It would be great if people could define these terms, because where I come from, a state is not a country.
Generally, when you talk about states and nations…a state is a political entity. It has its own set of laws, its own borders, its own sovereignty. So, the United Kingdom, the US, France, Canada, Egypt, Nigeria, etc, are all states. (Of course, the US is also divided up into smaller political divisions called “states”. This is because, originally, at least, the concept was that the US was a union of independent sovereign states in permanent federation with each other…they’re “United States”, and states in the United States still have a great deal of sovereignty.)
A nation is a group of people with a shared cultural and historical identity. It’s a term of self identity…the members of a nation feel that they have something in common based on their shared heritage and national experiences that people who aren’t members of the nation don’t share. Nations don’t have to have states. So, for example, the Kurds are a nation, the Palestinians are a nation, the Romany are a nation.
Complicating things is that a lot of states are “nation states”…they’re states that at the same time have a national identity. France, for example, is a state, with its own borders and laws, but “Frenchness” is a national identity…so that people living in France consider themselves “French”, not just because they’re citizens of the Republic of France, but because they consider themselves to share a common culture and history.
Does that make sense?
Now, I am not a scholar in political science, specialised in nationalism. So my understanding of what makes a nation and what doesn’t may not be as definite as you’d like it to be. I only learned about this through my interest in politics. But I’ll try to do my best and summarize what I know in a few words.
Nationalism is actually a recent development in political thought. I think the first modern nations in Europe started existing in the 17th and 18th centuries, maybe a bit earlier. Before that time, people didn’t really feel they belonged to a nation, but rather to smaller groups of people, a village, for example; and the idea that “nations” should have the right to a nation-state wasn’t prevalent. Europe was still mostly feudalistic. The first nations appeared at that time, as groups of people, often living under a same ruler, with a shared history, culture, and a feeling of belonging together. The different European nations were all created in different ways. France, for example, had to build their linguistic unity before becoming a real nation, while Italy, to show an example, had started to exist as a nation – at least in the minds of some people – before becoming a single state. And yes, it is true that a common language is usually a requirement for being a nation, for the reason that being a nation implies having a common culture and being able to communicate with each other. So I will admit, scule, that the use of the French language as a common language is one of the characteristics of the Quebec nation. But there is much more to a nation than simply language. I’m sure you’ll agree that English Canada and the US are two different nations, even though they share a language.
Why is Quebec a nation? Quebec has started existing separately from France during the 17th and 18th centuries. I see that RickJay claims that France and New France formed a single people until the Conquest of 1760, but that’s not my understanding. At the time of the Conquest, there was already a difference between the French, the Canadiens and the Acadians, although I don’t think we can say that it made them separate nations yet. After the Conquest, many English-speaking settlers took up residence in Canada. For the better part of Canadian history, the Canadiens and the English have lived mostly separately, with not much interaction. Even today, while there are cultural exchanges between Quebec and the rest of Canada, they are pretty minor. I must admit that the language difference is in large part responsible for this.
Sure, you can argue that Quebec is an important part of what “Canada” is today. But whether or not Canada is a useful concept, it remains that it is made of disparate entities that, while intertwined, exist in many ways separately. I agree that there are differences between the provinces. There are also a lot of differences between individuals. But it is nonetheless true that Newfoundlanders and Manitobans feel that they belong to the same nation and share a large part of their culture. Quebec, in a sense, is different in another way.
I know that this all sounds quite “soft” and mostly based on emotions and feelings. But the concept of nation is based on belonging to a group. Of course it will sound this way. For those who want to learn more about nationalism, I can suggest a few books that I read recently to familiarize myself with this, and especially with Quebec nationalism:
Liberal and Illiberal Nationalisms, by Ray Taras, Palgrave, 2002. A very good book about the different types of nationalism, their origins, with examples, including some information, which I consider unbiased, about the Quebec independence movement.
Impossible Nation: The Longing for Homeland in Canada and Quebec, by Ray Conlogue, Mercury Press, 1996. As I said the last time I talked about this book here, it is flawed, with many spelling and even a few factual mistakes, but still presents a good viewpoint on how Quebec, despite what people from the rest of Canada thinks, isn’t really present in the Canadian mind.
Am I the only one who, while reading this, had a mental picture of images of the Rockies, the Château Frontenac, the world’s longest covered bridge, children of all races playing together, etc., all with a flying Canadian flag superposed over it and the O Canada playing? I’m not picking on you, scule, but this really sounds like an ad campaign for Canadian unity and pride. Your description describes well the opinion that Canadians have of their country. And I must admit that it is in part true, Canada really is a great country where people of all ethnic backgrounds can live together. But there is also a large part of myth in this. Canada isn’t the only country where this is true. There are other countries, that are not Canada, that are different from Canada and have no interest in being part of Canada, where this is also true.
