It’s time for Scotland to find a new home in Canada(beta.theglobeandmail.com)
beta.theglobeandmail.com
It’s time for Scotland to find a new home in Canada
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/its-time-for-scotland-to-find-a-new-home-in-canada/article34583830/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile
112 comments
I 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
"Scotland's head of state is the monarch of the United Kingdom, currently Queen Elizabeth II (since 1952)." - Wikipedia
The 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
"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
Wow, 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_powe...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15037874.Immigration_powe...
Not that its very relevant to your point, but quebec does have some measure of control over immigration.
Thank you. And I say that as a Scot married to a Canadian! I cannot believe how many times I've seen a version of this piece turn up on social media in the last week. Cringeworthy.
There 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.
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.
> 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?
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?
There are also several places in Nova Scotia that speak Scottish Gaelic. A lot of the road signs in Cape Breton are in Gaelic
Yes.
But technically it's just Scottish the language as it is referred to in English there's no need to add Gaelic at the end. Gaelic would be "Scottish language" in Scottish.
Just as Irish is a language and in the Irish language Irish is Gaeilge.
It's pretty confusing but I think I got it right! Koralatov could explain better below. I'm about 4th generation Irish folks left problem late 1800s from Co. Monaghan.
Slán!
But technically it's just Scottish the language as it is referred to in English there's no need to add Gaelic at the end. Gaelic would be "Scottish language" in Scottish.
Just as Irish is a language and in the Irish language Irish is Gaeilge.
It's pretty confusing but I think I got it right! Koralatov could explain better below. I'm about 4th generation Irish folks left problem late 1800s from Co. Monaghan.
Slán!
Canada has the highest number of Gaidhlig (Scottish Gaelic) speakers outside of Scotland. Nova Scotia -- literally "New Scotland" -- has strong ties with Scotland, being originally colonised by Scots and they celebrate that heritage quite openly.
GordonS is right: Gaidhlig is only ever referred to as "Scottish Gaelic" or, more commonly, just "Gaelic" by Scots on a day-to-day basis. The concept of "Scottish" as a language is pretty murky and is generally not used seriously. Even in these days of awakened Scottish national identity and independence referendums, we all still speak English of a Scottish variety and call it English.
Calling Gaeilge "Irish" and Irish English "English" makes a lot more sense, frankly.
GordonS is right: Gaidhlig is only ever referred to as "Scottish Gaelic" or, more commonly, just "Gaelic" by Scots on a day-to-day basis. The concept of "Scottish" as a language is pretty murky and is generally not used seriously. Even in these days of awakened Scottish national identity and independence referendums, we all still speak English of a Scottish variety and call it English.
Calling Gaeilge "Irish" and Irish English "English" makes a lot more sense, frankly.
I'm Scottish, and everyone here always refers to Gaelic specifically as Gaelic. Generally if someone says 'Scottish', they just mean whatever their local dialect is.
Scots 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
I 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 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.
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 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.
Hey, parent poster here, also living in and around Aberdeen for most of my life :)
You're bang on about Doric being difficult for people from elsewhere in Scotland; I have family from the central belt and they really struggle to understand some folk up here!
You're bang on about Doric being difficult for people from elsewhere in Scotland; I have family from the central belt and they really struggle to understand some folk up here!
Aberdonian, Joyce Falconer performs in Doric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0isMWmwfO34
and Aye Can's Doric page [2] is part an audio map of Scottish Dialect
[2] http://www.ayecan.com/listen_to_scots/north_east.html
Sheena's Granny's Doric [3] has a flavour of the musicality of Scots.
[3] http://media.scotslanguage.com/library/audio/ayecan/census_n...
The Scots sort of sang their words, especially the Gaelic speakers, Orcadians and Shetlandic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v37bgydws0E
The BBC's postwar campaign to establish Recieved Pronunciation made the UK largely comprehensible to each other but at great cost to it's unrecorded linguistic diversity - at the time sadly considered vulgar.
Lang may yer Lum Reek ! ( Long may your chimney's smoke - a Fifer greeting )
Dinnae fasch yersel. - Edinburgh's Don't worry yourself ( Keep Calm )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0isMWmwfO34
and Aye Can's Doric page [2] is part an audio map of Scottish Dialect
[2] http://www.ayecan.com/listen_to_scots/north_east.html
Sheena's Granny's Doric [3] has a flavour of the musicality of Scots.
[3] http://media.scotslanguage.com/library/audio/ayecan/census_n...
