Cultural Vs Civic Nationalism: It's not that simple

Emmigrant Brits and their numbers:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/so-many-brits-now-live-abroad-that-theyre-causing-immigration-debates-oh-the-irony-a6723006.html

The Rise of English Nationalism, and the schadenfreude in watching them sleepwalk into independence
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/18/england-eu-referendum-brexit

Rise of Racism:
http://robertsomynne.blogspot.ca/2016/06/the-whistle-and-dogs-when-being-racist.html?m=1s

Comparison to the IndyRef in the Herald:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14569205.Iain_Macwhirter__Nicola_Sturgeon__Nigel_Farage_and_two_very_different_kinds_of_nationalism/

#Indyref2

After the flurry of posts back in 2014, I have been so far silent on the subject of the second independence referendum, and indeed the Brexit fallout. There are a few reasons for this, but I think for the moment, this article sums up my thoughts on the matter of the second referendum.

EU Referendum, another TV appearance

Last Wednesday, I was asked again to speak to a CBC journalist, on the EU referendum, I did so, but in the end, they didn't use so much of what I said. I'm okay with this, as last week, this was not something I had much to say on. I mean I had my reasons for voting the way I did, but they were pretty uninteresting I thought.

The report can still be seen here.

So I gave this interview, then we went off down to New York for a long weekend (but that's for another post) so didn't have time to post this here. I was also asked to do an early morning thing somewhere for the morning after, but since we were in NY, I declined.  I also figured, that'd, pretty much be the ed of it, as I thought the British people too conservative to change, so figured it may be close, but in the end, nothing would change. Ok, so maybe I was wrong in that assumption. Maybe a little.

It seems that, yes indeed as I suggested, there was a difference in how Scotland and England voted, and that is having huge repercussions. It may be too close to the actual event to make a diagnosis or  dissection of what happened (although this article probably nails it pretty close), this is something we will be debating for years, but we are certainly living in interesting times!

I will leave you with one more link, to a friend of mine who voted leave, and not for the reasons that we are hearing from the UKIP side of the debate.  I think it is important to read this post on his reasoning, so that we can move forward in this mew world order.

The only thing I would like to add, is that as a scientist, if I ever tried to publish 49.1% and 51.9% as a significant result, I would be given my head to play with!

Differences between the Scottish and English in terms of the EU Referendum, An Ex-Pat's Perspective

I'm not one for using this space as a link-dump, but I think this is the best place for me to post this link, as I'm steering away from talking bout the EU referendum on other social media sites, for various reasons, some previously mentioned.

One point that keeps coming up is how Scotland (and Northern Ireland, maybe not so much Wales, but certainly Gibraltar) may vote differently than England in this upcoming referendum. I read this article on the differences between Scotland and England in terms of how they are approaching the EU referendum, and I think the article hits many points squarely on the head.

I think the first point is particularly on point:

For most Scots, being Scottish and British is, to use an old analogy, a bit like Russian dolls. One can sit comfortably inside the other, without any conflict. That means it’s easy enough to add another one – European – on top...

English people essentially see the two as synonymous, as two sides of the same coin, with Englishness facing in and Britishness facing out. Adding the ‘European’ identity to that feels like an imposition. 

I see this attitude even here. The Ex-Pat community may not be the best reflection of British society, but English and British being synonyms is a very common attitude amongst certain (but not all) of the English Ex-Pats I know. As much as I don't necessarily identify as British a lot of the time, that does rankle. Those who have a stronger regional identity, either Scots, (Norn) Irish or otherwise tend to be able to slot these identities together more smoothly. They are more capable to live with multifaceted national identities. How this affects adding Canadian identity to those who take the route of citizenship is something I haven't really looked at, but would be interesting to think about.

In a related point, the interview for ICI Radio-Canada I mentioned in my last post contained only the viewpoints of Scots in Montreal. Some of these Scots certainly consider themselves more British than maybe I do, but the journalist was having a hard time tracking down other viewpoints. She was pointed towards the facebook group for Brits in the city, but she was refused access, as she wasn't British. As a curator of other facebook groups, I certainly see the logic in this decision, but I do also see the irony in the outcome. She also had difficulty finding people to talk from a leave perspective, but I think that is not such a great shock in the Ex-Pat community, a we all may have a more global perspective than those who have not lived abroad (I generalise, of course).