I will continue responding to your posts later today.
Frankly, all I’ve ever heard is that English Canadians still considered themselves loyal subjects of Her Majesty even long after Confederation. Sure, today Confederation is seen as the birth of a new country, but I’m not convinced that it was so at the time. It was an attempt to solve the political mess that was the Province of Canada.
By “myth”, I don’t mean “falsity”. When I talk about Canadian myths, what I mean are the ideas that Canadians have about their country and that shape what they think of it. The idea that Canada is a multicultural country where people from everywhere can live and enhance the country’s culture with their own is an important Canadian myth, but objectively speaking, it is also in fact quite true. Of course, it is not perfectly true, there is ethnic strife here too, and distrust of immigrants, but generally-speaking I think Canada is a good place for people of many ethnic backgrounds. The idea that both main linguistic groups have now coalesced into a single nation, with similar goals and values, and a similar culture is also a Canadian myth, and while I think it is not entirely false, I find it unconvincing.
Hmmm, no, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that I doubt that Canada as a whole can really be considered a nation due to the fact that there exist nations in its midst. To you, this isn’t really a valid reason. I know that there are links between Quebec and the rest of Canada. But I don’t think these links are enough to say that Canada is a true nation.
Hockey, you say. Yes, Canadians in general love hockey, but then again the Swiss and the Czechs also love hockey. If this is the only common cultural staple between Quebec and the rest of Canada, it’s not much.
I don’t want to pick on you, but your OP to [thread=387211]this recent thread[/thread], contains lines that I find interesting.
Now, I know you don’t actually think that Céline Dion is the only vocal artist in Quebec. You wanted truly foreign music, and Dion was just the Quebec artist that jumped to your mind at the time. But Céline Dion is the Quebec artist that will jump in the mind of 99% of English Canadians if you ask them to name one. Why? Because she’s recognizably from Quebec, and also has a very popular career in English. That’s the thing. Quebec culture, being mostly produced in French, just doesn’t make its way to English Canada, because even though anglophones learned French in school, they don’t use it now and couldn’t really understand it. So if you ask an English Canadian what they know about Quebec, you risk getting “Céline Dion, poutine, language laws” as an answer.
Same thing for history. Last evening I was watching on Radio-Canada the second two-hour episode of René, a TV series about René Lévesque from 1958 to 1970. (It has also been filmed in English, and apparently is also shown on CBC.) Most of the events shown in these episodes I already know about, and consider them important landmarks in the history of the Quebec nation. The 1960 election and the nationalization of electricity are two examples; it’s nice to see a version of these events that, while probably modified in some ways to make for better TV, is shown from the viewpoint of the people who made them happen. But what will someone from the rest of Canada get from this TV series? While this person might know the events, they’re just not that important events in the history of their nation.
I’m not saying this is wrong. Francophone Quebec isn’t really permeable to English Canadian culture either. This is the reality we have to deal with.
And even though there is a large difference between the Pacific Northwest and the Deep South, they all share a feeling of belonging to the American nation.
According to a colleague of mine who studies in international relations, the primary principle in international law is that of territoriality. In other words, states – countries – have the right to defend their sovereignty over their territory. So, if Quebec decided to unilateraly secede, it follows from this that Canada could defend its sovereignty over the territory, even through the use of force. How they would do so is unknown.
However, proponents of independence are saying that they do not intend to unilateraly secede from Canada, unless the federal government refuses to negociate in good faith. And the Supreme Court of Canada has judged that if the people of Quebec democratically show their desire for independence strongly enough (they haven’t specified what this actually means, so there has been a lot of talk about what the federal government would consider sufficient), the federal government will be obligated to recognize this desire and negociate in good faith.
In other words, if a sufficient majority of Quebecers – the meaning of this remaining undefined, and this is another point of dispute, I might add – want independence, the federal government doesn’t have the legitimity to stop them. That’s how I interpret it.
severus, that is simply not true. What the court said was that if a clear majority of Quebecers were to vote on a clear question, the rest of Canada would have a moral obligation to do something about it - not a legal requirement. The ruling was not a legally binding one. You are deliberately representing this ruling as some sort of legal permission that it clearly was not.
This, of course, is the entire purpose of the Clarity Act.
