Forget Scots Independence - should Scotland join Canada?

[Barrister]

KEN MCGOOGAN
It's time for Scotland to find a new home – in Canada
KEN MCGOOGAN
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Apr. 04, 2017 3:32PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Apr. 05, 2017 12:43PM EDT
95 Comments  Print

Ken McGoogan's books include How the Scots Invented Canada, Celtic Lightning, and 50 Canadians Who Changed the World. In September, he will publish Dead Reckoning.

Let's invite Scotland to join Canada. The Scots aren't happy with the rest of Britain. They aren't happy politically with Westminster's shift to the right. They aren't happy with Brexit, and with being frog-marched out of a multinational alliance they don't wish to leave. The Scots, certainly as represented in Edinburgh, want to hold a second referendum on independence. But they're hitting a brick wall.

Read also: Brexit's ending is yet to be written

Now is the time for the Canadian government to extend an invitation. Would the Scots consider becoming a province of Canada? I know, I know. Some Scottish nationalists will throw their hands in the air – as will some Canadians. Please, hear me out.


With a population of 5.3 million, Scotland would become Canada's third largest province, after Ontario (13.9 million) and Quebec (8.3 million). Our country's current population is 36.5 million. With Scotland, in a country of 41.8 million, the new province would represent 12.6 per cent of the population, as compared with 8 per cent of the 65 million people in the U.K. And it gets better. Add the 4.7 million Canadians who claim Scottish heritage and you've got a cornerstone population of 10 million – nearly 25 per cent of the country's total. Isn't that what they call a power block?

Scotland is not contiguous with the rest of Canada. But given current communications technologies and the speed of air travel, distance has become irrelevant. Besides, Scotland is nearer to Newfoundland (3,355 kilometres) than Hawaii is to California (3,977 km). Glasgow is nearer to Halifax (4,250 km) than Halifax is to Vancouver (4,443 km). And Edinburgh is nearer to St. John's (3,450 km) than to Athens (3,825 km).

No, Scotland would not become fully independent. But even as a typical Canadian province, it would have more powers than it does now. Provincial legislatures have jurisdiction over their internal constitutions and direct taxation for provincial purposes, including for municipalities, school boards, hospitals, property and civil rights, administration of civil and criminal justice, and the list goes on. Of course, things get complicated, so let's cut to the chase. Would Scotland control its oil resources? The Constitution of Canada places natural resources under the jurisdiction of the provinces. So, yes. The answer is an emphatic yes.

Obviously, Scotland would not be a typical province. It would be unlike nine of the current ten. But consider Quebec. In 2006, the Government of Canada passed a motion recognizing "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." Quebec has its own ministry of international relations, whose mission is to "promote and defend Quebec's interests internationally." Like Quebec, Scotland would be distinct, but differently. And Canadians know how to accommodate difference.

True, Quebec has refused to sign the Constitution Act of 1982. But constitutionally, Canada has muddled on without that signature for 35 years ... and looks good to go for another 35. Does anybody imagine that, without the overwhelming support of the provinces, the federal government could unilaterally make a change on the scale of withdrawing from the European Union? Be serious.

But let's think about the EU. What if, after Brexit, Scotland applied to rejoin, not as a nation of 5.3 million, but as part of a country of 41.8 million. Obviously, it would have more clout. For Canadians, Scotland would establish a foothold in multicultural Europe. 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 – Scotland becomes part of Canada and helps lead the way to a more progressive world. Here comes Ireland, north and south. Here comes Wales. It's a Celtic wave, and yes, it's bringing cheaper whisky.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/its-time-for-scotland-to-find-a-new-home-in-canada/article34583830/

There's some sense to it - rather than be adrift with an EU-less UK, an independent Scotland would now be a part of a new supra-national body - NAFTA.  It would have substantially more independence as a Canadian province than it does now - and arguably more independence than it would as a independent member of the EU.  It would even maintain a free-trade agreement with the rest of the EU via CETA (Canadian - EU Free Trade Agreement), albeit one with some still significant trade barriers, and no freedom of movement with the EU.

Where the article starts to sound foolish is when it talks about Canada itself joining the EU, and all in opposition to right-wing politics in the US and England.  You should never make such wide-ranging decisions based on short-term political swings.

[The Brain]

Russia would point to this when they annex the Baltic states.

[Valmy]

No. That would be stupid.

[Barrister]

No. That would be stupid.

Why?

[derspiess]

Why not-- should be good for a laugh.

[Jacob]

That seems pretty silly, Tim.

[Duque de Bragança]

No. That would be stupid.

Why?

Scotland wants to join the EU, and Madrid has dropped its objections, for now.

[HVC]

Ugh. No more Presbyterians please

[Monoriu]

Why should Canada take them?  I have read somewhere that they are a net money loser.  They spend more than they earn in taxes.  Ottawa needs to subsidise them if they refuse to reduce their expenditure (who wants to?). 

[The Brain]

Why should Canada take them?  I have read somewhere that they are a net money loser.  They spend more than they earn in taxes.  Ottawa needs to subsidise them if they refuse to reduce their expenditure (who wants to?).

Scots are the opposite of expensive.

[Ed Anger]

Canada sucks

[Admiral Yi]

Goofy idea by a writer trying to gin up book sales.

[crazy canuck]

Why should Canada take them?  I have read somewhere that they are a net money loser.  They spend more than they earn in taxes.  Ottawa needs to subsidise them if they refuse to reduce their expenditure (who wants to?).

Scots are the opposite of expensive.

[HVC]

Why should Canada take them?  I have read somewhere that they are a net money loser.  They spend more than they earn in taxes.  Ottawa needs to subsidise them if they refuse to reduce their expenditure (who wants to?). 

We already subsidize 8 million people who speak funny, what's another 5.

[Grey Fox]

I think thats a great idea.

While we are at it, let's not forget to extend a invitation to Turks & Caicos.

Prime Emperor Justin Trudeau has a nice sound to it.