23 ms·
It’s time for Scotland to find a new home in Canada
- raverbashing 10y agoIt might be a nice thought experiment but it makes no sense in practice
- lovich 10y agoWhy not? There was a heavy amount of Scottish immigration canada, and they have similar governmental policies
- raverbashing 10y agoThe historical context is true, but this would be a net loss for Scotland The "geography is moot" argument certainly isn't. They will have a border with the UK and will want some leeway there (as Northern Ireland wants to have with Ireland post-brexit) Besides I'm sure the Scottish people will be delighted into start paying the extortionate mobile fees the rest of Canada pays. I'm also sure they will find it lovely to leave SEPA back to settling payments with Cheques (LOL) or something that couldn't even pass for a school project today: ACH
- XiaomiFan 10y agoAs a Canadian, no thank you.
- mongol 10y agoI like this mode of thinking.
- dghughes 10y agoThere are some places in Canada even speak Scottish. We have lots of Scottish people and Irish too but quite far removed, distant relatives typically of at least 100 years. It would be interesting and I can certainly see how we Canadians and Scottish people are similar especially here on the east coast. But there are also big differences I'd say Scotland is more left of center politically than Canada usually is. But after trying so long to be independent I can't see anyone in Scotland wanted to join Canada or any other nations. Maybe the EU eventually but not a union with another country.
- GordonS 10y ago> There are some places in Canada even speak Scottish Nit to be pedantic... but do you mean they speak with a sort of Scottish accent, or do you mean they are actually using words from Scots, Doric or some other Scottish dialect?
- deepnet 10y agoScots is a language, historically equivalent to English - very similar but different. Many modern english speakers derive from a Scots root rather than a purely English one. E.g. Scots has a plural form of you, 'yous' and other differences. Scotland has many other dialects like Doric and accents and other languages like the Gaelic of the Highlands.
- carlob 10y ago> Scots is a language, historically equivalent to English - very similar but different. What is considered a language or a dialect is largely a political construct. By the way you put it, it seems to be the case here too.
- koralatov 10y agoI think you're confusing dialect with language here. Scots and Scottish English are distinct from one another. The latter does borrow some from the former which leads to confusion. Scots is a language, historically equivalent and closely related to English but still distinct. It's a stretch to argue that "many modern English speakers derive from Scots root". At this point in history, most Scots speak Scottish English with some borrowing from a Scots root -- not the other way around. This is evident in the fact that the vast majority of a modern Scottish person's vocabulary is from mainline English and intelligible by someone from London. That doesn't happen by Scots borrowing vocabulary from English -- it happens from English absorbing vocabulary from Scots. This is the situation for the vast majority of Scottish people. Coming across those who don't fit into the English-with-Scots-influence only reinforces this. Doric is arguably a descendant of mainline Scots which has converged on English, rather than the other way around, and means it's sometimes difficult to parse even for other Scots. Quite a lot of the Borders also speak a dialect which derives from Scots which has converged on English, and is difficult for other Scots to parse. They sound very similar to each other to someone who speaks neither, but are actually quite distinct -- mistaking someone from Selkirk for an Aberdonian will cause offence! The Wikipedia has a pretty good article on Modern Scots, though I think it overstates the pervasiveness of modern Scots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Scots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Scots It's also worth noting that most speakers of Modern Scots also speak Scottish English, and code-switching takes place frequently and fluidly. Gaelic is spoken by ~57,500 people in Scotland. Some of them have English as a second language, having been raised with Gaelic as the language of the home. In some cases this does show their English usage. One common tell is slightly unusual phrasing -- one typical and quite common usage is "You will be having tea?" rather than the more common "Will you be having tea?" Even then, they're still speaking a variety Scottish English and not Scots. tl;dr: Every Scottish person speaks at least one of the dialects of Scottish English. Some also speak a dialect of Modern Scots. An even smaller number speak Gaelic. Sources: Highlander born and raised, living in Aberdeen for >10 years. One parent is a Gael whose second language is English, the other parent is from the Borders whose first language is that variety of Modern Scots. Native speaker of Scottish Standard English, with a little time spent studying linguistics and an interest in the subject.
- labster 10y agoWith the prospect of Calexit, I would definitely consider having California join Canada. Preexisting trade deals, membership in NATO and NAFTA, and a country used to bilingual culture would all be a great fit for us.
