Independence - is Flamborough next - Rivers would like to think so.

By Ray Rivers

September 26, 2014

BURLINGTON. ON

In the late 1990’s former Premier Harris imposed amalgamation on a number of municipalities in Ontario, including Flamborough, where I live. Folks were so upset that it was only the lack of access to heavy weapons which prevented scenes like the ones we’ve seen taking place in eastern Ukraine from happening right here in Hamilton. But instead of occupying municipal buildings, the ‘free Flamborough folks’ just demanded a municipality-wide binding referendum on de-amalgamation.

But the plebiscite never happened and in the end ‘big Hamilton’ won. Property taxes shot up and local government was shut down. To speak to city hall folks now had to haul their butts into the big smoke, pay the outrageous Hamilton parking fees and hope the heck that somebody on council would recognize them. Finally, many just gave up – the discouraged elector effect.

So what was Scotland’s referendum all about? Hardly 300 years of slavishly oppressive rule by their English masters or being forced under the yolk of British economic imperialism. Though perhaps it was really about correcting history. After all, Rob Roy, Mary Queen of Scots, Bonnie Prince Charlie, Mel Gibson (Brave Heart’s William Wallace) all failed to bring independence. And here was a chance to win without firing a crossbow or swinging a broad sword.

Scotland, unlike Flamborough, for a number of years had its own parliament and the ability to enact its own local laws, including taxation. But that is not real independence, like your own army and a seat at the U.N. In some ways the parallels with Quebec are scary. In fact, the Scottish National Party (SNP) took inspiration from our own ‘Parti Québécois’ and their twice-failed attempts at sovereignty, though at least they had a clear, unambiguous question for the voters.

It eventually went no but 45% wanted to leave the United Kingdom

The turnout was over 80%, a voting population which had seriously poured over the pros and cons, like a fine single malt, before finally opting unequivocally for the status quo. National health care, a strong British currency and EU membership beat out the elusive benefits of independence. In the end the Scots followed the lead of Quebecers in their first vote in 1985 – refusing to jump into the unknowns of the deep end and choosing instead to paddle around the shallows they were most comfortable with. They chose head over heart, some would say – rational over national – swimming against the current in a renaissance era of nationalism.

Russia has become the leader for this reversion back to nationalism – something which harkens back, disturbingly, to a Europe of the 1930-40’s. Militarization, media control, banned opposition and public expression; the signs of a man with a plan to be sure. In the name of defending Russian nationalism the cleaver big Bear has been able to impose its imperialist will, somewhat ironically, on its neighbours and in the face of their own nationalism.

Today the multi-ethnic EU, the great melting pot of Euro communities, is at risk – threatened with Euro-scepticism and the rise of right-wing nationalist forces which threaten to tear it apart. For example, the UK plans to hold a plebiscite on its own EU membership, something which might cause the Euro-inclined Scots to question their latest vote on independence.

Canadians breathed a sigh of relief with the election of the Quebec liberals earlier this year. And it looks like the next sovereignty referenda is some years off, especially as Premier Couillard is determined to have his province sign onto Canada’s constitution. But these kinds of things can change in a heartbeat sometimes, so should never be taken for granted. One just needs to look at events in Iraq.

Canada came very, very close to losing Quebec.

We came so close in 1995. While the Chretien government may not have been prepared for a ‘Yes’ vote, Saskatchewan was. Premier Romanow had developed a strategy for his province to also secede from what would be left of a Canada without Quebec. It is probable that there might have been no Canada-without-Quebec, at all, had Mr. Parizeau played the hard ball he wanted to in 1995.

Perhaps Flamborough should have become independent in 1906

Flamborough had evolved as a kind of artificial construct, cobbled together as so many geo-political entities in the jig-saw puzzle of municipalities in Ontario. It was more of a mosaic than a community, lacking the kind of deep cultural history and evolution we see with the Scots, the Mesopotamians, the Israelites, or the Kievan Rus. So nobody felt strongly enough to bring out the tanks and the ground-to-air missiles in this civil fight to retain an independent identity and local government.

Still, if you were to poke some longtime resident of Flamborough, you’d find the embers of a freedom-fighter looking for a whiff of oxygen to re-ignite the issue, especially as another election year is upon us.

You’d also find someone disappointed by ‘the system’ and tired of the garbage spewing from the mouths of populist-tending politicians only interested in your votes – politicians with no real intention on this matter.

And maybe you’d see a sad smile of ‘deja vu’ on faces that are tired of all the dishonesty and unfairness, and are still waiting for the referendum they were promised’.

Links:

Free Flamborough    Scotland Referendum    Cameron of Scotland   SNP –

The Queen    Quebec To Sign   Sask. Plans

What Quebec Wants      Ukraine Crisis

Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.