Forget Scots Independence - should Scotland join Canada?

[crazy canuck]

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.

I read his statement as their level of autonomy being easy to negotiate since we have a ready made formula in our constitution already.  If he is saying that becoming a Province is easy, then no.  It would be an impossibility given that we would have to amend our constitution to make the addition.  And there is no way Quebec would agree to that.

[Zanza]

I focused on the last half sentence of his statement. I can believe the rest, namely that Canadian provinces have more autonomy than devolved British countries. British devolution seems to be a half-baked compromise between England and the other countries.

[Barrister]

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.

Canada does have some history of regions joining Confederation - from the purchase of Rupertsland, to British Columbia joining, right up to 1949 and Newfoundland joining Confederation.

Now those expansions were not trivial by any sense.  But the Newfoundland example is probably the most useful (and also the only one not from the 19th century).  It involved negotiations between Canada and Newfoundland, and ultimately only required the passing of an Act in London.  Now of course it would require the passing of an Act in London, Edinburgh, and Ottawa, but still a reasonably straight-forward process.

Admission to the EU however is a complex process requiring the consent of the majority, if not the unanimous consent, or all 27 (26?) members.

Now, if Scotland were to demand wholesale changes to the standing Canadian constitution that would affect the other 10 provinces, then you'd need to get the 7/50 amending formula a work out.  However if Scotland just signs up and then negotiates one off deals with Ottawa (like QUebec did for immigration, or Newfoundland did for oil (important for Scotland!)), it only requires Ottawa's consent.

[viper37]

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

Ontario gets the most of Federal investments, and Alberta benefits from slack environmental rules from the Federals that allowed her to pollute the country at low cost while we all foot the bill and make the sacrifice to reduce our greenhouse gaz emissions. Just compare two identical situation.  Olympic candidacy.  Quebec receives 200 000$ from the Federal government to submit a candidacy.  Ontario gets 8million$ for Toronto.


If we're talking specific federal transfer, not just equalization, I've already alluded to the recent deals with the Federal govt and the provinces considering health care transfers.  The Federal will give the provinces their money but only if they invest it as Trudeau sees fit.  Regardless of what the provinces need.

And I'm not talking specifically about Quebec.  I'm talking about the balance of power between the Federal government and the provinces, as BB alluded that Scotland would get a lot more autonomy inside Canada than inside the EU, while it is not true at all.

A Canadian province has more power than what the British government allows Scotland to, but the EU grants far more power to the France than Canada does to any province.

[viper37]

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.

Canada does have some history of regions joining Confederation - from the purchase of Rupertsland, to British Columbia joining, right up to 1949 and Newfoundland joining Confederation.

Now those expansions were not trivial by any sense.  But the Newfoundland example is probably the most useful (and also the only one not from the 19th century).  It involved negotiations between Canada and Newfoundland, and ultimately only required the passing of an Act in London.  Now of course it would require the passing of an Act in London, Edinburgh, and Ottawa, but still a reasonably straight-forward process.

Admission to the EU however is a complex process requiring the consent of the majority, if not the unanimous consent, or all 27 (26?) members.

Now, if Scotland were to demand wholesale changes to the standing Canadian constitution that would affect the other 10 provinces, then you'd need to get the 7/50 amending formula a work out.  However if Scotland just signs up and then negotiates one off deals with Ottawa (like QUebec did for immigration, or Newfoundland did for oil (important for Scotland!)), it only requires Ottawa's consent.

I'm pretty sure the 7/50 amending formula is required to accept any new territory.  Scotland or some carribean island.

[Zanza]

but the EU grants far more power to the France than Canada does to any province.

The EU has no powers to grant as the sovereign entities are the member states that confer part of their inherent powers to the EU.

[Barrister]

I'm pretty sure the 7/50 amending formula is required to accept any new territory.  Scotland or some carribean island.

I really don't think so.

At first I was worried because House of Commons representation is set by the Constitution, but it actually has been amended numerous times by a simple act of Parliament (including post-1982).  The one thing that can't happen is take provinces below the thresholds set out in the original BNA Act (which is why Quebec, PEI and the Territories gets seats that over represent them in the commons).  But I can't see anything that would require a full-blown constitutional amendment to add a jurisdiction to confederation, and the historical  precedents seem well established.

[crazy canuck]

BB, you got a couple things wrong.

First, the Constitution does expressly require an amendment using the 7/50 amending formula in order to add a new province.

42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):

(f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces

s. 38(1) is of course the 7/50 formula.


Second, you misunderstand how Newfoundland came to be a province.  It was not simply through negotiations in the 20th century.  Rather the original BNA Act expressly provided for its inclusion if and when the legislature of Newfoundland agreed to join Canada.  That, of course, did not occur until 1949.

As a result the notion that Scotland could simply negotiate with Parliament is a bit of a fairy tale.

[crazy canuck]

but the EU grants far more power to the France than Canada does to any province.

The EU has no powers to grant as the sovereign entities are the member states that confer part of their inherent powers to the EU.

Viper has a similar misconception regarding the Canadian Federation.  The powers of the provinces were not granted by Canada.  They are the creation of the British Parliament in the BNA Act.

[Grey Fox]

To Viper, that's the same thing.

[viper37]

but the EU grants far more power to the France than Canada does to any province.

The EU has no powers to grant as the sovereign entities are the member states that confer part of their inherent powers to the EU.

I took a shortcut, yes.
The sovereign nations confer powers to the Federal (EU) authority.

In Canada, the Federal government was given authority by the British authorities and chose to give some of that power to the provinces, while still maintaining powers to fuck things up.  The EU could never do to Scotland what Canada can do the provinces.  The EU can't decide where Scotland should spend its healthcare money.  The EU can't complain about Scotland maintaining embassies around the world or sharing them with another country, even non EU and then cut its transfer payments because of that.  The EU can't send the army into Scotland to arrest members of the opposition parties.

Basically, it's like Scotland would be an independant nation delegating part of its power to another sovereign nation, namely the EU, where as, as a Canadian province, it would submit itself shackled and naked to be done with whatever pleases Canada.

[Rex Francorum]

Ugh. No more Presbyterians please

And anglophones.   

[HVC]

Ugh. No more Presbyterians please

And anglophones.   

have you ever heard a true Scotsman? Anglophone is debatable

[garbon]

Ugh. No more Presbyterians please

And anglophones.   

have you ever heard a true Scotsman? Anglophone is debatable

There is no true Scotsman.

[Rex Francorum]

But more seriously, grey fox, what the common mans perception of the native issue? would they be "allowed" to leave?

Of all those those who "threaten" to leave if Québec becomes independant, I think the Natives have the better case. The other one who threatened to leave is a bunch of angry anglo-Montrealers. Even if local gouvernements (cities, villages) have a legal status, they cannot pretend to have a national status like the Natives and they are directly under control from the provincial government.