" ... sizeable community of people who see themselves as having enough in common, and enough distinction from others, to justify themselves in requiring political independence if they wish it. It doesn't imply that they necessarily wish to exercise that right ... "

Holy smokes, McGrath, you must be reading up on Canadian political history - that convoluted definition is worthy of MacKenzie King himself [as you may know, our war-time Prime Minister who steered the country through a couple of "national unity" crises; famous or infamous for the slogan "Conscription if necessary but not necessarily consciption", which was enough to, if not satisfy, at least befuddle those who wanted military conscription ("English" Canada) and those who were opposed ("French" Quebec)]. Right up there with Harper's "nation within a united Canada" and the 1995 referendum question, " "Do you agree that Quebec becomes sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada of a new economic and political partnership within the context of the Bill on the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12,1995?" (http://www.uni.ca/dialoguecanada/trent_guide.html#2).

I'm not really conversant enough with the situation re: Scotland to comment on the validity of the analogy; there are some obvious similarities, but there are differences as well. Most notably, perhaps, Quebec, unlike Scotland as I understand it, has had its own Legislative Assembly since at least the 1850's, and French Quebeckers were equal and very involved partners in the formation of the first "responsible government" of Canada, and then in the Confederation government of 1867, from which is marked the beginning of Canada in its present form. One of the frustrations of some of us Anglo(phone) Canadians is that under the influence of separatists/nationalists, much of Quebec's role in the early political development of Canada has been written out of Quebec's history as it has come to be understood in Quebec. Seminal, impressive figures such as the reformer, democrat, French-rights advocate and early (pre-Confederation) prime minister LaFontaine have been dismissed as sell-outs. This aspect of Canadian history doesn't fit the myth of the unrelenting oppression of French Canada. Which is not to say that there haven't been legitimate beefs over the years ...

" ... some some equivalent amicable relationship with the rest of Canada. And the same would apply if I was any kind of Canadian."

That fine sentiment is one of those things that is easier to express from the outside than from the inside. There is a lot of bitterness in relation to this issue; some of it valid and understandable; some it silly and small-minded. If Quebec were to separate, some "amicable relationship" would certainly come into being eventually, but if the whole business were not handled in a far, more rational way than it has been so far, by all parties, then such a happy relationship might be a long time coming.