Foreword: With this exclusive English translation for 1867confederation.com, I am starting a new occasional series under the category "The FQS in English". [Ed. FC1867]

The French original of this article (text by the FQS) was first published in the French Harfang, No. 2, Vol. 1; and republished by the FQS under the title "Écosse, Québec : à quoi bon l’indépendance ?"

Scotland, Quebec:

[Exclusive: The FQS in English (series article)]

What Good is Independence?

Quebec sovereignists rejoiced last October (2012) when Scottish Prime Minister Alex Salmond signed an agreement with British Prime Minister David Cameron on a referendum in 2014 on the independence of Scotland. Quebec sovereignists, who fear never to see a winning referendum in their lifetime, are thus happy to learn that if sovereignty is not the order of the day in Quebec and this, in spite of the Parti Québécois in power, it is so somewhere in the world.

Unfortunately, the independence project promoted by the separatists of the Scottish National Party (SNP) is as meaningless as that of the Parti Québécois (PQ). The two parties in fact curiously resemble one another; both are burning defenders of a Government which spends heavily, they call themselves progressives and are opposed to any reduction in the public service. As to the national question, the arguments are far from convincing. In Quebec, language is invoked, and the most recent battles with the Federal government (when one succeeds in having any), in the hope of convincing people; then the Scandinavian model is held out as the model of society. When one hears of the impossibility of maintaining such an extravagant government without the support of Alberta, the PQ sovereignists tell us about Old Harry, this oil-bearing reserve which will cause us to survive as a people, hoping that greener energies, like solar energy, never supplant oil.

What a funny coincidence to note that on the Web site of the SNP, the model to be followed is that of the small Scandinavian countries such as Sweden and Denmark, and that the main argument which they call upon for independence is economic. In fact, more disconcerting still, they are speaking of the North-Sea oil wells. Just like the PQ, the SNP hopes to survive thanks to a maritime oilfield in order to maintain so large a government and such generous social programs. We are light years away from William Wallace!

In terms of identity, the Parti Québécois is less fuzzy; certain criteria such as language, secularism (our heritage could therefore not be a part of it) and common values (a deliberately vague term that is never defined) make Québécois of us. The SNP, more nebulous, does not mention Scottish identity, except to say that it has been a very long time since they felt any link to British identity.

The Scot conservatives of the Scottish Conservative Party know very well that there exists a difference between nationalism and separatism and they openly denounce the SNP as not being nationalist, but rather separatist. In fact, one of the arguments of the leading conservative, Thereza May, is that the independence of Scotland would create an explosion of immigration, because at this moment, the United Kingdom does not form part of the Schengen Zone, which allows freedom of movement of people who can settle anywhere they wish in the European Union. To leave the United Kingdom would oblige Scotland to reapply for an exemption from the Schengen Zone, which is likely to be refused, thus attracting many new immigrants. It is therefore allowable to ask which is the most nationalist: Alex Salmond of the SNP or Thereza May of the SCP.

Nowadays, what good is independence? SNP documents show that the interest would be mainly economic, but even based on this argument, it makes no sense. One wants economic prosperity for the new country, but what is this country, then? Currently, with immigration, a country can be made up of whoever happens to be living on the territory. Some still dare to speak about common values and sometimes about common language or culture, but with time, Western countries are being standardized: is there a Western country that does not share the values of equality, openness and democracy? No, of course not. Thus, the citizens’ values imposed in the 21st century are the same, regardless of the country. As to culture, with globalization, it is being standardized. MacDonald's, Lady Gaga, 50 cents, and Desperate Housewives have become facets of the daily life of Westerners whether in Scotland, in the Basque Country or Quebec. Finally, the argument of language is rather fallacious. If language is the only criterion of nationality, what would prevent Quebec from federating with the Congo or with France? As to Scotland, it shares the same language with England and the rest of the United Kingdom.

