Jump to content
Moonlight_Graham

Liberals In = Quebec & Alberta Out?

Recommended Posts

I've heard people discuss this on radio etc. They're saying that if the Liberals get in again, then it could mean the break-up of the country and either Quebec and/or Alberta (+ other westerners?) seperating.

 

Given that Quebec despises the Liberal gov't for the ad-scam scandal that happened within Quebec, it could mean another referedum, & with polls saying about %60 of Quebec'ers want to seperate thats not good news for Canadian unity.

 

The same thing could happen in Alberta & the west, since they are so disillusioned with the Liberals for given them a shaft & with the rest of Canadians for voting them back in all the time.

 

I dunno. I think Quebec would go before Alberta etc, but its a possibility that the whole country could split like this. I think its less likely since minority governments last an average of about 18 months before another election is called, but if the Liberals got a majority (almost impossible) & 4 more years of power i think this could be a likely scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i could see it happening, because the liberal's pissed off quebec with the spondership scandle, and pissed off alberta with the national energy program. plus, why would the west vote if the election is won or lost in ontario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the grand scheme of things, Canada (and the US) have not been countries very long. The places worldwide where there has been the most history have the smallest and most numerous countries as a result. Look at the Mediterranean area of S. Europe, Asia Minor, and Northern Africa (through all of history, as many of these formerly seperate states have fairly recently re-unified).

 

It's only a matter of time before the 'New World' has enough history and differences behind it to split into more and more independent nations.

 

No guarantees, of course, this is purely from a historical perspective. In the immediate future... it is indeed looking more and more plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alberta won't leave the confederation for a long time. The lastest polls say Harper could win enough seats to have a Conservative government. Alberta elects 30-32 Convervatives right off the bat every election.

 

A Conservatives government wouldn't leave when they are in control. The radio is stupid.

 

On the other hand, the Bloc is pretty fierce in their political rhetoric lately. So maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the grand scheme of things, Canada (and the US) have not been countries very long. The places worldwide where there has been the most history have the smallest and most numerous countries as a result. Look at the Mediterranean area of S. Europe, Asia Minor, and Northern Africa (through all of history, as many of these formerly seperate states have fairly recently re-unified).

 

It's only a matter of time before the 'New World' has enough history and differences behind it to split into more and more independent nations.

 

No guarantees, of course, this is purely from a historical perspective. In the immediate future... it is indeed looking more and more plausible.

That's quite true.

 

But when you think about it, though, the only Canadian provinces that could really form their own independent country are Ontario and Alberta. And there are very few U.S. states that could survive on their own as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's odd that we never really hear much of anything about this issue in the U.S. Russia and Ukraine bicker over the price of natural gas and that grabs the headlines as if the USA lives or dies depending on the outcome. Either something's seriously wrong here or you guys have no flair for the dramatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, hobofactory, the idea of western seperation is rarely, if ever, discussed in the mainstream media. I had not heard about the idea until a few months ago, and even then I figured it was one of those whacko underground movements that a slight minority belongs to. And even Quebec seperation isn't talked about much. Perhaps because we assume it's dead. Perhaps because the idea of Quebec forming a financially independent and sovereign nation is kind of ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that military action would be used because as Canadians we would rather discuss our differences. Maybe a few riots and the such would break out, or some sort of militia organization would form, but I don't think anything to serious would come out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only a matter of time before the 'New World' has enough history and differences behind it to split into more and more independent nations.

I'm surprised we've stuck it out this long.

 

Fuck, at confederation it was Metis vs white protestant vs quebecois vs NS, and then there were deep divisions in these groups, and this was before PEI, BC and NFLD were even in.

 

through history, countries always fall apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alberta isn't separating anytime soon, if ever ;)

 

Don't forget that the first province to demand separation was Nova Scotia, immediately after Confederation and constantly for about 20 years more. They're still here.

 

 

 

 

As far as Canada being a young country, here's a random fact: out of the 191 nations in the UN, Canada is the 45th oldest. Not bad for a 139 year old country.

Edited by Russell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because so many countries only became true countries upon unification (Germany and Italy), independence from the motherland (south/central america, africa, parts of asia), or by splitting off from former giant blocs of countries (eastern and baltic europe, central asia, greece and the baltics).

 

Canada has a very short history when you get down to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because so many countries only became true countries upon unification (Germany and Italy), independence from the motherland (south/central america, africa, parts of asia), or by splitting off from former giant blocs of countries (eastern and baltic europe, central asia, greece and the baltics).

 

Canada has a very short history when you get down to it.

I'm aware. I was just throwing a random fact of interest out.

 

The Germans, for example, have been there forever. Their 'nation' is ancient. Same with many other nations whos countries only formed recently. So what if their country was born 4 years after Canada. This doesn't even consider the fact that Canada was still a colony until 1931 and didn't have its own constitution until 1982.

 

Yes, Canada is indeed young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada was made a dominion in 1867, which is when it became a country. However, we still had a great many more ties to Britain then, than we do now...

Canada was technically still a colony until the Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931. While we were considered a nation as of 1867, we were not a fully independent nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were still a nation though was my point.

It's a very grey area really.

 

We were by and large granted self-government (in most matters), I'll give you that. Britain held our hands though for many decades.

 

I guess it's like getting your learner's permit for driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They interferred somewhat, but it wasn't all the time or anything anyways.

Actually they really didn't interfere much at all. They left us pretty much alone. The issue is that our government simply did not have complete control over its own functions for over a century (1982). For example, when Britain entered WW1 Canada was automatically entered into the war as we were tied to them and could not decide for ourselves. By WW2 this was no longer the case. For a rather long time (until sometime in the 1940's I believe) our court system was subject to be overruled by the British courts as ours was subservient to theirs.

 

I know I'm going too much into this. I just feel that the 1867 date that is usually used is far too absolute. The founding of our nation was an incredibly weird circumstance, and an interesting contrast when compared to that of our neighbors to the south.

Edited by Russell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.