You have it backwards :

-Quebec must first claim back its sovereignty on all its jurisdictions. It must become “sovereign”, which doesn’t mean “independent”, or cut off.
Sovereign means “not subordinated”, “not having to answer to”, another entity, and completely free to decide what it does with its powers and resources.
[As it is, Quebec and other provinces are already deemed sovereign in certain areas, such as health and education. Or at least they are legally supposed to be...]

That doesn’t equate independence, because after such a mandate is obtained, negotiations will still have to take place which will decide what happens next.
-Just as when you negotiate divorce terms, until everything is settled, you are still legally considered married.

-Then, these negotiations will either lead to Quebec becoming independent, or for it and Canada to remain federated, but under new conditions. In the latter case, the 2 entities would negotiate anew in what jurisdictions Quebec would abandon its sovereignty, and under what conditions : Without ever becoming independent.

The only way for that to happen is that Quebec first becomes independent, what happens next and when is a moot point.

Different words have different meanings. And when you’re about to make a crucial decision like secession, you try to use the words that actually say what you want to accomplish.

-The aim of Quebec is not necessarily total “independence” from Canada. What “sovereignists” want (not “separatists” as they are called in the ROC to confuse issues…), is a mandate to call all powers back to Quebec from Ottawa, in a sovereign manner. Then, if Canada agrees, to negotiate a new federative pact in which Quebec and Ottawa would share a more limited amount of jurisdiction.

…

Dave : « I’m not trying to convince anybody of anything. I’m just tired of hearing the same old “victims of colonialism’ schtick. »

Not saying that’s necessarily true for you but, in my experience, those who tend to see all sovereignists as a spiteful, bitter and angry bunch, get most of their information from anglo media. -I.e. media that doesn’t really relay all that happens in the movement, but only what’s likely to arise indignation from its opponents.

Party militants can and will say anything they want. But the truth is that no one in the leadership, from Parizeau to Bouchard to Boisclair to Landry to Marois to Duceppe has contested the 1995 results or even hinted at pretending that Quebec is already de facto independent because of the alleged trickery on the Non side.

You should listen to the sovereignist side more attentively, they have been entertaining the notion that the 1995 referendum was stolen by the NO side. All the major spokespersons repeat it continuously, I’m very surprised you claim that no one has contested the No victory.

Yes indeed, just like in most elections. On the one side you had the federalists spending money illegally and scaring people with “you will lose your pensions”… on the other side you had a strangely worded question, ballots being rejected and those public audiences…

With respect to the question though, here is the one that was put to the voters in Montenegro (they also had a 55% treshold for independence, not the 50+1):

“Do you want the Republic of Montenegro to be an independent state with a full international and legal personality?”

Actually, that was my point.

“The realpolitik fact is that winning by 10,000 votes is probably sovereignty’s absolute worst case scenario.”

Actually, that’s pretty much word for word what I wrote.

I was not for the Oui and would not be for it if another referendum were held today.

That doesn’t prevent me from being irritated by people who, by alluding to a “trick question”, downplay just how many people in Quebec were ready to kiss off Canada on Oct. 30, 1995.

There was plenty of trickery on both sides, and to be frank I don’t really think it’s very smart for people who were/are on the Non side (my side, actually) to continuously raise these matters when the Non camp’s nose is hardly clean when it comes to October 1995.

All in all, I’d say the 50.6 Non and 49.4 Oui was a pretty accurate picture of public sentiment that day.

The Non side won. No one has contested this. Good for us. But let’s not rub it in too much because we don’t know what the rubbing might uncover.

There you go with your condescending moral superiority. Do you really think that independence would have been a romp in the park with 50.4% – part of whom thought they were voting to stay in Canada, albeit with more powers for Quebec ?

What about regions with very large No majorities, what about stirring up irredentist feelings in the ROC. What about the First nations? The realpolitik fact is that winning by 10,000 votes is probably sovereignty’s absolute worst case scenario. But that’s never admitted out loud, instead you take the high ground and “accept the result” while accusing the Nos of bad faith.