Let’s be honest here; separatist government have held two referenda on the subject and they didn’t even have the guts to actually ask a clear, “Do You Wanna Separate?” question. Instead it was lobster-in-a-pot bait-and-switch language. If they don’t even have the balls to ask a clear question, that answers the OP’s original question, does it not?
Y’know, I thought it looked like Her Majesty was putting on weight. 
I agree with those who say that Quebec secession or separation from Canada is very unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future. But as a continuing irritation afflicting the Canadian body politic, it’s likely to persist for quite awhile. I agree with Paul in Saudi that the separatists probably don’t fully comprehend what they’d be in for if they ever actually won.
If I were Canadian PM in the runup to a close secession vote, I’d make it very clear that I was eager for Quebec to remain part of the Federal structure of Canada, but that all bets would be off if Quebec decided to split. The Republic of Quebec (or whatever they chose to call it) would have to renegotiate everything with Canada, including border controls, trade, immigration, water rights, defense, etc. They wouldn’t get a penny from Ottawa. Quebec would be precluded from “stepping into Canada’s shoes” on its relations with other countries, unless it negotiated same with each of those other countries.
In short, I would do everything I could to see that Quebec couldn’t have it cake and it eat it too, enjoying all of the rights it had as a province while insisting on nationhood. Not on my watch.
“A nation is a group of people with a shared cultural and historical identity. It’s a term of self identity…the members of a nation feel that they have something in common based on their shared heritage and national experiences that people who aren’t members of the nation don’t share. Nations don’t have to have states. So, for example, the Kurds are a nation, the Palestinians are a nation, the Romany are a nation.”
I think Captain Amazing does a pretty good job of explaining the distinction between a nation and a state (or nation-state). As I understand it (admittedly not as a political scientist, but as a geographer), a state is more technical in nature. In other words, it has been defined much more clearly than a nation. A state occupies a specific geographic location with defined boundaries (and those boundaries are recognized by other states). In addition, the people occupying said geographic location are soverign and self-governing (no other group has political control over that geographic area nor has any legal legitimacy within that geographic area. Example - France can’t pass a law making it illegal for US citizens to do something in the US. Well, they could - but then we would just laugh at them).
The problem is in defining exactly what constitutes a nation. Because, for the most part, it’s defined largely by the people making the claim. If I were to align myself with a group of 10-15 people, could we then somehow claim that we are a nation? I suspect that we could, but only if other groups somehow concede to our arguments that we do indeed constitute a nation.
In the case of Quebec, a strong argument can be made that they do indeed constitute a nation. However, the problem is that it is incumbent of those making the claim convince others that this is the case. From what I understand, there is some legitimacy to the status of nationhood for Quebec (based on what I understand of the situation - limited to be sure), but it is far from clear-cut. I would be interesting to know whether there has been any standardized or legal definitions regarding what constitutes a nation (my guess that there is, but it likely varies from country to country, unless the UN has some working definition).
Sorry then, I was only relying on memory. Still, if there was a strong push for independence, the rest of Canada would have a moral obligation to at least recognize it. And frankly, if we reach this point, it would be completely in Canada’s interest to recognize it. I’ve seen people here claim that we can’t be sure that if Quebec chooses to separate, Canada would decide to negociate in good faith. I have more confidence in the democratic fibre of Canadians than that. It is in nobody’s interest to start a war or something. Nobody can expect to receive gifts from Ottawa in such negotiations, but why it would be in Ottawa’s interest to act as bullies, I don’t know either.
Well, the first referendum, as far as I know, was about “sovereignty-association” because this is the direction the independence movement first took. At first, many supporters of independence wanted a special status for Quebec inside Canada, to recognize the fact that Quebec is a separate nation. When they figured out that there is no way the rest of Canada, and especially the federal government – can you imagine Trudeau saying that not all provinces are the same? – would agree to that, they started to ask for a democratic mandate to negociate independence, while keeping links to the rest of Canada. Yes, I know you’ll tell me that this sounds a lot like having your cake and eating it too, and that we can’t be sure that in the case of a Yes vote, the rest of Canada would have gone with the plan. But that doesn’t mean that the Parti Québécois’s founders should have just said: “well, Ottawa won’t do anything to help us meet the needs of our nation, so let’s just shut up and recognize we’re just a small province like any other one”. I don’t know what would have happened if 50% +1 of voters had voted Yes in 1980. But in the minds of Lévesque and associates, it was still worth trying.