- xemoka 10y agoExcept Californian population is larger than Canada's. This would be terrible for those already Canadian.
- ygmelnikova 10y agoAs a Canadian, no thanks. As soon as something goes wrong with the relationship, you'll bail like you did on your other lover.
- geofft 10y agoCalexit scares me because it's effectively abandoning the country; California can survive much more than the rest of the country can. It might be unfair to place that burden on California, sure, but it seem indisputable that leaving would destabilize the remaining United States in many ways - which won't be good for either Californians or anyone else. What's to stop New York, for instance, from also leaving once it realizes that the 50/50 red/blue balance is permanently gone? And what is a US without California and New York, on the world stage? Is it still treated like the US? The process of figuring that out, and perhaps of Canada becoming the world's great superpower (with California and with the bordering state of New York) and essentially needing to disarm a terrified and well-armed US, seems like it cannot possibly be a better plan than California just getting the US to do what it wants in approximately any other way. No one will win except Raytheon and Palantir. And even if it doesn't get that bad, I would expect a US without California to leave both NATO and NAFTA, either out of spite, out of a clear dominance of the political voices that are currently NATO-skeptic and NAFTA-skeptic (but are being held in check by California's votes), or out of simply not having enough of an economy left where either of them make sense.
- DelaneyM 10y ago"Prima Scotia"? (We (Canada) have a province already named Nova Scotia, roughly translating to "New Scotland".)
- shrewduser 10y agowhat part of that translation is 'rough' ?
- DelaneyM 10y ago"Scotia" is Latin for the island now known as Ireland, and though it inspired the name "Scotland" it has never technically been a translation thereof.
- cmrdporcupine 10y agoMakes more sense for Scotland to join Ireland & Northern Ireland in a gaelic confederation.
- zhte415 10y agoThere is a movement (also includes Wales) with funding promoting this around the world. They're quite discrete, and I have no idea of their scale, however it is a thing. And given the peaceful premise, could vastly eclipse the niche funding achieved through the 70s, 80s and 90s during The Troubles.
- titanomachy 10y agoOr Scandinavia? Makes more sense geographically, at least.
- DaiPlusPlus 10y agoNo more than Denmark - problem is not all of Scotland identifies as Scandinavian, they're more often Gaelic-identifying than Norse: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16050269 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16050269
- smcl 10y agoThe thing is "Scandanavia" isn't a country or any sort of meaningful confederation, more a neat way to describe a collection of geographically close countries. What's being proposed here is a country/union of some kind
- 10y ago
- spollo 10y agoAs a Canuck, I think this kind of thought experiment must be extremely offensive to the autonomy of Scottish people... I would be pissed if I read the same sort of thing coming from the U.S. towards Canada. Nonetheless I love my Scottish brothers, if it were coming from you I wouldn't say no!
- saurik 10y agoI think the concept comes from the idea that Scotland, while defined as a "country", is already subservient to the U.K., a situation which clearly does not define the relationship between Canada and any other larger country, and so this is not about "stop being autonomous and come join Canada" but "maybe become part of Canada instead of part of the U.K.". "Scotland's head of state is the monarch of the United Kingdom, currently Queen Elizabeth II (since 1952)." - Wikipedia
- pebers 10y agoThe Queen is the head of state of Canada as well, so that situation wouldn't change: "Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II being the head of state." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
- saurik 10y agoWow, and apparently she is also the Queen of Australia and New Zealand?!? Regardless: Scotland is usually compared at the level of Quebec, not Canada, and there are numerous things that they do not have control over, particularly and most relevantly including immigration. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15037874.Immigration_powers_for_Scotland_call_rejected_by_UK_Government/ http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15037874.Immigration_powe...
- throwaway2048 10y agoNot that its very relevant to your point, but quebec does have some measure of control over immigration.
- vorg 10y ago> while the Tories in Britain and the Republicans in the United States set about creating a neo-liberal Anglosphere – anti-egalitarian, avowedly Christian, pro-Big Business, pro-military – Scotland becomes part of Canada and helps lead the way to a more progressive world Similar to "the Liberals in Australia and Republicans in the US set about creating a pro-big business, pro-military Anglosphere". Does that mean New Zealand should become part of Canada?
