
It’s time for Scotland to find a new home in Canada - colinprince
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/its-time-for-scotland-to-find-a-new-home-in-canada/article34583830/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile
======
spollo
As 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
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

~~~
pebers
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada)

~~~
saurik
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_powers_for_Scotland_call_rejected_by_UK_Government/)

~~~
throwaway2048
Not that its very relevant to your point, but quebec does have some measure of
control over immigration.

------
dghughes
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.

~~~
GordonS
> 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
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.

~~~
koralatov
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](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.

~~~
GordonS
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!

~~~
deepnet
Aberdonian, Joyce Falconer performs in Doric.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0isMWmwfO34](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](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...](http://media.scotslanguage.com/library/audio/ayecan/census_northeast4.mp3)

The Scots sort of sang their words, especially the Gaelic speakers, Orcadians
and Shetlandic.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v37bgydws0E](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 )

~~~
koralatov
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.

------
beloch
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
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.

~~~
beloch
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.

~~~
mthoms
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...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-
news/scotland-the-best-educated-country-in-europe-claims-ons-
report-9497645.html)

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.

------
labster
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.

~~~
geofft
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.

~~~
xkcd-sucks
California's government is barely capable of keeping the state running even
with federal assistance...

~~~
fraserharris
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-...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/12/taxing-rich-wont-
solve-californias-boom-bust-budge/)
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-16/brown-
s-c...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-16/brown-s-california-
overtakes-brazil-with-companies-leading-world)

------
Normal_gaussian
> 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)

------
cmrdporcupine
Makes more sense for Scotland to join Ireland & Northern Ireland in a gaelic
confederation.

~~~
fishnchips
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.

~~~
CalRobert
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.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
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.

------
DelaneyM
"Prima Scotia"?

(We (Canada) have a province already named Nova Scotia, roughly translating to
"New Scotland".)

~~~
shrewduser
what part of that translation is 'rough' ?

~~~
DelaneyM
"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.

------
motdiem
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

~~~
MagnumOpus
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.

~~~
ajeet_dhaliwal
Environmentally progressive? It's one of the worst per capita polluters. Also
Canada has a lot of problems with competitiveness.

------
pebers
The point is somewhat moot, because a majority of Scotland doesn't want
independence: [http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-
vote-i...](http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-
in-a-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask#line)

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
Polling models predicted that a majority of the UK population didn't want to
leave the EU, so...

~~~
pebers
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.

~~~
collyw
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.

~~~
pebers
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.

------
vorg
> _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
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)

------
mongol
I like this mode of thinking.

------
SticksAndBreaks
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.

~~~
petepete
> Be a bleeding heart bug liberal- and you are a Californian or Israeli

What, Israel is considered liberal these days?

~~~
SticksAndBreaks
By global standards - and ignoring there own little sub-phyle of amish-jews.

------
raverbashing
It might be a nice thought experiment but it makes no sense in practice

~~~
lovich
Why not? There was a heavy amount of Scottish immigration canada, and they
have similar governmental policies

~~~
raverbashing
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

------
surfmike
Some Canadians fantasized about this too with Turks and Caicos. It's not going
to happen.

------
XiaomiFan
As a Canadian, no thank you.

------
supremesaboteur
> 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

~~~
jamesrcole
>> 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
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.

~~~
jamesrcole
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.