EU Referendum

I have a vote in the upcoming EU referendum in the UK, but this vote leaves me with a dilemma. During the IndyRef, I may have wanted to vote, but I understood there were reasons why I should not. Mostly because I had chosen to leave the country, and this meant I didn't have the right to decide what people who were resident there should do. This reasoning goes hand in hand with the fact that non-UK citizens who were resident in Scotland at the time got to vote. What is  also different is that EU citizens resident in the UK won't necessarily get to vote either:

British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens who live in the UK, along with Britons who have lived abroad for less than 15 years, are eligible to vote.

Commonwealth migrants from 54 states - including ­Australia, Canada, India, Pakistan and Nigeria - can join the electoral roll as long are they are residents in the UK.
Unlike the general election, Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar are also eligible to vote in the EU referendum.

Citizens from other European countries - apart from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus - will not get a vote on whether the UK remains part of the EU.Malta and Cyprus are both Commonwealth countries. Source.

That Canadians resident in the UK get to vote where French or German residents in the UK do not, I find to be off. There may be cynics out there who suggest this is all to the good for getting the result that those in power want, but since those in power (i.e. the Tory party), are split on the matter, I,m not sure that's quite right. I would be interested to know if there was any precedence for Commonwealth citizens having the right to vote in these kinds of thing, or if it was just a way to include Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus, who the vote does directly affect.

This time round, I do get to vote. However, the same reasoning that I accepted the last referendum should surely stand, to do otherwise would be hypocritical, no? However, I balance this with the fact that in all my adult life, I have never failed to vote when I am allowed to. I did miss one general election in the UK that I could have voted in after I moved here, as I wasn't sure of the rules, and didn't get my postal vote sorted in time, but that is the only exception, and I now have my postal vote registered.

What is furthering my dilemma, is that I am not entirely sure I want to vote for either option. Let me be straight, I think the UK should stay in the EU. This is not a change in my position from the IndyRef either, as I thought then the best option for Scotland was to remain in the EU after independence, so I am not flip-flopping. What I mean is that I don't know that I want my vote to count as a vote for either side of the internal Tory party debate that is the root of this referendum. I don't want David Cameron to stand up at the end of the vote and say "all these people who voted stay think I'm right!" That is certainly not the case. I am also not saying the EU is politically perfect, but I don't think you can improve things in the EU by stepping back and leaving all the good parts aside.

The last point that crossed my mind was that if the UK votes to leave, but the majority of people living in Scotland vote to stay, it could be taken by some as impetus for Scotland to gain her independence. This has already been mooted in some circles as enough of a reason for another IndyRef. I think this is a bit of a stretch, but obviously I wouldn't say no if it happened. However, the difference between the Scottish (or Welsh) votes and the rUK votes would have to be significant which I don't think it will be, and my vote would be counted in Edinburgh. So if I voted to leave, it would be a vote to leave registered in Scotland, so would indeed count against the reason for voting to leave! So, no, that won't work!


This video by Caitlin Moran nicely sums up what I was thinking on this subject, even points I hadn't realised I was thinking, and is much more concise.

Fuck David Cameron. I will vote, but I'd rather be playing swing-ball!

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 II: Crowd Sourcing Democracy

In my last post, I ranted on about the Upper Houses of the U.K. and Canada, and how they were out of touch with Modern Democracy, unrepresentative, and upholding the status quo of the two party system.

In a previous post on the Scottish referendum,  I touched upon another fact, that the people of Scotland, as well as Scots abroad were invigorated by the referendum. Excited to be part of the process, and the ability to take part and be involved.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/01/24/i-want-what-you-want/

Iceland
http://nationalcollective.com/2014/07/31/crowdsourcing-democracy-who-will-write-scotlands-constitution/

Of course, Iceland has a very small population, which allows for greater buy-in to the political process, but with the internet age, there is no need for anyone to feel their vote does not count, as everything is up in the air in terms of what your vote actually means and counts towards. I am a supporter/follower of various ellectoral reform movements here in Canada and in the UK, but what they are pushing for in the main, has already been turned down by the electorate of the UK, and is not too high on the agenda here in Canada (although with the NDP being in opposition, at least it makes the papers sometimes). I feel that the move to various other voting systems is not going far enough. We are in a new era, and this requires that we keep up with the times...

One way that we can look to this, is Democracy OS.

http://www.ted.com/talks/pia_mancini_how_to_upgrade_democracy_for_the_internet_era


The downside? Well, we'd be giving the power more directly to the majority of the people, and as we see time and time again, People are stupid!