As for 1995, well, I checked the question, and it mentions sovereignty directly, while also mentioning offering a new partnership to Canada. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. I guess you’ll tell me it was disingenuous of the Quebec government to give the impression that the negociations on partnership could succeed, but I don’t see anything indicating that the Quebec government didn’t actually have the intention of negociating in good faith. There’s nothing wrong with telling the people what you’ll do.
What would a good question be? “Do you want to break up your beautiful country and lose the Rockies?” 
The voters knew what they were voting on, RickJay.
So you think that an army of scholars that have been discussing a question for 40 years actually don’t understand it well by now?
That’s the point (well, one of the points). An independent Quebec would have its own foreign policy.
If that pie in the sky financial report you provided is indicative of the scholars then I’d have to say yes.
…and its own hockey team. :smack:
Would they have their own military? Currency? Free trade? Other economic systems? Their share of the federal debt? (and how would you calculate that?) Transportation? Banking and telecommunications? Postal system? Environmental policies?
I was a teenager during the 1995 referendum so, although I was probably better informed than most people my age, I don’t have the same context and knowledge as someone who was more aware of the political situation at the time.
However, it was my impression that “sovereignty-association” and “sovereignty”, as used by the separatists, was that they wanted the benefits of calling themselves an independent state, but then still rely on Canada for most of the economic structures that actually make an independent country truly sovereign.
A quote from Lucien Bouchard (from March 17, 1998) that says:
If that isn’t “have your cake and eat it too”, I don’t know what is.
I found this PDF of a report from 1998 - Broad postsecession Canada-Quebec partnership would be virtually impossible to negotiate or operate, says C.D. Howe Institute study
[quote]
[ul][li]Association and partnership have particular resonance among Quebecers, who have long seen themselves as participating in a confederation of two language groups. This explains the paradox that many Quebecers desire both independence and strong links with Canada. They seek sovereignty not as a fundamental break but as one step along a continuum.[/li][li]To most of the ROC [the Rest of Canada], however, a “yes” vote would be the crossing of a Rubicon, profoundly changing the country. Their first preoccupation would be their own immediate selfinterests and reorganization of what was left of the country.[/li][li]In the face of a “yes,” sovereignists expect the ROC to reply as a monolith. In fact, reactions, including the reactions to a proposed partnership, would vary widely across regions, provinces, and business sectors.[/li][li]Even if it is desired in principle, operating a two-unit confederation, as partnership suggests, would be difficult if not impossible. A ten- or even a five-unit federation might be more congenial.[/li][li]Partnership in the broad sense proposed by the Parti Québécois is not possible. The more limited arrangements that might be feasible would fall short not only of what Quebecers have been promised but also of what is required to manage a relationship of two jurisdictions so interlinked as Quebec and Canada.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Yes, that’s how I understand it. You can find some pacifists claiming that Quebec would not need a military, but they’re not really taken seriously. Some also claim that Quebec could still try to negociate to be able to use the Canadian dollar, but to me this sounds like an important loss of sovereignty. I’m really not sure what the point of this would be.
I was also a (young) teenager at the time. I really don’t remember that much about the discussions at the time. I’d really like it if someone who was politically aware at the time, and, if possible, who’s also followed the evolution of the idea of independence since the 60’s and 70’s, and supports it, could come and give his/her point of view. I’m quite undecided about the whole thing – even leaning towards a strongly refomed united Canada – and I don’t think I can defend the sovereigntist point of view as well as someone who strongly supports it and who followed the evolution of this point of view over time. But other than me I’m not sure who here would try to defend it; we don’t have many Quebecers here and most are strong federalists.
“Sovereignty” just means independence. It’s just a more positive term than “separation”. You’ll notice that those who favour it tend to use the first term, and those who don’t tend to use the second one. As for “sovereignty-association”, it was the initial position of the Parti Québécois, and as far as I know not really in use anymore. It meant independence for Quebec with some economic links kept with Canada. I’m not sure what those links were supposed to be, but if I have the time I’ll check.
Note that Bouchard says that he feels that this can be done. I guess he expects that keeping some economic links (free circulation of goods, etc.) between an independent Quebec and Canada would be in the interest of both countries. What this quote illustrates is that to proponents of independence, the main problem with Canada as it is right now is that it keeps a nation from taking care of its own political needs, by duplicating the layers of government and putting some important tasks completely or partly in the hands of an agency where members of the aforementioned nation are in minority. The economic union, on the other hand, is seen as a good thing (except when it comes to fiscal imbalance issues).
