When we joined Canada in 1949, we were at the tail end of remarkable period in our history. WWI, in spite of its terrible losses, had enriched us tremendously. We earned, on average, about 1/3 of what an average Canadian at that time earned, but we had (relatively speaking) basically no taxes compared to them.
We were linked by the railway and countless ferries. The Grand Banks and offshore were blocked with fish, and the fishery represented 80% of our GDP. We joined a federation where it was less than 1% of GDP, and was treated accordingly.
Canada's own internal documents show they wanted us only for three reasons: access to the Atlantic, as our coast and the American coast sandwiched Canada in and gave it only limited Atlantic access off Nova Scotia. They wanted us for hydroelectric potential in Labrador to fuel central Canada, and we know how that worked out for us. And they wanted us as a matter of pride, to prevent the Americans from getting us and repeating, in their words, the "Alaskan mistake".
Can you imagine how shitty Alaska would be right now if Canada had gotten it instead of the U.S.
But I'm betraying my views...
Watching Scotland's referendum, one of the things that stood out of me was the general sense that... the debate used to be about IF Scotland could survive independent. In this vote, it was about whether it SHOULD. Everyone had already agreed it could.
Fortunately, our vast natural resources present us with similar capabilities. We can be independent, but should we? That's what I'm curious to gauge here.
So, choose an option and, if you like, explain why.