The Scotsman Abroad and the Quantum Vote

I had never got round to figuring out a postal vote here. The first UK General Election to be held since our move was 4 years in, and I tried to get a postal vote, but had left it too late. I didn't bother sending the forms away, as I thought the time limit to have a postal vote in the UK was 5 years after leaving, so that would have been my last chance.

I've never been allowed to vote in Scottish elections since leaving, as they count as local elections, and even though my last residence is in Edinburgh, overseas voters don't get to vorte in local elections. This was the same rule that was extended to the Referendum. In a way I can see the logic, and I have covered that in detail previously, so there's no gripe there.

However, I recently found out that the legal limit on voting from abroad is not 5 years after leaving the UK, but 15 years. I discovered this as the time limit to register for a postal vote approached repidly, so I faxed off my form on the last day of the deadline and squeaked in under the wire. I am now a registered postal voter in UK general elections, and I get a vote in the upcoming election on May the 7th, and will do so in the next one in 5 years time, then I'll be done! Unless of course there's another election in between, which is not to be ruled out with the currently predicted outcomes of the election.

So, I am on the list. However, when on the phone to a helpful person in Edinburgh about the best way to do things, she did warn me that the ballot would not be sent out till the 29th of April, and that it had to be back by the 8th by the close of the business day. Thankfully, the ballot did arrive quite quickly, on the 1st of May. I posted it off on Sunday, with the promise that it would go Monday morning, but that it would take 4-6 days to get there. Which brings us to the quantum part of the title. I have made a decision, and posted off my vote, but I will never know if it arrives in time to be counted. If my candidate of choice loses by 1 vote, then I can blame the postal system (or myself for not organising the postal ballot quicker), if they win, then I shall happily claim my part in that victory.

Some people may be a little miffed that I can vote in the UK, and yet have chosen not to live there, and indeed become a citizen of another country. They can then take solace in the fact that my vote will be unlikely to be counted. But otherwise they can quit their whinging. The law states I am able to participate in the democratic process in two countries. In fact, one of the main reasons for becoming a citizen is to be able to vote in the running of my chosen country of residence. I do also have a vested interest in the outcome of the UK general election, as a full citizen of that country too. Lucky me. This affords me a privilage, and it is one I intend to use to the fullest potential.

With the upcoming Canadian general election this October, this means I get to vote in two general elections this year. But Canadian politics, compared to the open book that exists in the UK right now, are really dull. Who could possibly blame me for wanting to take part in what I believe will be a rather historic election? I really believe, that whatever the outcome, there will be a big shake-up in how things are run over in the UK following this election, whether it's over the Scottish question, or electoral reform, and I have a vested interest in both those subjects. But I digress, that's leading off into a whole 'nother series of blog posts.

The Future of Democracy Part I: Archaic Democracy.

Yesterday morning, I clicked on a link on Facebook to this article. It's a joke article, and a really funny one, poking fun at the way religion can stick it's nose into policy based on science, but the other way around is just not done, at least in the UK. As with all good jokes, it works well because it contains more than a grain of truth.

Lords Spiritual

The thing about this article that stuck with me after the laughing had died down was that it included a wikipedia link to the Lords Spiritual. I must admit, that as much as I am against the House of Lords in principal, it is not something I have researched much, not know much about, so when I read that 26 of it's sitting and voting members are made up of Bishops of the Anglican Church, to say I was gobsmacked is an understatement. I find this fact abhorrent, and counter to all modern democratic principles, even more so that the existence of the House of Lords to begin with.

Okay, so they are only 3.3% of the voting members of the House, (there are a further 5 former Lords Spiritual, who still sit in the House, due to life peerages so really it's 3.9%) but that is not the point . These are men (Women can be anglican bishops, but since the first one was only ordained last month, none of those sitting are female) have not been elected by the public (as all Peers), they have a very definite bias towards religion, thereby denying the division between church and state that I believe should be the cornerstone of all progresive societies. Furthermore, they are all Anglican. For historical reasons, and reasons of established religion, only English Bishops can sit. There is no representation from Scotland (Scottish Bishops were excluded from the Scottish parliament in 1638), Wales (the Church of Wales split in 1920, and the Welsh Bishops lost their seats) or Ireland (dissestablished in 1871). Not to mention people of other faiths within England and the rest of the UK. Only 19.9% of the population of the UK consider themselves members of the Church of England. This is not what we could call an equal representation of constituent states, is it? Don't get me wrong, I don't think the answer would be to install Bishops, or Bishops equivalents from the other member countries of the UK, but to dissestablish the Anglican Bishops sitting now.