We can expect that the C.D. Howe institute will try to show why independence doesn’t work. This said, they make some good points: the two first ones, especially, show why it’s hard to have a debate on the question between people from Quebec and people from the rest of Canada. I want to focus on one of these points in particular:
I dispute that it would be impossible to operate a two-unit confederation. But of course, there is no way we could try to build a two-unit Canada only through constitutional negociations. The rest of Canada would scream bloody murder at the thought of giving such powers to a mere province and not to the others – who don’t want them – and anyway, Canadians are tired of constitutional negociations. This is why people try to reach this arrangement through independence.
Got any concrete criticisms of this financial report? (You may very well have, I’d just like to see them.)
This is one of the things that I, as an ROCer, find puzzling. Why should Canada as a whole find the nationalization of Quebec’s electrical system to be of significant historical importance for Canada? I live in Ontario, and I don’t expect that someone in B.C. or Quebec should be aware of the important historical role of Ontario Hydro in Ontario history. To me, this is a provincial issue, which, while undeniably important for the province, is not a national one. There seems to be an underlying attitude that the things that happen in Quebec are more important than the things that happen in the other provinces, because Quebec isn’t just a province, it’s a nation!
So you can drive across the country, and it’ll be considered an adventure. Try to drive across the nation, however, and they’ll lock you up.
The OP’s question was whether or not we’d ever reach such a point. The answer is “pretty likely not.”
Except that isn’t the question that was voted on, was it? The question was asking for a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association. Negotiation doesn’t necessitate any given outcome. What would have happened in Canada’s offer was - which, to be honest, it should be - “stay in or get out, no sovereignty-association?” Technically, the question that had been voted on would have been utterly moot.
In fact, it was quite literally a vote on nothing. A vote to “negotiate” doesn’t bind the government to doing anything.
So what would the Government of Quebec have actually done if they’d gotten a Yes vote? Because here’s what would have happened at the negotiations:
QUEBEC: We want to negotiate a sovereignty-association agreement.
CANADA: That sounds a lot like what we have now.
QUEBEC: No, we want something with more sovereignty.
CANADA: No.
QUEBEC: What do you mean no?
CANADA: No. There’s no legal basis for it. It’s probably not even legal. Have a nice day.
QUEBEC: Hmmmm.
I think we both know what the PQ would really have done.
That’s an amazing position to take. It’s worth trying… why? If you don’t even know what the end state is you’re voting for, what was the point? It’s no wonder they lost.
To have had any legitimacy, the Quebec government would have had to hold a second referendum after negotiations were concluded, so that the populace could have a say in separation as it would actually occur. In both the 1980 and 1995 referendums it was quite possible - in the case of 1995, probable - that the voters could have voted Yes with the intent of getting sovereignty-association and instead ended up with an acrimonious and potentitally nasty complete split.
Again, let us actually look at the question:
“Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995”
So what exactly is the legal status of the “formal offer”? Does sovereignty follow irrespective of the result? Does this necessitate something the PQ refused to address publically - unilaterally declaring independence - or is sovereignty conditional upon the acceptance of that offer of partnership? I’d agree the 1995 question was better than the 1980 question, but that isn’t saying much.
If there’s one thing about the Chretien government I liked - well, there was more than one thing but this is the thing I liked the best - it was the Clarity Act. It’s perfectly reasonable for a sovereign nation to set out reasonable conditions for the secession of its component jurisdictions, and it prevents the government of Quebec from asking a ludicrous, lobsters-in-a-pot question.
An honest question: Why did the Government of Quebec not ask a straightforward question that actually reflected what would take place, like this:
Why a question that means nothing, like in 1980, or a question that adds an irrelevant claim of partnership, like 1995? Why not come out and ask what we know M. Parizeau planned to do anything? If nothing else, would this not give the government of Quebec an even greater moral basis to demand sovereignty?
I know why they won’t ask that question. Because they’d lose. They’d lose big time. And that answers the OP.
Which is something that always interests me. What’s the separatist thought on suddenly providing a new-and-not-necessarily-wanted land border to the United States? We’re sitting pretty comfortably down here, and we like a strategic situation with only Mexico and Canada as neighbors. If a secession happens, are you still protected by treaties the U.S. has made with Canada? I don’t think an independent Quebec would be able to call itself an ally of the U.S., not right away, which makes it fair game doesn’t it? Or does a breakaway state have a grace period under international law?
I’m genuinely interested as to what the separatists think the U.S. might do if a good chunk of neutral land suddenly appeared on our border.
Now so am I. The USA isn’t going to suddenly invade Quebec. If you think the world’s pissed at the USA now, multiply that by about a million. It would be about as well received as Germany invading Switzerland.