Scotland could leave the UK, and join Canada instead, says author - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39510351"]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39510351[/URL] [QUOTE]As Scotland pushes for a second referendum on independence, one man is asking the previously unthinkable - if you're going quit the UK, why not join Canada? Canadian writer Ken McGoogan says the unorthodox alliance makes sense. "I think it would be terrific for both Scotland and Canada," he says. McGoogan first laid out his proposal in an opinion piece published in Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail, where he argued that advancements in telecommunication technology and transatlantic travel have rendered pesky things like geographical boundaries "irrelevant". Besides, he points out, Scotland is closer to Newfoundland than Hawaii is to California. Last week, the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of asking the UK government to allow a legally-binding referendum on independence. Prime Minister Theresa May has said the vote should wait until after Brexit.[/QUOTE] Let's go one step further: Scotland becomes independent, Scotland and Ireland form the Celtic Union, then Canada, Scotland, and Ireland join all together to form the only sane English speaking Western country :^)

I reckon Scotland should join Australia as another State. Then we can get EU membership! :D

[QUOTE=DogGunn;52070828]I reckon Scotland should join Australia as another State. Then we can get EU membership! :D[/QUOTE] This is a better plan actually. This means that you'll be able to compete in the Eurovision permanently, and thus win back the win that was stolen from you last year : ^ )

Except if we go with Canada they have both Nova Scotia and Old Scotia... They'd have the complete set.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;52070856]Except if we go with Canada they have both Nova Scotia and Old Scotia... They'd have the complete set.[/QUOTE] Clearly the only solution is to make a Irish Canadian Australian Scottish Union with Michael D Higgins as king and Nicola Sturgeon as Queen. What to call it though... It'd be like an United Kingdom... :^)

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52070860]Clearly the only solution is to make a Irish Canadian Australian Scottish Union with Michael D Higgins as king and Nicola Sturgeon as Queen. What to call it though... It'd be like an United Kingdom... :^)[/QUOTE] Take us with you, we've got motorbike racing and cats with no tails. There are a lot of countries I'd rather be entwined with over the UK at the minute. Reconquer us Norway, we can't run ourselves.

Och aye buddy, haggis and Hortons all roond, eh.

[quote]McGoogan first laid out his proposal in an opinion piece published in Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail, where he argued that advancements in telecommunication technology and transatlantic travel have rendered pesky things like geographical boundaries "irrelevant".[/quote] iunno about that - administering such a country would be an administrative nightmare and it wouldn't make things better for either of them [quote]Besides, he points out, Scotland is closer to Newfoundland than Hawaii is to California.[/quote] yeah but the United States is too big to be run as a country very effectively - Hawaii is one of those places that would be better off independent than part of the USA

If Scotland joins can we get EU citizenship? That'd be sick

[QUOTE=Hick2;52070883]Take us with you, we've got motorbike racing and cats with no tails. There are a lot of countries I'd rather be entwined with over the UK at the minute. Reconquer us Norway, we can't run ourselves.[/QUOTE] Excellent, we shall have an Isle of Man....itoba TT! To drive up tourism, because I can't think of any other popular reason for people to go to Manitoba.

So... Leave one Union to form another?

[QUOTE=David29;52071162]So... Leave one Union to form another?[/QUOTE] But this union will have something uniting it: mutual hatred of the English [B][I][U]: ^ )[/U][/I][/B] /s

[QUOTE=David29;52071162]So... Leave one Union to form another?[/QUOTE] Leave a union that is willingly drinking paint thinner for one that actually has political and travel advantages, yes.

Why wouldnt Scotland just become independent?

[QUOTE=Shirky;52071293]Why wouldnt Scotland just become independent?[/QUOTE] Because they're too small to have any bargaining power in their inevitable EU/Scotland membership negotiation.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52071052] yeah but the United States is too big to be run as a country very effectively - Hawaii is one of those places that would be better off independent than part of the USA[/QUOTE] :what: [editline]7th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=download;52071368]Because they're too small to have any bargaining power in their inevitable EU/Scotland membership negotiation.[/QUOTE] What's there to bargain? I would assume they would get a fair deal just to rub it into the nose of the English that voted to leave. And on top of that, I'm fairly certain that it was the English/Welsh in the UK that wanted all the special treatment from the EU, not Scotland.

Scotland if it leaves now wouldn't need to re-apply to the EU. Which is why Theresa May not allowing them to have a vote on it until they've already left the EU is fucking stupid and denies Scotland's right to determination, IMO.