The coalition Government slated reform to reduce this number, but these reforms have been dropped, due to lack of Tory support for the bill. Quelle surprise!

Canada

Yes, the House of Lords is an aberration, and one that seems particular to the UK, but a lot of the faults it has are mirrored in the Canadian Senate, another unelected body of power, granted with different selection criterea, but un democratic all the same. Especially since the numbers of Senators per Province are grossly out of date. The second issue, for both upper houses, is that they perpetuate the two party system. This is less so the case in the UK, which has Lords from many (but not all) parties, but even there, there is an inbuilt bias towards the two party system that cannot be easily eradicated. In Canada, it is much worse, with only two of the countries parties having seats (No NDP, Bloc or Green Senators). Last year, all Liberal Senators were removed from the Liberal Party, making them nominal Independant mambers, but the reality is, it seems more a PR stunt than actually making the senators functionally independant.

Reform

Democratic reform, is not a luxury, it is a neccesity. These Houses of sober reflection are undemocratic, and extremely out of date. It is also debateable if they actually do work as brakes on the Houses of Commons, since they can be filled by the Government of the day with their own people, thereby allowing laws to be passed anyway. These systems are centuries out of date, and don't fulfil the role intended of them, and in fact hinder modern democratic processes and full representation of the citizens of these countries. Is it no wonder then, that people are disengaging from politics under these systems, and are actively searching for alternatives?

I had intended to go on to look at some exciting developments and alternative democratic procedures, but I have ranted on for far too long, so that must now become a second post.

Edit:
Seems, the number of members is going up, at an astounding rate!

King Edward I presiding over his Parliament c.1300. The Lords Spiritual are assembled on the left (bishops and abbots dressed in red, priors in black) with Lords Temporal on the right. - See more at: http://holyredundant.org.uk/2012/06/26/test/edward-i-c-1300/#sthash.7TvRBdnj.dpuf

King Edward I presiding over his Parliament c.1300. The Lords Spiritual are assembled on the left (bishops and abbots dressed in red, priors in black) with Lords Temporal on the right. - See more at: http://holyredundant.org.uk/2012/06/26/test/edward-i-c-1300/#sthash.7TvRBdnj.dpuf

King Edward I presiding over his Parliament c.1300. The Lords Spiritual are assembled on the left (bishops and abbots dressed in red, priors in black) with Lords Temporal on the right. - See more at: http://holyredundant.org.uk/2012/06/26/test/edward-i-c-1300/#sthash.7TvRBdnj.dpuf

Ok, no, after this, I'll be done

One last post on the subject, then I promise it'll be back to pictures of the kids and other holiday snaps. Promise. I just need a good rant to clear my system.

I couldn't vote in the referendum. I'm good with that, it was part of what I loved about the campaign to build a better Scotland, not an ethnically pure Scotland. All good.

However, just because I moved to Canada, don't tell me shut up about it. Either because I say before hand what I would like to happen, or because I complain about the result because I don't like it. I care what happens there. I am invested in the outcome, and I can be disappointed if it doesn't turn out the way I had hoped. The process involved me, and motivated me, as it did many others in a way that other political processes have not, even without the additional factor of journalists asking what I thought. I don't deny I enjoyed that aspect, and it was an excellent experience for me, it did further sharpen my thoughts on the matter, and made me educate myself on what my opinion really was.

