Picking up on random points after a couple of days away...

"Nation" has different meanings in French and English, which has been a source of endless misunderstandings. Quebec is a "nation" in the French sense (which doesn't imply autonymous political sovereignty) but not in the English sense (which does).

The idea that a culture cannot survive unless it has political sovereignty is demonstrably false, witness the fact that the culture of French Canada is thriving more than ever, and is in no danger of being lost, even though Quebec is not a "nation-state" in the English sense.

I'm pro-Quebec, have a bit of French-Canadian ancestry (one great-grandparent), and am proud to be part of a nation which includes the culture of French Canada as well as English-speaking Canada (and which makes room for other cultures without expecting them to assimilate to the mainstream). I don't want to lose the culture of my fellow citizens.

I'm against Quebec politicians who are plotting to dip their fingers into the till by getting control of the federal government's tax revenues, and are working to bring this about by driving wedges between the two cultures. It's all about money, folks. These people are getting ready to rip off their own people, as well as me.

To me, Canadians are "subjects" of the Canadian Crown, which by a quirk of history happens to be worn by the same person who wears the United Kingdom Crown. I have no problem with this situation. There is no formal connection between the Canadian government and the British government, just ties of shared history and compatibility. I'm happy to live in a constitutional monarchy. In theory at least, the supreme figurehead of the country, through whom all power flows, is not a politician. I'd rather have Elizabeth II than Jean Chrétien (or George Bush, or Tony Blair, for that matter) as supreme head of state.

Enough for now...