With immigration and multiculturalism on the one hand, and globalized culture and institutions (NAFTA, the European Union, NATO, the UN…) on the other, the independence project makes no sense. This project is supposed to safeguard a people on a given territory, therefore it presupposes the existence of people, of a nation. Why refuse to live in the same State as the English*, when one accommodates the Africans with open arms? There is here a contradiction that the so-called nationalists of the Basque, Scottish and Quebec sovereignist parties must settle. Independence is the aspiration of “us”, but if the “us” is not defined, then how explain that this “us” excludes the Welsh for the Scots and the Acadians for the Québécois? One then de facto rejects people having the same culture as us on the pretext that they do not live on the territory which we claim.

Moreover, with governments which must complacently yield to such international authorities as the UN, NATO and international groupings, what really is independence worth in the 21st century? A people can dictate its will and govern itself as it wishes, provided its neighbors are in agreement and it respects international treaties. In a globalized world, the economy also becomes a weapon to subordinate governments. If Western countries do not like the internal policies of a country, its population is taken hostage to prescribe its policies under threat of economic sanctions and boycott. One can think of the examples Iran or the Austria of Jorg Haider in 2000. Thus what good is it, in this context, to add another government which will be the puppet of international agencies?

Far be it from me to condemn the ideas of independence movements -- I am a sovereignist myself. On the other hand, it is time that people call the project into question. Is its sole objective the sovereignty of a territory or the emancipation of a people which wishes to govern itself? If the latter is true, then the project of independence is incompatible with multiculturalism (and with interculturalism, a meaningless word seeking only to dissimulate a reality that has become quite unpopular) and globalization. A people wishing to govern itself by and for itself must be defined not by vague values become universal standards of liberal morality, but by what it really is -- with due respect to right-thinking people. Moreover, for it to be emancipated, it is important to affirm its independence in the face of the globalist monster and not only with respect to its immediate neighbors. What good is becoming independent of England to be the lackey of Brussels?

For the preservation of our people,
F.Q.S.

_____

<sup>* “les Anglais” (“the English”), most famously intoned in the haunting ballad of Acadian Evangeline, is a misnomer today. English is a race, or a language. The English race speaks the language; others also speak it. Including former mayoralty candidate Michael Applebaum, who was unabashedly misidentified on the cover of the Jewish Suburban weekly newspaper as the first "English" mayor of Montreal. He was Jewish; he spoke English. (He is apparently now on trial for numerous counts of fraud and corruption, i.e., selling zoning changes for kickbacks.)

The English-speaking “Founding Peoples of Canada” were already largely ethnically “Canadian” (i.e., from here, not from elsewhere) at the time of Confederation. In addition, there were Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, Danish, Dutch, German, essentially white European settlers who formed the basis of British North American immigration, precisely as wanted by the Founding Fathers in the Debates on Confederation. The Germans, moreover, as mercenaries of King George III, defended French Canada from the Americans after the 1774 Quebec Act, which emancipated Catholics to hold office in the colony of New France in the British Empire.

To refer today to “les Anglais” is anachronistic, if anything. It conjures forth a bitter year in the annals of King George III, that of 1759. However, as one example, my father is an English-speaking French Canadian with possibly some Belgian roots (Vézeau on his mother's side); my mother is half English, half Irish. I am therefore not an “Anglaise”, I am decidedly not “English”; I have never even been to England. I am Canadian, descended on three sides from Founding Peoples of Canada. I am not "a" Canadian as in somebody on the soil at a certain longitude and latitude; but "Canadian", the ethnicity.

If the term “les Anglais” (the English) continues today to be used, it may stir up the ghosts and bones of old battles that were settled long ago; and moreover, settled in friendship in 1867 with a permanent Constitution designed to preserve each of the Founding Peoples of this country... if only these peoples knew it, and how to use it.

Instead, they are apparently still blindly struggling to obtain what they had already obtained nearly 150 years ago: a constitutionally guaranteed permanent right of self-government and self-determination free from undue interference. The problem now is one of how to awaken those who benefit, and teach them to assert their constitutional rights under it.</sup>