Do not belittle outsiders points of view. Sometimes you have to step away to get another perspective, or as the Bard put it:

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us

Every family in Scotland, for every generation, going back about, oh, I don't know, 300 years or so, has had someone, or even multiple family members that have left, to find a better life. Be that to North America, Australasia, or even if it's just down to England. Why did they leave again? To find a better life. My own father said to me, when I first told him of plans to come to Canada, that "there's nothing for you here". He himself had contemplated emigration to Australia when a young man. It's such a recurring trend, we have a whole genre of songs based upon it. Right now, there are over 1 million Scots, who were born in Scotland, that live elsewhere. 20% of the population has left. And that doesn't even cover those with Scottish parents, or ancestry. That is a larger percentage of the population than even New Zealand (14%), who are famous for leaving their islands.

Historically, these Scots emigrants went on to build things. Within the British Empire, yes I get that, but under that construct those that left flourished, an those that stayed, well, they just kept leaving. The emigrant Scots helped to build places like Canada, and New Zealand and the USA. Scottish thinkers, Scottish workers and Scottish philosophy perfused these places to make them what they are today. Of course, they did not do this alone, no man is an island, and no culture remains uninfluenced by those that surround it, but the roots are there.

So, all these Scots had to leave, to find something better, then when they got there, they built something better for themselves. My question is, why did they have to leave at all? If they had the will and the know how to make things the way they wanted, why did they have to leave to do it?

Yesterday, Scotland had a chance to change this trend. To put a cap on those that had to leave to find better, by building that better place underneath them, instead of having to run away to foreign climes to be able to do things their way. Not only to put a cap on emigration, but to maybe even reverse the trend. To have those Scots who left to come back, and of course, to welcome those from other countries who liked what they saw and want to stay. They had a chance to take control of their own destiny, and build a better Scotland based on social justice, and representative democracy. That didn't happen. Scots are just going to keep on leaving, and before you ask them to come back, ask the question, is there anything there for them?

Civic versus Cultural Nationalism

This one is coming back to haunt me. In an opinion piece in La Presse, (article in French, but Google translate gives a decent approximation in English) I was misquoted by a journalist who heard my interview second hand, then went off on a tangent. I really shouldn't let this bother me, but it does. So, here is my response. An open letter to Pierre Foglia.

M. Foglia, 

In your recent article for La Presse, you used some of the interview I gave to La Presse to another journalist (that was not used in the original article) and somewhat twisted my words. I have read your article, and I understand it, but my lack of French fluency means I am left a little unsure as to the exact tone of the article. I'm sure there is an attempt at humour there, but to what end? Of course, I am not named in the article, but if you have read the original article, it is plain you are talking about me, as I am the only pro-Scottish independence voice in that article.

My reference to the SNP following a civic nationalist model, and the PQ a cultural one, has been interpreted by you as me saying that the Quebecois are not civil. These are technical terms for the types on nationalism that exist in political science, not a statement on the personalities of the nations involved. I won't spell them out here, that's what Google is for. You have taken my words, but not their intended meaning. A wilful mistranslation if you like. I can see how what I said may be construed as an attack on the people of Quebec, but only if they are feeling defensive because maybe, just maybe there is something to the point I was trying to make that is not what you want to hear. I will not defend myself for things I did not say, or inferences taken from a second hand conversation. But I will expand upon what I see as the differences between the two movements and how they relate to the two nations.

The thrust of your article is talking about la Charte, which that the last PQ provincial government tried to pass which was to my mind misguided at best, and downright racist at worst. If it was not the intention of the amendment to be directly racist, it certainly allowed those of the population who were already prejudiced to openly display such feeling towards specifically the Muslim population of Quebec. Indeed the first part of your article is basically defending the right of an old man to be racist towards a Muslim nurse, because he does this in his own home. What right does the said nurse have to leave the old man to wait for another nurse to come because she feels threatened? And anyway she probably "exaggerated her discomfort". To my mind that's not only racist, but misogynistic. Whatever that is, it is not civil.

Please understand, I do not believe the people of Quebec to be racist. I think Montreal is a beacon of multiculturalism. I don't think I personally have spoken to one person here that was for these aspects of the charter. A great number of Montreal institutions came out in public saying they would not enforce it. Indeed it is cited as one of the reasons the PQ lost the last election. This shows the cultural policies of the PQ do not rest easy with a great many of the population of the nation.