- petecox 10y agoI'm waiting for the article suggesting Wales should split from England and join Argentina. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Wladfa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Wladfa
- beloch 10y agoJust to play the devil's advocate here... Such a move would pose some pretty big problems for Canada. 1. If Scotland were a Canadian province, they'd likely be a "have not" province and equalization payments from other provinces would go to Scotland. Good for Scotland, but this would be a drain on the rest of Canada. 2. If Scotland seceded from the UK and joined Canada, that would be one heckuva precedent for Quebec, which has held referendums on separation before. How Scotland makes the decision to separate (e.g. 50% +1 of a referendum vote?) would have a big impact on Canada, even if Scotland doesn't join Canada. 3. Like an unfaithful lover, if Scotland were to secede from the U.K., could they be viewed as anything other than a fair-weather province? Is it worth pouring resources into a province that's likely to leave later on if it suits them? 4. How would Canada-U.K. relations be affected by this? 5. How are military assets going to be handled? What does Scotland take with them, and what does Canada (not the biggest of military spenders) have to do to maintain Scotland's current military readiness? While I doubt the rest of the U.K. would pose a threat, they might not be happy giving up equipment, soldiers, and co-coordinating the defense of the British isles with Canada. It's fair to note Scotland would face all these problems if it goes it alone. For Canada, they are optional. 6. How are Canadian nation-wide services going to be rolled out to Scotland and/or harmonized with those of Scotland? e.g. Canada Post would suddenly have to deal with an overseas province. Flat rate shipping within Canada would suddenly cease to exist. 7. Contrary to what the article states, geographic distance is still immensely important. Integrating Scotland into Canada's economy would pose huge problems. Scotland would likely be better served with closer economic ties to the E.U.. Would Scotland want to abide by Canada's trade deals with the E.U.? Would Canada want to modify those deals to meet Scotland's needs? I could go on for a while, but what does Canada get out of all this anyways? Haggis and scotch? Scotland has had a huge impact on Canada's culture, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should take them in as a province if there aren't compelling economic benefits to doing so. Becoming a larger country does have some appeal, but this is a case where the problems created may outweigh the benefits of growth.
- mthoms 10y ago1. Scotland's economy would actually be ranked 4th (only slightly smaller than Alberta) if it were a province in Canada. So it definitely wouldn't be a "have not" province. 2. I'd argue that Scotland joining Canada would present a stronger argument for Quebec remaining rather than leaving. 3. See (1) 4. This is an interesting question but between Brexit and losing Scotland I don't think they'd be in a very strong position to dictate much. Further, I don't think they'd want to antagonize Scotland (and by extension both the EU and Canada). After all, they can't trade exclusively with the Americans (who are becoming increasingly protectionist). 5. Also an interesting question - I have no idea about this. 6. The US Postal Service has different rates for "Continental USA" and non-contintental shipments. Besides - it will probably still cost far less offering services in Scotland than some of Canada's remote northern communities. 7. It's not clear to me why the distance would matter from an economic perspective. I also can't think of any good reason why the EU would not welcome Canada. Especially if it would give them better access to the US market. >what does Canada get out of all this anyways? Canada would get back door access to the worlds 2nd largest economy. Furthermore, if NAFTA remains in place, Canada would become the "gateway" for European companies accessing the USA (and vice versa). Being at the geographic, economic and social intersection of the worlds two largest economies would have enormous benefits.
- pebers 10y agoThe point is somewhat moot, because a majority of Scotland doesn't want independence: http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-a-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask#line http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-i... And if it appears a referendum on independence wouldn't pass, one asking whether they should join Canada certainly won't, because it'd lose a lot of the force of nationalistic pride behind the independence campaign.
- ubernostrum 10y agoPolling models predicted that a majority of the UK population didn't want to leave the EU, so...
- rleigh 10y agoWe don't need to rely on polling though. We already had a actual referendum on the matter not less than three years ago.
- vertex-four 10y agoThen we went through a major political upheaval where the result on something that many Scottish people who voted No find quite important was something directly contrary to what the Scottish people wanted.
- pebers 10y agoYes, but Scotland had a referendum on this relatively recently, and polls prior to that were generally similar to how they are now, so it seems pretty reasonable to see the most likely outcome as another No vote.
