Of course, Trump isn't serious about letting Canada have power. I mean, it's "Canada, the 51st state," not each individual province. A super-Texas is what he's hoping for, probably lead by Alberta. Ottawa only has pull if it's a fulcrum for French identity and power as in conflict with the English. It won't have as much of a voice if that's no longer the calculus. It's a poor deal when you read the fine print, like most of his "deals" are. Also, don't expect much follow-through. He isn't known for it and doesn't have the legal authority to grant it at any rate. There's a time-tested process to joining the US and his version is nowhere near that process. Not that there isn't a way in for either Canada as a whole or each province individually, sure there is.
But I think looking at this from the prospective of someone who considers himself to be from both countries (and, in a sense, neither) might elucidate the problem further. What is Nationalism even for? I mean, ultimately it's a somewhat fictional story shared between groups in order to facilitate connection, and its purpose is putting up barriers, like office dividers, for each "division" of people in order to both rule them and concentrate their economic and military production/capacity. Some people can fully buy into the notion that they "belong," perhaps in the same sense as having joined a hockey team where you sacrifice for the benefit of the team goals and detriment of other teams. Others of us will never fully belong, and we know it, so we don't fully buy in but often act as if we have. So what's the best benefit of being a Canadian? I'd say individualism. The US is way more invested in memes about what you should be given its much larger population and greater socio-economic divide. Canada is more diverse along that divide and there is less of a divide.
What could Nova Scotia conceivably get out of being a US state? Well, while there is definitely more natural synergy between the Maritimes and New England than say, the Maritimes and Alberta, but there isn't much we need they can give and vice versa. At least with Alberta they have cattle and oil/gas and we have fish and blueberries (yes, there's more, I'm condensing). But, like any takeover, or arranged marriage there needs to be some equitable asset exchange. We'd have access to more capital, sure, more goods, probably (transport is still an issue for Nova Scotia, less for New Brunswick, which shares a border, etc.) but what do we offer them? I'm pretty sure the "getting in on the ground floor" only works when you have a potential avenue for advancement. Otherwise you tend to stay on the ground floor. Could reenergize our trading hub vis a vis Greenland? Could we create a manufacturing base amidst the great bases in the US? Will Trump's clothing line from China allow us a cut of the shipping via the Northern Sea Route? Will we become dependent on Russian gas, rather than Albertan (again, through the Northern Sea Route)? But more than that, what do we give up? I'm not convinced it's culture. New England culture is as distinct as Southern culture in the US and there are even varieties from Maine to New York (not including NYC) to New Jersey. But I think that more ephemeral, and therefore more precious, individualism would be a huge casualty. Also lost would be the sweetness and generosity of spirit that comes with a smaller, poorer and less hectic population. Have you seen the meanness that's taking place south of the border? It happens here too, sure, but not as constant and usually not quite as vicious. Having space to be who you are, even if it doesn't fit a national narrative, is a precious commodity you might not be fully equipped to appreciate. And we have some space. America is crowded with mediocrity.
In the end though, we might not have much choice. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. I'd start digging trenches now though. You can sue for peace and often get a better deal if you've been able to give them hell. Otherwise, they just take whatever they want.
Of course, Trump isn't serious about letting Canada have power. I mean, it's "Canada, the 51st state," not each individual province. A super-Texas is what he's hoping for, probably lead by Alberta. Ottawa only has pull if it's a fulcrum for French identity and power as in conflict with the English. It won't have as much of a voice if that's no longer the calculus. It's a poor deal when you read the fine print, like most of his "deals" are. Also, don't expect much follow-through. He isn't known for it and doesn't have the legal authority to grant it at any rate. There's a time-tested process to joining the US and his version is nowhere near that process. Not that there isn't a way in for either Canada as a whole or each province individually, sure there is.
But I think looking at this from the prospective of someone who considers himself to be from both countries (and, in a sense, neither) might elucidate the problem further. What is Nationalism even for? I mean, ultimately it's a somewhat fictional story shared between groups in order to facilitate connection, and its purpose is putting up barriers, like office dividers, for each "division" of people in order to both rule them and concentrate their economic and military production/capacity. Some people can fully buy into the notion that they "belong," perhaps in the same sense as having joined a hockey team where you sacrifice for the benefit of the team goals and detriment of other teams. Others of us will never fully belong, and we know it, so we don't fully buy in but often act as if we have. So what's the best benefit of being a Canadian? I'd say individualism. The US is way more invested in memes about what you should be given its much larger population and greater socio-economic divide. Canada is more diverse along that divide and there is less of a divide.
What could Nova Scotia conceivably get out of being a US state? Well, while there is definitely more natural synergy between the Maritimes and New England than say, the Maritimes and Alberta, but there isn't much we need they can give and vice versa. At least with Alberta they have cattle and oil/gas and we have fish and blueberries (yes, there's more, I'm condensing). But, like any takeover, or arranged marriage there needs to be some equitable asset exchange. We'd have access to more capital, sure, more goods, probably (transport is still an issue for Nova Scotia, less for New Brunswick, which shares a border, etc.) but what do we offer them? I'm pretty sure the "getting in on the ground floor" only works when you have a potential avenue for advancement. Otherwise you tend to stay on the ground floor. Could reenergize our trading hub vis a vis Greenland? Could we create a manufacturing base amidst the great bases in the US? Will Trump's clothing line from China allow us a cut of the shipping via the Northern Sea Route? Will we become dependent on Russian gas, rather than Albertan (again, through the Northern Sea Route)? But more than that, what do we give up? I'm not convinced it's culture. New England culture is as distinct as Southern culture in the US and there are even varieties from Maine to New York (not including NYC) to New Jersey. But I think that more ephemeral, and therefore more precious, individualism would be a huge casualty. Also lost would be the sweetness and generosity of spirit that comes with a smaller, poorer and less hectic population. Have you seen the meanness that's taking place south of the border? It happens here too, sure, but not as constant and usually not quite as vicious. Having space to be who you are, even if it doesn't fit a national narrative, is a precious commodity you might not be fully equipped to appreciate. And we have some space. America is crowded with mediocrity.
In the end though, we might not have much choice. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. I'd start digging trenches now though. You can sue for peace and often get a better deal if you've been able to give them hell. Otherwise, they just take whatever they want.