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?

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.

CBC Montreal News

So, yeah, turns out the TV did want to talk to me. I got a call this morning from nice chap at CBC Montreal asking if I would like to do a spot for the evening news. Once I realised I didn't have to go into the studio, and that he would come to me, I said yes.

Of course, I wasn't dressed for TV, just in scrappy jeans and a T-shirt, but when I phoned K to tell her I had been asked, she ever so kindly offered to drop off a shirt and jacket at work for me!
The interview was conducted just outside Ste Justine, and was about 5-10 minutes in length, which is becoming quite easy for me to do on this subject, after the latest practice. Of course they only used 2 sound bites from those 5 minutes, but at least I wasn't quoted out of context. It would be nice to get my hands on the full interview, but I doubt that'll happen.


Here's the link. I'm between 5.00 and 5.24 minutes into the clip.

CBC Web Player here.

So, it turns out all I had to do to get on TV was write a request in my blog! Who knew? So, anyone out there want to give me a million bucks? Anyone?

Of course, nothing I say here will have an effect on the result, but I do feel engaged in the debate, if even in a small way, and to me, that is one of the greatest things about this debate, that it has engaged the population, of Scotland, and elsewhere, in a way that politics does not normally do. If even a fraction of the energy and interest that has been generated in this campaign continues to be put to use, then no matter the outcome, Scotland will win.

Is that the end of it? Not at all.  There's talk of cameras crashing our Scottish event tomorrow evening, and there's another CBC radio show that wants me for a debrief on Friday, but I doubt I can go due to the time of recording. I already had to turn them down today, but they did talk to me, and I get a mention in this segment they did with my friend Angus Bell.

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.

CBC Radio, Daybreak Interview

The second, and last radio interview I have been invited to do here in Montreal was this morning, this time in English, on the CBC Daybreak show. This was an 8 minute segment, with just two of us in the studio, so there was a lot more back and forth to be had than the previous show with more people having their say. Also, as the discussion was in English, I had less fears over expressing myself, which helped too. The interview was well done, and the presenter skillfully managed to get the points they must have found interesting from the pre-interviews across in the time.


I'm not sure if it's geographically locked for listeners outside Canada. Apparently I sound more Scottish than normal in the interview. I can't say it was intentional, but it is extremely likely.

So that's that then. All awaiting the Thursday vote now, and back to obscurity for me. Unless there are any last minute interviews, maybe for TV? No-one has contacted me for a TV interview yet! Anyone?

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.