It’s time for Scotland to find a new home in Canada
beta.theglobeandmail.com
beta.theglobeandmail.com
Nonetheless I love my Scottish brothers, if it were coming from you I wouldn't say no!
"Scotland's head of state is the monarch of the United Kingdom, currently Queen Elizabeth II (since 1952)." - Wikipedia
"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
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15037874.Immigration_powe...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 )
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!
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.
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.
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. 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.
>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.
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.
Sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/12/taxing-rich-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-16/brown-s-c...
Do you think that the problem is California or the rest of the USA?
In any case, I don't think California wants to secede.
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.
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.
Noone is gonna starve without california. We might not be able to get avocados during the winter months anymore, but we'll be fine.
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.
The electoral college system our country has used for nearly 250 years is no longer a "reasonable measure" of who won the election?
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.
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.
What are they planning to use for water?
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.
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.
See? That's why Calexit will never happen.
A military occupation shuts down all sectors immediately and they absolutely will not come back up for years. Look at what the Taiwan quake did in semiconductors. Now scale that up.
An orderly exit allows the rest of the country to continue buying California products.
Those in power will do whatever to prevent Calexit from happening in the first place.
And so if Calexit happens, will we have San Diego exit from the Republic of California too?
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.
Calexit gets scary in a hurry, even if there's no fight over letting California go.
California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia.
Governed by boring and competent people like Jerry Brown, it would be a good place to live.
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
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.
(We (Canada) have a province already named Nova Scotia, roughly translating to "New Scotland".)
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.
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.
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?
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.
What, Israel is considered liberal these days?
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
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
> 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.