The Great Canadian 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum Thread

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Albania is recognized by enough nation states within the United Nations, Kosovo is not yet. Serbia has not given up its sovereignity claim to Kosovo. We may be having to decide on this again with the Ukraine and potentially Estonia who has fears of Russian intervention.

Its a messy time in the world and I am hopeful that whatever the vote is that things remain peaceful, ammenable, or at least workable for the parties involved.

Kosovo is reasonably close. It's got the US and UK's recognition. And Canada's. But not Russia and China.

Canada has also recognized Montenegro's independence which was obtained with a majority of about 55%.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by esquire

Just yank the blue, as the Daily Mail learned. Still very much identifiable as the British flag.

I guess this would leave Ontario's (and Manitoba's) flag with a relic of history.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

In regards to the last one, I was reading about the referendum the other day, and it inspired me to read about Ireland. I would just love to see a reunited Ireland. However, support for such a union is very low in Northern Ireland, and surprisingly, a small majority in the republic (~55%).

The northerners still blow themselves up from time to time while the Republic has a higher living standard than the UK in general. Would you really want a poor region filled with sectarian violence joining your country?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

On a superficial note, the Union Jack is basically the juxtaposition of the crosses of St George, (England) St Andrew (Scotland) and St Patrick ([N] Ireland). Would the a United Kingdom sans Scotland remove the blue field? Maybe they could finally put in a green half to include Wales?

And change the country's name to the Britain and Northern Ireland, since it would no longer be a "United Kingdom"?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

And change the country's name to the Britain and Northern Ireland, since it would no longer be a "United Kingdom"?

I think it's the "Great Britain" part that would become inaccurate. There would no longer be a "United Kingdom of Great Britain" because the island of Great Britain would no longer be entirely within the kingdom. But you could still have a "United Kingdom" without having a territorial definition of it like the inclusion of "Great Britain" in the name suggests.

[SignalHillHiker]

I'm very supportive of Scottish independence and have been watching the campaign with fascination. I've always wondered, if such a referendum was planned here, how Canada would respond - and the United Kingdom is a good example of that in my estimation.

And it's been a joy to see the Scottish mindset change from "CAN we?" to "Of course we can, but SHOULD we?".

My only concern is that the latest polls are quite close. I know what it feels like to lose your country on what was close to a 50-50 vote and, whichever way it goes, the fact that around half of Scotland's population is likely to feel that way bothers me.

It's fascinating to see - and, either way, Scotland is still as distinct and nationalist as ever, despite 300+ years in a sort of federation. That's hopeful for us, for Quebec, etc.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think it's the "Great Britain" part that would become inaccurate. There would no longer be a "United Kingdom of Great Britain" because the island of Great Britain would no longer be entirely within the kingdom. But you could still have a "United Kingdom" without having a territorial definition of it like the inclusion of "Great Britain" in the name suggests.

I believe the term Great Britain is more a reference to the union of the Scottish and English crowns rather than the geographic name of the island - at least, that's what I picked up growing up.

Without Scotland, there's really no union between kingdoms (not that there really is a separate Scottish royal family anymore today). Northern Ireland doesn't have its own, Wales' royal family was eradicated. I mean, they even call the heir to the English throne "Prince of Wales" just to really rub it in.

I imagine, if they feel to change the name (which I highly doubt they would), the Kingdom of Britain would be the best bet.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I believe the term Great Britain is more a reference to the union of the Scottish and English crowns rather than the geographic name of the island - at least, that's what I picked up growing up.

Without Scotland, there's really no union between kingdoms (not that there really is a separate Scottish royal family anymore today). Northern Ireland doesn't have its own, Wales' royal family was eradicated. I mean, they even call the heir to the English throne "Prince of Wales" just to really rub it in.

I imagine, if they feel to change the name (which I highly doubt they would), the Kingdom of Britain would be the best bet.

I think you may be right about the kingdom, but Great Britain is definitely the geographic name of that island over there.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by shreddog

BTW, is it considered "trolling" to ask a loaded question in the Canadian section on a situation that is not really relavant to Canada (no matter how hard you frame it) hoping it will cause heated debate to showcase potential zenophobia and "anti-regional" sentiments??

I don't think thats completely fair.

Ireland, England, Scotland, and France are primary settling nations of this country.

Historically these are the nations that built Canada.

Scottish nationalism may alter how we view Canada.

[MonctonRad]

It would still be the "United Kingdom" (for now) - It would just be the United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Although if Scotland decamps, I sort of fear it would be the end for the UK. Wales is even more nationalist in some ways than Scotland. The unionists in Northern Ireland are mostly Scottish immigrants. If Scotland leaves, how loyal would Ulster be to Westminster. I think Northern Ireland would pack it in too.

It's the same as would happen to Canada if (when) Quebec seperates. Newfoundland would likely leave fairly soon thereafter, and the Maritimes might do the same with no land bridge to the rest of the country. I could easily see the western provinces forming their own union too.

The UK could end up as four seperate countries. Canada could end up as five or six........

[SignalHillHiker]

I saw a map recently that indicated which portions of the United Kingdom are supportive of Scottish independence. England was almost entirely opposed, Scotland was split (with rural Scotland overwhelmingly against independence, similar dynamic to Newfoundland), but Wales and Northern Ireland were almost entirely, 100% supportive.