The Language laws in Quebec are another a bone of contention for many, and at the heart of the cultural nationalism policy of the PQ. This is a complex subject, and not one I am going to weigh into here in depth. I see benefits to it, indeed, the fact that both of my daughters will be completely bilingual is down to the heavily subsidised french daycare and school systems, brought into place by the PQ. There is no denying this (although the sustainability of such a system is of current debate). I do feel though, that a policy of monolingualism is of great detriment to the francophone population. They are the ones that lose out, as the last PQ government cut spending on English language programs to Quebec schools. Montreal specifically is uniquely placed to have a bilingual population, drawing on both sides of the language divide to create something bigger. If you want to be an independent player on the world stage, especially one on the North American continent, which is massively monolingual anglophone, insularism, protectionism and exclusionism are not the way to go. You want to trade with the RoC or USA, that trade is going to be done in English whether you want it be or not. This does not preclude everyone here speaking French too, why should it? You are aware that people are able to speak multiple languages, yes? In fact, there is scientific research that shows this to be beneficial both to the individual, and to the society at large.

One culture does not have to extinguish all others to survive, that's not how these things work. That is not a model upon which to build a tolerant society. This is the opposite of the ideals that Canada was founded upon. Oh, wait, you want to leave that all behind don't you. Ok, scratch that last comment!

On the civic side, there is this. This is not the SNP, this is some of the many grassroots groups that are working for a Yes vote to build the society they want to live in. I do not say Quebec cannot do this. In fact these kinds of groups may already exist in Quebec, it's just that they have no voice.

I did not say Quebec is a "shitty racist country" to live in. I live here. I choose to live here. I love my life here. Why would I stay if this was the case? But am I aware of those that do not want me to stay here? Yes, they exist too.

Self determination and greater representation are the goals of the Scottish referendum that draw me to the side of the Yes voter. This means all members of the population will have representation equal to their place in society. This is the utopian goal that is spreading hope amongst voters in Scotland. This is the reason I would vote yes. Not because Scotland is a "beautiful civil country" to live in (it can be, but is not always), but because it is trying to do something different from what has gone before. It is evolving.

M. Folglia, I have not met you, nor you me. Please do not put words into my mouth. Please look into yourself and try to see why what I said that has put you on the defensive. What is is about what I said that you are afraid of? Do my words reveal a truth about yourself or your politics that makes you uncomfortable?

Or are you just a grumpy old man?

un Écossais d'ici.

So, from now on, I speak very carefully of the differences between Scotland and Quebec in interviews, it seems they can get quite touchy on the subject. However, I do not believe I am wrong, And it's not just the Scots saying it.

Scottish Referendum on Independence

Scottish Referendum

On the 18th of September, in less than two weeks, the people of Scotland will vote on what will be the largest decision affecting the future of the country since the Act of Union in 1707. Fortunately for the people of Scotland, this will not be a decision made by a few lords hiding from the crowds in an Edinburgh pub, but will follow on from over two years of informed debate amongst the populous of Scotland and indeed the UK, as it should be. For me, this is an issue I feel strongly about. So much so that I felt compelled to write this essay (is it a yessay?) before that referendum, to help to express my feeling on the subject, as they have no other out for one simple reason.

I cannot vote.

This is not a surprise to me, as I have known from the start I could not, and would be unlikely to allowed to, as to call upon the whole of the Scottish diaspora to vote would be both impossible to manage, and indeed unfair to the actual residents of the country. However,

If I could vote, I would vote Yes.

Why would I vote Yes? Well, at the start of the debate I was torn. My heart said yes, but my head said no. However, the more I have listened to the debate, and read on the subject, the more I have come to realise that my head was just scared of change. There is nothing to be gained by the status quo, and I find myself increasingly at odds with the way current western democracies in general are run. It could be said that as a child of Thatcher, I am just provoked to a knee-jerk reaction to a Tory Government in Westminster and indeed there may be a case to be made for that, but I like to feel that I have grown past, and can see beyond that particular chip on my shoulder.

