Alberta separatism push roils Canada(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Alberta separatism push roils Canada
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/world/canada/alberta-separatism-referendum.html
362 comments
https://archive.ph/cIwx6
Alberta on as its own independent state would be net worse off in that they'd be a landlocked state and this would not at all directly advance their goals of getting more of their oil product to tidewater, one of their main political grievances. British Columbia would still oppose further oil pipelines to its coast for the same reasons it has always opposed them and in fact it would become politically easier for Canada to deny such access.
So the only viable outcome really is American annexation. (Additionally not advancing the Albertan grievance of only selling oil to one customer...)
So the only viable outcome really is American annexation. (Additionally not advancing the Albertan grievance of only selling oil to one customer...)
Quebec also would have been worse off as an independent state, but threatening sovereignty gave (and continues to give) them important bargaining leverage. Additionally, Alberta has long-standing grievances, and ignoring those in favor of a strictly economic analysis is quite... limiting. Albertan sovereignty advocates might also argue that Canada has more to lose in Alberta than it ever did in the case of Quebec.
Quebec would be worse off independent of Canada absolutely, but having access to the ocean not landlocked and remarkably more viable as an independent state.
There are other landlocked countries throughout the world so it's not like it's impossible, but Alberta would be creating an uphill to climb.
Bottom line is that none of Alberta's longstanding limited market oil pipeline grievances are solved by becoming a landlocked independent state.
There are other landlocked countries throughout the world so it's not like it's impossible, but Alberta would be creating an uphill to climb.
Bottom line is that none of Alberta's longstanding limited market oil pipeline grievances are solved by becoming a landlocked independent state.
> Quebec would be worse off independent of Canada absolutely
Writes someone in English. I don't think everyone would agree.
Writes someone in English. I don't think everyone would agree.
Everyone might not agree but it wouldn't be true. Quebec shot itself in the foot just threatening separatism. Separating would be like Brexit but worse. A smaller, less powerful nation would need to make a bunch of trade deals and companies would likely be even less inclined to enter QC.
> having access to the ocean not landlocked and remarkably more viable as an independent state
And a natural foreign ally.
And a natural foreign ally.
no, they are solved by becoming an American state , or by taking BC with us (close enough to zero chance to just say zero chance) or taking Saskatchewan and Manitoba (not zero chance but pretty darn close). Becoming an American state is the least unlikely of several extremely unlikely outcomes. My personal preference would be for Alberta to stay in Canada and Canada to stop pretending it doesn't need natural resource extraction as a leading part of creating a strong middle class (along with being a cheaper second option for multinational tech company/medical research/etc satellite offices). instead of the current idiotic crushing of natural resources and trying to pick and grow winners in high tech, medical,etc. which is impossible to turn into a pipeline of companies/jobs here (you can get lucky and have one offs that eventually get eaten like RIM and salesforce but that's not an economy.) There is not enough rich people here (and taxes are too high to make enough rich people even if our population was equal to the USA instead of a tenth of its size) to drive the whole finance ecosystem necessary to create an innovation company pipeline. It's all just wasted federal money, most of it was financed by money transferred out of Alberta at the margin.
There are different degrees of "worse off", however. Quebec is a major port city, while Alberta is sandwiched between BC, Saskatchewan, Montana, and the North West Territories.
They have US border on the South. If they were independent, they can strike a deal with the US for their oil pipeline, without Ottawa blocking them.
Ottawa has supported the keystone XL pipeline south. I don’t see what changes there. The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason.
Oil companies have proven time and time again when their pipelines leak or their ships sink or their fracking liquid gets into the groundwater, they’re not liable for it. Payouts have historically been a tiny, minuscule fraction of damage done. And that’s when there was an EPA attempting to regulate them; that’s not going to happen moving forward.
So why should I trust one to build in my backyard?
So why should I trust one to build in my backyard?
That’s not the reason. The oil goes by train which is more polluting and has the same consequences when trains derail.
Can’t a pipe spill a lot more oil than a train though?
If the shutoffs dont close maybe but that is not likely But if the train derails and every tanker can on the train is going over and trains are reaching over a mile in length, it will probably be bigger
There are active shutoffs in the pipe more frequently than the length of a train?
If so, I don’t think that is common knowledge. I wonder why pro pipeline people don’t highlight it more.
If so, I don’t think that is common knowledge. I wonder why pro pipeline people don’t highlight it more.
There is a lot of global warming money fighting pipelines.
An example, tangent logic of this is the common trend to prevent roads from being built. There is a belief that this will result in fewer cars.
Instead, it results in cars sitting and idling, and cars accelerating then stopping.
Another example is a carpool lane. In many (not all!) cases, carpool lane are almost empty. Meanwhile, traffic stops and starts, or idles beside it.
The most polluting a car does, is during acceleration. The most efficiency is driving a constant speed.
So by trying to reduce car usage the wrong way, the result is as if 2x the number of cars are on the road.
Better to focus on excellent public transit with hyper efficient ride times, than stop new roads.
The same is with pipelines. Prevent anything that has to do with delivery, especially if it is safer and cheaper. After all, if it is safer there will be fewer oil spills, and the public won't mind this aspect of oil extraction. If it is cheaper, oil prices will fall, also bad for global warming.
I feel, sadly, tunnel vision will destroy us all.
An example, tangent logic of this is the common trend to prevent roads from being built. There is a belief that this will result in fewer cars.
Instead, it results in cars sitting and idling, and cars accelerating then stopping.
Another example is a carpool lane. In many (not all!) cases, carpool lane are almost empty. Meanwhile, traffic stops and starts, or idles beside it.
The most polluting a car does, is during acceleration. The most efficiency is driving a constant speed.
So by trying to reduce car usage the wrong way, the result is as if 2x the number of cars are on the road.
Better to focus on excellent public transit with hyper efficient ride times, than stop new roads.
The same is with pipelines. Prevent anything that has to do with delivery, especially if it is safer and cheaper. After all, if it is safer there will be fewer oil spills, and the public won't mind this aspect of oil extraction. If it is cheaper, oil prices will fall, also bad for global warming.
I feel, sadly, tunnel vision will destroy us all.
You’ve recast my argument, which was about a specific lack of legal culpability, as one about climate change and conspiracies: “global warming money,” if it does exist, has not paid me any.
Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail their operators refuse to make the ones whose lives they’ve ruined, whole. East Palestine, Ohio is as good an example as the North Dakota border as far as I’m concerned.
Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail their operators refuse to make the ones whose lives they’ve ruined, whole. East Palestine, Ohio is as good an example as the North Dakota border as far as I’m concerned.
Before being neutered, was the EPA so powerful that it could regulate what happened in the great white north? While I get your sentiments about bigOil getting way with poisoning the land/seas, we can at least keep the government agencies from one country straight.
The topic was "The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason", so it makes sense that they were talking about a US agency to me
>The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason.
It would necessarily pass through Native land and the native tribes dont want it on their land. Forcing it through is a tribal sovereignty issue.
It would necessarily pass through Native land and the native tribes dont want it on their land. Forcing it through is a tribal sovereignty issue.
That wasn’t the issue
"In a new bid to stop the Keystone XL pipeline, two Native American communities are suing the Trump administration, saying it failed to adhere to historical treaty boundaries and circumvented environmental impact analysis. As a result, they are asking a federal judge in Montana to rescind the 2017 permit and block any further construction or use of the controversial pipeline.
The Fort Belknap Indian Community of Montana and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota contend there was no effort to study how the 1,200-mile pipeline project through their respective territories would affect their water systems and sacred lands."
---https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646523140/native-american-tri...
The Fort Belknap Indian Community of Montana and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota contend there was no effort to study how the 1,200-mile pipeline project through their respective territories would affect their water systems and sacred lands."
---https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646523140/native-american-tri...
It didn’t stop it. The Biden administration stopped it citing climate change as the reason.
Do you mean to propose this was the real reason behind the scenes? I find it hard to believe.
Do you mean to propose this was the real reason behind the scenes? I find it hard to believe.
> The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason.
It's not just God. I also know!
The Democrats believe climate change is real, the externalities of fossil fuel extraction, processing, and consumption are real, the injured parties in pipeline construction are their constituents, and the fossil fuel companies fund Republicans and Republican-aligned organizations.
It's a really deep mystery, but I've sussed it out. Me and God.
It's not just God. I also know!
The Democrats believe climate change is real, the externalities of fossil fuel extraction, processing, and consumption are real, the injured parties in pipeline construction are their constituents, and the fossil fuel companies fund Republicans and Republican-aligned organizations.
It's a really deep mystery, but I've sussed it out. Me and God.
The oil doesn’t stay in the ground, it gets shipped via diesel trains without the pipeline.
I’m guessing climate change is the reason, but it’s hard to see how the current state of affairs is better for the environment. Diesel trains are a lot less carbon friendly than pipelines.
I’m guessing climate change is the reason, but it’s hard to see how the current state of affairs is better for the environment. Diesel trains are a lot less carbon friendly than pipelines.
Here's a thought experiment: if the diesel train works as well as the pipeline, why build the pipeline?
It doesn’t work as well, it costs more. But it’s still better to use the train than to slow production
But costing more and having limited capacity most certainly does slow production!
Are you saying that the trains have the same throughput and cost as the pipeline would have?
The pipeline unquestionably means more production, more co2.
Are you saying that the trains have the same throughput and cost as the pipeline would have?
The pipeline unquestionably means more production, more co2.
Here's another: if a diesel train produces no pollution, why not use it everywhere?
