The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by notyoueither
I think there's some places near the border with Ontario as well. And what about the Cree? Are they sovereigntists now?
yes , in the ottawa region, on the quebec side, most people work for the federal government so they allegiance is natural
Originally posted by Wezil
Let's start with three key issues:
1) Canada is divisible but Quebec is not. Why not?
2) We will use the Cdn currency but have more control over our economy. When Canada sets rates and currency supply? Sounds like a Puerto Rico situation to me....
3) Quebecers employed in the Fed civil service will remain so employed. Oh really?
1) I also agree that stated like this, it is hypocrite.
Although I find it personnaly reasonnable that someone might want to divide Canada but not at the cost of dividing Quebec, which is propably a lot of people's opinion.
2) This is such a non issue.
Quebec would probably use Canadian curreny, with probably close to no say in monetary issue...
So what? How many countries use Us currency with no say in how it handled?
3)Again, as NYE pointed out a non-issue
yes you are probably right that maybe a few more jos will be lost than created.
Things like that happen when you make major changes.
Its a bid sad that there ARE strong arguments against Quebec separating, but those are none of them, jsut minor issues.
Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
I think Quebec pulls this stuff out as leverage in discussions with Ottawa.
And you know what? It works! Everytime... More power to them I say, its about time the other provinces got off their backsides and started giving Ottawa a hard time too. Like Alberta.
Yes
I think this is the main point.
I think in the last 50 years, the central (federal) gov in Canada has taken over too many power from the provincial govts.
If the only thing Quebec threats accomplish is to fight against this, thats more than enough.
I would fully applause if\when more provinces do something similar.
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
So you look at it as a Provincial Rights issue? Interesting.
We had that very discussion about 145 years ago.
No, thats not what I meant...
I wouldn't mind if Quebec seperated (Im a very light separatist, though for reason more complicated than most), but in the mean time, if it can put pressure on the federal govnt by showing that the ppl approve stongrly of their provincial govnt, thats a good thing.
I DO think there is a prov rights issue, but I am not saying separatism is all about that (in my mind at least)..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dishonesty of Quebec Separatists
Originally posted by Wezil
So apparently Quebec is divisible? I can accept you may concede the point, but the separatist movement does not.
It depends on who you're talking about. From the Cree perspective, it definitely is - as is Canada. The Amerindians form a fully distinct culture and nation, and it's all reasonable for them to be considered as such by the Constitution of any country they live in. What I think is that an sovereign Quebec wouldn't have any trouble at all to strike a fair deal with the native nations (I think there are 13 of them). I would be proud of my government if we could be at the forefront of native rights in the Americas.
However, I don't think that on a district basis, Quebec is divisible. Canada and Quebec are based on the idea of "founding nationalities", which are the French and English. Quebec is a vastly French province, and historically home of the French Canadian people. There is no portion of its territory that truly is, on any nation-like level, exclusively embedded and linked with the English people. As a minority within the French majority, they are part of its culture, and can have no claim whatsoever of forming a distinct nation.
Sure, cooperation would be best for both but again this decision would rest with Canada - not Quebec. Keep in mind there would not be a avalanche of positive feelings after such an event.
Well, no one would want things to go this low, but technically the Quebecois government does not have to repay their share of the federal 500 billions debt - it would have to be transferred as part of an agreement. A EU-like monetary policy would be the best thing for both sides, and if anyone in Canada thinks otherwise, we can count on intelligent people like you and NYE to convince them of the opposite, right?
Dreaming. See my point above about bad blood. The civil service would undergo a radical transformation if the Quebec tail were to stop wagging the Canadian dog. What say the western posters on this issue?
As said earlier, this is a minor issue. But it is clear that in the case of a winning "yes", it would take a few years before the new Quebecois state is fully underway. During this time, we would still be Canadian, pay taxes to the federal government, etc. I suspect that this would be the 'grace' period granted by the federal government: you move to Canada before you become a full-fledged Quebecois citizen, or you lose your job.
Originally posted by LulThyme
No, thats not what I meant...
I wouldn't mind if Quebec seperated (Im a very light separatist, though for reason more complicated than most), but in the mean time, if it can put pressure on the federal govnt by showing that the ppl approve stongrly of their provincial govnt, thats a good thing.
I DO think there is a prov rights issue, but I am not saying separatism is all about that (in my mind at least)..
Would you mind relating what leads you to be a soft seperatist? I am genuinely curious.
