If Canada’s province of Quebec is anything to go by, Scotland is in for a rocky ride after it voted “no” to independence. I first got to know the province 30 years ago, when the separatist party, Parti Quebecois (PQ), was pushing for a referendum on secession from Canada. But in 1985, Quebecers, like the Scots, voted “no”. There are similarities with Scotland: the pro-separatists were thought to be in the lead during the campaign, yet ‘no’ won on the night, and the PQ leader, Jacques Parizeau, like Alex Salmond, announced his resignation the following day. True, the vote was much tighter than Scotland’s 55/45 per cent split, with the separatists losing by a whisker – they took 49.6 per cent of the vote.
But with Alex Salmond already claiming there should soon be another referendum and already complaining that the Westminster politicians are not to be trusted with their pledge to devolve more powers, it seems that divisions will take a long time to heal. Thirty years ago, when I first visited Quebec’s largest city, Montreal, there was still a sense it was part of Canada, still a feeling that two communities, while in some ways divided, could get along. But the divide between them only grew, until the PQ, minority government elected in 2012, produced its Charter of Values.
During the Scottish referendum campaign, the Scottish National Party’s supporters often suggested they could create a Utopia, claiming people would at last be free and equality would reign. That same Utopian fervour was promoted by the PQ in power, which still backed independence from Canada, but also wanted Quebec to become a secular province, where religion would be banished to the sidelines. In their bid to prove themselves true Quebecers, rooted in their French heritage, the separatists wanted no truck with religion. Achieving this aim would have included removing symbols of the region’s once majority religion, Roman Catholicism, though, undoubtedly they had Islam in their sights. And French was pushed to be ever more the dominant language, rather than equal status with English, as it is recognised in the nation of Canada.
In April the people of Quebec voted out the PQ and with it the party’s Charter of Values, but now the new Liberal provincial government has announced a watered-down version of it – at least in its aim to demand that no face can be covered when people are delivering public services. It’s likely to win people’s support because the province, no doubt a response to traditional Catholic patriarchism, is strongly feminist. And the French Quebecer majority are still deeply fearful of cultural dilution.
That connection to the past reminds me of the Scots: a people that also has a rich history, with a narrative about English-speakers’ oppression. But there are differences, too: the Scots have not retained their native language in the way the Quebecers have, but neither have they walked away from their religious roots in quite the same way. If church attendance has fallen in Scotland, it’s probably down more to a gradual decline that an aggressive rejection as there has been in Quebec.
So there might be an opportunity here for Scotland in the difficult, post-referendum days. It could be all set to go the way of Quebec, with a people continually riven by the fight for separatism, as they have been since 1985. Or its Churches could help people come together, as clergy aimed to do this weekend with a major reconciliation service. One memory makes me optimistic: that of the St Ninian’s Day parade in 2010 when thousands of Scots lined Edinburgh’s streets to welcome Pope Benedict on a wave of patriotism.
One thing is clear, though; if the Churches are to help, they can’t get too cosy with any political party, as the Catholic Church seemed to do with the SNP during Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s time as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh. His successor, Leo Cushley, must exercise the utmost caution as he plays his part in the healing of Scotland’s wounds.
Catherine Pepinster is editor of The Tablet and is currently on sabbatical
Loading ...
What do you think?
You can post as a subscriber user ...
User comments (2)
Yes, Catherine, Quebec is a PROVINCE of Canada. Scotland was an independent COUNTRY for hundreds of years before 1707.
The referendum result does not represent the ‘settled will’ of the Scottish people, as some No-supporting politicians have claimed. Almost half of those who voted chose independence. Healing divisions should not be confused with shutting down an important, valid, and unfinished debate.
This piece repeats a common mistake of conflating the Yes campaign with Alex Salmond and the SNP. Yes Scotland was a cross-party, grass-roots campaign involving members from all political parties and none. There are nowhere near enough SNP supporters to gain 45% of the vote, let alone a majority.
Additionally, it should be noted that neither Yes Scotland (or the SNP) promised a Caledonian Utopia. This was not a ‘Braveheart’ romantic campaign, no matter how some in the media may have portrayed it. On the evening before the vote, Alex Salmond explicitly noted that an independent Scotland would face problems and difficulties like any other nation. ‘Yes’ voters did not vote for perfection but for a country in which decisions are made about it by the people who live and work there. Is that so radical?