The notion of Scotland becoming a Canadian exclave would certainly be interesting, to say the least. It'd make it easier for Canadians to vacation in Scotland, and vice versa. Though I do wonder if the Canadian mainland would share their maple syrup supplies with their new Scottish friends.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52071405]:what:[/QUOTE] well big countries generally aren't run very well, the USA would be better off broken up into half a dozen or so smaller countries

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52071468]well big countries generally aren't run very well, the USA would be better off broken up into half a dozen or so smaller countries[/QUOTE] What makes oyu say that? Surely it'd be better to reform the United States rather than break it up, since that would mean the poorer parts of it would essentially be fucked? China for all it's faults seems to be doing alright, and India too.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52071477]What makes oyu say that? Surely it'd be better to reform the United States rather than break it up, since that would mean the poorer parts of it would essentially be fucked? China for all it's faults seems to be doing alright, and India too.[/QUOTE] I think china and india would be much better off broken up into smaller units too. Both countries have a lot of their own problems relating to their size when the government has to administer a complex society stretching half a dozen timezones it causes a lot of problems "reforming" the united states to fix things would pretty much require you to dismantle the entire socio-political system there

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52071468]well big countries generally aren't run very well, the USA would be better off broken up into half a dozen or so smaller countries[/QUOTE] Generally speaking the likelihood of war may increase significantly with a larger number of independent nations.

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;52071535]Generally speaking the likelihood of war may increase significantly with a larger number of independent nations.[/QUOTE] that's true, but the likelihood of a civil war increases significantly with a smaller number of large nations

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52071441]Scotland if it leaves now wouldn't need to re-apply to the EU. Which is why Theresa May not allowing them to have a vote on it until they've already left the EU is fucking stupid and denies Scotland's right to determination, IMO.[/QUOTE] Yes they would.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52071468]well big countries generally aren't run very well, the USA would be better off broken up into half a dozen or so smaller countries[/QUOTE] We've done alright so far. Weren't you advocating more nations to group together, and very pro-EU not to long ago? What happened to that [editline]7th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52071544]that's true, but the likelihood of a civil war increases significantly with a smaller number of large nations[/QUOTE] The US isn't going to have a civil war any time soon. [editline]7th April 2017[/editline] Besides being pro-EU, you were also very strong advocate of "stay together" during the Scottish referendum

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52071752]We've done alright so far. Weren't you advocating more nations to group together, and very pro-EU not to long ago? What happened to that [editline]7th April 2017[/editline] Besides being pro-EU, you were also very strong advocate of "stay together" during the Scottish referendum[/QUOTE] well yeah but not under heavily centralised government with a single language and dominating accepted culture like it is in say china or to a large degree in america - and the USA covers a wider area than europe does main difference back with the whole scotland remaining was back when a federalised britain could have still worked out (until brexit) [quote]The US isn't going to have a civil war any time soon.[/QUOTE] well no but i seriously doubt that if the USA were splintered up into half a dozen or more smaller countries that they would be all at war with one another. the point is that the size of a country doesn't determine how peaceful or prone to conflict it is. yugoslavia broke down into bloody civil war while all the scandinavian countries have been at peace with one another for well over a century forming bigger countries with the intent of ending wars is basically moving the goalposts to reclassify what were once "wars" as "civil wars"

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52071999]well yeah but not under heavily centralised government with a single language and dominating accepted culture like it is in say china or to a large degree in america - and the USA covers a wider area than europe does [/QUOTE] I wouldn't judge the US based on geographic size, only population. And I don't understand how having a single language and culture is somehow worse than having a dozen languages and cultures for a large nation?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52072020]I wouldn't judge the US based on geographic size, only population. And I don't understand how having a single language and culture is somehow worse than having a dozen languages and cultures for a large nation?[/QUOTE] it's not necessarily a bad thing, just that regionalism and the like in such countries is heavily discouraged and suppressed at times. the united states more or less wiped out most of its native population (the few ones left being pressured to assimilate), annexed a few sovereign nations later on (like hawaii) and there are political movements and parties that are trying very hard to discourage the use of spanish or other minority languages - for instance by attempting to prevent the printing of official documents in those languages i can only imagine in the future as more regional linguistic and cultural variations develop there will be also moves to suppress those by the central government too

In this American climate I'd welcome the idea of Canada joining the EU.

I'm not really sure what Scotland would bring to the table in an Canada/Scotland union. Though if it happened maybe I wouldn't need to pay Canadian international tuition fees, that would be rad.