Here's another observation (not a thought experiment): To figure out which scenario pollutes more, one could add up the various inputs and outputs. A producer is limited by the volume and cost of different means of transportation. It isn't apodictically true that the same volume of tar is delivered regardless of the means, so preventing a pipeline from being built does not necessarily increase net pollution. That being nebulous, the Democrats' motivations are less nebulous.
A little more than a month ago.
https://mydakotan.com/2025/04/keystone-pipeline-resumes-oper...
https://mydakotan.com/2025/04/keystone-pipeline-resumes-oper...
[deleted]
And how hard would you expect the Americans to drive the negotiation when they know they are the only possible customer for Alberta?
Trade deals are not made with generosity towards oil producers in mind.
Trade deals are not made with generosity towards oil producers in mind.
I find it hard not to imagine a scenario in which the USA would strangle an independent Alberta economically with designs to, at the minimum get oil for bottom dollar, or maximally to absorb it as a territory. It's what they're doing to Canada right now. We have a fighting chance, I don't imagine Alberta (or any other province) alone does.
So you believe threatening to separate is a strategy and that they get more by making threats.
Alberta has oil majority of it foreign owed and wants free pipelines paid by the rest of Canada as subsidy and they got one for free and they believe they get more for free...
Alberta has oil majority of it foreign owed and wants free pipelines paid by the rest of Canada as subsidy and they got one for free and they believe they get more for free...
Except of course the elephant in the room for why that is. You know, an entire population at odds with the Canadian government for trying to do to quebec and their culture what the American government successfully did to native americans and their culture. You don’t really have that unified us vs them mentality in english speaking canada.
I dont know anything about quebec but honestly this statement is so one-sided that it translates to "noise" and "rage bait" level
Sometimes history has clear villains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17
Total nonsense. Political separation doesn't undue physical oil infrastructure. Crude would continue to flow as is, and trade deals would immediately be struck. Meanwhile, incremental pipeline capacity south would be rapidly approved while existing East/West expansion is hopeless under a Liberal government.
I am a physical oil trader and I buy 200,000 barrels of oil a day to supply refineries in Canada. I have also worked on financing for Energy East, Keystone XL, Northern Gateway, TMX and the Line 9 reversal in my career. Trust me when I say the Canadian government is the problem and Alberta would be MUCH better off from an oil perspective split off of Canada.
I am a physical oil trader and I buy 200,000 barrels of oil a day to supply refineries in Canada. I have also worked on financing for Energy East, Keystone XL, Northern Gateway, TMX and the Line 9 reversal in my career. Trust me when I say the Canadian government is the problem and Alberta would be MUCH better off from an oil perspective split off of Canada.
Your trade deals are a flash in history. Native Aboriginal Canadians do not owe anything to oil traders south of the border. You can't force them join your ghettos.
What is the nonsense part? What advantages does Alberta gain from separation vis a vis pipelines? They’re never going to get more oil to the pacific in either case. Separating weakens their hand in negotiating gas pipelines to the pacific. No one currently cares if Alberta builds more pipelines to the USA. There is no hindrance here. So what does Alberta gain?
Not to mention all the other things Alberta loses. BC the popular vacation and retirement spot, and like Spain to the British would be closed off to Albertans with their holiday homes now under foreign buyer and speculation taxation.
Not to mention all the other things Alberta loses. BC the popular vacation and retirement spot, and like Spain to the British would be closed off to Albertans with their holiday homes now under foreign buyer and speculation taxation.
Doesn't all of Northern Alberta fall under Treaty 8? Going to be interesting if we separate from the rest of Canada.
All of Alberta was ceded to the crown through the numbered treaties prior to the establishment of the province. Are you implying that there’s something about treaty 8 that makes it different from treaty 4, 6, 7, and 10?
It’s all ceded territory, and assuming an independent Alberta retains the crown why would it present any issue?
> Indians DO HEREBY CEDE, RELEASE, SURRENDER AND YIELD UP to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say:
https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028813/1581293624...
Even if Alberta became a republic or joined the US, its secession after all, a moment when old agreements which by their original text promising a fresh suit of clothes to each chief every 3 years and $5 per year to every band member are up for even more re-evaluation than they have already been subject to.
It’s all ceded territory, and assuming an independent Alberta retains the crown why would it present any issue?
> Indians DO HEREBY CEDE, RELEASE, SURRENDER AND YIELD UP to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say:
https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028813/1581293624...
Even if Alberta became a republic or joined the US, its secession after all, a moment when old agreements which by their original text promising a fresh suit of clothes to each chief every 3 years and $5 per year to every band member are up for even more re-evaluation than they have already been subject to.
> this would not at all directly advance their goals of getting more of their oil product to tidewater, one of their main political grievances
It's a manufactured grievance. Alberta's been pumping and selling more oil than at any point in its history under Trudeau's liberals.
https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/dashboard/oil-productio...
Trace this separatism bullshit back, and you'll find the fingers of the American right fully entwined in all this.
What all the separatists fail to be aware of is that 98% of Alberta is treaty land. It can't secede as a land-locked province, it could only secede as a bunch of fragmented municipalities surrounded by First Nations.
The only actual way towards it would be invasion and annexation by the United States. I hope that anyone looking forward to that timeline is also looking forward to IEDs.
It's a manufactured grievance. Alberta's been pumping and selling more oil than at any point in its history under Trudeau's liberals.
https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/dashboard/oil-productio...
Trace this separatism bullshit back, and you'll find the fingers of the American right fully entwined in all this.
What all the separatists fail to be aware of is that 98% of Alberta is treaty land. It can't secede as a land-locked province, it could only secede as a bunch of fragmented municipalities surrounded by First Nations.
The only actual way towards it would be invasion and annexation by the United States. I hope that anyone looking forward to that timeline is also looking forward to IEDs.
The issue is not selling more oil but where the profit goes. I work for the Alberta Government, I know a person who works for the Ministry of Energy and Minerals who processes land use rights applications for oil and gas activities. Most of the profit obtained from selling the aforementioned rights goes to the federal government (about 85%), and only about 15% gets reinvested into the provincial department
We just need to redraw the US/Canada border:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/enwwwm/map_of_the_...
(Probably with Colorado + NM as a little USC exclave now, and maybe with Saskatchewan joining Alberta as part of Trumpland.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/enwwwm/map_of_the_...
(Probably with Colorado + NM as a little USC exclave now, and maybe with Saskatchewan joining Alberta as part of Trumpland.)
[deleted]
Given that existing pipelines are already overcommitted or at capacity and carry not much more than a tenth, and given that America is mostly the only option for refining the heavy sour tarry crap they pull out of the athabasca sands, this doesn't matter much. This is what came up during trump's threats about tariffing oil. They basically would have had to eat the cost unlike most of the other tariffs trump has proposed.
Regardless, let's say two places have very different values and ideas about how they want to live and what goals to pursue. What the hell gives one place the right, particularly when it consistently votes down the desired values of the other, to prevent it from leaving and going its own way? Self-determination as a principle isn't magically restricted to national borders only. That would be a ridiculous assertion.
Regardless, let's say two places have very different values and ideas about how they want to live and what goals to pursue. What the hell gives one place the right, particularly when it consistently votes down the desired values of the other, to prevent it from leaving and going its own way? Self-determination as a principle isn't magically restricted to national borders only. That would be a ridiculous assertion.
> What the hell gives one place the right, particularly when it consistently votes down the desired values of the other, to prevent it from leaving and going its own way? Self-determination as a principle isn't magically restricted to national borders only. That would be a ridiculous assertion.
How granular does this asserted right go? Should Edmonton be able to secede from Alberta? Can I run outside and put up a flag on my front lawn?
How granular does this asserted right go? Should Edmonton be able to secede from Alberta? Can I run outside and put up a flag on my front lawn?
>How granular does this asserted right go? Should Edmonton be able to secede from Alberta?
Yes
>Can I run outside and put up a flag on my front lawn?
Yes, but the overhead burden of running a municipality even if it only has a population of 1 would likely quickly make you reconsider
Yes
>Can I run outside and put up a flag on my front lawn?
Yes, but the overhead burden of running a municipality even if it only has a population of 1 would likely quickly make you reconsider
Well-put thank you. I think the end state that makes this not a slippery slope is that there are certain practicalities that make some responsibilities impractical beyond a certain scale. Where it is correct in its maximalist form though is that we should relegate the most possible freedom to the individual.
I hope more people can embrace this way of thinking. It's not really partisan. If anything it lets people operate more democratically where voices and engagement mean more. It lets people live how they want in communities with shared values. It lets us run many different policy experiments across many different places to develop better policies.
I hope more people can embrace this way of thinking. It's not really partisan. If anything it lets people operate more democratically where voices and engagement mean more. It lets people live how they want in communities with shared values. It lets us run many different policy experiments across many different places to develop better policies.
[deleted]
It goes pretty granular. I don't really like secession in concept, in this case it's a manifestation that governments like to steal more power than they absolutely must hold at that level instead of leaving it at lower ones. This gives someone in BC a hell of a lot too much influence on how someone in Alberta lives and vice-versa when really not much besides border, military, and treaties/diplomacy needs to be handled nationally. Things should be made as local as possible. I would prefer municipal or neighborhood-level decision making for a lot of things because it's actually really hard to scale democracy well and because the losing minority grows as you make decisions at higher levels.
There are practical limits to this principle, very hard for a landlocked city to secede, but at least in principle it seems morally correct if not practically possible. But I struggle to see how someone can conceivably oppose colonialism and also oppose secession.