The Scots sort of sang their words, especially the Gaelic speakers, Orcadians and Shetlandic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v37bgydws0E
The BBC's postwar campaign to establish Recieved Pronunciation made the UK largely comprehensible to each other but at great cost to it's unrecorded linguistic diversity - at the time sadly considered vulgar.
Lang may yer Lum Reek ! ( Long may your chimney's smoke - a Fifer greeting )
Dinnae fasch yersel. - Edinburgh's Don't worry yourself ( Keep Calm )
Linguistic flattening had been going longer before the Second World War -- the introduction of railways helped it a long a bit, but radio really sped up the process. My grandmother told me that radio, listened to by all the family, was the first time English was spoken in the family home.
Small world! My email is in my profile if you fancy discussing where to buy the best rolls.
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.
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.
1. 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.
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.
1. 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.
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.
1. 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/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.
>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/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.
Fair-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.
Isnt this a bit redundant as canada bows to the crown... In the uk?
It'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.
With 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.
Considering who got elected in the most recent election cycle, can you imagine the nutjob that would get elected without California's large block of electoral votes anchoring the country's politics at least somewhat left? Imagine a country where Florida and Ohio are solidly blue and the Republicans still win national elections. Now imagine having to live next to that country and share a 1000-ish-mile border. Now imagine they have one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons and no one pushing them to protect the environment in any way, shape or form.
Calexit gets scary in a hurry, even if there's no fight over letting California go.
Calexit gets scary in a hurry, even if there's no fight over letting California go.
Except Californian population is larger than Canada's. This would be terrible for those already Canadian.
Also, the same "CA" abbreviation would still work.
Calexit 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.
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.
Calling the US a country may make sense, but I increasingly don't feel it's a nation. I feel more foreign in Missouri than in Ireland. I feel no more kinship or commonality with people from the US than from liberal western democracies (Canada, most of Europe, etc).
Also, California is arguably occupied. It is ruled by a federal government that lost an election by any reasonable measure. It lacks the right to secede due to a federal constitution which violates the generally acknowledged right of peoples to self-determination. Do you think three quarters of the states would ever vote to let the Californian cash cow secede? They milk it for all it's worth, all while complaining that California doesn't know what we're doing.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-f...
I left, but the first thirty years of my life were in California and it's a great place. It could be a lot greater without being yoked to an oppressive system that minimizes its vote, steals its cash, and actively opposes its aims in fields ranging from the environment, to immigration, to education, among others. We should stop pretending the US is united by anything more than coercion by the small states over the large. Would an independent California freely choose to join the US today? If not, perhaps we should reconsider whether this relationship is healthy. Perhaps other states should as well.
Also, California is arguably occupied. It is ruled by a federal government that lost an election by any reasonable measure. It lacks the right to secede due to a federal constitution which violates the generally acknowledged right of peoples to self-determination. Do you think three quarters of the states would ever vote to let the Californian cash cow secede? They milk it for all it's worth, all while complaining that California doesn't know what we're doing.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-f...
I left, but the first thirty years of my life were in California and it's a great place. It could be a lot greater without being yoked to an oppressive system that minimizes its vote, steals its cash, and actively opposes its aims in fields ranging from the environment, to immigration, to education, among others. We should stop pretending the US is united by anything more than coercion by the small states over the large. Would an independent California freely choose to join the US today? If not, perhaps we should reconsider whether this relationship is healthy. Perhaps other states should as well.
> It is ruled by a federal government that lost an election by any reasonable measure
The electoral college system our country has used for nearly 250 years is no longer a "reasonable measure" of who won the election?
The electoral college system our country has used for nearly 250 years is no longer a "reasonable measure" of who won the election?
It is consistent to say that it never was; it just happened to usually align with the popular vote.
Suppose there was a little Eastern European country where the election procedures were the same as the USA's. We would certainly criticize them every time the popular vote said A and the weird political procedure said B and got to overrule the popular vote.
In fact, if they had oil or it were otherwise advantageous, we would likely invade, fracture them into smaller countries more amenable to our interests, and then abandon them.
Suppose there was a little Eastern European country where the election procedures were the same as the USA's. We would certainly criticize them every time the popular vote said A and the weird political procedure said B and got to overrule the popular vote.
In fact, if they had oil or it were otherwise advantageous, we would likely invade, fracture them into smaller countries more amenable to our interests, and then abandon them.
Correct. It never really was, but as the country's polarization increases it becomes less and less a reflection of the people's will. If three quarters of the country can vote for you and the other candidate _still_ wins, that's a deeply flawed system.
(discussion at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=569298)
Until this century we mostly just got lucky, with only two misalignments in the 19th century.
