Forget Scots Independence - should Scotland join Canada?

[Berkut]

And then what if there's a French enclave in the native area-- would they be able to leave and rejoin Mother Quebec?

And what is a native family owns a house in the enclave? Can they then secede and join Canada? And what if there is a Quebec-sympathizing house pet inside that house...

This is why the mantra of "self-determination!" is so over played. It doesn't actually work in any practical sense, or rather it ONLY works if you accept that it has significant practical limitations, and cannot really be a foundational principle.

It requires you to define some arbitrary political entity for which it matters, and at no level below that. So Alabama can cry "self-determination! Secessarion!" while at the same time putting down, with force, a part of the state that wanted nothing to do with their succession. Same thing in Tennessee, and of course Virginia.

If you accept that there is some political entity of some particular size or configuration under which self determination no longer applies, what is so special about the "state" or "province" that intrinsically defines THAT entity as the determinative one? Why not the country? Why not the county, or town, or region?

[Grey Fox]

And then what if there's a French enclave in the native area-- would they be able to leave and rejoin Mother Quebec?

While I understand the idea behind it, that is not possible. The Native are very racist when it comes to home ownership & living on their land.

Atleast the southern ones. The Inuit are more laid back about it.

[HVC]

To be fair there is a history of white people moving in and claiming land as their own

[Valmy]

To be fair there is a history of white people moving in and claiming land as their own

Only by right of conquest!

Oh...that's not a thing anymore? Damn it.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

To be fair there is a history of white people moving in and claiming land as their own

Only by right of conquest!

Oh...that's not a thing anymore? Damn it.

sure it is

[CountDeMoney]

To be fair there is a history of white people moving in and claiming land as their own

Only by right of conquest!

Oh...that's not a thing anymore? Damn it.

It's just called "eminent domain" now.  Here's a check with an arbitrarily low number on it, thank you for your cooperation, citizen.

[Zoupa]

And then what if there's a French enclave in the native area-- would they be able to leave and rejoin Mother Quebec?

And what is a native family owns a house in the enclave? Can they then secede and join Canada? And what if there is a Quebec-sympathizing house pet inside that house...

This is why the mantra of "self-determination!" is so over played. It doesn't actually work in any practical sense, or rather it ONLY works if you accept that it has significant practical limitations, and cannot really be a foundational principle.

It requires you to define some arbitrary political entity for which it matters, and at no level below that. So Alabama can cry "self-determination! Secessarion!" while at the same time putting down, with force, a part of the state that wanted nothing to do with their succession. Same thing in Tennessee, and of course Virginia.

If you accept that there is some political entity of some particular size or configuration under which self determination no longer applies, what is so special about the "state" or "province" that intrinsically defines THAT entity as the determinative one? Why not the country? Why not the county, or town, or region?

I've often wondered about that. I have no idea either.

[viper37]

There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...

You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.

Feds can not pass laws in exclusive provincial powers.  But they can invalidate provincial laws and Federal laws have supremacy over provincial laws, something not happening in Europe right now everywhere.

See the recent business with the Federal funding of healthcare.  They can't pass a law, but since they perceive whatever taxes they want and then distribute the money to the provinces, they can starve provinces into submission to force them to do whatever they want. With our money.  And that's totally legit.

As the UK been forced to do something against its will under threat of not receiving the money taxed by the EU on their own territory? I don't think so.

It's no wonder there were many (failed) attemps to limit the Federal spending power.  But hey, you voted Liberal, so you're fine with all that

[viper37]

If I were to guess, my guess would be he was thinking that Provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over what could broadly be characterized as civil law matters - so labour laws, regulation of provincially regulated businesses - that sort of thing.

Civil law, yes.
Labour laws: subject to federal authority for most of them, far from being exclusive.  Also, any company operating under a Federal charter is not subject to Quebec's civil laws.
And criminal law is exclusive to the Federal government. Quebec could not decriminalize something that Canada judges illegal or vice-versa, no more than we could decide the penalty for a crime.
While tribunals are administered by the provinces, the Federal is naming the judges in Superior courts, the ones judging the criminals.  Which makes murderers go free now, since they aren't prosecuted on time.

Scotland would get much, much less autonomy as a Canadian province than as a EU Member nation.  It would get more power than by staying inside the UK, for sure, but not staying a full fledged member of the EU.

[HVC]

How are you being starved? by far you get the most equalization payments.  Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

[Barrister]

There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...

You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.

Feds can not pass laws in exclusive provincial powers.  But they can invalidate provincial laws and Federal laws have supremacy over provincial laws, something not happening in Europe right now everywhere.