There are practical limits to this principle, very hard for a landlocked city to secede, but at least in principle it seems morally correct if not practically possible. But I struggle to see how someone can conceivably oppose colonialism and also oppose secession.
Is it actually morally correct? Philosophically, this ends up with the ideal government being every single person determining their own rules, doesn't it? The ideal state of things would be to reject democracy and move to libertarianism? I'd argue that such a society does not function, and having a functional society is also a moral good.
On a more practical note, the Alberta government is currently actively meddling in municipal politics and policies, so in the currently discussed application it seems more of a "I want to have a government that's as large as possible that I can still have power over".
On a more practical note, the Alberta government is currently actively meddling in municipal politics and policies, so in the currently discussed application it seems more of a "I want to have a government that's as large as possible that I can still have power over".
No, it's fine for governments to fix externalities. I just believe they should do it at low levels.
I don't support Alberta meddling in local politics. I don't support the US federal or state governments doing this. If cities or neighborhoods want to come together and say "we want a blue community in this red state" or vice versa that's a just form of self-governance.
I actually believe this is how we make democracy work better. It has scale problems but remains the least-bad form of government so we should work to design systems that make it function well.
Letting people self-assort to live with others with their values under rules that reflect those within reason is good.
I don't support Alberta meddling in local politics. I don't support the US federal or state governments doing this. If cities or neighborhoods want to come together and say "we want a blue community in this red state" or vice versa that's a just form of self-governance.
I actually believe this is how we make democracy work better. It has scale problems but remains the least-bad form of government so we should work to design systems that make it function well.
Letting people self-assort to live with others with their values under rules that reflect those within reason is good.
How do you address issues where tragedy of the commons comes into play? Every individual neighbourhood/smallest unit of government would (rightly) pick the best option for themselves.
Having a large representative base is the easiest way to prevent that.
Having a large representative base is the easiest way to prevent that.
Can you give me examples of situations like this?
I am perfectly fine with something like the clean air and water acts (in principle if not implementation). Obviously people in an upstream town aren't allowed to dump pollution in the river to save money.
I am perfectly fine with something like the clean air and water acts (in principle if not implementation). Obviously people in an upstream town aren't allowed to dump pollution in the river to save money.
But why would the upstream town be interested in governing what they dump?
Clearly someone/something has to assert the value that downstream towns have the right to unpolluted water. And won't that be the higher level government preventing the upstream town from asserting their rules and values?
Clearly someone/something has to assert the value that downstream towns have the right to unpolluted water. And won't that be the higher level government preventing the upstream town from asserting their rules and values?
Yes actually. I'm not opposed to any government above a highly-local level. The point of government is basically to fix externalities and run defense/diplomacy. For rivers we do in fact need co-ordinated governance to prevent people from polluting others' water downstream.
On the second point it should be noted that the awful FPTP system creates the regional distortions that make it appear that the regions are more divided than they really are. One looks on the map and it seems like Alberta is near uniform blue but that's because of FPTP. The reality is that ~64% voted one way and a sizeable amount of Alberta voted in opposition.
If we fixed our voting system to be more truly representative I think some of these divisions would go away.
If we fixed our voting system to be more truly representative I think some of these divisions would go away.
See also: California
When Quebec held a referendum in 1995 on separation (not secession), the Cree nation in northern Quebec held its own referendum on what to do if Quebec separates, and voted 96% to separate from Quebec and remain in Canada. The Parti Québécois, the provincial gov't of Quebec at the time, sputtered "Quebec is not divisible!" which created a lot of awkwardness around the whole question of Quebec leaving Canada.
If Canadians are worried about Trumps threats of absorption, then I as a citizen of an independent Alberta would be petrified.
Actually Trump wanting to absorb Canada puts Alberta in a great position.
Canadians like to argue that no province can secede from Canada because it would be illegal but the reality is that if a referendum showed 50%+ of people in Alberta supported independence then the US would support Alberta and that’s the only thing that matters. A lot of Canadian press is wilfully ignorant of that fact.
Canadians like to argue that no province can secede from Canada because it would be illegal but the reality is that if a referendum showed 50%+ of people in Alberta supported independence then the US would support Alberta and that’s the only thing that matters. A lot of Canadian press is wilfully ignorant of that fact.
I don't think the "legality" of separation is a real blocker here, are you insinuating that if the Quebec referendum on its sovereignty would have succeeded that it would have remained a province because it was "illegal"?
I agree with you, but that is what the Canadian press is saying. Just look at the Andrew Coyne articles, among many others, that make this precise argument about legality of separation. And yes they also suggest that Quebec separation would’ve been illegal and not happened too.
I would not support it. I'm skeptical that many Americans would either. Would be clearly illegal and might encourage separatism in other places like the US
What happens if I switch nouns so it's California joining Canada?
No Alberta will have a war with its aboriginal population as they don't want to join USA.
I don't think anyone who's paying attention is worried about some thread of absorption. Trump was making fun of Trudeau when he was saying Canada wouldn't survive without the US's help.
Time and time again throughout history, bold-face, clear-as-day threats of invasion are followed by disbelief, are ignored by folks, followed by the promised invasion. Just ask France in WWII or Ukraine most recently.
I don't make a habit of ignoring major world powers when they threaten annexation, and many others who are "paying attention" don't either.
Trudeau is no longer here, those threats continue to be made, even in the _presence_ of the current leader of Canada. I don't understand how one could not take these threats seriously.
I don't make a habit of ignoring major world powers when they threaten annexation, and many others who are "paying attention" don't either.
Trudeau is no longer here, those threats continue to be made, even in the _presence_ of the current leader of Canada. I don't understand how one could not take these threats seriously.
Anyone who is actually paying attention is worried. Not because it's likely, it would be absolutely rediculous. But then again many things Trump has done are obviously stupid and absolutely rediculous. Like the tarrifs. Or threatening to annex Canada. That's no laughing matter.
[flagged]
> got nothing in return except spat in the face
Please don't do regional flamewar on HN. Like national flamewar and religious flamewar, it's a circle of hell we want to avoid here. You can make your substantive points without it, so please do that instead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't do regional flamewar on HN. Like national flamewar and religious flamewar, it's a circle of hell we want to avoid here. You can make your substantive points without it, so please do that instead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is as true as Trump's claim that the US subsidizes Canada $200 billion/year. It's a made-up outrage point.
As a Western Canadian, I actually think it's the media attention on this that has made it more popular. The vast majority of people in my life think this is a terrible idea. Western Canada, and Alberta, have been shafted by federal Canadian politics for a long time, but Carney seems to be saying the right things ("energy super power", "energy corridor", "streamline infrastructure").
I agree as a Canadian. It feels like there's vastly more reporting on this than there are actual people fully supporting this movement. These things may be getting more coverage because they sound so outrageous and novel, but it's an unpopular idea even among Albertans. It also lacks anything that Quebec's once-mighty secessionist force had - no unified organization pushing for it, no vision for what an independent Alberta would be like, no cultural differences with the rest of Canada, no irreconcilable grievance with the federal government (outside of them not being conservative enough).
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of tension in Alberta - but as it stands, this movement is more of a way to voice discontent, rather than a serious plan to become a sovereign state. IMO, it's not worth a dramatic full-page treatment that paints this as a likely possibility - but foreign reporting on Canadian issues has often been very questionable.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of tension in Alberta - but as it stands, this movement is more of a way to voice discontent, rather than a serious plan to become a sovereign state. IMO, it's not worth a dramatic full-page treatment that paints this as a likely possibility - but foreign reporting on Canadian issues has often been very questionable.
>t feels like there's vastly more reporting on this than there are actual people fully supporting this movement.
Which is everything to say about today's media. They are, wrong, made up and late. They are only here for the clicks and view. Not for informing anyone.
Which is everything to say about today's media. They are, wrong, made up and late. They are only here for the clicks and view. Not for informing anyone.
Someone is putin in a lot of effort to grow divisions/instability in Canada
He’s not doing anything though, it’s just words. In fact he said we don’t need more pipelines, don’t need to repeal bill C69, etc.
I noticed you called yourself Western Canadian, not Albertan. I agree with your sentiments, but I'm curious. The article quotes "I don’t like the way the Liberals treat Western Canada", but BC is Liberal, is it not?
I spent the majority of my life in BC, but I've been away for the last 15 years.
I spent the majority of my life in BC, but I've been away for the last 15 years.
BC is liberal yes.
BC, Quebec and the federal government have prevented further oil industry development while enjoying Alberta tax revenue from said oil industry. That's the basic gripe. And as far as I can tell, it's true.
The whole country is pro-oil now because we've realized we need to be stronger. This election cycle was drastically different compared to the last one which was completely about "climate change". Which was ridiculous imo.
Seperatism is bad, but being pro-Alberta is good. Being pro-Canadian oil and infrastructure development is good.
BC, Quebec and the federal government have prevented further oil industry development while enjoying Alberta tax revenue from said oil industry. That's the basic gripe. And as far as I can tell, it's true.
The whole country is pro-oil now because we've realized we need to be stronger. This election cycle was drastically different compared to the last one which was completely about "climate change". Which was ridiculous imo.
Seperatism is bad, but being pro-Alberta is good. Being pro-Canadian oil and infrastructure development is good.
How is it ridiculous? Climate change is very bad. Limiting oil exploration seems very reasonable
Climate change denialism is still alive and well, it's just shifting from "it doesn't exist" to "it's not that bad" or "its not our problem".
Every country needs to be taking climate change seriously for their own sake. Very few are. China is, and surprise surprise - China is outpacing western nations in a lot of different areas. Their rate of development is truly spectacular.