We essentially have a rotten borough problem, though few want to acknowledge it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs
Ideally we'd go to preference-based voting, but just eliminating "let's make votes from rural areas vastly more important" as a voting system would be a huge start.
Until this century we mostly just got lucky, with only two misalignments in the 19th century.
We essentially have a rotten borough problem, though few want to acknowledge it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs
Ideally we'd go to preference-based voting, but just eliminating "let's make votes from rural areas vastly more important" as a voting system would be a huge start.
Last time some states tried to do that it didn't work out so well.
Those states didn't have the majority of the economic power when they tried it. The South needed to win; the North simply needed to outlast.
Apps and search engines don't win wars
An army travels on it's stomach.
http://www.westernfarmpress.com/tree-nuts/what-happens-if-us...
And, that oh-so-important-to-the-rest-of-the-country-farming, is less than 5% of California's GDP.
California's manufacturing sector is enormous. Good luck repairing your planes without California. And medicine? Oh, yeah, that biotech manufacturing goes bye bye. etc.
Our current highly interconnected economies rely on peace. If an actual significant war ever broke out, people would start starving immediately.
And, that oh-so-important-to-the-rest-of-the-country-farming, is less than 5% of California's GDP.
California's manufacturing sector is enormous. Good luck repairing your planes without California. And medicine? Oh, yeah, that biotech manufacturing goes bye bye. etc.
Our current highly interconnected economies rely on peace. If an actual significant war ever broke out, people would start starving immediately.
"An army travels on it's stomach."
True, but that stomach is full of wheat and corn, not celery and kiwi fruit.
"Good luck repairing your planes without California. "
Good luck being able to get a glass of water without the rest of the country. I wonder where trouble would develop first?
Plus, what makes you think that the agricultural counties are going to join your utopia in the first place? Almost all of them voted heavily for Trump.
True, but that stomach is full of wheat and corn, not celery and kiwi fruit.
"Good luck repairing your planes without California. "
Good luck being able to get a glass of water without the rest of the country. I wonder where trouble would develop first?
Plus, what makes you think that the agricultural counties are going to join your utopia in the first place? Almost all of them voted heavily for Trump.
Are you aware that flyover country, as you Californians call it, is mostly farms?
Noone is gonna starve without california. We might not be able to get avocados during the winter months anymore, but we'll be fine.
Noone is gonna starve without california. We might not be able to get avocados during the winter months anymore, but we'll be fine.
"California can survive much more than the rest of the country can."
What are they planning to use for water?
What are they planning to use for water?
The USA without California is screwed. The USA with California screws California while insulting us.
Do you think that the problem is California or the rest of the USA?
Do you think that the problem is California or the rest of the USA?
A destabilized neighbor is usually not desirable unless you benefit from the lack of stability (US Mexico?)
In any case, I don't think California wants to secede.
In any case, I don't think California wants to secede.
California's government is barely capable of keeping the state running even with federal assistance...
This is a myth. Due to various propositions restricting taxes, the California state government experiences significant booms and busts. When the busts do happen, the deficits are negligible relative to the size of California's $2.5T economy - the 7th largest in the world.
Sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/12/taxing-rich-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-16/brown-s-c...
Sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/12/taxing-rich-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-16/brown-s-c...
California's government has had no trouble keeping the state running, even with the active harm done by a the net federal extraction of wealth from the state, since the supermajority budget requirement which prevented effective governance was removed.
Cascadia would make a great and powerful nation.
California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia.
Governed by boring and competent people like Jerry Brown, it would be a good place to live.
California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia.
Governed by boring and competent people like Jerry Brown, it would be a good place to live.
The only reason I noticed the sarcasm is because I don't see how someone with the nickname "Moonbeam" who has a Dead Kennedys song about him can be considered boring.
Her majesty might veto it though. We can't have Canada winning medals at the Commonwealth Games in every event except cricket!
I thought that California and Oregon were supposed to join China, like a large, distant Hong Kong.
Calexit will of course never happen. Any secession attempt would automatically lead to yet another civil war. California would be crushed.
And Donald Trump will never be elected preside... oh wait.
In all seriousness, Trump becoming president shakes my belief in reality. It certainly has made me see that anything truly is possible.
The explaination that the universe is an elaborate simulation seems not just plausible, but really like the most likely explaination.
What seems impossible today is just another run of the mill fact of life tomorrow.
In all seriousness, Trump becoming president shakes my belief in reality. It certainly has made me see that anything truly is possible.
The explaination that the universe is an elaborate simulation seems not just plausible, but really like the most likely explaination.