I have come to embrace the fact, that all democracies should drop the un-representative first past the post system, and adopt some kind of proportional representation (PR). Since I have resumed voting, now that I an a citizen of this fair country (Canada), I have been made further aware of the inequalities and inadequacies of this system, and see voting reform as the only just way forward.

How is it possible then that an independent Scotland will go forward under this kind of system when most western democracies fight it tooth and nail? Well, simply put, because it's already in place. The cynic in me suggests that this is the case to limit the powers and strength of a Scottish parliament, but it works. Far from giving what are deemed to be weak/hung parliaments run by coalitions, the last election gave the SNP a strong majority (hence the referendum, meanwhile Westminster currently ticks by on a Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition, go figure). But perceived weak governments aside, this kind of governmental reform is completely necessary in Scotland, and I would argue, in the UK and Canada too (anywhere really, but those are the ones I feel passionately about). Indeed coalition parliaments are better for the people, as they provoke debate and compromise. Two things which I feel would benefit any country's democratic process. There is a nice little summary of the possibilities present here on the National Collective site. Of course, the UK had the option to change the electoral system, but botched it, as neither of the big two parties actually want change.

This increased democratic representation, coupled with the left-leaning politics on the whole of the Scottish political parties, will, I believe, lead to an improvement in social justice across the board.

I have been warned that an independent Scotland will not be the Socialist utopia I may believe it will become. I think this is fair. Scotland in general may be left leaning, but there are other factors that need to be considered. All in all, I think it could only be better for Scotland, as improved representation is the only fair policy for people of all political leanings. It means too a greater voice for Scottish Tories, and not a Labour stampede riding rough-shod over the will of the people. Furthermore, it will open the doors to smaller parties and the concerns of people of all political leanings to have their voices heard.

But why stop at voting reform? The possibilities for a new Scotland are only limited by our imaginations. In the modern age, who would write the Scottish constitution, after all, the Declaration of Arbroath may be stirring stuff, but it's a little out dated. In the age of crowd sourcing and with a smaller population to deal with, there are other new ways to do these things, as Iceland has shown. A Scottish constitution, for the people, actually written by the people. Mind. Blown.

 

Comparisons to Quebec

As a Scot in Quebec, there is always the question as to how I feel about Quebec's independence from the rest of Canada. Indeed, even from my first visit here, I have been made aware of a feeling of kindred spirit between Quebecers and Scots. With the referendum approaching, it is a question I am asked almost daily.

Indeed, there are many historical similarities. And both nations are left-leaning societies, with many cultural values in common. There are also many parallels to be drawn between the two states in the rise of Nationalism in the 1970s.

With this in mind, it is no great surprise that journalists from both sides of the Atlantic are looking to get the perspectives of Scots in Quebec on the subject. I have been lucky enough to be contacted by two journalists to talk on the subject. One from the Glasgow Herald, who was in town to write for this feature, and one from La Presse, a local paper looking for the perspective of Scots in Montreal, before going over to cover the referendum from Scotland and report back. For the Herald piece, my take wasn't used for the final story. Initially I was a little disappointed with this, but then, I doubt I was adding much. For the article for La Presse, we all got our say, and although the report covers only parts of the whole conversation, I think it was pretty comprehensive of the feelings of the four members of the discussion. The full article is posted here. I was also contacted for by Radio Canada, but didn't get the message till after the event, stupid phone.

What was interesting was that of the Scots in Montreal interviewed for both articles, 9 in total, I was the only one who came out as yes. So maybe it's a good thing the ex-pats don't get to vote!

However, when asked if I would vote yes in a referendum for Quebec independence, I must say, as things currently stand, I would vote no.

