actually just became more and more western-centered, they tried to russificate the country. Luckily, nationalism had already bloomed, and the most important result was that Finland came to realise that independece was the only way to go.

Finland stagnated compared to the rest of Scandinavia during the Russian era.

I don´t agree. Had Finland been retaken by the Swedes, its future could well have been the same as Poland´s: a battleground for wars and wars. Sweden would never had put very much effort into making Finland prosper.

After the Russians took Finland in 1809, they had several reasons for giving Finland the very free autonomy (compared to other examples of the same time period). First, as I noted above, they did not want to make Finland into another Poland, with unrest so close to S:t Petersburg. Second, they wanted a lasting peace with Sweden, who would not have let Finland become too Russian. Third (late 19th century), Russia was at this time considering itself as an example of peace-makers. The international tribual at the Hague was for example formed at the initiative of the young Nikolai II.

Our nationalism woke up during this era, and after the short periods of oppression in the late 19th and early 20th century it was proved that we could not go on as a part of Russia. When the bolchevik revolution occured it was the last drop and we took the risk of declaring ourselves independent.

Agree. I never said Finland felt itself as a part of Russia, but I am almost certain that Finland had much better time being an autonomous part of Russia during the 19th century than a forgotten backwater part of Sweden.

 

[Benz]

I don't think neither Russia or Sweden were motivated to think about the goodwill of Finland. I don't think also that we can say that Russia was more cruel than Sweden. I believe that Finland was considered as a strategic zone used by these two powers. Russia needed that Finland could be strong and independent enough to keep to hold on Swedish but, it has nothing to do with generous goodwill given to the Finns. Neither that Sweden would act like a good big brother to protect Finland. It is the opposite, Sweden was probably better than Russia to keep Finland under its control with a lower effort. It is just a feeling I have from what I know and what I see here.

----------

I would be ready to kill and die for my country, only if our freedom is menaced.

----------

willemvanoranje, I almost think the same things you do.

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Benz
I don't think neither Russia or Sweden were motivated to think about the goodwill of Finland. I don't think also that we can say that Russia was more cruel than Sweden.

My point is the opposite: Finland had always been a part of Sweden (definately not just some strategic buffer), and while Sweden at the time were weak and busy with internal politics, they would sooner or later attack Russia if they saw too much Russian influence in Finland. With the growing nationalism during the 19th century, however, Sweden started feeling more like the good big brother, and Finland wanted to become independent, not just switch back to Sweden.

About the cruelty thing. How can you even compare Russia and Sweden about cruelty? It would be like saying that you don´t know if Russia or Germany was more cruel to Prussia.

The 100-year period of Finland being a part of Russia was actually much better for Finland than it is often portrayed, but it does not change the fact that Russia has been Finland´s enemy for most of its history.

I believe that Finland was considered as a strategic zone used by these two powers. Russia needed that Finland could be strong and independent enough to keep to hold on Swedish but, it has nothing to do with generous goodwill given to the Finns. Neither that Sweden would act like a good big brother to protect Finland. It is the opposite, Sweden was probably better than Russia to keep Finland under its control with a lower effort. It is just a feeling I have from what I know and what I see here.

Finland was not occupied by Sweden, it was Sweden. You don´t have to occupy your own country. I don´t think Canada has to occupy Quebec, either. :crazyeyes

 

[Adebisi]

edit

 

[Benz]

"I don´t think Canada has to occupy Quebec, either"

Actually, it is kind of.

Since 1982, the French part of Canada (Québec) has no say in the constitution of their own country anymore. That was the year where Canada patriated its constitution from England and the English part of Canada took the opportunity tp modify it without our approval. It has put us into this dead end. The English majority can change it as they wish since then and we can't do anything about it. This is why there is an important sovereignist movement in Québec, including myself. We are proposing a solution very similar of the actual European Union type but, the English part doesn't look interested. We are considered as separatist by them because if they refuse our proposal, we prefer to separate than being their pet's. The English Canada do not recognize that we are two distinct nations sharing the same country. They want us to be exactly like them and have no say. Fortunatly, there is no sign of violence of any kind like we can see in some other places like Basque in Spain.

If you want to compare the situation of Québec/Canada vs Finland/Sweden, it would rather look like this. Finland would be a province of Sweden and it could have some powers but, Sweden would be allowed to do what they want into the Finland's politic. Because Sweden would be the only one owner of the constitution.

