Quebec Seperatism

Lets start by attacking this issue more broadly. What is the legitimate function of a state in the first place? In 1941 Canada signed the Atlantic Charter, setting forth a series of universal rights the aims allies were fighting for in the 2nd World War. That charter contained a provision recognize a right to self determination. Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them; The language is similar to the later UN Charter. That people's choose a government under which they will live. "A people" is generally used for a group of people who share a common territory, common language, common race, common ethnic descent and a common history. The French speaking population of Quebec meets that criteria. The population of Canada does not. And this goes back to the division of Europe. the Peace of Westphalia (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Westphalia established the idea that nation-states are the natural form of top tier government. States formed by people's that do not view each other as belonging to the same nation tend to naturally divide on key issues and that creates terrible problems particularly with respect to foreign policy where foreign interests can play on natural divisions. Canada has, as you have mentioned, a rather blessed existence. The question is do you want to create structural weakness on the assumption that will never change? States that are not nation state are like empires or colonies. The people who live in the state do not view their rulership, as belong to their tribe / nation and thus fundamentally don't see the "we are all in this together". And thus the leadership when they need obedience must compel it through violence. The entire moral justification for rejection colonization is asserting the idea that people, nations should be self governing so that the state is a voluntary association of people that want to form a government to advance their common interests. Obviously to do that, you have to believe you have common interests. That is quite simply if the people of Quebec view themselves as Québécois and not Canadian, English Canada is engaging in colonialism. There are good arguments for colonialism, there are good arguments for empires. But those sorts of political structures on balance are worse than nation states. Obviously if Québécois agreed to assimilate their culture away, to become part of the English speaking Nation there wouldn't be a problem. Obviously if the Québécois did not view themselves as a separate nation but just a group of Canadians that speak French there wouldn't be a problem. The entire Con case is written ignoring the key issue. Québécois do not now, nor have they ever considered themselves part of English Canada, part of that Nation nor have they ever wanted to form a common state with that nation. So these issues like Québécois have different food, have different language, different culture but so what? The so what is that is exactly the stuff that binds people together and makes political unions work. As you pointed out in your example the North East of the United States and the South East of the United States politically are very different. But because they share a common heritage, and a common culture when NY was hit by Bin Ladin it was people in the South East who rushed off to fight. Lets take an example. Canada is part of the British Empire. English speaking Canada still recognizes Queen Elizabeth, a foreign Queen as its head of state. English speaking Canada doesn't even have a hostile attitude towards remembrances of its having been a colony. The French speaking population of Canada are the descendants of the losers of the seven year war, Elizabeth is not their rightful queen she's a symbol of their humiliation. When people relate to the core symbols of their nation in opposite ways in undermines the very loyalties towards that county. The emotional connection needed for the glue to hold societies together. The question is not fundamentally should Quebec separate but rather should Canada remain essentially an empire or should it be allowed to transform into 2 natural Nation-States with the advantages of Nation states? You gave two examples of multi-language communities Belgium and Switzerland. Both of which are disasters. Belgium has had ethnic tensions since approximately 1477, when people have tried to glue the state together. For the last 50 years the only thing holding the country together has been a loose federalism. The Flemish separatist part consistently polls well about 38% of the vote even with this loose confederation. In Switzerland the tension has lasted longer. The last time a vote was allowed to take place, in 1919, 81% of the Germans in the Vorarlberg region voted to join Austria. To handle this problem Switzerland has formed a confederate federal government. For centuries the government has been unable to count on deep loyalty of the various cantons towards the central government. I don't see how either Belgium or Switzerland show anything than the intrinsic problems of building non nation states. Belgium and Switzerland are artifacts of the Europe of the middle ages when territories were joined based on nobles not peoples. In terms of the issues of intermixing of languages and the various territories. That's a good issue we can discuss that at length in the how best to divide, if English and French Canada choose to divide. If it is a peaceful division, which I suspect there would be, there is no reason for it to follow provincial boundaries rather it should follow people. If not, what typically happens in these sorts of divisions is ethnic cleansing to one degree or another to make the population less intermixed. And that one time trauma helps to unify the new nation. English speakers won't have language rights in French Canada and visa versa. That nonsense is for holding an empire together nation states can handle language in a very casual kind of way. Finally in terms of separation reducing GDP the issue is per capita GDP not total GDP. And there isn't a strong connection between large countries and high per capita GDP.