Scotland to change Quebec autonomy talk
MONTREAL— As the campaign leading to next Thursday’s vote on Scotland independence enters its final stretch, most of the ingredients that turned the 1995 Quebec referendum into a national nail-biter have returned.
They include a late-in-the-game reversal of the momentum in favour of the pro-independence camp, a mad scramble by the No side to turn the tide and a possible photo-finish next week.
But it is the differences between the two episodes that stand to most inform and, eventually, change the terms of the Canada/Quebec referendum conversation.
Here are five of them. 1. Lowering the voting age to 16: The Parti Québécois has toyed with the notion of bringing down Quebec’s voting age in the past and its strategists will be poring over the Scottish exit polls next week to see how that measure affected the result.
But the PQ’s appetite for tweaking the voting age may be tempered by the changed circumstances of the sovereignty movement. In 1995, the province’s independence was the option of choice of a strong majority of younger voters. There has been a pro-federalism sea change in the perceptions of Quebec youth since then. 2. Commonly agreed rules of engagement: In sharp contrast to the Canada/Quebec approach to the 1995 referendum, the parliaments of Edinburgh and Westminster agreed on the question and on the threshold (50 per cent plus one) required to trigger independence negotiations beforehand.
This is a precedent that neither side in the Canadian debate will be able to ignore. Should there ever be another Quebec referendum, the onus will be on the Yes camp to ask a question devoid of the bells and whistles that acted as a distraction from the core issue of independence in 1995. But the federal government will equally be under pressure to imitate the U.K. and accept a simple majority threshold. 3. A measure of certainty as to the delivery of the No camp’s promises: British Prime Minister David Cameron and his parliamentary opposition are scrambling somewhat messily this week to put change in the window of the No campaign. But at least they agree on the principle of devolving more powers to Scotland.
Prime minister Jean Chrétien also played the change card in the desperate dying days of the 1995 campaign. But the similarities stop there, for Chrétien’s commitment was based on zero consultation with his parliamentary and provincial opposition. When it came to promising to enshrine Quebec’s distinct character in the Constitution, he was — as events subsequently demonstrated — far off on a limb of his own making. 4. Recasting the identity debate: one of the most striking differences between the Scottish campaign and the Quebec referendum narrative is the different place that ethnic-based considerations play in each debate.
In Scotland the tent of the Yes camp is mainly anchored by what is presented as a common set of progressive values, while the notion of a common identity-related heritage is relegated to the backdrop.
Part of the reason is that language does not set Scotland apart from the U.K. in the way that it does in the case of Quebec and Canada.
Still, when all is said and done, the tent of Scotland’s Yes camp bears more resemblance to the socialdemocrat tent Jack Layton pitched in Quebec in 2011 than to that of the recently charter-driven PQ or the now ultra-sovereigntist Bloc Québécois.
The lesson will not be lost on some of those who are vying for the succession of Pauline Marois. 5. Lastly, as in Quebec in 1995 the two Scottish camps are presenting black and white versions of what life after a Yes vote would be like. If the Yes camp prevails next week, matters such as the currency of a sovereign Scotland, its inclusion in the European Union as a stand-alone country and the ongoing role of Scotland’s MPs in Westminster will all come up for discussion in real time.
After a Yes victory, the U.K./Scotland negotiations would stretch over 18 months. The process would feature significant variations from the Canadian model but also enough parallels to offer a potentially sobering preview as to what the sequel to a Quebec Yes vote could be like. Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.