"How can you even compare Russia and Sweden about cruelty? "

Maybe I did a wrong choice of words. Anyway, as I already said, I don't know the Finland's history enough to be completly sure of what I am saying. I see your point and the one of our fellow posters and that is what I think at first sight. Ce n'est pas coulé dans le béton!

Can you guys explain me where is Carelia and how big it is? Well, I have an idea but, just in case I mixed up.

 

[Adebisi]

edit

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Benz
"I don´t think Canada has to occupy Quebec, either"

Actually, it is kind of.

Since 1982, the French part of Canada (Québec) has no say in the constitution of their own country anymore. That was the year where Canada patriated its constitution from England and the English part of Canada took the opportunity tp modify it without our approval. It has put us into this dead end. The English majority can change it as they wish since then and we can't do anything about it. This is why there is an important sovereignist movement in Québec, including myself. We are proposing a solution very similar of the actual European Union type but, the English part doesn't look interested. We are considered as separatist by them because if they refuse our proposal, we prefer to separate than being their pet's. The English Canada do not recognize that we are two distinct nations sharing the same country. They want us to be exactly like them and have no say. Fortunatly, there is no sign of violence of any kind like we can see in some other places like Basque in Spain.

Look, I don't want to downplay the concerns of Quebecers, but is it totally necessary to use inflamatory terms like "pets"?

The relationship is long and convoluted. We could go into the language laws, the conscription crisis, etc, etc but is it necessary?

Separation is a tricky thing to pull off. I think the idea of some "union" is as dead as yesterday's fish and for good reason. If you go, you go all the way.

And then parts of Quebec will have to decide if they're going with you or staying in Canada. And that's when the fun really begins.

/bruce

 

[Benz]

thanks adebisi!

What is the ratio of each ethnies in Carelia?

Do that area is still inhabited by a majority of Carelians? If so, do they feel they belong to Finland? If not, it is kind of too late now. It is something that the Carelians (if they still exist) have to decide. The UN recognize tribes and small nations that have no sovereignty today, as long as they were previously a state or any kind of independent or freed area. It has nothing to do with who owned the land long time ago. The most important issue is, the population living on that land. What do they think? Otherwise, it opens the door at too much abuses and interpretations of history.

Dingbat,

[Look, I don't want to downplay the concerns of Quebecers, but is it totally necessary to use inflamatory terms like "pets"? ]

Normally, No, not at all. But with what I see from the rest of your post, I regret to say that it is not that inflamatory. Usually, only english canadians talk to us like you do. I have not that kind of problems with americans, Europeans or anyone else.

Ontario, Québec, New-Brunswick and Nova-Scotia build Canada. Not the opposite. You cannot divide neither Québec, nor any other province's land integrity. French part of NB, Ontario and Manitoba cannot be merged with Québec neither that federalist part of Québec be divided to join back Canada.

What are we to your eyes? Less than nothing or what? Look, I talked about confederation like EU, I talked about respecting each other's sovereignty and all you reply is "if you leave, we will break you in many peaces!". Not constructive don't you think? What it is so bad about the European Union? Why can't you figure out that we are not the same nation? La preuve, vous ne comprenez même pas notre opinion.

When the time will come that you either refuse our proposal and want us to be partitioned, we will invite you to discuss the terms of separation with the UN international court. We are pretty confident about our position.

Just an hypothesis to compare the situation. I am wandering what would happen if suddenly Sweden says that they want to grab back some area of Finland only because they think it belong to them. It doesn't make sens, isn't it? It doesn't in our case either and it won't happen.

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Benz
"I don´t think Canada has to occupy Quebec, either"

Actually, it is kind of.

If you want to compare the situation of Québec/Canada vs Finland/Sweden, it would rather look like this. Finland would be a province of Sweden and it could have some powers but, Sweden would be allowed to do what they want into the Finland's politic. Because Sweden would be the only one owner of the constitution.

Very good that you took up this point, because this highlites a very important difference between Québec/Canada and Finland/Sweden. And that is that before the 19th century, there was nothing as a Finnish nation. The Swedes made a few peaceful crusades into Finland and with them came Swedish families. The small village of Turku was soon made the administrative center of Finland, and is considered to have been founded as Finland´s first city in 1229. For many hundred years, Turku and its surroundings were what was called Finland. This district is still today officially called "Actual Finland", while the rest of Finland´s districts are called after the tribes that lived there (Lapland where the Laps lived, for example). Take a look at the map I attach, Actual Finland is in the southwest corner of Finland.

