The Great Canadian 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum Thread

[Gerrard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Please elaborate as to why.

Because, Canada's provinces are not independent nations and never have been. They are made up of colonial lands that were conquered historically by European powers before any nation(s) existed (save the First Nations).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

In the end, it is not so much going to matter if Canada does or doesn't accept an independent Scotland...

I think it's pretty clear what Acajack's point was when asking that question...

If the Yes wins with 50.5% or 51%, does Canada say that it's not a "clear majority", or does it accept an independent Scotland?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

Because, Canada's provinces are not independent nations and never have been. They are made up of colonial lands that were conquered historically by European powers before any nation(s) existed (save the First Nations).

This might seen by some as totally accurate but it's also totally devoid of realpolitik.

[Gerrard]

It's all moot anyway. They won't vote yes (I'd be very surprised if they did) and partly because a large portion of Scotland's population is made up of English people (who can vote in the referendum).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

In the end, it is not so much going to matter if Canada does or doesn't accept an independent Scotland, it only matters that enough of the United Nations does in designating a country as a country.

It doesn't matter much to Scotland, but it does matter quite a bit to Canada.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

It's all moot anyway. They won't vote yes (I'd be very surprised if they did) and partly because a large portion of Scotland's population is made up of English people (who can vote in the referendum).

I agree that the Yes is unlikely to win.

[Chadillaccc]

They have an outside chance at "yes" but a slim one.

[esquire]

Well, what is the downside to not recognizing Scotland by virtue of a 51% plurality?

I mean, we don't fully recognize Taiwan, do we? I'm not aware of any drawbacks to that, however.

[Gerrard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This might seen by some as totally accurate but it's also totally devoid of realpolitik.

Not really. Secession in Canada (which is why I assume you started this thread) has never been a real threat. It's come down to the wire but every one plays nice because they don't want to antagonize each other whenever there's a vote. The truth is however, if you're looking at the "right" to secede, it really doesn't exist. All land is technically crown land and the precedent a "YES" vote would set would essentially pave the way for First Nations people to claim the entirety of the country as THEIR land.

It doesn't mean people don't have a right to self determination, they just might have to do it elsewhere.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

Not really. Secession in Canada (which is why I assume you started this thread) has never been a real threat. It's come down to the wire but every one plays nice because they don't want to antagonize each other whenever there's a vote. The truth is however, if you're looking at the "right" to secede, it really doesn't exist. All land is technically crown land and the precedent a "YES" vote would set would essentially pave the way for First Nations people to claim the entirety of the country as THEIR land.

It doesn't mean people don't have a right to self determination, they just might have to do it elsewhere.

Sometimes I wonder what planet some of you guys live on.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sometimes I wonder what planet some of you guys live on.

It's amazing that stating the simple fact that Quebec is one of ten provinces is such an effective trolling technique.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

It's amazing that stating the simple fact that Quebec is one of ten provinces is such an effective trolling technique.

Note that I was not responding to you. I was responding to someone who said that secession in Canada has never been a serious threat...

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by esquire

It's amazing that stating the simple fact that Quebec is one of ten provinces is such an effective trolling technique.

Zing!

[shreddog]

It's quite simple really.

Scotland is asking its citizens an extremely clear, direct and concise question:

"Should Scotland become an independent country?"

And since the UK Parliament has indicated that it will accept a simple majority to such a clear question, it behooves the rest of the world to accept the decision by the UK Parliament.

Trying to use something like this as a precedent is difficult since each country has its own rules and those rule must be respected by the international community. If the UK Parliament had indicated that a 2/3rds majority was required and the Scottish independence movement had crafted some ambiguous question like "Do you want the Scottish people to talk to the English about the possibilty of having a different, somewhat independant, but not really, type of relationship?" then the international community would have to act accordingly.


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??

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

Well, what is the downside to not recognizing Scotland by virtue of a 51% plurality?

I mean, we don't fully recognize Taiwan, do we? I'm not aware of any drawbacks to that, however.

That's a really good question.

I would assume that the millions of Canadians of Scottish origin are somewhat distanced from their "Scottishness", and that there isn't that big of a passion among them that is unanimously in favour of the Yes side. My guess is that a lot of people are only mildly interested, and that of those who have a view they would probably be split between Yes and No supporters.

So there probably wouldn't be that much pressure on the government to recognize an independent Scotland if ever the Yes side did win.

It's not like if the Punjab declared independence. Then there would be considerable political pressure on Ottawa.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by shreddog

It's quite simple really.

Scotland is asking its citizens an extremely clear, direct and concise question:

"Should Scotland become an independent country?"

And since the UK Parliament has indicated that it will accept a simple majority to such a clear question, it behooves the rest of the world to accept the decision by the UK Parliament.

Trying to use something like this as a precedent is difficult since each country has its own rules and those rule must be respected by the international community. If the UK Parliament had indicated that a 2/3rds majority was required and the Scottish independence movement had crafted some ambiguous question like "Do you want the Scottish people to talk to the English about the possibilty of having a different, somewhat independant, but not really, type of relationship?" then the international community would have to act accordingly.


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??

You really don't know me that well if you think this was my intent. I thought this was an interesting topic for Canadians to discuss... that's all.

EDIT: The first part of your post was a good contribution BTW.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

The Queen has said she won't interfere, so I guess that means if they do secede, recognition will be up to the discretion of the individual countries of the Commonwealth......

The Queen's ancestors were sovereigns in Scotland before they were sovereigns in England, and ruled a hundred years as monarchs over England and Scotland as legally separate countries with completely separate parliaments and laws.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

Not really. Secession in Canada (which is why I assume you started this thread) has never been a real threat. It's come down to the wire but every one plays nice because they don't want to antagonize each other whenever there's a vote. The truth is however, if you're looking at the "right" to secede, it really doesn't exist. All land is technically crown land and the precedent a "YES" vote would set would essentially pave the way for First Nations people to claim the entirety of the country as THEIR land.

It doesn't mean people don't have a right to self determination, they just might have to do it elsewhere.

If Quebec (or Newfoundland) retained the monarchy then it wouldn't set a precedent as it would all remain the crown's land.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

It's amazing that stating the simple fact that Quebec is one of ten provinces is such an effective trolling technique.

Still with this. It's true that on most metrics "Quebec is one of ten provinces" is an accurate statement to make.

But saying Quebec is simply one of ten provinces when it comes to the matter of secessionist movements is a bit absurd.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by shreddog

It's quite simple really.

Scotland is asking its citizens an extremely clear, direct and concise question:

"Should Scotland become an independent country?"

And since the UK Parliament has indicated that it will accept a simple majority to such a clear question, it behooves the rest of the world to accept the decision by the UK Parliament.

I always wondered if the Quebec separatist movement shot itself in the foot by asking convoluted questions on referendum ballots. It always made it look like they had something to hide or apologize for. It certainly didn't help them make the case that a 50%+1 result was sufficient... after all, when you're asking an airy-fairy question that dances around the point, who is to say that a simple majority is enough?