The one main difference in my eyes between the PQ and the SNP, and here I switch to talking about parties rather than the case for each nation, as I believe the differences between the policies of these two parties to lie at the heart of my reasoning, and the policies of the main independence party in each nation would shape the future independent country that could or would be formed if independence was gained. The key difference in my mind between the two outlooks is the difference between Civic Nationalism, and Cultural Nationalism. The former to my mind is the right way to go about things. If you want to start a new country, you want to make it one that others would want to come to. You want it to be a place that is inclusive, and any decision to be made on the question of Independence is one that affects all the people living within it's borders, therefore any Nationalist movement that should be inclusive of all these people. Cultural nationalism is the kind of nationalism that is put forward by the PQ (I stress the PQ here, as there are other parties that promote civic nationalism here in Quebec, but they are small, and rather outside the main debate). Quebec for the Quebecois is the way they look at it, and the debate here revolves around one issue, that of the French language and cultural supremacy. To me, this is extremely narrow minded, and does not represent me, or indeed a large portion of the population of Montreal (if not Quebec). here we are more enraged over whether the word pasta is acceptable on the menu of an Italian restaurant, as it is not a French word, than we are over for example, the economic capabilities of the province, and what currency an independent Quebec could use. This is light-years behind, to my mind, what should be being debated. Quebec nationalism seems to be where Scottish nationalism was back in the 1970s, all heart and no substance. However, where the Scottish nationalism debate has evolved, Quebec nationalism has stagnated. To the point where the question here is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

That is not to say that Scotland is free from the down sides of cultural nationalism. I am not naive to the existence of racism, anti-English sentiment and ingrained bigotry that exist. I grew up on the West Coast, where the bigotry is so ingrained as to be omnipresent. However it is not the policy of any of the political parties of the country to be exclusionist (UKIP and Daily Mail readers aside). I love Montreal, and Quebec, but I will never be accepted as a Quebecois, no matter how long I stay here (Montrealer, maybe).

No, if anything, the case could be made that the model of Scottish independence is not Quebec, but that it is that of Canada itself.


One direct comparison that can be made between the two places is that the youth of both Scotland and Quebec have less interest in Independence. The Quebecers were polled after the latest and rather decisive defeat of the PQ in the provincial elections, revealing that the the 18-24 year olds here were not keen on sovereignty as a policy, and were unlikely to vote for the PQ. Leading to the moniker "the No generation". It seems that back in Scotland, the dropping of the voting age from 18 to 16, which may have been seen as a ploy to get more votes for the Yes campaign, seems to have had the opposite effect, with the youth vote considerably more No than other sections of voters (at least at the start, I don't know how this has changed nearer to the vote taking place). Does that mean the defeat of the PQ in the last election was the last chance for Quebec independence, indeed, is this the last time Scotland will get to vote on the issue, as the next generation will be of a mind that none of it matters, and boundaries are irrelevant in the Internet age? I would hope not, but it may be the case.

 

Summary

To me, the overriding reason I would vote yes is hope. Hope that Scotland can go forward from here with her head held high, promoting social justice, and following more closely the will of the people more than any Westminster government is actually able to do, never mind whether or not it has the will to. How hopeful will I be in two weeks time? That remains to be seen.

So that's where I stand. But I'll leave you with this one thought, if you are still on the fence, and are looking for one reason to tip you over into voting yes, consider this...

...Scotland's entry into Eurovision 2015, the Proclaimers.

N.B.
To inform yourself of the question and the decision to be made, there is this document released by the David Hume Institute.  
For an article discussing the similarities and differences between Scotland and Quebec, go here. I have yet to find the full article, but the intro is interesting. 
For the actual relationship between Scotland and Quebec during the referendum, this article dates from before the PQ collapse, but is quite telling.

The Town of Quebeck in New-France

We took a bit of a last minute decision to go and visit Quebec City this week, so I went and looked out the travel books I have for the city:

The first of these dates back to my original trip to this Belle Province, and is well thumbed, if not out of date (not that the museums or fortresses have moved much since 2000). I'll stick them both in my bag to take with me, but even though I have just finished my last book, I doubt I'll actually get through reading HPL's travelogue of Quebec City, which is apparently the longest written work he ever produced, and the trip to Quebec was the only time he ever came to Canada, but it's heavy going by today's standards (Rough Guide it ain't). However, there are some nice little observations in there, and some great drawings the man himself drew to accompany the work, so I will at least skim through it, and compare my trip to his (not that he went to the aquarium, which is his loss really)

I'm a Canadian, eh!

