• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The Scottish vote on Quebec's Independence

Snuffy

TRIBE Member
So tomorrow the Scotts vote on whether Quebec separates from Canada in the next decade. Anyone excited for this? No?
 

Polymorph

TRIBE Member
you seem to forget (or never knew in the first place), that when Pauline Marois paid a special visit to Scotland last year to show *solidarity*, she got completely rebuffed and ignored by Alex Salmond (big Yes PM guy there). It was one of several high-profile Embarrassments for the PQ which saw them get trounced out earlier this year.

See, it's like this. If a Scot were to immigrate to Quebec, they'd be *un anglais* and treated like a second class citizen, a *pariah*, or at least be subjected to a bunch of sucky Quebecers trying to validate themselves (in the worst way).
But, thing is, obviously Canada has many transplanted Scots. I mean, Nova Scotia (DUH). As well as Ontario, the prairie provinces, the Maritimes in general, BC....

So, therefore, the Scots in Scotland identify strongly with Canada, and they don't give a shit about Quebec.

Not all referendum votes are created equal

(That being said, I don't give a shit which way the Scot vote goes. Though I must say, it's been fun and entertaining to watch!

cheers
 

Polymorph

TRIBE Member
If there's any *independiste* movement that Quebec(ers) should be identifying with, it's with the rebels in Eastern Ukraine. (including the fact that they occasionally come across like a bunch of dumb fuck Russian puppets who occasionally shoot down the wrong planes).

But even then.... I can see PQ Marois type Quebecers identifying with the stoic peasant Catholicisms of the Uke Russian rebels. However, like the Scots, there's a shitload of transplanted Ukrainians in Canada, and they don't live in Quebec. Like the Scots, they live in the Prairie Provinces (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta), and the Maritimes, with some in Ontario there. In fact, the reason creepy Harper has invited Polenchenko (y'know, that guy), to visit Canada, is that the Ukes do hold a certain balance of power in the next Federal election.

That being said, I'm a half-Uke, and I still wouldn't vote for creepy Harper. or Cunt Marois, for that matter. Under no circumstances.

cheers
 

alexd

Administrator
Staff member
I hope Scottish funksters Average White Band get to create the new Scottish national anthem!


[YOUTUBE]Ki5aS5LSrQM[/YOUTUBE]
 

Snuffy

TRIBE Member
you seem to forget (or never knew in the first place), that when Pauline Marois paid a special visit to Scotland last year to show *solidarity*, she got completely rebuffed and ignored by Alex Salmond (big Yes PM guy there). It was one of several high-profile Embarrassments for the PQ which saw them get trounced out earlier this year.

See, it's like this. If a Scot were to immigrate to Quebec, they'd be *un anglais* and treated like a second class citizen, a *pariah*, or at least be subjected to a bunch of sucky Quebecers trying to validate themselves (in the worst way).
But, thing is, obviously Canada has many transplanted Scots. I mean, Nova Scotia (DUH). As well as Ontario, the prairie provinces, the Maritimes in general, BC....

So, therefore, the Scots in Scotland identify strongly with Canada, and they don't give a shit about Quebec.

Not all referendum votes are created equal

(That being said, I don't give a shit which way the Scot vote goes. Though I must say, it's been fun and entertaining to watch!

cheers

That doesn't matter. The excitement of a yes vote in Scotland would ensure another Quebec referendum in the next decade. The only thing that would stop that is post-referrendum Scottish economic armageddon.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Snuffy

TRIBE Member
The separatists are cheering them on. Sol Zanetti seems rather bitter and upset about the previous Quebec referendums. Call me crazy, but with the way he brings up historical grievances, I find him rather unpleasant and not nice:

[YOUTUBE]R2fiyEWupP8[/YOUTUBE]
 

The Truth

TRIBE Member
19 September 2014 Last updated at 06:01

Scotland will vote to stay in the United Kingdom after rejecting independence, the BBC has predicted.

With 29 out of the country's 32 council areas having declared after Thursday's vote, the "No" side has 55% of the vote, with the "Yes" campaign on 45%.

By 06:00 BST (07:00 GMT), the "No" campaign had more than 1,737,000 votes, with "Yes" on just over 1,398,000.

A total of 1,852,828 votes is needed for victory. The vote is the culmination of a two-year campaign.

The BBC is predicting on the basis of votes declared so far by Scotland's local authorities the "No" side will win the referendum with 55% of the vote while "Yes" will secure 45% of the vote.

This margin of victory is some three points greater than that anticipated by the final opinion polls.

full results here
BBC News - Scottish referendum: Voters to reject independence - BBC
 

Polymorph

TRIBE Member
It's amusing to think that Quebec separatistes just had their hopes crushed again, just by latching onto a Referendum that has nothing to do with them
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

[- FuNKtiOn -]

TRIBE Member
54487814.jpg
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Bit of a different context to the scotland thing vs the quebec thing - one being a taker and another being a contributor being one big one!

Part of me wanted YES to win but I think they already did - if they felt neglected the freaked out Brits are gonna make some concessions.

Close calls have a way of doing that.
 

Polymorph

TRIBE Member
The separatists are cheering them on. Sol Zanetti seems rather bitter and upset about the previous Quebec referendums. Call me crazy, but with the way he brings up historical grievances, I find him rather unpleasant and not nice:

[YOUTUBE]R2fiyEWupP8[/YOUTUBE]

that guy is a poster-boy for everything that makes Quebec creepy
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

randyval

TRIBE Member
it's all very confusing to me, wasn't it a Scottish "king James VI" who created the union in the first place?
I guess im going to have to read up on whats been happening there.
seems a little bit more complicated than the Quebec issue.
 
