Today? We've hated King George since our American friends have fought for their independence (and we came a hair from joining them. If not for the Catholic authorities terrorized by the notion who terrorized the people in turn, we may well have...).

The British Royals don't even dare set foot in Québec anymore when they visit Canada. Prince Charles was the last one to try, and there was a big protest.

They're merely parroting Anglo-Canadian media that have their titties in a knot over PQ again, just like they had them 18 months ago.

PQ has been in power for 18 months, in a minority government. It's gone from a much criticized government to getting a decent rate of approval, as such things go (the whole Western World is unhappy with whoever is in power, it's pretty much a staple of democracy nowadays). PQ has a few law projects that are popular but which the opposition blocks, and the new liberal chief is proving a disappointment - pushing PQ to around 40% voting intentions (that's a comfortable majority of francophones; a great deal of the liberal percentage points gets wasted in large anglophone constituencies of Montréal were they have 90% of the vote), so Marois has decided to take the risk to seek a majority now.

There's no sovereignist fever and PQ's position hasn't changed: there will be another referendum the day a clear enough consensus emerges to hold another. Is that the case right now? Definitely not, even the 32% of hardcore sovereignists are very divided over the patient and hurried factions. Would they want one if they felt they could win it? Sure. Will PQ work hard to rekindle the flame if it gets a majority? Possibly, but success is very uncertain. If Marois has a majority, the party members will certainly increase the pressure on her so she does something. Right now her campaign promise is to organize a national commission to discuss the options for Québec's future, including sovereignty. It's been nearly 20 years since we've pushed those matters on the back-burner and since the last such public commission, but nothing's been solved at the time, just pushed under the carpet. We're still living with the same problems of competing jurisdiction, doubled responsibilities with the Federal and so on.

I would say that, the numbers haven't evolved much since 1995 and remain similar to what they traditionally are during periods when the question isn't a central part of the public debate, and not much lower than they were months before the 1995 referendum (that got lost 49,2% to 50,8%). A majority of people have little interest in holding rhetorical debates over sovereignty. Support increases when it's being debated and defended, and decreases to the core independentists when it's not. Since 1995, it wasn't much debated, pros or cons, the way it wasn't either in the decade after the 1980 referendum. Sovereignists remain committed to a democratic process, so after a lost referendum the matter gets shelved for many years. 20 years after the last one, many think the time might have come to re open the debate. Canada has changed a great deal in 20 years, and hardly for the better. There's also the matter that aside from the sovereignty debate, the numbers of Québécois that identify themselves as Québécois is steadily on the rise, while attachment to Canada has declined (it's not that we dislike Canadians, they're perfect neighbors, but we're more and more disinterested in Canadian affairs and life). PQ strategists haven't failed to notice that historically the percentage of Yes votes has always been equal to that number rather than to that of support to sovereignty in polls. It was around 40% in 1980, 50% in 1995, and it's now around 60% (so a pretty large majority of francophones). At this point, it would really be a matter of convincing people it's not only viable economically, but preferable.

Bottom line: it's still doubtful there will be a referendum if PQ wins a majority, which at the moment it stands fair chance to get (but the campaign merely begins). It's very likely the national question will occupy again a greater place in public debates, though. For sure PQ has recruited this time around a great deal of great communicators among its candidates, so it's pretty obvious it intends to attempt to convince the population.

What the Economist might not have mentioned is that there's a Federal election coming in 2015 and Harper is not a very comfortable position in the polls, so his actions and reactions at the moment are pretty much pure electoral strategy, to please or appease his power base. He's not much trusted as a good defender of federalism either, and he barely has anyone to speak to Québécois in his government, let alone credible people (he got 5 out of 75 seats in Qc in 2011...). Meanwhile, he's facing an Anglo-Québécois chief of the NPD (center left) who is an ardent federalist yet still suspect to many Anglo-Canadians on the question, and the popular (outside Qc) but very inexperienced son of Trudeau. Harper doesn't have much choice but to demonstrate some "worries" and take some steps like consulting the provincial PMs and the opposition about the possibility of a PQ win. His voting base expects this, and it's always good for his popularity to exaggerates a bit the threat PQ might represent, and to affect to take the hard line against Québec in general (while in truth, he's not that opposed to many of Québec's demands, and has negotiated deals with PQ already). He's got nothing to lose. In Québec, in 2011 he got merely 16% of the vote, and it's declined since.