Also, there would be a more direct effect of media bias upon the voting public. Now, the mwdia can hold away over which part the population vote for to some extent, but under a system like this, every issue would be under the sway of the talking heads of convential media outlets, and we all know they are not an un-bias source of information.

Another point to keep in mind is that this relies on a degree of computer literacy, and access, which would, at the moment, limit the ability of some sectors of the public to vote. This is not a small issue, but it is one that will diminish with time.

But then I'm not saying it'd be a perfect system , nor one free from corruption, just a hell of a lot better than the one we have now, and it is what people are looking for, as across the globe, we see dissatisfaction with the status quo.

This year is an election year, both in the UK, and here in Canada.

I am now looking at how I can use this idea fully, by first looking to see if I can use it for any voting that we do in out local Trade Union. There's no reason why it should not be transposable to a smaller voting population afterall, and the more exposure these systems have to the public, and vice versa, the better they become.


This is not the only group to have come up with this idea, it is not new. A quick google search will provide a dozen other alternatives, but it is the future, and the sooner we get on board with this, the sooner we will have the democracy we deserve.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/02/a-different-cluetrain.html

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

Scotland bottles it. Shocker.

The title of this post is  a post I made on facebook last night, after coming home from the pub. I may have put a few hackles up with what is possibly an inflamatory and condescending comment, especially since I have chosen not to live in that country. I stand by my statement.

I have tried to put the sentiment into clearer, more verbose English, and even tried to translate it into French, so I can convey that sentiment to those here in Quebec who ask how I feel this morning, but I just can't. There is a subtlety and depth the the phrase "bottling it" that is beyond my skills to translate. It is a uniquely Scottish phrase, for what is an apparently in-built and unavoidable part of the Scottish psyche.

Anyway, enough wallowing. The people of Scotland have decided, by a whopping 10% margin. Onwards.

Last night, a few of the members of our meetup group, and other Scots got together in a local bar, and were joined by journalists from the Gazette, le Devoir and CBC. And with that, the spotlight leaves Scotland to muddle through as best it can, and the Scots in Montreal fade back into the background.

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.

Faut pas croire tout ce qu'on dit!

As the campaigning for the referendum enters it's last week, the journalists here in Montreal are looking for Scots on both sides of the debate to pull into their newspaper articles and onto their radio shows to speak up on what they think. Fully with the  slant of how it reflects on the situation here of course, as that's what their audience rightly wants to know.

To this end, I was contacted by a researcher for a show on Radio Canada Premiere, the French language station for Radio Canada here in Montreal, to see if I would like to speak with them. They contacted and asked K first, but she politely declined and gave them my name. Media whore that I seem to have become, I said yes.

The show was this afternoon. It was really very interesting being  in the radio studio. I was nervous about it for sure, all morning, but once there, I was put at ease by the broadcasters and other guests, and had no issues during the show. The full audio of the show can be found here. It's 50 minutes long, and I think I say about 3 sentences in that whole time. The show is set up as a forum for debate, but I think they invited at least one too many speakers on the show, (the last guy in Sweden could have easily been cut with no detriment to the show IMHO). Maybe they overbooked as they weren't sure they would get everyone on the day. So, as a debate on Independence, not great, as a life experience, going on the radio in French, way cool!

I have another invite for Monday morning (at 6.40am), but this one in in English, if but for only 20 minutes, maybe less, debating with another Scot in Montreal from the no side. I have not met this gentleman yet, so don't know what to expect. James, the Scot who was on the show today speaking for the No, is of course a friend, and we interviewed together for the La Presse article, so I knew his thoughts on the matter before going on.

Effects of the Scottish Referendum on Quebec

As things move into the final week, we are seeing more and more of the effect of the Scottish Referendum here in Quebec. Indeed, as the whole world media has turned it's attention onto the country, this is no surprise at all.

One side of the debate, the UKIP of Quebec politics, Option Nationale, has released this nasty little video:

Excuse me while I go throw up.

