"Cultural sector: I doubt if you can gather 10 Walloons who know who Bob Mendes is, or 10 flemings who can name 1 Walloon painter. Talking about a 'belgian cultural sector' is as artificial as the country. Tagging labels on things and naming them collective does not make them unified. On top, the main impression the 'cultural sector' gave in the KVS was that they didn't even know what they were talking about. I also remember Johan Heldenbergh, actor, in de Zevende Dag. The man didn't get any further than uttering his Belgianness was personal and that he really didn't understand much about all them politicians but couldn't we just get along and not be such nasty nazis."

- Infrastructural works; google prof. Juul Hannes' study to find out who actually paid for everything.

"Linguistics: You present dialects or ways of speaking of the same dutch language and call them disperse. If you hold to that criteria that there is only one standard, then there is noone that speaks French, there is no English and German is an illusion."

No, the point was that traditional nationstates like France didn't have one single language for a very long time either. French originated from 2 different languages, la langue d'oc and la langue d'oil. Apart from the standard French we know today, there were several large different languages in France: Breton, Occitan, Basque, Catalan, Picardian etc. Many of them are older than the division between Catalan and Castillian Spanish. And they survived very well 'till very late in the 19th century or even 20th century. If even the great nationstates didn't have a standardised language, and others having a strong bond between them while speaking different languages like Switzerland, I think we can leave linguistics as a requirement for a nationstate. It can be an advantage though.

"Economical: Again you artificially enlarge the extremes. It is a very healthy sign that there is diversity next to an extremely performant hightech industry in the triangle. I am glad to finally see some good news from Wallonia, but they have drained Flanders from cash since 1831. Even now we cannot hope to see any return on investment and I doubt we ever will, not when the latest demand from Wallonia is 500 Million per year to finance the city they claim as theirs. Money goes to waste in Wallonia."

I do not. I merely wanted to point out that the overall idea of Strong Economic Flanders vs. Weak Wallonia is false. Wallonia has been succesful in the past, and the Wallonian steel industry played a major role in bringing a virtually bancrupt country on the rails again shortly after our independence.

"The elite spoke french, still does, will never learn and looks down on those nazis who want their language to be at least equal in the country where they are the majority. Don't make me go into the asymetric language facilities in Flemish and Walloon brabant."

I never denounced that there was a sense of superiority of a french speaking elite in the past, but I dare say that's in the past. The idea of the dutch-speaking still being repressed is simply not true.
Apart from that, there's a whole different attitude towards languages as well. The Flemish have the idea that language is linked to a territory, while the french-speaking consider it to be intrinsic to the person itself. There's a whole region in Henegouwen right below the border with Oost-Vlaanderen where there's a substantial group of Flemish people. The Walloons don't mind them talking dutch there, and the flemish don't bother talking french there, as it is "Walloon soil". They probably would get "faciliteiten" if they would go for it though, but they prefer the tax benefits more, says a lot about their flemishness, huh?

ZoZ, I'm not denouncing the "Flemish" line of politics, I merely want to point out that its outspoken wing like N-VA and VB make the same mistake of overgeneralisation, as much as Unionists do.