Sand wrote:
There is more to a country than a culture and a language. Does Quebec have an economic base that can sustain a small country? I don't know. I'm just asking.
Of all the arguments, this one has always been the least relevant. Quebec is larger than many countries, both population- and territory-wise. Also, there is no such thing as "too small to be a sustainable country". What size makes one "unsustainable"? At the moment, Singapore and Luxembourg are two of the most prosperous countries in the world, yet are basically city-states. Off the top of my head, I can name Switzerland and Denmark as two more countries with smaller populations, which are hardly poor or "unsustainable". Quebec is a relatively modern country, and there is no reason that it cannot be "sustained" as a sovereign state.
Personnally, I don't care. I think Canada is way too large to make sense, but I would also think the same thing of an independent Quebec. As a Quebecer, I don't really like being forced to live in a country with 4M Albertans. However, as a Montrealer, I would be stuck with 500k people from Quebec City, which is hardly better. I already am in the provincial elections, and it's painful enough.
In the end, it is very unlikely that it will go through at all. Two referendum defeats should be a clue to the independence movement.