Last edited:

workdowntown

TRIBE Member
Unionist thugs rioting in my hometown (one of the few Yes constituencies) after the No vote.

https://www.tumblr.com/search/glasgow+riots

UK media reporting it as 'two-sided standoff' in spite of masses of evidence to the contrary.

We could have been better than this but the miserable, servile conservative side of my people decided to stay 'North Britain' rather than become our own country. They were bolstered by a huge turount of over-55's who had been fed lies about their pensions being in jeopardy, despite the DWP assurances that pensions would be paid regardless.

To say I'm gutted would be an understatement.

The mood in Scotland is markedly subdued.
 

workdowntown

TRIBE Member
I guess im going to have to read up on whats been happening there.
seems a little bit more complicated than the Quebec issue.

Try wingsoverscotland or bellacaledonia, the UK media has been very pro-union for the last 2 years so it is very difficult to parse what has gone on by only reading their take on it which is overwhelmingly pro-establishment.

We literally had 1 sunday newspaper that was pro-indy which is hardly surprising when you see where the HQ of these media arms are.
 

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
Not all referendum votes are created equal

Well the plural is "referenda" and the adverb is "equally". If you're Quebecois I'll give you slack. If you're Scottish well, I'm glad you're sober enough to type.

That's ok though!

This entire question of sovereignty just boggles my mind. It's nationalism at its worst. The Scottland - England thing, I mean, at least they speak the same language (ha! maybe not) and have been together for 300+ years. It took me a roommate from Manchester the better part of two years to explain what UK, England, Ireland, Scottland, North Ireland, Wales, how all of that shit means something or comes together. And at the end of the day it's just a bunch of small islands!

The Danes have it together though. When global warming comes to fruition, and it will; sorry for all you folks around the equator -- but Canada and Greenland are basically going to own the bases. Maybe Russia too. All those bases are belong to us.

-jM
A&D
 

praktik

TRIBE Member

Who's Afraid of Scottish Independence?​

Daniel Larison | March 15

Azeem Ibrahim urges Joe Biden to discourage Scottish independence on dubious grounds of security:
All that domestic turmoil, however, risks obscuring the most consequential aspect of Scottish independence—that it would be a geopolitical disaster for the United Kingdom, the United States, and Scotland itself. Scottish independence would effectively neutralize the U.K.’s military and diplomatic power on the global arena and deprive the United States of one of its most pivotal allies, an ally that remains a critical pillar of the United States’ defense structure.
We have heard some version of this argument many times before, and it is no more persuasive now than it was then. There were many such warnings issued during the debates leading up to the first referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, and they were all similarly alarmist and wrongheaded. The effect of Scottish independence on U.S. security would be nil, and the president should say nothing about this issue one way or the other. As a general rule, the U.S. should refrain from interfering in the internal political and constitutional affairs of other states. When Obama chose to insert himself into the debate seven years ago, it was probably somewhat detrimental to the unionist side, but it was unnecessary for him to comment at all.

It is doubtful that the security of the ex-U.K. would be harmed if Scotland left. Scots are hardly going to start raiding Northumbria. Relocating nuclear-armed submarines might finally force the government to see what a costly and unnecessary drain on the military budget they are, and perhaps they will choose to scrap them and spend more on their already much-diminished conventional capabilities. The current British nuclear arsenal isn’t really an independent deterrent anyway.

Most of the article is baseless speculation that Scotland might align itself with an adversarial power. That seems very unlikely. If an independent Scotland aligned itself with any other government or group of governments, it is much more likely that they would align themselves with the European Union. Opposition to British withdrawal from the EU received overwhelming support in Scotland, and British withdrawal has led to calls for a second independence referendum in the near future. The only real question about Scotland’s entry into the EU is whether some current members will choose to block it for their own reasons. It is even possible, though less likely, that an independent Scotland might apply to join NATO. Seeking alliance membership is currently the official position of the Scottish National Party, but the issue remains a contentious one. That hardly sounds like a country that is about to become a Russian satellite once it is independent.

The least persuasive part of this polemic is that a former U.K. government in London might be stripped of its permanent seat on the Security Council. If Russia was permitted to keep the Soviet seat, it seems very unlikely that England would lose the British one. Even if this were to happen, it’s not clear why this would be such a terrible thing. The Security Council desperately needs reform, and that includes expanding the number of permanent members and changing the composition of the membership. If the rump ex-U.K. might lose its seat following Scottish independence, that just underlines the absurdity of treating the current U.K. as if it were really one of the five greatest powers on earth.
The hawks’ unspoken fear is that the end of the U.K. might make it more difficult for the U.S. to engage in military adventurism. The U.K. has been a fairly reliable follower in every major post-Cold War intervention, and in some cases it has been the U.K. that has egged the U.S. on to take military action when our leaders were not so eager to get involved. This fear is probably misplaced, because an ex-U.K., post-“Brexit” government in London would probably be even more determined to do whatever the U.S. wanted, but it is also a terrible reason to oppose the peaceful self-determination of another nation.

If another independence referendum is conducted in cooperation with Westminster and it passes, it will be a legitimate constitutional change endorsed by the Scottish people. There would be no reason for our government to object to it. The U.S. has no business discouraging Scottish independence, and that outcome poses no threat to us. If Scotland votes Yes, our government should respect a pro-independence result and recognize Scotland without delay.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top