It's fun and games not to care, but the reality is economic prosperity is a long term game. You need to make decisions now that will decide 50 years from now. Oil is on the way out, it's the wrong horse to back for extremely expensive infrastructure.
Every country needs to be taking climate change seriously for their own sake. Very few are. China is, and surprise surprise - China is outpacing western nations in a lot of different areas. Their rate of development is truly spectacular.
It's fun and games not to care, but the reality is economic prosperity is a long term game. You need to make decisions now that will decide 50 years from now. Oil is on the way out, it's the wrong horse to back for extremely expensive infrastructure.
As I understand it the BC Liberals are a centre-right party that don't have any affiliation with the Federal Liberal Party of Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_United
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_United
Generally speaking, provincial parties are either loosely affiliated or unaffiliated with federal parties which share a name. e.g. Alberta recently had an NDP government that skews much further right than the federal NDP.
If someone says "BC is Liberal" when discussing multiple provinces, they're probably referring to the distribution of federal MPs from BC. And in three of the last four elections including the most recent, the Liberals have "won" BC federally.
If someone says "BC is Liberal" when discussing multiple provinces, they're probably referring to the distribution of federal MPs from BC. And in three of the last four elections including the most recent, the Liberals have "won" BC federally.
As an Albertan I agree. Separatist parties never got more than 5% of the vote here.
What is happening is:
1) Conservatives believed they had a sure path to a super-majority in Ottawa.
2) Trump spoils everything.
3) But Trump is their hero, they'd never blame him. So they blame the usual suspects: Trudeau and the Libs.
4) Because they can't do anything about the Libs victory, they do what spoiled children do when they hear "no": throw a tantrum.
5) Because the media needs circus and drama to catch eyeballs, the media goes to overdrama on their tantrum.
6) Because children on tantrum love attention, they double down on crying and yelling. Go to 4.
What is happening is:
1) Conservatives believed they had a sure path to a super-majority in Ottawa.
2) Trump spoils everything.
3) But Trump is their hero, they'd never blame him. So they blame the usual suspects: Trudeau and the Libs.
4) Because they can't do anything about the Libs victory, they do what spoiled children do when they hear "no": throw a tantrum.
5) Because the media needs circus and drama to catch eyeballs, the media goes to overdrama on their tantrum.
6) Because children on tantrum love attention, they double down on crying and yelling. Go to 4.
Literally just like a child packing a bag and threatening to run away from home because you didn't kowtow to their every demand.
[deleted]
Before going to secede, Alberta should do what Quebec has done and "practise" being a country: collect its own taxes, run its own police, run its own retirement system, control provincial immigration, ... This will give them a better idea what will be required to go it alone, and test whether their low-tax haven will survive leaving Canada.
The UCP (who seem to have no official opinion on separation) have already begun some of this, with an Alberta pension plan and a new Alberta police force.
(Edit: to be clear, these are just proposals the government is exploring at this point.)
> test whether their low-tax haven will survive leaving Canada.
The math already makes sense from a tax perspective. Alberta is a net contributor to the rest of the country, mainly due to resource royalties.
But to me, the question is whether that would still hold when it has to work out trade deals with two neighbouring countries, while small (pop. 5 million), and landlocked.
(Edit: to be clear, these are just proposals the government is exploring at this point.)
> test whether their low-tax haven will survive leaving Canada.
The math already makes sense from a tax perspective. Alberta is a net contributor to the rest of the country, mainly due to resource royalties.
But to me, the question is whether that would still hold when it has to work out trade deals with two neighbouring countries, while small (pop. 5 million), and landlocked.
> The UCP (who seem to have no official opinion on separation) have already begun some of this, with an Alberta pension plan and a new Alberta police force.
To be clear, none of this has been enacted. The UCP love to threaten, but those initiatives have not proven to be popular with Albertans.
> But to me, the question is whether that would still hold when it has to work out trade deals with two neighbouring countries, while small (pop. 5 million), and landlocked.
And when Alberta needs to take on all the things that the federal government does for them.
To be clear, none of this has been enacted. The UCP love to threaten, but those initiatives have not proven to be popular with Albertans.
> But to me, the question is whether that would still hold when it has to work out trade deals with two neighbouring countries, while small (pop. 5 million), and landlocked.
And when Alberta needs to take on all the things that the federal government does for them.
> The UCP love to threaten, but those initiatives have not proven to be popular with Albertans.
Unpopularity didn't stop them from changing the environmental rules to allow a new coal mine in the eastern slopes of the Rockies. The vast majority of Albertans were opposed and they went ahead anyway.
Unpopularity didn't stop them from changing the environmental rules to allow a new coal mine in the eastern slopes of the Rockies. The vast majority of Albertans were opposed and they went ahead anyway.
There is no Alberta Pension Plan that exists today. All provinces also already run their own police forces. So there has been no movement on this in Alberta.
> There is no Alberta Pension Plan that exists today.
There is a fund (AIMCo) that the government is proposing to convert in to a general pension plan. So far that has not been popular enough to translate into concrete action.
> All provinces also already run their own police forces.
No, rural policing is handled by the RCMP in 8 provinces. Ontario has the OPP and Quebec has SQ.
> So there has been no movement on this in Alberta.
The idea of the police force is more popular with voters than the idea of the pension plan. So, something could come of it: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-plans-to-cre...
There is a fund (AIMCo) that the government is proposing to convert in to a general pension plan. So far that has not been popular enough to translate into concrete action.
> All provinces also already run their own police forces.
No, rural policing is handled by the RCMP in 8 provinces. Ontario has the OPP and Quebec has SQ.
> So there has been no movement on this in Alberta.
The idea of the police force is more popular with voters than the idea of the pension plan. So, something could come of it: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-plans-to-cre...
And the numbers the UCP used from the consulting report were disputed by multiple groups including CPP.
However it appears to not be moving forward anymore.
https://www.benefitsandpensionsmonitor.com/news/industry-new...
However it appears to not be moving forward anymore.
https://www.benefitsandpensionsmonitor.com/news/industry-new...
They can't be an independent country, because their position is indefensible. Over 3/4ths of their borders would be with Canada— that's enough influence and threat to thwart any separatism. Who do you trade with? How do you keep Canadian troops away?
The only way this could happen is if the only other country Alberta borders, the United States, strongly supports the separation— strongly enough to break ties with Canada over it that is. And if it does, I suspect Alberta wouldn't be independent very long. All trade and most defense would be with and thanks to the United States. It'd be easy for the USA to annex Alberta.
The only way this could happen is if the only other country Alberta borders, the United States, strongly supports the separation— strongly enough to break ties with Canada over it that is. And if it does, I suspect Alberta wouldn't be independent very long. All trade and most defense would be with and thanks to the United States. It'd be easy for the USA to annex Alberta.
Lesotho is completely surrounded by South Africa, and yet they continue to exist independently.
Mind you it's not a bastion of first world quality of living.
Switzerland is in a similar position, albeit surrounded by the EU, and they are part of the Schengen region.
Mind you it's not a bastion of first world quality of living.
Switzerland is in a similar position, albeit surrounded by the EU, and they are part of the Schengen region.
That makes no sense. Plenty of countries exist with no ability to defend themselves against their neighbors in a war.
Usually what you do is prioritize good enough relations to avoid war.
Usually what you do is prioritize good enough relations to avoid war.
But that wouldn't be the case here, would it?
Canada wouldn't keep its arms closed as it looses its most profitable province, connection to its western ocean, and over 11% of its population. Unless the USA vows to defend Alberta, this would certainly mean Canadian troops marching towards Edmonton. It's an existential threat. Looking at the map, it splits Canada in two.
I'm not saying this would mean war. Alberta doesn't have the right geography or military power to fight a war with Canada, unlike, say, the South in the American Civil War. Canadian troops would into Edmonton with little resistance and Alberta would return to Canada.
The only way Alberta could remain independent is if the USA defended it. I don't think this would mean war either— Canada would never go to war with the United States. At most troops from both sides would be positioned on each side of the border, to show they mean business, but Canada wouldn't fire a shot.
Knowing thus, that Alberta depends on them for both trade and defense (reminder, Alberta is land-locked and could only trade with the USA or Canada), and given their recent expansionist rhetoric, would the USA really opt to keep Alberta as an independent country they spent money defending, but get no taxes or land jurisdiction from, or would they expect to eventually incorporate it?
Canada wouldn't keep its arms closed as it looses its most profitable province, connection to its western ocean, and over 11% of its population. Unless the USA vows to defend Alberta, this would certainly mean Canadian troops marching towards Edmonton. It's an existential threat. Looking at the map, it splits Canada in two.
I'm not saying this would mean war. Alberta doesn't have the right geography or military power to fight a war with Canada, unlike, say, the South in the American Civil War. Canadian troops would into Edmonton with little resistance and Alberta would return to Canada.
The only way Alberta could remain independent is if the USA defended it. I don't think this would mean war either— Canada would never go to war with the United States. At most troops from both sides would be positioned on each side of the border, to show they mean business, but Canada wouldn't fire a shot.
Knowing thus, that Alberta depends on them for both trade and defense (reminder, Alberta is land-locked and could only trade with the USA or Canada), and given their recent expansionist rhetoric, would the USA really opt to keep Alberta as an independent country they spent money defending, but get no taxes or land jurisdiction from, or would they expect to eventually incorporate it?
> Looking at the map, it splits Canada in two.
I'll admit it'd be a little cool in the winter but NWT is still a part of Canada.
Since you said looking at a map; almost all of Alberta is treaty land, be a very interesting and long court case before anything comes of it, no matter what our lobbyist Premier wants to do.