We took the final step in becoming Canadian Citizens this week, and went along to our Citizenship Ceremony, where we swore allegiance to the Queen (in both languages) and sung O'Canada (in either language). So that's it, we're Canadian now, just like the girls.

One wrinkle that we didn't quite foresee was that they took our permanent resident cards off us at the door, so we're stuck here. "That's it, you're citizens, now you stay here!" This means we will have to get our passports sooner rather than later, as we can leave on our UK passports, but have no formal proof that'll let us back in the country on anything other than a visitors visa. They do give us a lovely Citizenship Certificate, but it's not a travel document.

We should also be on the voting register just in time for the upcoming provincial elections.

So that's it, we can now stay as long as we like, or indeed up and leave, but return when we wish. Nice.

Photos Of Montreal Embody The Essence Of The City

K has an eagle eye, and spotted me and the girls in one of these pics by photographer Sylvain Quidot.

Summer Camp

As a kid in the UK, I was fully aware of the American phenomenon that is summer camp. Through the media as well as knowing it as something my Canadian cousins did. I wrongly assumed it to be a form of boarding camp where children were sent so spend their summers away from their family, evacuee style. Probably in the back-woods. Kind of what Boy's Brigade camp but for longer, and with bears.  

Needless to say, as a kid, I was abhorred that North American parents felt so little for their kids that they would thoughtlessly send them away for the whole summer!

Skip forward a few years, and I'm a parent in North America, faced with a kid starting school, and therefore having her first summer holiday. Summer holidays are looooong. We only have so many holidays we can take. Enter the Summer Camp. Day camp of course which was obviously the same kind of camp that the bulk of kids were going to, including my cousins, back in the day, when I had falsely assumed they were being carted away to boarding camp for months on end. Far from it. In fact, if I had access to something like this as a kid, I would have loved it, and so far LP does too.

She's being exposed to new sports (tennis and basketball so far) as well as swimming and doing art and drama (learning songs) every day, some of her favourite things to do. Every day I go to pick her up, she's excited to tell me what she's been doing, and her swimming seems to be advancing at a great rate.

If there's a downside, it's that the camp is anglophone. Don't get me wrong, it's great that she's being exposed to an anglo environment that is not her closest family and friends, but she's coming home with this funny accent. Ts are being dropped all over the place, especially in water and mosquito, and there us upspeak! I don't know which is worse, this, or the fact she's learning all the words and the moves to One Direction songs (which she is teaching to her little sister)! The Horror!

Festive update

The last few months have been rather hectic, and vacation free, so I was sorely in need of some time off come the Christmas break. We've managed to squeeze a lot into the time off, considering we've been dealing with gastro, and record breaking blizzards (45.6 cm in the city a record for snowfall in one day). All I can say is now that winter is here in earnest, my snowboard is primed and ready, although there has been a bit of a thaw the last day or two.

A video of Montreal after the snow storm here.

All this meant LP and I made a lazy igloo in the garden by blocking up the windows of the play house.

As always, pics under the cut. Click them to enlarge.

St Jean-Baptiste Camping weekend I: Wood-Peppers and Bleeches

The weekend before last was St Jean-Baptiste weekend, or Quebec's national holiday. K found a great way for us to go camping. It's called Huttopia, and it's basically pre-pitched tents. We went along to the site at Parc National de Plaisance, on the Ottawa river.  It was tremendous fun, the girls loved every minute, as did K and I. Definitely something we'll look into doing again.

The park is situated on a bunch of little islands, which is great for going on boats, wandering round the march, seeing beavers (although we missed them) and playing in the water. The only down side was the mosquitoes, although all our bites seem to be healed now.

I was rather thankful we got to see as much wildlife as we did. After multiple visits to zoos and nature centres, where you get to see all the animals all the time, I was a little worried it would be an anticlimax in terms of the number of animals we saw. As it turned out, there was no worry, as the park was rife with marmots (which both girls tried to sneak up on at different times). Some woodpeckers (or as LP called them, wood peppers) decided to peck on a tree just outside our tent, and we saw planty of other bird life. And during our walk in the marshes we saw frogs galore, some fish, and a turtle.

Pics after the cut, as always, click to enbiggen.