5 ms·
Just 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 b
by beloch 10y ago
Just 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.
- beloch 10y ago1. It's per capita income that determines how equalization payments are made. Alberta has a per capita GDP of $78K while Scotland's is $43K (both according to wikipedia). Total size of the economy is not the determining factor here. Equalization payments are made to equalize the standard of living between provinces, not the total size of their economies. 2. As I said, how Scotland secedes and how the U.K. chooses to respond would set precedents that would remove many of the scary uncertainties around secession for Quebec. It could make it more appealing. Separatist sentiment is currently low, but ebbs and wanes. 6. True. Not impossible, just difficult. 7. Cheese from Quebec vs cheese from France: Which will be cheaper and more competitive in Scotland? Travel between Scotland and Canada will still be a lot more expensive than travel between Scotland and Europe too. It's actually far cheaper and faster to travel from Scotland to France (or even most of Russia) than from B.C. to Newfoundland at present. As for access to the U.S. market, who knows what NAFTA is going to look like in a couple years? U.S. trade protectionism is ramping up in a serious way right now.
- mthoms 10y ago1. Don't forget to convert the $43K figure into Canadian dollars. Doing so brings it well above the Canadian average of $53.8K. So, you're still being misleading and the point still stands. >Cheese from Quebec vs cheese from France: Which will be cheaper and more competitive in Scotland? The idea that "some products will be more expensive to import from mainland Canada than Europe, therefore it would be of no net economic benefit" is deeply flawed. That just doesn't make any sense. Ditto for the travel costs. Physical distances are increasingly irrelevant in modern economies. What about Finance? Biotech? IT? What about oil and gas or renewables like wind and tidal power? Scotland is very strong in these areas and has a highly educated population (university is free). In fact, this article from 2014 claims it has the best educated workforce in Europe (though to be fair there have been significant reports of trouble in recent years): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/scotland-the-best-educated-country-in-europe-claims-ons-report-9497645.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/s... So far you've made reference to Scottish Whiskey, Haggis, French cheese and the time it takes to ship (or travel) between places... I can't help but think you're using some very out-dated stereotypes in your thinking.
- elastic_church 10y agoIsnt this a bit redundant as canada bows to the crown... In the uk?
- beloch 10y agoIt's symbolic only. The crown's representative, the governor general, is a Canadian appointed by the Canadian Prime Minister. If the British crown actually tried to exert influence on the Canadian government though the governor general they'd likely trigger the end of that symbolism.
- Fifer82 10y agoFair-weather is a bit harsh. they have been in the union for 300 years and now even if all of Scotland voted for one party, they would be automatically overridden by London alone. The rich in London have no need of change, the standard person on the street disagrees.