I'll admit it'd be a little cool in the winter but NWT is still a part of Canada.
Since you said looking at a map; almost all of Alberta is treaty land, be a very interesting and long court case before anything comes of it, no matter what our lobbyist Premier wants to do.
>Canadian troops marching
Of the few Canadian troops that exist, most of them are sourced from the West (just like the US, for that matter). It's difficult to prosecute a war without any soldiers.
Of the few Canadian troops that exist, most of them are sourced from the West (just like the US, for that matter). It's difficult to prosecute a war without any soldiers.
Only 1 out of the 5 Canadian army divisions is headquartered west of Toronto [1].
[1]: https://www.canada.ca/en/army/corporate/ie-map-divisions.htm...
[1]: https://www.canada.ca/en/army/corporate/ie-map-divisions.htm...
[deleted]
Some clause to this effect could be a nice thing to add to any future unions. Want to leave? Go for it! Run your own services, take your chunk of the national debt and once you’ve paid it off you are free.
Why are countries begging their regions to stay? It’s obviously just a negotiation or political rhetoric. If these movements actually had to take themselves seriously they would immediately dissolve I think.
Why are countries begging their regions to stay? It’s obviously just a negotiation or political rhetoric. If these movements actually had to take themselves seriously they would immediately dissolve I think.
Because a national identity means more than a temporary convenience, and regions have ups and downs in their fortunes. Why should the rich parts of Alberta fund the poor parts?
Just to be clear; the idea there was to reduce the tendency to make these threats by actually providing a serious path toward succession. I think these movements are mostly not serious or well thought out, so this would be a good way of calling their bluffs.
Yes, I re-read and I'm on board.
However they are also, in my opinion, being promoted by state actors who want to weaken Canadian and American national identity. In that way, it's important to not push people into stronger support of the secessionist position.
However they are also, in my opinion, being promoted by state actors who want to weaken Canadian and American national identity. In that way, it's important to not push people into stronger support of the secessionist position.
Why wouldn’t it? Alberta pays more than it receives. It would be more capable of paying for services without Canada to hold it back.
Yup this is what the so-called firewall is all about and floating an alberta CPP
alberta is a net tax contributor unlike an annoying unnamed province
For maybe another 10 more years, tops. With the world adding > 1TW of solar every year and > 20 million EV's every year, the demand for oil is going to drop. Alberta oilsands oil has the most expensive production costs of any major oil production area, which means they're the marginal producer, the first to shut down. Saudi Arabia with their cheap light oil is going to be making money on oil for at least 50 years, but Alberta will be lucky to get 10 more.
> Alberta oilsands oil has the most expensive production costs of any major oil production area, which means they're the marginal producer, the first to shut down
This has not been true for years. Oil sands costs are lower than US shale costs: https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/varcoe-canadian...
The oil sands projects are longer-lived (no need to continually dig new wells), and labour costs have been optimized after the price shock of 2014.
This has not been true for years. Oil sands costs are lower than US shale costs: https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/varcoe-canadian...
The oil sands projects are longer-lived (no need to continually dig new wells), and labour costs have been optimized after the price shock of 2014.
Admittedly they are benefiting mostly from American refining tech in this sense. They would have a tough time negotiating advantageous trade terms on their own and not many refineries can handle it, meaning they are mostly dependent on pipelines to America to make their oil saleable.
Alberta is nothing but empty space and sunshine. It is a prime location for Solar
It will continue to be an energy juggernaut
It will continue to be an energy juggernaut
Alberta's solar energy might make BC rich. The price of electricity while the sun is shining is very low. The combination of Alberta solar during the daytime and BC hydro at night is valuable, but it's the hydro that'll get the vast bulk of the dollars.
And Alberta is quite far from big electricity markets. It's far cheaper to put overbuild solar in places with poor sunshine than it is to build a HVDC line.
Plus Alberta will have to compete with Arizona and neighboring states, which have even more sunshine than Alberta does.
And Alberta is quite far from big electricity markets. It's far cheaper to put overbuild solar in places with poor sunshine than it is to build a HVDC line.
Plus Alberta will have to compete with Arizona and neighboring states, which have even more sunshine than Alberta does.
Alberta/Canada exports oil which earns it forex. Which allows it to buy stuff from other countries. Exporting solar electricity to earn forex will earn next to nothing.
During the summertime maybe? It's pretty far north to generate much from solar in the wintertime isn't it?
I'm not a solar expert, but even during winter we get tons of sun, just fewer hours per day
Northern Alberta would probably not do very good, but southern Alberta would be fine I'm sure
Northern Alberta would probably not do very good, but southern Alberta would be fine I'm sure
It's not hard to look this up. It's not just fewer hours per day, latitude matters a lot. If you look at yearly totals[1] Alberta looks better than BC but not better than any other neighbors to the South or East. All its neighbors also have plenty of space. Plus, total energy consumption (electricity plus gas) is probably highest in winter when solar input is lowest. I think it's hard to argue Alberta will become an exporter of solar-derived power.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#/media/File:W...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#/media/File:W...
In Calgary I rule-of-thumb 10x less solar energy in December than in June.
Not really, the level of production in the winter would be very low, and no batteries can fix that.
They have cheap gas though, and that could be used in the winter.
They have cheap gas though, and that could be used in the winter.
A lot of this may hinge on whether the US's drive to end subsidies for solar and EVs stick and if they take hold elsewhere.
The US is just a small fraction of oil use. There world will be consuming oil for many decades. Some by industries with hard to replace uses (plastic, planes etc), and some by backwards countries (US, Russia). But it'll just be a small fraction, so will be supplied by the low cost producers like Saudi Arabia. High cost producers like Alberta will be shut out.
Gas car sales peaked in 2018 globally. EVs are already >20% of new car sales worldwide, and the US is a joke when it comes to EV sales compared to Europe or China.
https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales
https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales
People have been saying that for decades. Oil isn’t going anywhere anytime soon
They've been saying it "will be replaced" for decades. I'm saying it "is being replaced". Big difference. 1 TW of solar and 20% of car sales are massive numbers we've never seen before.
It’s not being replaced yet. Oil demand is higher than ever.
Solar doesn’t compete with oil, it competes with other electricity generation like coal and gas. But even that is not declining yet, globally.
Global coal demand may finally have reached its peak, if we’re being optimistic.
Natural gas and oil demand are still increasing.
Solar doesn’t compete with oil, it competes with other electricity generation like coal and gas. But even that is not declining yet, globally.
Global coal demand may finally have reached its peak, if we’re being optimistic.
Natural gas and oil demand are still increasing.
Oil demand is down in 2025. ICE car sales are down substantially since 2017.
> Global oil demand is projected to increase in 2025 compared to 2024, but the growth rate is expected to slow down. The International Energy Agency (IEA) anticipates a decrease in global oil demand growth for the remainder of 2025, but expects demand to reach 104 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2025, a notable increase from 2024.
Perhaps you meant the pace of growth is slowing this year. But that has a lot to do with the macro economic situation, with central banks around the world cutting rates as growth slows (and some countries enter recession.) The global economy is slowing, when it rebounds again, so will growth in oil demand.
We're still far from peak demand.
Perhaps you meant the pace of growth is slowing this year. But that has a lot to do with the macro economic situation, with central banks around the world cutting rates as growth slows (and some countries enter recession.) The global economy is slowing, when it rebounds again, so will growth in oil demand.
We're still far from peak demand.
Oil demand is still increasing worldwide. It won’t peak for at least a decade, but probably much longer.
There are more ICE cars on the road than ever.
There are more ICE cars on the road than ever.
All this means is that the average income of citizens in Alberta is dramatically higher than other provinces and so Alberta pays more in the federal taxes that are applied uniformly to everyone.
I'm sure the other provinces also wish they had such high paying jobs and contributed more in taxes!
Avg individual income Alberta: 74,237
Avg individual income New Brunswick: 57,336.
I'm sure the other provinces also wish they had such high paying jobs and contributed more in taxes!
Avg individual income Alberta: 74,237
Avg individual income New Brunswick: 57,336.
Yeah, this whole "Alberta gives Quebec money" complaint is in fact just how federal income, in the form of income tax, is distributed and is like getting upset that your provincial taxes are paying for something in Red Deer when you live in Calgary.
[deleted]
Wait how are you calculating this?
I’d expect that even the least wealthy province is a net tax contributor. Equalization is only ~5% of the total budget.
I’d expect that even the least wealthy province is a net tax contributor. Equalization is only ~5% of the total budget.
Albertan here: a supermajority of Albertans are opposed to separation, but it continues to be amplified by the press.
Danielle Smith, our provincial premier (equivalent to a state governor) is trying to pull a David Cameron to appease the separatist wing of her party.
Danielle Smith, our provincial premier (equivalent to a state governor) is trying to pull a David Cameron to appease the separatist wing of her party.
you'd figure that the mere invocation of the name would dissuade such a person from the idea!
Sounds like the desires of spoiled brats in my opinion. Alberta enjoys low income taxes (10% flat until a VERY high amount), no provincial sales tax, and lots of money from oil. Life is very good in Alberta generally and yet they still want more. People say Alberta gets shafted by federal politics it's rather selfish to want to benefit even more from oil considering that is the one thing that is bringing down this world. Sounds like the real problem is that the selfish brats just want to freeload off more oil because they want the cheap life of high consumerism. Sad.
