I've never heard a reason. It doesn't mean that there isn't one, I've just yet to meet a pro-sovereignty Québecois with a decent reason.
The pro-sovereinty argument is an essentially nationalist one that appeals to history and race, as with most nationalist arguments. They were coerced into confederation in the first place, so if we want to get picky, there's really no blame to place on them.
If there's something I learned from Socials 11, it is that all throughout Canada's history all Quebec did was moan and complain.
I don't get it, if you hate Canada so much, go back to France.
Also, I am not employed.
Such a comment does not belong in the sphere of mature Canadian political discourse.
If one isn't willing to bother to understand the perspective of not just their opponents, but their
compatriots, a dialogue is not tenable. And the alternative to that, so far as we can learn from America's endeavours anyway, is war.
By the way—you don't even want to know what Napolean would have done if he arrived in North America. Are Americans this abusive toward their French-Louisiana brethren? I'm honestly ashamed of the racism going on here.
Do Quebec separatists really think that being independent will go along fine and dandy?
Because for one, I really doubt Canada and Uncle Sam will recognize them.
And two, I also really doubt the UK will either.
All of this is irrelevant.
If there is a revolution in Quebec—which, by the way, would place them closer in constitution to the United States than Canada proper, since, you know, REPUBLICANISM—it will almost certainly be recognized providing they establish governmental procedures that are not in gross violation of UN charters.
As a British Columbian I have witnessed what the NDP can do to really screw up an economy. They bought useless crap that no one really wanted or needed (i.e., "fast ferries" to Vancouver Island that were only a bit faster and were in constant need of repair, before eventually being sold off again). Our economy was pretty much destroyed, and took a long time to recover from that. So you can see why they have struggled to get seats in BC provincial elections in the following years.
Not that the Liberals are much better, but they do at least understand how to use money instead of simply handing it out to whining school teachers (seriously, they work from 9am to 3pm, have a two months summer break and additional holdidays, and are already pretty well payed to begin with, they don't
need better pay), and the homeless in Vancouver who pretty much just use it to buy drugs anyways. Sorry to be blunt, I'm just telling it like it is.
Trust me on this, you do not want the NDP to win a Federal Majority Government,

just, no.

Our Liberals and Conservatives are already pretty left in comparison to American parties to begin with, the last thing we need in this recession is some near-communists to 🤬 everything up.
Honestly, I would be surprised if they did win a majority. But I think they would need the Liberal and Conservative party leaders to be complete clowns in order for that to happen (Ok, that could be possible I admit,

). Even then, I doubt the NDP would be re-elected after everyone sees what those crazy BC lumberjacks are talking about.
[/stupid rant]
As a British Columbian, and precisely because you are a British Columbian, your experience with the NDP as a
federal force is irrelevant. You cannot extrapolate on the basis of a metonymy the behaviour of the "whole"—especially one which is made up of different, nationally-selected constituent parts.
Also do remember that
most democracies, parliamentary or republican, are left of USA's: it is not a benchmark of political "normalcy"—only one of power. The expediency by which you've lazily resorted to a popular aphoristic comparison is saddening, given the wide international respect that Canada has—and has squandered and lost during the "rightist" Harper years.
There is VERY much wrong with the ideals of communism. I can't believe that people still trumpet that "it's good in theory" garbage. It's not true at all. Communism provides no incentive to improve yourself, no incentive to work hard, no incentive to innovate, and no incentive to manufacture quality. It's a horrible system, and the logic behind it (or lack thereof) is terrible. The reason it doesn't work is because it's a stupid idea. It's not "bad in practice", it's just stupid all around.
Actually, so far, the history would indicate otherwise. Since neither Russia, China, nor Cuba, had "real" (eg, egressing from a capitalist apotheosis) Communist revolutions, there is no historical basis for this argument—so your appeal to empiricism fails.
Secondly, if we're to be logically strict here, one cannot refute the "it's good in theory" if the correlate of that is one based on experience, since, as I pointed out, there is no real experience. Third, your assertions that Communism "provides no incentive to improve yourself" (and Capitalism does??), "no incentive to work hard", "no incentive to innovate" etc are all negated precisely by the very fact that the labour would have ownership of the means of manufacturing. This provides
direct incentive to both work harder,
and innovate, since the profits are not being sucked from your energy and funneled into the pockets of management and aloof ownership. You argument is completely nonsenical. Bare in mind that, despite all the trumpeting, there has
never been a wholly private economy in the developed world—ever.
As for Canada as a whole, I think there needs to be some adjustment to health care. It needs to be privatized to some degree. Costs are spiralling out of control, and it's because nobody knows the true cost of anything. Ask your doctor how much a certain procedure costs, and they say "who cares? You're not paying for it." The problem is that anyone who suggests that people should EVER have to pay a dime for health care in Canada is looked at like they're insane (unless of course you're talking about prescription glasses that cost hundreds of dollars or 100+ dollar dental fillings

). Imagine if your car insurance paid for tires, oil changes, and fuel. Think of how high the premiums would be. That's what health care is like in Canada.
I still don't understand what you're getting at here because it does not in any way cohere with reality.
Right. To explain: I have no idea.
- Anti-Canadian separatists just came to power in the province of Québec
- A man from Québec went to the "after party" of the political party that won and shot two people, killing one
- Upon being arrested, the man shouted, (in French) "Les anglais se sont levés!" meaning "The English are awakened!"

The things going on in this country...

As a person who prefers German... I feel trapped in the middle of quite a fiasco.
What's your opinion on this? All of what happened? What's your take?
And, if you're not in the mood for talk of the formation of a new country (Québec wants its sovereignty,) what about the job situation? Are you Canadian? Are you employed? Are you unemployed? Can you find work?
Finally, and this is only important to me, would I need to contact the government to "legally" own and operate a business, if I were to charge money to clean cars for a living? (I'm looking for an informed answer on this, if I can find one.)
Anyway, to answer the original question, here is my take:
1. The separatists are not "anti-Canadian". They are, if we're all going to be honest here, anti-imperialist. They were one of the few colonies that were not emancipated by the British because, by 1945, the British had already ceded sovereinty to "Canada" as a dominion in and of itself, thus washing its hands of the issue. Think of the French autonomizing Algeria—except, imagine that Algeria had its' own micro-nation within it the French simply made sovereign to avoid
two massive debates.
2. I have no idea what on earth was going in that man's head.
3. The job situation is not so dire here as it is in the United States, for a number of reasons (social security being one of them, our banking regulation being another, among a myriad of reasons too numerous and onerous to list for someone without an economics degree). I've witnessed the hardships—people dropping off resumes at my place of work—afflicting people of all ages, especially the older and unskilled demographics. There is still an axiomatic hiring principle that is unskilled labour is being hired, it's going to be young labour. They're pliable and don't know their rights, so they get picked up and exploited instead of a 50-something year old who is going to assert themselves and possibly be less productive due to lower energy levels.
On the whole, though, I think Canada is slowly becoming re-energized. Layton's passing, and the subsequent hyperignition of the NDP flame by Mulcair has done a lot to increase the NDP's visibility. The additional fact that he was a parliamentary house member in Quebec should also serve as a much-needed bridge between Anglo- (including the dismissive Albertans) and Francophonic Canada.