I think where I am from should tell you that I favour a weaker central power as well. It's ironic that for all the moaning about Quebec that goes on out here (Alberta and the West in general) we have no more natural ally in Confederation than those in Quebec who want stronger provincial rights.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Canada and Quebec are based on the idea of "founding nationalities", which are the French and English.
I do believe the Native Americans were here first and had already "founded" their communities. Their land was expropriated by the French and English (my ancestors in the US fortunately were not part of that, but they did enjoy the fruits of those crimes). So thus they AREN'T founding nationalities, and thus cannot use the same arguments of the Quebecois? How, um, let's see what to call it. Narrow-minded. Intolerant. Arrogant. Racist.
The worst form of insubordination is being right - Keith D., marine veteran. A dictator will starve to the last civilian - self-quoted
And on the eigth day, God realized it was Monday, and created caffeine. And behold, it was very good. - self-quoted Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I'm very sorry… I wish it were otherwise.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dishonesty of Quebec Separatists
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It sounds quite unimportant to me. High ranking bureaucrats probably already live in Ottawa. The others could be asked to move to Canada, or abandon their position. Low rank bureaucrats would just keep their job.
Those from Quebec can just move across the river to Hull.
I do believe the Native Americans were here first and had already "founded" their communities. Their land was expropriated by the French and English (my ancestors in the US fortunately were not part of that, but they did enjoy the fruits of those crimes). So thus they AREN'T founding nationalities, and thus cannot use the same arguments of the Quebecois? How, um, let's see what to call it. Narrow-minded. Intolerant. Arrogant. Racist.
from OB:
It depends on who you're talking about. From the Cree perspective, it definitely is - as is Canada. The Amerindians form a fully distinct culture and nation, and it's all reasonable for them to be considered as such by the Constitution of any country they live in. What I think is that an sovereign Quebec wouldn't have any trouble at all to strike a fair deal with the native nations (I think there are 13 of them). I would be proud of my government if we could be at the forefront of native rights in the Americas.
Sounds like he supports Native Peoples rights to self-determination to me. Care to retract your rant?
Sounds like he supports Native Peoples rights to self-determination to me. Care to retract your rant?
At first I thought the very same thing, joncha. However, he then went right on to say:
However, I don't think that on a district basis, Quebec is divisible. Canada and Quebec are based on the idea of "founding nationalities", which are the French and English. Quebec is a vastly French province, and historically home of the French Canadian people. There is no portion of its territory that truly is, on any nation-like level, exclusively embedded and linked with the English people. As a minority within the French majority, they are part of its culture, and can have no claim whatsoever of forming a distinct nation.
It seems incongruous to on the one hand say they are distinct and a nation, but on the other they are part of Quebec come hell or Quebec seperating. His arguments against the English of Montreal have no bearing whatsoever on the Cree.
However, I did get a hoot from a Yank lecturing a Canadian on native rights and how baaaad us Anglos and Francos were to the Amerinds up here in the frozen North. What was it? Oh yeah
my ancestors in the US fortunately were not part of that, but they did enjoy the fruits of those crimes
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
I think the point is that Quebec has the right to national self-determination, the Cree (and other Native Peoples) do as well, but the anglos within Quebec do not, because they are not a nation.
If the Cree were to declare themselves independent now, they would negotiate with the Federal Government. If Quebec declares independence, the Cree should then negotiate with a sovereign Quebec. Anglos in Westmont or where ever do their negotiating through the federal government (in terms of whether Quebec gets partitioned or not) or directly with the Quebec government in terms of minority rights.
I think the point is that Quebec has the right to national self-determination, the Cree (and other Native Peoples) do as well, but the anglos within Quebec do not, because they are not a nation.
But the point is false. The anglos in Quebec can say they are part of the Canadian 'nation'. Besides, Quebec does NOT have the right to self-determination based on international law. In order to be able to seceed, it has to prove that it is being oppressed. Seeing as how Quebec controls Canada's government, those claims really would have little merit.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Let's specify my view on the Natives: what I meant when I said they were not a founding nation, was that they're not from a constitutional standpoint, and I think this is a shame.
There would be no reason for them to form an independant country, though, because they probably need the help of a full fledged state to develop their resources. Autonomy within a federation looks like the best option to them. And I don't see why they would have any problem with this, whether this nation is Quebec or Canada.
The only thing I can foresee is a *****y Canada playing stealth diplomacy in order to strip the North away from Quebec, which would put Hydro-Quebec in some trouble.
Tweet
Comment