The "spoiled brats" are the eastern Canadians who take billions of dollars from Alberta while enjoying overrepresentation in the federal government and voting against the interests of the people who fund their provinces. Eastern Canadians enjoy favourable deals with the federal government and denigrate Albertans who protest the unfairness of it. For all the hate Alberta gets, they sure are eager to keep them in Canada...
I don't disagree. I think Canadians are in general, spoiled brats. Albertans and others. And I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm Canadian myself.
[deleted]
I don't disagree either haha. But on this particular issue the spoiled party seems to be the ones receiving the money
Haha, fair enough!
Next huge wildfire after Alberta secedes will be very very interesting.
Heck just last year, the most prominent city in Alberta, Calgary, needed help just dealing with breaking a huge water main breaking.
With drought becoming more of a real threat every year Alberta will be in a shitty place being landlocked.
We are gonna need the rest of Canada’s help. Unfortunately, we can’t drink the oil.
Heck just last year, the most prominent city in Alberta, Calgary, needed help just dealing with breaking a huge water main breaking.
With drought becoming more of a real threat every year Alberta will be in a shitty place being landlocked.
We are gonna need the rest of Canada’s help. Unfortunately, we can’t drink the oil.
As an Albertan I really have to wonder who is behind this PR push. Immediately after the election there were people coming to my door, asking about my attitude towards separatism. There's been flyers and news articles, and now there's an article in the NY Times? Considering the relative unpopularity of the movement, whoever is bankrolling this has a big reach and deep pockets.
I think this is part of the Balkanization of the West ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics ) and I'm really surprised this is not stronger in Quebec, but I guess it's more easy to orchestrate a propaganda campaign in English.
Quebec separatism isn't popular right now, but I also think the the balkanization of the West is coming. The separatist party in Quebec has pretty good support right now, not because separatism is popular, but because of the lack of options.
Next elections are in 2026 and I think that by then, something, I don't know what, but some event, some context difficult to predict, will put back Quebec separatism on the forefront. This time around, there will be many, many less people coming to the front to defend Canada, which is already pretty weak now.
So yeah, that's my wild prediction: Canada doesn't exist anymore in 2027.
Next elections are in 2026 and I think that by then, something, I don't know what, but some event, some context difficult to predict, will put back Quebec separatism on the forefront. This time around, there will be many, many less people coming to the front to defend Canada, which is already pretty weak now.
So yeah, that's my wild prediction: Canada doesn't exist anymore in 2027.
Isn't Trump's sole accomplishment making Canada more united? External threats are great at bringing people together, so while Quebec may have a rocky relationship with the rest of Canada, but they still much prefer the status quo over becoming the 51st state.
No; it's actually made the division worse.
Look at the election map: the elected party has near-zero representation west of Ontario (even in the cities where you'd expect it to be, with the exception of Vancouver which is its own thing).
Westerners are unhappy with paying top tax dollar for policies that are intended to destroy Western economic productivity and culture (whether one likes what that is or not is ultimately irrelevant).
Thus- from their perspective- if Easterners cannot be reasoned with, then there's no reason that they should accept Eastern rule as legitimate. Thus the recent moves to, if not outright reject it entirely, renegotiate the amount of political power that their outsized economic productivity (especially per capita) is currently buying them... because for the last 6 years (with every indication that it'll actually be 10+ due to de facto Toronto/Quebec coalition government), it's zero.
The Conservative Party makes more sense as a nascent Bloc Ouest than anything else. And if Eastern voters continue to reject all their reforms, well, there's nothing illegitimate about ending an abusive marriage.
Look at the election map: the elected party has near-zero representation west of Ontario (even in the cities where you'd expect it to be, with the exception of Vancouver which is its own thing).
Westerners are unhappy with paying top tax dollar for policies that are intended to destroy Western economic productivity and culture (whether one likes what that is or not is ultimately irrelevant).
Thus- from their perspective- if Easterners cannot be reasoned with, then there's no reason that they should accept Eastern rule as legitimate. Thus the recent moves to, if not outright reject it entirely, renegotiate the amount of political power that their outsized economic productivity (especially per capita) is currently buying them... because for the last 6 years (with every indication that it'll actually be 10+ due to de facto Toronto/Quebec coalition government), it's zero.
The Conservative Party makes more sense as a nascent Bloc Ouest than anything else. And if Eastern voters continue to reject all their reforms, well, there's nothing illegitimate about ending an abusive marriage.
I failed to see how there's anything abusive about it. And it's not a marriage. Marriages can be ended. Generally most countries don't have exit clauses. Secession and splitting are freak events that usually only happen under extreme circumstances. Trying to do something if not nearly enough to slow down climate change is a terrible justification for leaving Canada
Yes, I agree that we can observe that phenomenon, but it's more a "public emotion" kind of movement. America's loss of its world police status means balkanization of many states and that's an undercurrent that is stronger than this temporary emotion.
Fundamentally, Canada's provinces don't care about each other. It's not a real country.
It's like when COVID broke out. The initial public emotion was "everything is going to be alright!". It went strong for a little while, but it broke off eventually.
Fundamentally, Canada's provinces don't care about each other. It's not a real country.
It's like when COVID broke out. The initial public emotion was "everything is going to be alright!". It went strong for a little while, but it broke off eventually.
Genuine question from someone ignorant about that ignorance: I'm aware of some desire for Quebec independence, I'd never heard of similar for Alberta. Is it extra propaganda value to stoke the independence movement somewhere it's less prevalent in hopes it riles up the area where it already is more pronounced? Assuming it is more pronounced - as I am not well informed on Canadian politics.
DISCLAIMER: This is from the perspective of a Quebecker, not an Albertan.
Alberta separatism is something that has been floated at various points in the zeitgeist, but for many, many reasons[0], I have mostly heard it spoken about unseriously by all but few on the fringe.
The Quebec sovereignty movement came on the wings of the Quiet Revolution[1] which had critical mass and large support from the francophone population which made up the vast majority of the province.
[0] It's unpopularity among alberans and impracticality as a landlocked province, being chief among them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution
Alberta separatism is something that has been floated at various points in the zeitgeist, but for many, many reasons[0], I have mostly heard it spoken about unseriously by all but few on the fringe.
The Quebec sovereignty movement came on the wings of the Quiet Revolution[1] which had critical mass and large support from the francophone population which made up the vast majority of the province.
[0] It's unpopularity among alberans and impracticality as a landlocked province, being chief among them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution
I am American but I know many conservative Canadians that this was basically the last straw. I am not even sure conservative is the right word. Just not liberal. They work a trade, like bars, beer, hockey and hanging out. They really don't care about politics at a deep level.
I had been sick of hearing them complain about Trudeau for years.
They thought it was obvious things were going to swing the other way and instead the country voted to stay on the same path that Trudeau literally resigned from.
Canada is basically a one party state at this point. It would be like if the only US media was the NY Times, MSNBC and CNN. The media jumped on Trump's comments about the 51st state and swung the election with ease.
It is not just Alberta, the people I know are in Ontario but there is nothing they can do. They would for sure move to Alberta if this happened. It will all be framed like this is some crazy fringe idea though even though 19 of 20 Canadians I know would agree.
The absurd thing to me with Alberta separatism is that there is no way the US would allow this. They would be a defenseless resource rich territory for Chinese infiltration.
Canada is in huge trouble. They are basically single party, money laundering haven at this point with a Soviet style media brainwashing regime.
Ultimately, In the long run I think Canada ends up a casualty caught in the cross fire between the US and China.
I had been sick of hearing them complain about Trudeau for years.
They thought it was obvious things were going to swing the other way and instead the country voted to stay on the same path that Trudeau literally resigned from.
Canada is basically a one party state at this point. It would be like if the only US media was the NY Times, MSNBC and CNN. The media jumped on Trump's comments about the 51st state and swung the election with ease.
It is not just Alberta, the people I know are in Ontario but there is nothing they can do. They would for sure move to Alberta if this happened. It will all be framed like this is some crazy fringe idea though even though 19 of 20 Canadians I know would agree.
The absurd thing to me with Alberta separatism is that there is no way the US would allow this. They would be a defenseless resource rich territory for Chinese infiltration.
Canada is in huge trouble. They are basically single party, money laundering haven at this point with a Soviet style media brainwashing regime.
Ultimately, In the long run I think Canada ends up a casualty caught in the cross fire between the US and China.
The reason the LPC keeps getting elected has a lot to do with the CPC pandering to quacks and pretty consistently picking pretty bad party leaders.
Conservatives should be more upset about Erin O’Toole losing to Trudeau than about Poilievre losing to Carney - that was more indicative of a bad party leader winning over a better one.
Conservatives should be more upset about Erin O’Toole losing to Trudeau than about Poilievre losing to Carney - that was more indicative of a bad party leader winning over a better one.
I live in Alberta, I voted Carney not because I care much for the liberals, though him being from Edmonton was a nice touch.
It was a vote against Poilievre, I'm not a fan of career politicians, less of those who only seem to have slogans and no bills with their names on them (well okay he got one passed).
I was slightly hopeful he'd take his pension and fuck off, yeah I'm in the trades too.
It was a vote against Poilievre, I'm not a fan of career politicians, less of those who only seem to have slogans and no bills with their names on them (well okay he got one passed).
I was slightly hopeful he'd take his pension and fuck off, yeah I'm in the trades too.
I agree. The sudden influence of the separatist movement does match what that book (Foundations of Geopolitics) says: "Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States and Canada to fuel instability and separatism" (quote from Wikipedia). I don't want to be a conspiracy nut, but I have to wonder how many separatist and protest movements are unknowingly getting external support to produce geopolitical disorder.
