...
>>Awww good memories. If you feel nostalgia getting to you come on over to the province of Quebec. With the way you talk about us I'm sure we could find someone to beat you up. And if you're lucky you could get get back to Toronto in the same plane that got you here ;-D
>
>I would appreciate understanding this is all. The idea of a "Nation" is what I don't understand.
>
>I should point out that "Under the Criminal Code, it is an offence to knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person."
>
>I said nothing "against" Francophones. The "great thinkers" I referred to are politicians.
>
>Francophones have not been a "nation" before. Multi-culturalism is about coming together, not separating, no? What is the perceived gain for Francophones?
>
>1 - Aboriginal peoples call themselves nations and live in reservations.
>
>2 - Should every nationality in Canada declare themselves "nations"?. What will Quebecois mean then? Every person of multiple nationalities should declare themselves members of several nations?
>
>3 - "Canadian" will become meaningless.
>
>I know you need not convince me and you need not defend your decision to believe in this idea. In fact, if you feel better for doing it, great! I hope something good comes of it.

Would you believe that the just in the last few days the Jocks are again talking of seceding from the UK, a 300-year union? Like the Quebeciois, it's the Scottish Nationalist Party that are leading the fray. If they succeed we'd no longer be the UK, and you guys would be right in referring to us as English. If they succeeded then Tony Blair's Labour party would no longer be able to rely on its Scottish constituencies and Labour would become a 2nd rate party. Ironic in that Blair was the main promulgater of developing their own Scottish Parliament (National Assembly).

It's been a thorny issue for generations that Scottish MPs can vote on policies that affect ENgland but not vice versa.