6.8 said:
I agree. It's the biggest fallacy in the sovergnity plan. They want their independence, but! And it's also assuming far too much collaboration from the Canadian government. It's as though their plan wants to have the best of canada, while not having the worst. Sounds good, really. But it's so unpractical and improbable that it's downright laughable.
Actually, it makes sense and this is not rocket science.
You have about 30-35% hardcore separatists in the province, people dedicated and people ready to go vote whenever they are asked to. But as strong óf a bloc as they are, they can't secede with their number through a referendum.
What do they do? They water down their main objective to get a broader consensus. Some form of collaboration plan with the rest Canada is offered, to get those sitting on the fence in and even people who would call themselves federalists. Why would some federalists side with seperatists? Because through this watered down plan, they get what they want: change. Support for this type of sovereignty plan wavers and changes all the time, but events like the sponsorship scandal just gets some people here pissed off and they might support the plan, if only for a while.
What makes them think the ROC would go along after an Yes vote? They assume cooler heads will prevail and after the instability of the referendum, most would choose to solve this issue quickly in order to limit the damage on the economy on both sides so some deal would be reached.
What if the ROC refuses to go along? Possible, but in this case, hardcore sovereignists get what the ultimately want: legitimacy to go for full independence, something they couldn't get initially.