- collyw 10y agoAnd we have seen how all the promises turned out to be lies after the vote. One of the major reasons for not splitting form the UK was that we would get to stay in Europe.
- surfmike 10y agoSome Canadians fantasized about this too with Turks and Caicos. It's not going to happen.
- supremesaboteur 10y ago> anti-egalitarian anti-egalitarian when it comes to outcomes, pro-egalitarian when it comes to opportunity > avowedly Christian This ... is a bad thing ? It is not a bad thing to be unashamed of being a Christian. > pro-Big Business Pro-business. Small and Big. Pro-jobs. > pro-military Pro-self-defense. > neo-liberal Classical liberal
- EliRivers 10y agoPro-military. The attitude of the typical US citizen (and government) towards their military is markedly more pro-military than in Europe. The article suggests that the UK is working towards being more pro-military, but the UK is far, far behind in that respect (and in many aspects, I'd say UK culture is less pro-military than large parts of Europe; to a large extent, the military in the UK is out of sight and out of mind).
- jamesrcole 10y ago>> avowedly Christian > This ... is a bad thing ? It is not a bad thing to be unashamed of being a Christian. The bit you're quoting is not talking about a person, like a person being ashamed of something or not. It's talking about the governmental stance towards a country. The full quote being "So, while the Tories in Britain and the Republicans in the United States set about creating a neo-liberal Anglosphere – anti-egalitarian, avowedly Christian, pro-Big Business, pro-military" Even someone who's a proud Christian has good reasons not to want the country to be avowedly in favour of one religion. (i'm not saying all Christians would hold this view). As an atheist, I wouldn't want the country to go that way.
- supremesaboteur 10y agoIt was talking about a political party, not the government. Political parties are set up to serve the interest of groups. For example, Republicans could be for defending the right of individuals to practice their religion in peace. For the unemployed to want to create more jobs so that they can live their lives with dignity. For people to keep their families safe through having a strong military etc.
- motdiem 10y agoI read this week about a proposal for the whole U.K. to join Canada after Brexit - it would be like a reverse takeover by a former colony - they'd keep the queen since it's technically the ruler of Canada too... That would be a fun scenario to explore
- MagnumOpus 10y agoA fun scenario if you don't live anywhere near Canada or Europe maybe. With their superior numbers, the English voters will quickly overwhelm Canadian elections. They would turn it from a nation that embraces immigration and is socially and environmentally progressive, into a backward country introducing state-funded faith schools, state-endorsed xenophobia and even more short-sighted politicking. Believe me, you don't want to see that.
- ajeet_dhaliwal 10y agoEnvironmentally progressive? It's one of the worst per capita polluters. Also Canada has a lot of problems with competitiveness.
- SticksAndBreaks 10y agoIt seems Diamond Age is not so far away by now. Emerging are the phyles, tribes of ideas, some social democratic, some autocratic. Welcome to europe candaduu. Also, you can loose your nation and citizenship, if you turn to other ideas. Become a communist and you become a north korean or venezuelian, become a djihadi and you are a ISIL or Saudi Arabia citizen. Be a bleeding heart bug liberal- and you are a Californian or Israeli. Maybe this is where we are going. It would be interesting to see, the inter-phyle interaction. Today, the amish phyle and the californian phyle came to a trading aggreement, where upon the Californian phyle would protect the Amish phyle in return for a scholarship on californian schools for the brightest of the amish decendants.
- petepete 10y ago> Be a bleeding heart bug liberal- and you are a Californian or Israeli What, Israel is considered liberal these days?
- SticksAndBreaks 10y agoBy global standards - and ignoring there own little sub-phyle of amish-jews.
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago> The Scots aren't happy with the rest of Britain. They aren't happy politically with Westminster's shift to the right. There is this general perception that "the Scottish people" want to leave the UK and that "the Scottish people" didn't want Brexit. This is simply not true. If we look at the Brexit results [1] we can see that Scotland voted 38% in favour of leaving the EU - yes a majority voted to stay however 3/5 is nowhere near enough to claim the dissenters are irrelevant. Similarly the referendum on Scottish Independence was a vote with two clear and highly relevant sides [2]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results