See the recent business with the Federal funding of healthcare.  They can't pass a law, but since they perceive whatever taxes they want and then distribute the money to the provinces, they can starve provinces into submission to force them to do whatever they want. With our money.  And that's totally legit.

As the UK been forced to do something against its will under threat of not receiving the money taxed by the EU on their own territory? I don't think so.

It's no wonder there were many (failed) attemps to limit the Federal spending power.  But hey, you voted Liberal, so you're fine with all that

Invalidate provincial legislation - when was the last time that happened - 70 years ago? 80 years ago?

I don't even understand the second bit about Federal government having supremacy over provincial laws.

And I knew you would come back to spending powers.  You know what? The province has all the ability to tax and spend all it wants.

[crazy canuck]

(it hasn't been the BNA Act for 35 years CC)

It must be my conservative outlook that compels me to use its traditional name 

There is no exclusive powers to the provinces...

You should re-read section 92 of the BNA Act, you know the one that sets out the exclusive powers of the Provinces.

Feds can not pass laws in exclusive provincial powers.  But they can invalidate provincial laws and Federal laws have supremacy over provincial laws, something not happening in Europe right now everywhere.

See the recent business with the Federal funding of healthcare.  They can't pass a law, but since they perceive whatever taxes they want and then distribute the money to the provinces, they can starve provinces into submission to force them to do whatever they want. With our money.  And that's totally legit.

As the UK been forced to do something against its will under threat of not receiving the money taxed by the EU on their own territory? I don't think so.

It's no wonder there were many (failed) attemps to limit the Federal spending power.  But hey, you voted Liberal, so you're fine with all that

Invalidate provincial legislation - when was the last time that happened - 70 years ago? 80 years ago?

I don't even understand the second bit about Federal government having supremacy over provincial laws.

And I knew you would come back to spending powers.  You know what? The province has all the ability to tax and spend all it wants.

There is a glimmer of understanding in Viper's post.  But it is a good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.  In areas of Provincial jurisdiction where a province has not legislated the Federal government may step into the gap and pass its own legislation.  But that doctrine has essentially been abandoned in favour of the legal theory of cooperative federalism where the courts try to harmonize the laws in each jurisdiction rather than reasoning from the position of Federal Supremacy. 

A certain lawyer was able to convince the Feds to back off regulating a certain Provincial industry using that very logic a few short years ago. 

[Zanza]

It was just a notion.  Canada is usually described as being a very decentralized confederation.  A lot of the caselaw describes the powers of s. 91 and s. 92 of the Constitution Act (it hasn't been the BNA Act for 35 years CC) describes the various enumerated powers as being "watertight compartments" - that is the powers of the provinces are exclusively those of the provinces.  And beyond that Quebec has negotiated several unique carve-outs for itself.  Quebec runs its own tax agency and national pension plan, for example.

It's confusing though to compare that to a state of the EU - as most areas seem to be described as "shared competencies".

The EU has been delegated sovereign powers by its member states for points 2, 12 (market), and partially for 4, 5, 6, 14-20, 22 & 23 (banking, currency, parents, public debt) of your Constitution. However the member states keep stuff like 1 (fiscal policy), 2A (social policy), 3 (taxation), 7 (military), 25 (immigration), 26 (family), 27 (criminal) to themselves with some minor exceptions. Another major difference is of course that the EU has no mechanism on the federal level to start an amendment of it's constitutional order (Part V of your constitution) but rather uses the international law on treaties for that and thus needs unanimous consent to adopt changes.

Anyways, I think the point is better stated as a Scotland within Canadian Confederation would have far more autonomy than it does as part of the UK, and would be much easier to negotiate than would independent admission into the EU.

The EU has a defined entry process ("Copenhagen Criteria") and set of provisions that Scotland currently mostly fulfills ("Acquis Communitaire"). We've added three new members in the last decade and are in active negotiation with some more. How does the process work to join Canada?

[crazy canuck]

The EU has a defined entry process ("Copenhagen Criteria") and set of provisions that Scotland currently mostly fulfills ("Acquis Communitaire"). We've added three new members in the last decade and are in active negotiation with some more. How does the process work to join Canada?

There is none.  BB wasn't arguing that they are equivalent.  Only that there is a general argument that provinces withing the Canadian Federation have more autonomy in certain areas than member states in the EU. 

[Zanza]

He just made a new argument, namely that it would be easier to join Canada than the EU. So I wondered about the process for the former as he must have something to compare to the EU accession process to make such a statement or else he just made an unfounded assertion, which I obviously do not want to allege here.