What seems impossible today is just another run of the mill fact of life tomorrow.
> California would be crushed.
If California gets crushed, the rest of the country will starve.
And you really think that a military that couldn't pacify a city with a bunch of camel jockeys carrying AK-47's could pacify Compton let alone something the size of Los Angeles or San Francisco? Good luck with that.
Calexit won't happen because Californians really don't want it. We're a pretty level-headed bunch even when Cousin Cletus Red State shoots himself in the foot with his loaded gun--again.
The problem is that Trump and the Republicans are incompetent enough to actually do something stupid enough to galvanize Californians the wrong direction. THAT'S the real danger that could cause Calexit.
If California gets crushed, the rest of the country will starve.
And you really think that a military that couldn't pacify a city with a bunch of camel jockeys carrying AK-47's could pacify Compton let alone something the size of Los Angeles or San Francisco? Good luck with that.
Calexit won't happen because Californians really don't want it. We're a pretty level-headed bunch even when Cousin Cletus Red State shoots himself in the foot with his loaded gun--again.
The problem is that Trump and the Republicans are incompetent enough to actually do something stupid enough to galvanize Californians the wrong direction. THAT'S the real danger that could cause Calexit.
"If California gets crushed, the rest of the country will starve."
No, it wouldn't.
You are confusing high-valued luxury foods (e.g., artichokes, almonds, and arugula) with basic calorie sources (e.g., corn and wheat). The latter category is the one that makes the difference when it comes to starvation.
California produces only a very small percentage of our calories. No one is going to starve to death if they can't get fresh arugula in January.
No, it wouldn't.
You are confusing high-valued luxury foods (e.g., artichokes, almonds, and arugula) with basic calorie sources (e.g., corn and wheat). The latter category is the one that makes the difference when it comes to starvation.
California produces only a very small percentage of our calories. No one is going to starve to death if they can't get fresh arugula in January.
[deleted]
> If California gets crushed, the rest of the country will starve.
See? That's why Calexit will never happen.
See? That's why Calexit will never happen.
> 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
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results
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
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results
Makes more sense for Scotland to join Ireland & Northern Ireland in a gaelic confederation.
There 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.
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.
Realistically speaking, I'm not sure how many people in the Republic would even entertain the idea of joining with the North, let alone Scotland. Apart maybe from extreme nationalists, most people realise it would be nothing but trouble.
Ironically, Scotland joining might be less emotive. It's historically interesting that Scottish people displaced a lot of the native Irish centuries ago, yet I've never heard anti-Scottish sentiment here.
Scoti was the name the Romans use for the Irish, and Scotland was settled by Irish tribes who displaced the original Brythonic (Pict) speaking inhabitants. So it goes both ways.
Well I said confederation, not national union.
Or Scandinavia? Makes more sense geographically, at least.
The 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
No 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
"Prima Scotia"?
(We (Canada) have a province already named Nova Scotia, roughly translating to "New Scotland".)
(We (Canada) have a province already named Nova Scotia, roughly translating to "New Scotland".)
what part of that translation is 'rough' ?
"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.
I 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
A 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.
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.
Environmentally progressive? It's one of the worst per capita polluters. Also Canada has a lot of problems with competitiveness.
The point is somewhat moot, because a majority of Scotland doesn't want independence:
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.
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.
Polling models predicted that a majority of the UK population didn't want to leave the EU, so...
Yes, 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.
And 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.
In what way was that a promise? The Conservatives clearly intended to hold a referendum (they had campaigned on it in 2010 but weren't able to get support from the Lib Dems) so future membership was already in question - although voting Yes would have meant Scotland's exit anyway.
We don't need to rely on polling though. We already had a actual referendum on the matter not less than three years ago.
Then 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.
> 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?
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?
I'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
I like this mode of thinking.
It 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.
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.
> Be a bleeding heart bug liberal- and you are a Californian or Israeli
What, Israel is considered liberal these days?
What, Israel is considered liberal these days?
By global standards - and ignoring there own little sub-phyle of amish-jews.
It might be a nice thought experiment but it makes no sense in practice
Why not? There was a heavy amount of Scottish immigration canada, and they have similar governmental policies
The 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
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
Some Canadians fantasized about this too with Turks and Caicos. It's not going to happen.
As a Canadian, no thank you.
> 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
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
Pro-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).
>> 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.
> 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.
It 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.
It was talking about what they want (or what the article claims they want) to do to the country, not anything at all about whether people should feel ashamed or not to be Christians.
Nonetheless I love my Scottish brothers, if it were coming from you I wouldn't say no!