[DeadHedge]

Malaclypse, on 18 September 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

Quebec had a 51% no, 49% yes and it didn't erupt into chaos - though it should have imo - let the Frenchies fight amongst themselves and then re-conquer the bastards!

Just joking - kinda, sorta, maybe

I spent a month or so living pretty rough with some former students of mine in Quebec City - good times! Crazy, but good on the whole - I imagine the Scottish are much the same.

Mal, I take great offence to comparing us Scots to French-Canadians for a number of reasons:-

Firstly us Scots speak a mostly recognisable language with a not so harsh accent (Aberdonians are not included in this (watch Trawler men to see why))
Second, i can guarantee we can drink a helluvalot more that and frenchy could, French-Canadian or otherwise

And last, well not an offence, but i hope that if it is close that Scotland doesn't become a divided nation. What is it they say 'A divided house is sure to fail' (or something like that)have no last other than

[QuickTidal]

I find the comparison between the two spurious anyways. Quebec has never been in the same situation as Scotland. In fact, Canada as a country gives Quebec and french-speaking residents WAY, WAY more leeway than I think they deserve. Biggest pet peeve: Everything in Canada has to be bilingual. EVERY-THING. Meanwhile, venture into Quebec and you will find more things that are french-only than can be believed. Oh, and if you live in Ottawa and don't speak french at all, a lot of younger people will sneer at you for it. Though I haven't a clue why.

Quebec is full of separatists who haven't the foggiest clue what that means for them in their daily lives.

I think at least the Scottish are aware (in general) what is going on, and that's why the vote seems to be so close. Even the yes voters are aware of the road ahead and how full of potholes it is. And North sea oil...eh...not as stable a point as whathisname thought it was I don't think.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 18 September 2014 - 06:27 PM

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 18 September 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

Meanwhile, venture into Quebec and you will find more things that are french-only than can be believed.

And some laws that actively prohibit equality of the languages (ie the law that French text must be on every sign, English is optional, and if there is English it must be 35% smaller font).

DeadHedge, on 18 September 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

Second, i can guarantee we can drink a helluvalot more that and frenchy could, French-Canadian or otherwise

That's cute.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 18 September 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 18 September 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

Meanwhile, venture into Quebec and you will find more things that are french-only than can be believed.

And some laws that actively prohibit equality of the languages (ie the law that French text must be on every sign, English is optional, and if there is English it must be 35% smaller font).

Indeed. I didn't even notice this until I went to Quebec as an adult and found it really hard to get around, and that I was treated shabbily even in McDonalds off the highway for not speaking French well.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

QuickTidal, on 18 September 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

I find the comparison between the two spurious anyways. Quebec has never been in the same situation as Scotland. In fact, Canada as a country gives Quebec and french-speaking residents WAY, WAY more leeway than I think they deserve. Biggest pet peeve: Everything in Canada has to be bilingual. EVERY-THING. Meanwhile, venture into Quebec and you will find more things that are french-only than can be believed. Oh, and if you live in Ottawa and don't speak french at all, a lot of younger people will sneer at you for it. Though I haven't a clue why.

Quebec is full of separatists who haven't the foggiest clue what that means for them in their daily lives.

I think at least the Scottish are aware (in general) what is going on, and that's why the vote seems to be so close. Even the yes voters are aware of the road ahead and how full of potholes it is. And North sea oil...eh...not as stable a point as whathisname thought it was I don't think.

The other big point is Quebec is usually a driving force in electing the governing party in Canada. Both in terms of seats required to be the majority and, prior to Reform, where the PM was from. For years the Liberals basically alternated between Quebecois and English Canadian leaders. From the complaints I have read, I gather that is not the same situation with Scotland.

[Malaclypse]

QuickTidal, on 18 September 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

I find the comparison between the two spurious anyways. Quebec has never been in the same situation as Scotland. In fact, Canada as a country gives Quebec and french-speaking residents WAY, WAY more leeway than I think they deserve. Biggest pet peeve: Everything in Canada has to be bilingual. EVERY-THING. Meanwhile, venture into Quebec and you will find more things that are french-only than can be believed. Oh, and if you live in Ottawa and don't speak french at all, a lot of younger people will sneer at you for it. Though I haven't a clue why.

Quebec is full of separatists who haven't the foggiest clue what that means for them in their daily lives.

I think at least the Scottish are aware (in general) what is going on, and that's why the vote seems to be so close. Even the yes voters are aware of the road ahead and how full of potholes it is. And North sea oil...eh...not as stable a point as whathisname thought it was I don't think.

Yeah, that is the stereotypical view of English-Canadians and I felt much the same way until I spent a bunch of time with rabid separatists - they have a point and I really wish they could have what they want and clear up the mess that it creates in federal politics when the Bloc is doing well. I was in Quebec City when Pierre Trudeau died and this guy I was staying with is like 'You know this guy?' and I'm like 'Come on dude, don't be like that, Trudeau was far and away our coolest PM' But you'd go out to a bar in Quebec and end up in a booth having a passionate conversation about politics - this shit does not happen in Manitoba.

edit: for context, Pierre Trudeau sent tanks into Quebec City when some separatists decided to turn terrorist so is hated by them.