> I don't want to be a conspiracy nut, but I have to wonder how many separatist and protest movements are unknowingly getting external support to produce geopolitical disorder.
I'm Latin-American, so this doesn't sound at all nutty to me. The USA has long been doing this: from successful attempts promoting separatism in Panama and Texas, to failed attempt in Sonora and Baja California (officially a private citizen acting in his own accord, but conveniently enjoying the complacency of the US Government). It's one of the strategies big powers use, and there's more examples of this in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world.
I think it's worth considering that perhaps this isn't Russian-fueled separatism, but American-fueled. The would gain a lot USA from an independent Alberta. It'd go the way of Texas— independent for about a year and then incorporated into the United States. Moreover, Alberta statehood would create a geographical rift in Canada that would place immense pressure on British Columbia to go independent or join the United States too.
It would also make the future annexation of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon much more likely, which would not only give the USA better access to the North-West Passage [1] and a wealth of resources, but it would connect Alaska to the rest of the continental USA.
[1]: https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/future-northern-sea-route...
I'm Latin-American, so this doesn't sound at all nutty to me. The USA has long been doing this: from successful attempts promoting separatism in Panama and Texas, to failed attempt in Sonora and Baja California (officially a private citizen acting in his own accord, but conveniently enjoying the complacency of the US Government). It's one of the strategies big powers use, and there's more examples of this in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world.
I think it's worth considering that perhaps this isn't Russian-fueled separatism, but American-fueled. The would gain a lot USA from an independent Alberta. It'd go the way of Texas— independent for about a year and then incorporated into the United States. Moreover, Alberta statehood would create a geographical rift in Canada that would place immense pressure on British Columbia to go independent or join the United States too.
It would also make the future annexation of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon much more likely, which would not only give the USA better access to the North-West Passage [1] and a wealth of resources, but it would connect Alaska to the rest of the continental USA.
[1]: https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/future-northern-sea-route...
> have to wonder how many separatist and protest movements are unknowingly getting external support to produce geopolitical disorder.
Many movements "wittingly" receive external support. From wikipedia[0]:
> In 2022, a report by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) identified Qatar as the most significant foreign donor to American universities. The research revealed that from 2001 to 2021, US higher education institutions received US$13 billion in funding from foreign sources, with Qatar contributing donations totaling $4.7 billion to universities in the United States.
In addition to investing in US Universities, Qatar is also host to the the Hamas political apparatus, which operates out of Doha.
Foreign propagandists don't exclusively target right wing radical movements, they are very happy to exploit leftists as well!
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_involvement_in_US_highe...
Many movements "wittingly" receive external support. From wikipedia[0]:
> In 2022, a report by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) identified Qatar as the most significant foreign donor to American universities. The research revealed that from 2001 to 2021, US higher education institutions received US$13 billion in funding from foreign sources, with Qatar contributing donations totaling $4.7 billion to universities in the United States.
In addition to investing in US Universities, Qatar is also host to the the Hamas political apparatus, which operates out of Doha.
Foreign propagandists don't exclusively target right wing radical movements, they are very happy to exploit leftists as well!
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_involvement_in_US_highe...
Qatar donated to universities with branches in Qatar. That is a government funding its local universities. This is a normal thing to do.
Is it unpopular? I grew up in Alberta and know many people who would be happy to separate, going back to my step dad way back in the 90s. Plenty of Albertans also still hold a grudge for the National Energy Program[1] that bankrupted them in the 80s. At the very least, many Albertan's perceive Queubec separatism as a negotiating tactic that allowed Quebec to secure preferential treatment from Ottawa and would be willing to try the same approach.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
Yes, it's unpopular. There've been no polls that indicate it would have any chance of passing if it came down to a vote. A lot of Albertans love to grumble.
That's like saying Bernie was unpopular because he couldn't win the primary. He was very popular.
No, that's like saying Bernie was unpopular because polls of his popularity said he was unpopular.
That's not at all similar. We know exactly how many voted for Bernie.
The only actual test of separatism in albert has been support for the pension plan and that has been so abysmal they've put the entire push on hold.
The only actual test of separatism in albert has been support for the pension plan and that has been so abysmal they've put the entire push on hold.
Polls were also showing the Liberals would be wiped out - possibly not even the opposition party - and Conservatives would form a super majority.
Which is why it's important to remember that polls are a moment in time and the circumstances of that moment.
One divisive comment from Carney or his cabinet. One Trump truth. One more set of tariffs. That's all it takes for a 20% swing in polling that already shows that shows that 36% of Albertans are for leaving[1].
Also worth adding that everyone is sleeping on Saskatchewan which is crucially important to Canada, even more ignored by the Liberals than Alberta, and just as likely to leave.
Saskatchewan is also suffering China's tariffs on Canada, which Carney has not ever responded to and ignores almost as much as he ignores Saskatchewan itself[2].
[1] https://angusreid.org/referendum-alberta-saskatchewan-smith-...
[2] https://www.rbc.com/en/thought-leadership/the-trade-hub/food...
Which is why it's important to remember that polls are a moment in time and the circumstances of that moment.
One divisive comment from Carney or his cabinet. One Trump truth. One more set of tariffs. That's all it takes for a 20% swing in polling that already shows that shows that 36% of Albertans are for leaving[1].
Also worth adding that everyone is sleeping on Saskatchewan which is crucially important to Canada, even more ignored by the Liberals than Alberta, and just as likely to leave.
Saskatchewan is also suffering China's tariffs on Canada, which Carney has not ever responded to and ignores almost as much as he ignores Saskatchewan itself[2].
[1] https://angusreid.org/referendum-alberta-saskatchewan-smith-...
[2] https://www.rbc.com/en/thought-leadership/the-trade-hub/food...
I think it's a "fuck around and find out" situation like Brexit. People love to stomp their feet and complain, but when some big interest group actually organizes the vote and it happens they'll be caught unawares.
People complain about have/have-not provinces, but Alberta would be in a much worse position as a independent nation. There are benefits to Confederation beyond just shuffling tax dollars around.
People complain about have/have-not provinces, but Alberta would be in a much worse position as a independent nation. There are benefits to Confederation beyond just shuffling tax dollars around.
This certainly sounds to me more like a Texas situation. Independent for about a year, to then join the USA.
It would join the USA right away.
That would be the end of Canada.
I can understand Alberta being unhappy with Canada. But the solution is to join the US? Have they seen the US lately?
As an Albertan, I agree, but it is the inevitable result if Alberta were to separate. Fortunately, separation remains a minority position (for now, at least), despite certain parties fanning the flames.
As an outsider with no horse in the race, and pays little attention to domestic affairs of foreign nations - has Brexit actually been that awful for people?
For all of the doomsday talk, hand-wringing, and sky-is-falling bluster, nothing substantial/consequential seems to have materialized.
For all of the doomsday talk, hand-wringing, and sky-is-falling bluster, nothing substantial/consequential seems to have materialized.
> For all of the doomsday talk, hand-wringing, and sky-is-falling bluster
You have to be careful about these arguments. A lot of them were post-fact rationalisation by Brexiteers who needed to justify their actions, and they did it by erecting strawmen. Nobody said that the sky would be falling. Nobody sane, anyway. What was said was things like “immigration will happen anyway because the UK has a structural need for manpower”, which is true and immigration is still increasing; “this will create more red tape rather than less”, which it did; “exports will fall and it is our major market”, which they did and it still is; and so on.
If you read actual prospective papers from the time, the warnings were true, give or take the massive spanner in the works that was Covid. The EU did not roll over, and the UK did not get access to the single market without costs. The UK was sidelined and just spent 10 years cap in hand trying to get free trade deals. Fishermen are not better off, far from it. Environment regulations did get to shit. The cost in terms of GDP was massive. Poverty did rise (although it was bound to rise anyway with pre-Brexit policies).
If the whole thing is not a massive self-inflicted shot in the feet, I don’t know what is.
You have to be careful about these arguments. A lot of them were post-fact rationalisation by Brexiteers who needed to justify their actions, and they did it by erecting strawmen. Nobody said that the sky would be falling. Nobody sane, anyway. What was said was things like “immigration will happen anyway because the UK has a structural need for manpower”, which is true and immigration is still increasing; “this will create more red tape rather than less”, which it did; “exports will fall and it is our major market”, which they did and it still is; and so on.
If you read actual prospective papers from the time, the warnings were true, give or take the massive spanner in the works that was Covid. The EU did not roll over, and the UK did not get access to the single market without costs. The UK was sidelined and just spent 10 years cap in hand trying to get free trade deals. Fishermen are not better off, far from it. Environment regulations did get to shit. The cost in terms of GDP was massive. Poverty did rise (although it was bound to rise anyway with pre-Brexit policies).
If the whole thing is not a massive self-inflicted shot in the feet, I don’t know what is.
Is it not one of those "rip the band-aid off" things and endure temporary pain for long term gain?
Sometimes continuing the status quo is attractive, but wrong in the long term.
The EU moves appeared to be out of spite at the time. Perhaps things will thaw over time?
The UK has a long history of being fiercely independent, so I can at least understand the desire to separate from the EU (which appears, to a foreigner, to be assembling into a nation of states, similar to the US).
Sometimes continuing the status quo is attractive, but wrong in the long term.
The EU moves appeared to be out of spite at the time. Perhaps things will thaw over time?
The UK has a long history of being fiercely independent, so I can at least understand the desire to separate from the EU (which appears, to a foreigner, to be assembling into a nation of states, similar to the US).
> Is it not one of those "rip the band-aid off" things and endure temporary pain for long term gain?
