A good question

"What exactly did he mean?", the Telegram asked last week after Danny Williams' Rant from the Throne:

“My government will harness the desire among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to cultivate greater cultural, financial and moral autonomy vis-a-vis Ottawa. … Our province will achieve self-reliance by becoming masters of our own house,” the speech said.

As has been pointed by others already, the “masters of our own house” reference is one that is familiar to Quebec separatists: in the 1960s, then-Premier Jean Lesage used essentially the same terms.

[...]

Perhaps, then, Williams could explain in what way he intended the language to be taken. More to the point, perhaps he could have found a way to keep people from having to read anything into what he says — by, in fact, just saying exactly what he meant. No obscure references, no couched use of terms like “autonomy.”

[...]

It’s neither transparent nor accountable to make veiled threats or false promises.

Very good question. Very good points.

Questions that should have been asked, points that should have been made, when Danny venemously spat the line, "that flag'll be gone".

When he pointed out, on more than one occasion, the obvious fact that "Ireland is a country."

Or that Norway is a country, too.

Or when he kept making the Townie separtists' favourite dubious half-comparisons to Iceland.

When he started flirting with the Pink, White and Green.

When his pourparlers started flirting with the idea of a "Bloc" of seven "independent" MPs who pay fealty to him.

When he said, "we should be more like Quebec and fight for the province not a partisan position..."

And when he warned of "dire consequences".

So here's another good question: why has it taken so long for that handful of people who are still willing and able to ask questions, to start asking pointed questions about Danny's increasingly blatant crypto-separatist leanings and politique du pire brand of what passes for "federalism"?