Only when the idea of nationalism, that a country is defined by the language of the inhabitants, did the idea of an own Finnish country grow. Since Finland at this time belonged to the Russians, it soon became clear that independence was the only way to go.

Just an hypothesis to compare the situation. I am wandering what would happen if suddenly Sweden says that they want to grab back some area of Finland only because they think it belong to them. It doesn't make sens, isn't it? It doesn't in our case either and it won't happen.

There was one issue after Finland declared itself independent in 1917. The Aland islands, which to 100% consisted of Swedish-speaking people (compared to a 6% national average) had always administratively belonged to Finland, but now wanted to become a part of Sweden. This issue was solved in the League of Nations in 1921, and Aland stayed as a part of Finland, but as a demilitarised zone and with long-going self-government. They have their own laws, taxation, have an own postal code (AX) and even tried with their own money at one time.

However, it was the people of the Aland islands that wanted to switch to Sweden, not Sweden that demanded they get them.

 

[Adebisi]

edit

 

[Benz]

"The other Swedish-speaking people most definitly wanted to become a part of Finland, in fact they were the most vigorous nationalists. "

Why these Swedish-speaking prefered Finland? They are in minority in Finland, isn't it? If the Aland (my keyboard can't do the little o over the A) has a special status and a level of autonomy, it is understandable but, what about the others?

What is the social status of Swedish speaking in Finland? Advantaged? Unadvantaged? Normally equal to any other Finns speaking?

Do the Laps have their own language or are they speakind finnish?

Is the language issue is a big debate in either Finland and Sweden? (regarding the minority group of either side)

 

[Adebisi]

edit

 

[Benz]

Do the swedish speakers are afraid to be eventually totally assimilated?

Do the gov't must provide services in both languages? How far it goes?

For instence, the Canada's government must be able to provide services in both English and French everywhere in the country even if there is an area speaking only one of the two languages. It is a big issue around here because there was a big assimilation process started by the British long time ago and it lasted for years. Some provinces in Canada made French illegal even if half of their population was French. This law is no longer effective but, it is too late. The assimilation succesfully reached 50% to 70%.

According to what you are saying, Finnish and Swedish speakers live more peacefully together than that, isn't it?

Can you say that most of the Swedish speakers of finland speak finnish either?

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Adebisi
The people of Åland wanted to be united with Sweden already before Finland's declaration of independence. It was in the middle of ww1, so it was very understandable.

Sweden saw a chance to expand their borders and secure Stockholm - which would be blocked by Åland. In february 1918 Swedish troops occupied the island (humanitarian aid being the excuse), but were chased out by the German army in March.

Yes, but my point was that Aland wanted to join Sweden because they felt closer to Sweden than Finland (nationalistic reasons), while Sweden wanted Aland only for strategic reasons.

10-15% of Finland was Swedish-speaking at the time, not 6%. The other Swedish-speaking people most definitly wanted to become a part of Finland, in fact they were the most vigorous nationalists.

True. 10,98% in 1920, to be exact.

Originally posted by Benz
Can you say that most of the Swedish speakers of finland speak finnish either?

Most of them speak good or fluent Finnish, but about 20% has no or very little knowledge of Finnish. I´ll try to answer your other questions, too, if I can get the time for it (don´t want to over-simplify it).

And to give Adebisi a tip: why do you think my nickname is Hurricane? Take a look at the first five letters of it.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Benz

Normally, No, not at all. But with what I see from the rest of your post, I regret to say that it is not that inflamatory. Usually, only english canadians talk to us like you do. I have not that kind of problems with americans, Europeans or anyone else.

Mostly because they don't care.

Also, please keep your bigotries about english canadians to yourself. I have nothing but respect for Quebecers and francophones.

And who's "us"? You don't speak for French Canadians, or even Quebecers.

Ontario, Québec, New-Brunswick and Nova-Scotia build Canada. Not the opposite. You cannot divide neither Québec, nor any other province's land integrity. French part of NB, Ontario and Manitoba cannot be merged with Québec neither that federalist part of Québec be divided to join back Canada.

Now, you know very well that anything can be done. There are no rules for the breakup of a country.

