Moving for school???

[simpler times]

I would add that you might want to scroll through older posts on this topic, as there have been prior discussions on the topic of moving to the UK.

Apparently, it's easier to move to Scotland if you are a citizen of a country that is part of the EU (European Union) or Great Britain, like Canada & Australia. Otherwise, it is prohibitively expensive for most ordinary folks. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt can buy a house in London and work there without much trouble, but for the rest of us. . . not so easy. And then there's the matter of general attitude against immigrants right now. The UK is not exactly welcoming ordinary immigrants with open arms (unless you are rich or have some highly specialized skill set that they need) given the poor state of the economy (high unemployment and recession). If you really want to live in a wet, green climate, consider the American Pacific Northwest, or if you want to live among Scottish ancestry, consider the eastern part of Canada. How about Nova Scotia?

Best of luck to you!

Originally Posted by simpler times

Apparently, it's easier to move to Scotland if you are a citizen of a country that is part of the EU (European Union) or Great Britain, like Canada & Australia.

There is some nonsense given out on this Board. Canada and Australia are not part of Great Britain !!

[simpler times]

Perhaps Scotsgait you could have taken the opportunity to educate rather than lob a slur. I stand corrected. While Canada and Australia were once British colonies, they attained "peaceful independence" from England in the last century. However, they both still recognize Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State. Therein lies the confusion. Why is she head of state if they are independent of GB? Why can't Scotland be "peacefully independent" in the same way as Canada & Australia?

Originally Posted by simpler times

Perhaps Scotsgait you could have taken the opportunity to educate rather than lob a slur. I stand corrected. While Canada and Australia were once British colonies, they attained "peaceful independence" from England in the last century. However, they both still recognize Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State. Therein lies the confusion. Why is she head of state if they are independent of GB? Why can't Scotland be "peacefully independent" in the same way as Canada & Australia?

It gets worse!

They didn't attain any format of independence from England.


Why is Brenda the Head of State of Australia and of Canada? Because she is Queen of Australia and Queen of Canada!

[Celyn]

Originally Posted by simpler times

Perhaps Scotsgait you could have taken the opportunity to educate rather than lob a slur. I stand corrected. While Canada and Australia were once British colonies, they attained "peaceful independence" from England in the last century. However, they both still recognize Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State. Therein lies the confusion. Why is she head of state if they are independent of GB? Why can't Scotland be "peacefully independent" in the same way as Canada & Australia?

When did they attain independence from "England", exactly? Please do tell.

Oh really, this is sad: there is a whole muddy marsh of confusion here to deal with.

First bits first:

Liz Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsor-whatevername is queen in Canada and Australia only because they allow her to be. Possibly they find it quaint or fun or something: I don't know. However, both countries mentioned have a choice in the matter. How awfully lucky for them. Oh wait - it's not luck - it's more like democracy.

She is NOT Queen Elizabeth II. Not of Great Britain, nor of the U.K. and NOT of Scotland. Quite a few years ago, there was a big boat named "Queen Elizabeth the Second" and I saw it launched. I believe there was a wee woman with a posh voice involved but I was more entranced that day by A) important big ship, and B) big excitement because my mother took me out of primary school that day to go and see it. The ship was so named because there had been a previous one named "Queen Elizabeth". A previous ship, that is, not a previous queen.

Originally Posted by simpler times

...Why can't Scotland be "peacefully independent" in the same way as Canada & Australia?

Are you suggesting that Scotland will not be peacefully independent? There's something rather odd about your use of the inverted commas there. Or "quotation marks" if you prefer. Still, I am somewhat intrigued by your implication that Scotland will not be peacefully independent, and I should be very interested to know on what grounds, if any, you base this vaguely sinister view.

Oh well, I have I feeling there might be more odd misunderstandings yet to be dealt with.

[tig]

shes still queen of these countries because even tho they got independence they are still part of the commonwealth.
thats why nz n oz etc still have the union jack on their flag.
they got independence politically but kept her as the token head of state.

i think it had more to do with trade than anything else after they became independent