Found it. Red = Yes; Blue = No:



No idea where the data comes from or if its real. But fun to look over just the same.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^Whoops, I didn't read that from the statement. I should have.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It would still be the "United Kingdom" (for now) - It would just be the United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Although if Scotland decamps, I sort of fear it would be the end for the UK. Wales is even more nationalist in some ways than Scotland. The unionists in Northern Ireland are mostly Scottish immigrants. If Scotland leaves, how loyal would Ulster be to Westminster. I think Northern Ireland would pack it in too.

It's the same as would happen to Canada if (when) Quebec seperates. Newfoundland would likely leave fairly soon thereafter, and the Maritimes might do the same with no land bridge to the rest of the country. I could easily see the western provinces forming their own union too.

The UK could end up as four seperate countries. Canada could end up as five or six........

I think, in the case of Wales and Northern Ireland, a referendum is less likely to win because the case for not being "Better Together" is much weaker for them, regardless of nationalism.

For the impact on Canada... despite my own desires, I think we'd be more pragmatic. If Ontario continues on under the assumption everyone else is staying and doesn't walk away itself, I think the re-organization of the country could prove very attractive to all sides. More devolution to the provinces, perhaps more regional rule over certain issues (for example, even if it was based in Halifax, some regional body responsible for the Atlantic fishery would be a benefit for us - it makes no sense having that governed from Ottawa).

I think a lot of people would want to be quick to run and take advantage of the collapse to get out while the going's good - but if Ontario is willing, the re-organization could prove irresistible to a majority of citizens who'd rather the devil they know.

Of course, status quo without Quebec wouldn't last long at all. The regional divides would be insane and Canada would be, largely, a right-wing country. That might not send New Brunswick screaming, but it would certainly raise alarm here.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I guess this would leave Ontario's (and Manitoba's) flag with a relic of history.

True. Actually, this would be the perfect jumping off point to get rid of the current Manitoba flag and replace it with something more appropriate. The existing flag was just a knee-jerk reaction to the Pearson Pennant anyway... there is nothing particularly Manitoban about it apart from the bison on the shield. So that's one benefit that could flow from Scottish independence?!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Stryker

I don't think thats completely fair.

Ireland, England, Scotland, and France are primary settling nations of this country.

Historically these are the nations that built Canada.

Scottish nationalism may alter how we view Canada.

Thanks.

It's relevant to Canada for so many reasons. There are lots of common points:

- constitutional monarchy
- Westminister form of parliamentary system
- presence of regionalism and nationalism
- regional economic disparities
- difficulties and challenges in finding the appropriate balance of powers between the various components of the state
- generally prosperous, peaceful, western democracies

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I saw a map recently that indicated which portions of the United Kingdom are supportive of Scottish independence. England was almost entirely opposed, Scotland was split (with rural Scotland overwhelmingly against independence, similar dynamic to Newfoundland), but Wales and Northern Ireland were almost entirely, 100% supportive.

Found it. Red = Yes; Blue = No:



No idea where the data comes from or if its real. But fun to look over just the same.

Wales is not surprising but Northern Ireland certainly is. I'd almost question the numbers as Unionist Protestants (although generally of Scottish origin it is true) still make up a bare majority of the population. If you've been there you'd see how fiercely British they can be. As I said, in spite of their Scottish roots.

If indeed they are supportive of Scottish independence (alongside their Catholic neighbours in NI) then I guess it could be that their opposition to reunification with the Republic of Ireland has been more of an anti-Irish and anti-Catholic thing all along, more than a pro-British thing.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I saw a map recently that indicated which portions of the United Kingdom are supportive of Scottish independence. England was almost entirely opposed, Scotland was split (with rural Scotland overwhelmingly against independence, similar dynamic to Newfoundland), but Wales and Northern Ireland were almost entirely, 100% supportive.

Found it. Red = Yes; Blue = No:



No idea where the data comes from or if its real. But fun to look over just the same.

I think your front statement got it's wires crossed. N. Ireland and Wales all almost 100% opposed to Scottish independence. England seems to more support for Scottish independence than Scotland does. Rural Scotland wants independence while the urban regions don't (sort of like Quebec I think).

[franktko]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I think your front statement got it's wires crossed. N. Ireland and Wales all almost 100% opposed to Scottish independence. England seems to more support for Scottish independence than Scotland does. Rural Scotland wants independence while the urban regions don't (sort of like Quebec I think).

That or the color code...

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Thanks.

It's relevant to Canada for so many reasons. There are lots of common points:

- constitutional monarchy
- Westminister form of parliamentary system
- presence of regionalism and nationalism
- regional economic disparities
- difficulties and challenges in finding the appropriate balance of powers between the various components of the state
- generally prosperous, peaceful, western democracies

Yeah well I think i'm of a variety that gets slightly annoyed that it isn't politically correct to acknowledge this country has a history before 1900.

Settler colonialism, is not the same as empire and it sure as hell isn't comparable to Immigration.

[SignalHillHiker]

So sorry. Yes I said the colour code wrong. It's blue yes, red no.