What are we to your eyes? Less than nothing or what? Look, I talked about confederation like EU, I talked about respecting each other's sovereignty and all you reply is "if you leave, we will break you in many peaces!". Not constructive don't you think? What it is so bad about the European Union? Why can't you figure out that we are not the same nation? La preuve, vous ne comprenez même pas notre opinion.

Where is this coming from? You have no idea where I live. Again, please be careful with your preconceptions.

First, it is not me that is saying "if you leave, we will break you in many pieces". It's other Quebecers. If all Quebecers say "Sayonnara" to Canada, everyone will just say "have fun and don't let the door slam you on the ass on the way out". On the other hand, if there is a significant number who do not want to leave, why would you try to deny them the same opportunity to determine their own fate as you so strongly demand for yourself?

I have nothing against the European Union. But what you propose is not the European Union and never will be. The EU was a coming together of many disparate nations. What you're proposing is the alteration of an existing model. Obviously, all people have to agree to this. If they do, hey great!
[/B][/QUOTE]

When the time will come that you either refuse our proposal and want us to be partitioned, we will invite you to discuss the terms of separation with the UN international court. We are pretty confident about our position.

Just an hypothesis to compare the situation. I am wandering what would happen if suddenly Sweden says that they want to grab back some area of Finland only because they think it belong to them. It doesn't make sens, isn't it? It doesn't in our case either and it won't happen.

Ok, first, much as it must pain you, Quebec is part of Canada. Your hypothetical situation is flawed.

Secondly, the I have no real feelings about Quebec separation one way or another. If you think your life is suddenly going to change dramatically because decisions are made in Quebec City rather than in Ottawa, I fear you will be dissapointed. Ottawa is corrupt, but Quebec City is corruption raised to the level of fine art.

I know, post-separation, Montreal will still be down the road. I'll still go there every year for Juste pour Rire and sit on patios and drink beer. There will still be arguing over language laws, because English isn't going to go away. All the issues now faced by Quebec will still be there. Separation solves nothing, it only changes the arrangement of chairs at the table.

So, I really don't care if Quebec stays or goes. But what I am looking for is a little bit of consistency. Why is Quebec indivisible, but Canada isn't? Perhaps there's some exclusion clause for Quebec in international law that no one but you knows about?

/bruce

 

[Vrylakas]

If you think your life is suddenly going to change dramatically because decisions are made in Quebec City rather than in Ottawa, I fear you will be dissapointed. Ottawa is corrupt, but Quebec City is corruption raised to the level of fine art.

One very noticable effect will be the collapse of the living standard in Quebec. Economies don't run on nationalism. By separating from Canada, even if Ottawa and Washington agree to accept Quebec as a NATFA partner, Quebec will still find many of the resources and goods it relies on suddenly across foreign borders, and therefore more expensive to acquire. I've read about talk of Quebec beefing up its utility sector and exporting power to Ontario and the U.S., but a weakness in this plan is that there is local competition already in place (the hydroelectric power generators at Niagara Falls) and Quebec's plans (as I've read them) would require the abrogation of Canada's treaties with the Cree Indians and provoke the wrath of international environmental groups. Also, nationalist governments tend to scare away tourists, which is a problem with tourism being Quebec's biggest industry currently.

I know, post-separation, Montreal will still be down the road. I'll still go there every year for Juste pour Rire and sit on patios and drink beer. There will still be arguing over language laws, because English isn't going to go away. All the issues now faced by Quebec will still be there. Separation solves nothing, it only changes the arrangement of chairs at the table.

Very well put. I've watched the economic collapse of Montreal since the last referendum (the most dramatic example of which being the Bank of Montreal's move to Toronto), and that unfortunately is likely the immediate future for an independent Quebec. The mild recovery the city has seen recently is due to the loss of the referendum and the fairly stable political climate the province has seen since. The "old" problems will indeed not go away, especially the fact that a very substantial portion of the province's population speaks English as a native language. Separation may placate many in Quebec who feel "oopressed" by Anglophone Canada, but I gotta tell ya - as the descendent of a minority population (Poles in Russian Lithuania) when I look around modern Europe and see its minorities - the Germans in Alsace-Lorraine, the Basques, the Germans in Southern Tyrol in Italy, the Hungarians in Romania, the Sorbs/Wends in Germany, the Gypsies just about everywhere - I think any of these minority groups would be very happy to have the status and condition Quebec "suffers" with in Canada. The Aisnu in Japan, the Uighurs in China... I really can't think of a minority group that has the array of rights that Quebec has or has a majority population that has gone as much out of its way to accomodate the minority. Germans do not have to learn Turkish, nor do Poles have to learn Ukrainian. English Canadians do have to learn French though, nationwide.