What an odious message. As a Scot in Montreal, this is tantamount to telling me to f**k off back to where I came from and leave Quebec to the Quebecois. Like I said, think Nigel Farrage with a more modern suit and you have Sol Zanetti. The fact is that Quebec gains more from the Federation of Canada than it gives. Whether it could go it alone is much more in debate than it is in Scotland where both sides agree that Scotland is not "too wee and too stupid" to go it alone, that myth was dispersed early on in the campaign. As to the education debate in Quebec, language divisions are at the heart of the problems here, and that's not a federal issue, that's a home made problem. Also, the Scots who "conquered Quebec for the English" were also the ones who turned Montreal into an economic powerhouse, unrivaled in wealth and power in North America, which continued to be the case, right up to the 1950s, when they were made to feel unwanted here, and left to make Toronto the economic centre of Canada. Oh, and we gave you McGill University and numerous other internationally renowned institutions that still exist today. But you're right, maybe we should stick to our own battles, and mind our own business. Yeah, we'll just leave you to it. Jerk. /rant.

Funnily enough, the founding member of the the Option Nationale has been paying attention to what is going on in Scotland, at the grass roots level, and has been speaking out about what the PQ need to do to follow Scotlands lead. It may be no surprise, that this ex-PQ member is living in London, and is therefore getting more coverage of what is actually happening. He at least sees that proportional representation and engaging with the people is the real outcome of the IndyRef debate.

Commitment to reform of the voting system to add an element of proportionality. Because the current system does not respect the popular vote in the allocation of seats. One day we must worry about getting a basic democratic principle like representation, before hateful benefit from an alternative that has too stifled imagination, hijacked the pursuit of collective interest and neutralized political renewal. (translated by Google translate and me from the original).

There seems to be a dichotomy in what these two members of the ON are saying, and indeed, before I started this post, I was convinced that they were firmly on the extreme of the cultural nationalist side, and indeed the threats to Scots to mind their own business seems to back this up, however, it seems that Jean-Martin Aussant is on the other side of the scale. Indeed, he turned down membership to another party because:

...he disagreed with the party's position on reducing immigration, as well as the view of the party that the 1995 referendum was lost because of "anglophone and ethnic votes". Source 1 and 2.

That sounds more civic than cultural to me. So Zanetti, what's wrong with you?

Either way, Quebec has to look past the nationalist bullsh*t, and into the heart of why the Yes campaign is gaining ground in the polls. They are the one seeing that this is less about flag waving and more about engaging with the population in a way that Westminster and Ottawa no longer do. Indeed, all the flags are now being hoisted on the Better Together side of the debate, and I am hearing more jingoism on their side as to pride in British achievement and past colonial glories. Nationalism on either side is a failed model of independence. We need to look more at the Occupy movements model of political change, and less at the cultural aspects of the debate. They may stir the heart, but they are also exclusionary, and you want to make your independent state one that people will want to move to because it is a better place to be, rather than one people already living there will leave because they feel uncomfortable and excluded. Don't look to the Politicians in Ottawa and Westminster, and the established media of television and newspaper journalism. Their model is failing too, and is all looking out for the interest of those in power and those who already have. Look at the grassroots movements that are springing up around the IndyRef debate. Look to alternative voting and representation of the people.

You need to have an economic model that works, you need to have the currency of the future sorted out, you need to look to how you want to structure yourself politically, socially and economically, so lets talk about that. Lets not talk about what divides us, and who should stay, and who is Quebecois, and what those who want to come here have to do to fit in to your culture. Lets talk about what it takes to make Quebec a country people would want to live in, would want to move to to improve their lot. Lets talk about the place an independent Quebec would take in the new world order. Do this, and you will engage your people, as this debate and vote has done in Scotland.

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.

Quote of the Week

“When I can’t buy a bagel in French, it really bugs me.”
Jonathan Valois, Parti Québécois president, at a PQ workshop.

Viva la Revolucion

Walking own from Mcgill Uinversity, just off campus, when I pass a Prayer Station.  Whatever, just passing through, till one of the older men at the station points at me, and with a laugh asks
"What's with the Communist hat?"
I was taken aback.  Too stunned to comment, but annoyed enough at his viewpoint not just to smile and nod in a placatory fashion.  As with all occasions like that, all the good ripostes came as I walked away.

Turning round the corner, I walk past a demonstration outside Indigo, calling for a boycott on the store by some pro-Palestinian group or other.  The man there holds out a flier.
"You have a progressive hat sir, have a progressive flier!"

I have a new hat.  You may have seen it in some of the pics from Cuba.  I like it, but I didn't think it was all that different.  In fact, back in the UK, I doubt it would have drawn any comment, certainly wouldn't have in Glasgow.  I thought Quebec was actually quite left wing, but left wing in a North American setting obviously means a different thing.



Original Post Here.