Has the happy little boat of Canada sprung a leak?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Rhetorical nonsense. England is more diverse than Canada (excluding Quebec).

And it's breaking apart, or what were those Scottish parliamentarians doing?

If you say England, just England, then you are simply being silly. Pure and simple silly.

[notyoueither]

But by all means, lets talk about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

What a lesson in peaceful central power that one is! Hoo boy, you've got me!

[notyoueither]

You could fit the whole thing into New Brunswick, but you'd need all of Rupertsland to hold the hate.

Great example of successful centralising power!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon


People are daft, what more can be said?

Actually they are not. people in small provinces are smart enough to know that without some power at the regional level, their interests hardly register on the "central" radar screen. As it stands, people in the smaller provinces already see their interests sacrificed for the central interest and they fear that this would be even more prevalent if even more power is in the hands of the central government.

Originally posted by Agathon

It might be all fine and dandy to propose such schemes in New Zealand, where the entire country fits into Nova Scotia with some to spare, but it is another to put it into practice in a nation like Canada where the land is vast and changing, and the people who inhabit the land take on nearly as many characters as the land itself.

Rhetorical nonsense. England is more diverse than Canada (excluding Quebec).

I call bullcrap on two levels

1. Hugeness matters. Even if every single Canadian was the same race ( I assume thats what you mean by diversity), the interests and concerns of the Torontonian differs greatly from the fisherman in NS, the ffarmer in Sask. or the logger in BC.

2. Even if England has more "diversity" as in more varied races overall consider the diversity of Canada

-- Newfoundland-- almost lilly white with racial minorities usually being in professional positions and a very small and isolated native population

-- Nova Scotia-- also very white but with very very significant black and Miqmaq populations

Alberta-- a lot of immigration from both within and outside Canada

BC-- An asian population that is huge and unlike any other part of the country

Canada is not only a diverse country in that overall there are lots of people from everywhere, there is also a huge amount of difefrence among regions

[Starchild]

What's the point of comparing Canada to the UK? We're not even near the same level. The UK is a small island that's been built around a central state from the beginning. The recent halfhearted attempts at devolution are so new that they can't even be judged to be successful or not.

Canada, OTOH, is a huge country that's had provincial rights engrained in its political psyche since it began. Example: The whining of our Scottish nationalists are nothing compared to what the Albertans or Quebecois do.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Starchild
The whining of our Scottish nationalists are nothing compared to what the Albertans or Quebecois do.

I find it suprising that you would seem to equate Albertans with Quebec on the whining issue. To me, Quebec are the biggest whiners of them all. Alberta just fades into the regular level of whining against the feds that all the provinces do.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Flubber
I find it suprising that you would seem to equate Albertans with Quebec on the whining issue. To me, Quebec are the biggest whiners of them all. Alberta just fades into the regular level of whining against the feds that all the provinces do.

Canadian politics look, err, interesting

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Canadian politics look, err, interesting

I don't know but fedbashing is ther national sport. Everybody does it .. . . and considering that we have cash strapped provinces (generally) and cities, while the federal government has both a surplus and some notable boondoggles . . . it makes them an easy target

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think this thread demonstrates why federalism is a good thing . That way Aggie has less control over Flubber's life than would be otherwise and vice verse .

Federalism

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Because most Canadians feel that losing Quebec would mean the failure of Canada. We are sentimentally attached.

The coat of arms bears the sayings "A Mari usque ad Mare" (from sea to sea) and "Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam" (they desire a better country).

Canada without Quebec (or any other province) would be considered by most to be broken, and certainly would not be better.

It seems to be easy to mistake the intensity of the debates about provincial authority for sentiments in favour of breaking the country apart. That usually isn't the case.

Do you think those same canadians that would see the loss of quebec as a failure of canada would perceive the loss of texas as a failure of the US? A nations success should certainly not be measured by how geographically large it is, especially when part of that largeness consists of malcontents who constantly piss and moan about how they really should have been an independant country.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Do you think those same canadians that would see the loss of quebec as a failure of canada would perceive the loss of texas as a failure of the US? A nations success should certainly not be measured by how geographically large it is, especially when part of that largeness consists of malcontents who constantly piss and moan about how they really should have been an independant country.

A) Short answer, yes.

B) Geographic size has little to nothing to do with it. Quebec has always - ALWAYS - been an integral part of Canada. It was one of the first pieces of the Canadian puzzle (albeit in truncated form) and has played a huge role in the entire history of the country. And it has always been predominantly French, although for a long time it was politically and economically dominated by the English minority within the province. So if we can't keep Quebec in Canada after all this time and for everything it's done you're damn right it's a failure.

[Geronimo]

Nobody has mentioned the way federalism splits the risk either. In countries with federalism plenty of risky policies are first proven at the provincial level before they would ever have the support needed to try them on the national level.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kontiki


A) Short answer, yes.

B) Geographic size has little to nothing to do with it. Quebec has always - ALWAYS - been an integral part of Canada. It was one of the first pieces of the Canadian puzzle (albeit in truncated form) and has played a huge role in the entire history of the country. And it has always been predominantly French, although for a long time it was politically and economically dominated by the English minority within the province. So if we can't keep Quebec in Canada after all this time and for everything it's done you're damn right it's a failure.

but if the price you pay to keep it in is even higher than the price of an original component going it's sperarate way isn't that an even greater failure?

[Odin]

Federalism:

Large, diverse countries like Canada and the US wont' work without it. I don't want the creationist hicks down in Kansas telling us Minnesotans how to teach our kids.

[Agathon]

And it's breaking apart, or what were those Scottish parliamentarians doing?

If you say England, just England, then you are simply being silly. Pure and simple silly.

I think the Scottish Parliament is a waste of time to tell you the truth.

And you are full of it. Within England there is far more cultural diversity than Canada, even though it's smaller. That's just a fact. Apart from Newfies, Anglo Canadians are almost all the same. It's quite boring. You even talk the same.

But you still haven't responded to my actual argument. Basically, it shows that you're all talk.