That said, I have nothing against Quebec separating from Canada; it's idiotic to try to keep populations within a political framework against their will. I just wish if it must happen that it could be done intelligently and with the least amount of acrimony for all concerned - but as far as I've seen, the PQ isn't capable of either of these conditions, and therefore any separation they initiate will likely cause suffering and hostility for all concerned.

And this is my major concern about Quebec independence; that it will result in a poor, embittered Quebec that is a source of crime, cross-border smuggling and internal persecution of its own minorities that will keep it fairly isolated on the world stage. It's not so much the principal of independence I fear as how it's achieved.

 

[Hurricane]

Now to my *long* answer:

The Swedish language is guaranteed as one of the two official languages in Finland´s constitutinal law. This law says that Finnish- and Swedish-speaking people should have equal rights to use their language, equal rights to culture and a functioning society. A swedish-speaking person can use his own language at court and other official instances. The Finnish administration is bilingual, which means all official documents are made in both finnish and swedish.

To make this work in practise means that swedish-speaking persons must be educated in most professions (so that there is at least a few persons that speak and write sedish fluently). There is one swedish-speaking university and one business school, and some of the other universities either have some of the education in swedish or a fixed quota for swedish-speaking persons. This means that it in general, it is easier for swedish-speaking people to get higher education. All finnish-speaking people learn Swedish at school, and all swedish-speaking learn Finnish at school (with several exceptions, as always). While this looks good on paper, many Finnish-speaking are very reluctant to actually use Swedish (often because the swedish-speaking person speaks much better Finnish than the finnish-speaking speaks Swedish).

The church is bilingual, and one of the bishoprics (total of 8) is swedish. There is one swedish brigade, where most of the swedish-speaking population do their conscription (good luck, Adebisi!). There are 12 swedish newspapers, 2 political papers as well as several magazines. Digital TV was launhed last autumn, and it includes a swedish-speaking state-run channel. On the analog network with 2 state-run channels are part of the programs swedish. 16 of the parliament´s 200 mp:s (8%) are swedish-speaking, and there is one political party for the swedish-speaking (11 mp:s). The defence minister is a member of the swedish-speaking party.

The swedish-speaking live widely dispersed, mostly around the coast. Different organisations and associations work with swedish-speaking culture, business and sports. Financially strong foundations support all kinds of activities, from support to artists, theaters, music, research and sporting to free-time activities. One known swedish-speaking writer was Tove Jansson, who created the Moomin characters. The Finnish national anthem was first written in swedish by a swedish-speaking poet.

Ok, so much about statistics. On a more general level, one can say that since WW2 the two languages live side by side very peacefully. Debates and conflicts are visible at times in political debates, but there is very little tension on the grass roots level. One survey made in 1997 showed that 70% of the finnish-speaking population felt that swedish was part of the national identity.

There was great concern during the 70s that the swedish-speaking population soon would be totally assimilated by the Finnish, but this has proven to be wrong. Many bilingual families put their children in swedish schools, because many feels it is a richness to learn two languages ”for free”. With a close contact to Sweden, most people appreciate the importance of Swedish. The main argument among the critics today is that the swedish-lessons at school use up time which could instead be used for other more pressing subjects. Some also believe that if Swedish was voluntary at school, the pupils´ motivation would be higher. There is little evidence for that, however.

The closer circles in the swedish-speaking society, with ”everybody knowing everybody” has led to a more stable and secure society among the swedish-speaking. Counties with a majority of swedish-speakers are always at the top in the yearly ”happiest county in the country”-statistics. Swedish-speaking have a lower unemployment rate and commit less crimes (not that it is high among the Finnish-speaking, either). The economical structure is very similar between the language groups, but percentually, there are more Swedish-speaking in business and agriculture.

Hmm, I think this is a long enough post. And I still feel I generalised too much.

 

[Benz]

Hurricane,

That is very interesting. I hope to have the chance to visit Finland in the future. Well, the whole Europen if it is possible. I have only visited Paris and (Thier-Vichy) till now.