I think their society is indeed distinct and they should have the opportunity to express it. Plus we wouldn't have to have bilingual everything. I support all these separatist movements - big government clearly doesn't work so I'm happy to see regional interests become national interests, in a nutshell - flame away!

This post has been edited by Malaclypse: 19 September 2014 - 04:34 AM

[Tiste Simeon]

It seems a No vote is more or less definite now. Will be interesting to see how both sides react to it once it has been confirmed.

[DeadHedge]

The final result is a NO at 55% of the vote (well 31/32 local authorities have announced and the last one would have to be 100% Yes to make a difference)

i just hope that Scotland isn't divided over this, only time will tell eh?

[Malaclypse]

I dunno, with Quebec and the 51/49, the separatists blamed it on Montreal, which is probably apt. Certainly my impression was that everybody out of the big cities was rabidly separatist, so cut off Montreal is my answer. No idea if a similar situation obtains in Scotland. In any case, my condolences to those who feel passionately about this, I was really looking forward to a new country

[Gothos]

Hmm.. The Union Jack would look silly without the blue anyway.

[DeadHedge]

Looking at the Referendum results out of the 32 local authorities only 4 voted as a Yes majority, however a number of them were fairly close (Inverclyde who had a No majority was only a majority by 89 votes) it was a close campaign and a close result (not as close as Quebec).

All we need to do now is see where the future leads.

[D'iversify]

I think for the moment this is a fairly definitive victory for the No campaign. However, it was dependent on effectively a promise of devo max in the case of a No vote. If Scots nationalists in the next decade or so do not feel that the last minute promises made by the Westminster parties come to amount to any significant further devolution of powers to Edinburgh, I think they will feel with some justification that there is no reason to keep their promise for this to be a 'once in a generation'n referendum. And if there is a second referendum as a consequence of Westminster being perceived to fail to keep its promises, I think that would very likely turn out a 'Yes'. Also, there is another chance that a second referendum will be triggered if in 2017 there is a vote to exit the EU and it comes out as Yes in the rest of the UK and no in Scotland, Scots being in general more favourable towards the EU than the English (not sure about the Welsh and Northern Irish but I they are also less EU-friendly). There is also to an extent a generational divide in that older voters tend to be more unionist, younger voters more favouring independence, though this isn't an absolute difference. In any case, as much as unionists would like to treat this as "deciding the issue for a generation" (Cameron), the extent to which it remains decided is in fact very much dependent on continued political, economic and social developments in the UK.

[Gothos]

Hah, an exit-EU referendum? I just can't wait to see England trying to function without EU immigrants...

[Malaclypse]

and I thought the Scottish had some balls -

When your enemy promises dire consequences, you know that they fear the consequences as well.

I would be screaming if I was Scottish and cared about this - the cowards in your midst are the ones that keep you back - as far as I'm concerned, the whole 'so-called' democratic system needs a massive upgrade. Eliminate the nation-states, they're the ones that always cause trouble - reduce it to local and global - as much as I get down on the Americans and their way of going about things, I like the idea of states that have a great deal of local control, in accordance with the wishes of their constituency - the model is good and it should be applied world-wide, by blocks of population, imo

[Malaclypse]

and direct democracy is technically-feasible and is obviously the right way forward unless we lose confidence in the principles of democracy which are admittedly shaky given the overwhelmingly low quality of respondents - it turns out that a lot of people just need to be told what to do and have no value as decision-makers, sad but true.

But that's another story

This post has been edited by Malaclypse: 19 September 2014 - 09:52 AM

[Vengeance]

I have stayed out of this thread as I didn't really have a stake. However now that the vote has been cast I find myself very relieved. Being of Scottish descent i sympathies with wanting to be free of the union. But as an American I am glad that you didn't take that chance. It isn't as if you can separate the isles. True there is a different culture but so much is connected. It would have been a shame to have seen that discarded. I felt pure relief when I read the results this morning. From an American i thank you for staying in the British union.

[Malaclypse]

'being of Scottish descent' - a lot of North Americans like to say things like this but they are so unlike the people that they claim relationship with that it's just absurd.

Bah. Maximum freedom of action is the goal, so stripping away layers of government can only be a good thing.

[Cause]

I dont understand this. Scotland has been part of britian since 1608? What is it that they are really so bothered by?

[Coco with marshmallows]

It's strange.

I was starting to think it would be a close Yes.

I'd resigned myself to 10-15 years of grinding through crap while the country got on its feet.

I'd half expected tonight to be one of the biggest parties in years.

Instead its just a Friday.

Haven't even seen many 'No' supporters celebrating.

Just feels odd.

[Malaclypse]

Because the 'no' supporters just want the status quo - they are happy enough with what they've got and don't want it threatened in any way

There's nothing to celebrate for them, only a reassertion of the status quo.