Excuse me guys but, two funny Quebec bashers will take my attention a bit. I'll come back with other questions later.

Dingbat,

[First, it is not me that is saying "if you leave, we will break you in many pieces". It's other Quebecers. ]

Nope! They are mostly a very small group of fanatic anglophones funded by the federal gov't and called, Alliance-Quebec. You will never see a member of the Liberal party saying that he is in favor of splitting Québec in many pieces. If so, name me one of them! Just one name!

"The EU was a coming together of many disparate nations. What you're proposing is the alteration of an existing model. "

Big deal! So what? The model is bad! We prefer the EU model because it respects more the nations of this country. The problem is, you are deying the existence of these nations. How pathetic! And you think we will say "oh yeah! You right, I do not exist!"

"All the issues now faced by Quebec will still be there. Separation solves nothing, it only changes the arrangement of chairs at the table. "

Which ones? You are unable to talk about the issues. It is a "one way" discussion. No matter what I say, you come up with your redondant speech we ear for generations. SAY IT! I dare you to tell me that English and French are the same nation. Tell me that the English deserve to rule the constitution without a say from the French part.

"Why is Quebec indivisible, but Canada isn't? Perhaps there's some exclusion clause for Quebec in international law that no one but you knows about? "

Ask to these fanatics of Alliance Quebec. They suited us to the UN several times and they always lost. Québec and the others have created Canada, not the opposite. If Germany leaves the EU, do the EU can keep Berlin without the approval of Germany?

Vrylakas,

You don't know much about Québec for sure.

"Economies don't run on nationalism. "

No? Nationalism is what took us from one of the poorest area to the big league. Our best move was the nationalization of Hydro-Québec. We are making profits big time even if we have the lowest cost rates in america.

"Quebec will still find many of the resources and goods it relies on suddenly across foreign borders, and therefore more expensive to acquire. "

80% of our business is done with the USA. We are already seperate from the US as far as I am concren. Your logic do not hold the road. Conflicts and protections exist between provinces because the NAFTA does not cover it.

"the hydroelectric power generators at Niagara Falls) and Quebec's plans (as I've read them) would require the abrogation of Canada's treaties with the Cree Indians and provoke the wrath of international environmental groups. "

First of all, Niagara is in Ontario besides Buffalo. It has nothing to do with us. Second, It is very funny that you talk about it because, Québec and the Crees have officially signed YESTERDAY the treaty you talk about. :lol The treaty is called "La paix des braves". Very good news for us and for the natives.

"Also, nationalist governments tend to scare away tourists, which is a problem with tourism being Quebec's biggest industry currently."

Oh boy! You definitly don't know what is going here. The Québec is one of the most visited province in Canada. There is so many festivals in Montréal and its reputation is known around the world. Such as Jazz festival, Formula one racing (we recently got a championship of the Cart serie) and so on. The tourism industry never suffered from politics. Even in 1995, the year of the last referendum.

"the Gypsies just about everywhere - I think any of these minority groups would be very happy to have the status and condition Quebec "suffers" with in Canada."

We are no Gypsies! :crazyeyes Come visit us and you will see what is our society. It is not because we have a better status than the Hungarians of Italy that we will sit on our chair and wait into a golden prison. The issue is, we deserve a say into the constitution of our country. We will get it with or with the ROC(rest of Canada). That is as simple as this. It is because they do not want to understand that we will go by our own.

"but as far as I've seen, the PQ isn't capable of either of these conditions"

If you read crap, I can't help you?

By the way, it is true that several companies exile to Toronto but, it happened mostly after the first election of the PQ in 1976. Before and after the referendum of 1995, there was no big moves. The fear no longer works in Québec. This kind of witches chase is clearly not outdated. By the way, Toronto is sucking every business in Canada anyway and it makes all the regions upset. We are doing pretty good today and specially in the technology domain. Montréal is in the top 5 cities in america regarding the technology industry.

"And this is my major concern about Quebec independence; that it will result in a poor, embittered Quebec that is a source of crime, cross-border smuggling and internal persecution of its own minorities that will keep it fairly isolated on the world stage. It's not so much the principal of independence I fear as how it's achieved."

That is pure bigotery. None of what you are saying is realistic. It is clear that you don't know Québec, our society, our culture, our history, our model and so on. International persecution? Let me laugh! The English minority group here is one of the most well protected minority of the world. I'm telling you man! You are way off track. You are having a so bad and non realistic opinion of us that I don't know where to start. I this point, all I can say is come see us by yourself and you will see how wrong you are.

You have no idea of all the crap the federal gov't is doing in that country. Just few exemples... The budget of R&D (very big budget) goes like this, Ontario 50%, Québec 8%. R&D creates jobs and business, Ontario wins over every other provinces big time. Our Hydro developpment was funded only by our provincial gov't but, the Ontario Nuclear Plants are big time funded by the federal. Do I have to tell you that it is alot of money? This mean, we are paying for either OUR electricity and THEIR electricity. The list of theses crappy stuff is very long. Econnomically, I have no fear at all.

Do you know that Québec is not only one talking about separation? It is the most serious one but, western provinces are very unsatisfied with the actual system and they are English, not French.

Unfortunatly, I do not have alot of web site links in english... at least, I have these. If I find better stuff, I'll tell yeah but, meanwhile, you can come discuss with us at this board. There is one section reserved to the english visitors!
http://pub23.ezboard.com/bavenirquebec

some articles...

http://www.vigile.net/dossier-economie/1-12/Quebec-Region-State.doc

http://www.vigile.net/dossier-economie/1-12/lisee2001-a/index.htm

http://www.vigile.net/00-9/lisee-20.html

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Benz
Hurricane,

Excuse me guys but, two funny Quebec bashers will take my attention a bit. I'll come back with other questions later.

Again, I'm not a Quebec basher. If you need to find a pigeon hole, how about "seperatist basher"? Though I would prefer simply "someone with a different view that you".

Though, it's not as easy to get followers if you don't turn the rest of Canada into evil persecutors of all things good (meaning Quebec), right? Must be a membership drive going on now.

[First, it is not me that is saying "if you leave, we will break you in many pieces". It's other Quebecers. ]

Nope! They are mostly a very small group of fanatic anglophones funded by the federal gov't and called, Alliance-Quebec. You will never see a member of the Liberal party saying that he is in favor of splitting Québec in many pieces. If so, name me one of them! Just one name!

You forgot the Cree, right?

If this group is so small, then separatists have nothing to worry about then, right? Why are you so worried?

As for official party platforms, it would probably be best to wait until push comes to shove.

"The EU was a coming together of many disparate nations. What you're proposing is the alteration of an existing model. "

Big deal! So what? The model is bad! We prefer the EU model because it respects more the nations of this country. The problem is, you are deying the existence of these nations. How pathetic! And you think we will say "oh yeah! You right, I do not exist!"

Who's "you"? I'm not saying anything of the sort.

You seem to like inflamatory speech and lot's of arm waving, but the bottom line is the argument boils down to if you believe in treating everyone the same way, or making special exceptions.

"All the issues now faced by Quebec will still be there. Separation solves nothing, it only changes the arrangement of chairs at the table. "

Which ones? You are unable to talk about the issues. It is a "one way" discussion. No matter what I say, you come up with your redondant speech we ear for generations. SAY IT! I dare you to tell me that English and French are the same nation. Tell me that the English deserve to rule the constitution without a say from the French part.

Did you raise any issues? I've never seen you actually speak about issues. You've merely ranted about being treated like a dog. If you'd like to raise a specific issue, I'd be happy to discuss it.

Is this the separatist plan? Rant and rave to get what you want? I grant that it may work. It's worked in other places before. If so, just let us know and we won't waste time arguing any more.

In answer to your questions/dare: "English and French" are the same nation. The English do not deserve to "rule the constitution" and they do not. Quebec has the right to opt in or open negotiations at any time, on the understanding that this is not a discussion between two equal parties but between 10 equal partners.

"Why is Quebec indivisible, but Canada isn't? Perhaps there's some exclusion clause for Quebec in international law that no one but you knows about? "

Ask to these fanatics of Alliance Quebec. They suited us to the UN several times and they always lost. Québec and the others have created Canada, not the opposite. If Germany leaves the EU, do the EU can keep Berlin without the approval of Germany?

If the EU had granted Berlin to Germany after membership was granted then, yes, I think the EU might have a case.

I know it's a real stretch for you, but you might at least acknowledge that when Ungava, etc was added to Quebec's borders it wasn't with the intention of letting it leave Canada later on. When Quebec joined Canada, it didn't bring as much as the separatists are threatening to take away.

/bruce

 

[Adebisi]

edit