Not really, because Brexit cannot deliver what its supporters are still saying it will. It won’t have its cake after having eaten it and there are no sunny uplands of milk and honey. It was a scam, internal Tory politics that went out of hand.
> The EU moves appeared to be out of spite at the time.
The thing is, the EU did not move. The vast majority of what happened was utterly predictable. The UK was never going to get access without contributing, it would never have worked with the treaties and there would never have been the necessary support amongst member-states to change them. All of this was clear from day 1. As was the fact that the EFTA members had no interest in welcoming the UK. Never mind the fact that May had no plan whatsoever and Boris was a lying bastard so trust was in short supply anyway.
> Perhaps things will thaw over time?
Of course. The UK physically cannot get away from Europe. And the EU has strong interests in having good relations with the UK over the long term. Things will improve, and however terrible it was during the negotiations, there were other lows before in the History of Europe. It’s still cold comfort for the people living through it.
> The UK has a long history of being fiercely independent
That’s how they like to see it. The UK has more of an history of meddling and playing divide and conquer games with the rest of Europe. It was never outside European politics at any point in time since the Romans. It is not more fiercely independent than France or Poland.
> which appears, to a foreigner, to be assembling into a nation of states, similar to the US
The EU is nothing like the US. It is not a nation and does not have a central government. The whole construction depends on the member-states approving it indefinitely. It is a club of countries, not a federation.
Not really, because Brexit cannot deliver what its supporters are still saying it will. It won’t have its cake after having eaten it and there are no sunny uplands of milk and honey. It was a scam, internal Tory politics that went out of hand.
> The EU moves appeared to be out of spite at the time.
The thing is, the EU did not move. The vast majority of what happened was utterly predictable. The UK was never going to get access without contributing, it would never have worked with the treaties and there would never have been the necessary support amongst member-states to change them. All of this was clear from day 1. As was the fact that the EFTA members had no interest in welcoming the UK. Never mind the fact that May had no plan whatsoever and Boris was a lying bastard so trust was in short supply anyway.
> Perhaps things will thaw over time?
Of course. The UK physically cannot get away from Europe. And the EU has strong interests in having good relations with the UK over the long term. Things will improve, and however terrible it was during the negotiations, there were other lows before in the History of Europe. It’s still cold comfort for the people living through it.
> The UK has a long history of being fiercely independent
That’s how they like to see it. The UK has more of an history of meddling and playing divide and conquer games with the rest of Europe. It was never outside European politics at any point in time since the Romans. It is not more fiercely independent than France or Poland.
> which appears, to a foreigner, to be assembling into a nation of states, similar to the US
The EU is nothing like the US. It is not a nation and does not have a central government. The whole construction depends on the member-states approving it indefinitely. It is a club of countries, not a federation.
> The EU is nothing like the US. It is not a nation and does not have a central government. The whole construction depends on the member-states approving it indefinitely. It is a club of countries, not a federation.
I addressed most of your comment in my down-thread comment - but I'd like to point out here that this is almost exactly how the US was started via it's Articles of Confederation[1].
Over time, the loosely formed "club" of states were determined to be too weak, which in order to address growing problems (simplifying a bit) led to the birth of a much stronger centralized government. Over time, even a war was fought to compel states to remain in the union (another simplification but you get the gist).
Prior to the Constitution being ratified, each state was it's own nation state, complete with it's own culture, customs, way of life, etc - hence the name "The United States".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
I addressed most of your comment in my down-thread comment - but I'd like to point out here that this is almost exactly how the US was started via it's Articles of Confederation[1].
Over time, the loosely formed "club" of states were determined to be too weak, which in order to address growing problems (simplifying a bit) led to the birth of a much stronger centralized government. Over time, even a war was fought to compel states to remain in the union (another simplification but you get the gist).
Prior to the Constitution being ratified, each state was it's own nation state, complete with it's own culture, customs, way of life, etc - hence the name "The United States".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
>Nobody said that the sky would be falling. Nobody sane, anyway.
At a previous job I worked, there were lunchroom conversations among the younger developers (in their 20s), all of a leftist persuasion. They were convinced that people in the UK would be dying because there was no access to medicine (that came from the mainland), and even in some cases hunger (though they didn't go so far as to claim starvation).
For the rest of you it may be the case that the people saying these same things were online, and therefor suspect (as it should be), but for me these were real-life conversations that I overheard. Perhaps this phenomenon was atypical, and almost everywhere else it was untrue, and of course you shouldn't take my word for it either, but with proper skepticism keep in mind I'm reporting something different here.
At a previous job I worked, there were lunchroom conversations among the younger developers (in their 20s), all of a leftist persuasion. They were convinced that people in the UK would be dying because there was no access to medicine (that came from the mainland), and even in some cases hunger (though they didn't go so far as to claim starvation).
For the rest of you it may be the case that the people saying these same things were online, and therefor suspect (as it should be), but for me these were real-life conversations that I overheard. Perhaps this phenomenon was atypical, and almost everywhere else it was untrue, and of course you shouldn't take my word for it either, but with proper skepticism keep in mind I'm reporting something different here.
> At a previous job I worked, there were lunchroom conversations among the younger developers (in their 20s), all of a leftist persuasion. They were convinced that people in the UK would be dying because there was no access to medicine (that came from the mainland), and even in some cases hunger (though they didn't go so far as to claim starvation).
That’s not really serious. I am not talking as serious the noise from people like Gisela Stuart, either. Though I still have a flyer that explains that 70 millions Syrians will invade the UK because Turkey was a candidate (!)
Listening to what politicians like Cameron (yuck) and Tory, Lib Dems and Labour remainers actually said is a different story. There still are recordings of debates and speeches, it’s not hidden. Most of them warned of severe consequences and little gains, not the end of the world.
If anything, remainers were not very good at playing the emotional card.
> For the rest of you it may be the case that the people saying these same things were online, and therefor suspect (as it should be), but for me these were real-life conversations that I overheard.
I was there, I remember very well. I split my time between London and Newcastle at the time, talk about worlds apart…
That’s not really serious. I am not talking as serious the noise from people like Gisela Stuart, either. Though I still have a flyer that explains that 70 millions Syrians will invade the UK because Turkey was a candidate (!)
Listening to what politicians like Cameron (yuck) and Tory, Lib Dems and Labour remainers actually said is a different story. There still are recordings of debates and speeches, it’s not hidden. Most of them warned of severe consequences and little gains, not the end of the world.
If anything, remainers were not very good at playing the emotional card.
> For the rest of you it may be the case that the people saying these same things were online, and therefor suspect (as it should be), but for me these were real-life conversations that I overheard.
I was there, I remember very well. I split my time between London and Newcastle at the time, talk about worlds apart…
What were/are the consequences, though?
Darn near every graph/poll I've seen completely ignores COVID-19 happening, and points to economic turmoil (which every nation on the planet suffered). AKA, the data is political and not objective.
The rest of the world enjoys trade relations with EU member nations, but aren't part of the EU themselves.
So, besides EU citizens (whatever they're actually called) being able to freely come/go from the UK, what else actually happened that was negative?
The immigration issues brought up by Brexit supporters, in my opinion, cannot casually be tossed aside. The UK isn't a huge nation, and having it's culture and national identity changed so rapidly by outsiders is a net negative for any society - something many nations are currently grappling with today (including the US).
You mentioned the EFTA rejecting the UK in another comment - my googling indicates EFTA is made up of 4 relatively small nations. Is this really a significant problem? Won't those nations openly trade with the UK in time, like they do with the rest of the world (hinting at my "spite" comment from earlier).
Reviewing all of your comments in this thread, so far, nothing seems to be an actual problem for the UK.
My opinion here is meaningless since I do not live in the region - but I just want to point out your responses are slightly colored by your political views - as you indicate which politicians you believe are liars but somehow others are fine, etc. Perhaps there's some objective truth to what you are asserting, but I'm not seeing it very clearly.
Darn near every graph/poll I've seen completely ignores COVID-19 happening, and points to economic turmoil (which every nation on the planet suffered). AKA, the data is political and not objective.
The rest of the world enjoys trade relations with EU member nations, but aren't part of the EU themselves.
So, besides EU citizens (whatever they're actually called) being able to freely come/go from the UK, what else actually happened that was negative?
The immigration issues brought up by Brexit supporters, in my opinion, cannot casually be tossed aside. The UK isn't a huge nation, and having it's culture and national identity changed so rapidly by outsiders is a net negative for any society - something many nations are currently grappling with today (including the US).
You mentioned the EFTA rejecting the UK in another comment - my googling indicates EFTA is made up of 4 relatively small nations. Is this really a significant problem? Won't those nations openly trade with the UK in time, like they do with the rest of the world (hinting at my "spite" comment from earlier).
Reviewing all of your comments in this thread, so far, nothing seems to be an actual problem for the UK.
My opinion here is meaningless since I do not live in the region - but I just want to point out your responses are slightly colored by your political views - as you indicate which politicians you believe are liars but somehow others are fine, etc. Perhaps there's some objective truth to what you are asserting, but I'm not seeing it very clearly.
I mean if you don't pay attention to foreign affairs, of course nothing seems consequential?
You can begin here:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/19/how-has-bri...
You can begin here:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/19/how-has-bri...
None of it. And you can't get a remainer to admit it, ever. They'll just deny they ever said anything was going to happen, and call leavers stupid liars again. According to remainers, all of that screaming they were doing is because they thought Brexit would slightly weaken the £.
Purely a protest of the wealthy and the haters of export? It didn't seem like it at the time. I thought they were fighting a Nazi-ridden post-apocalyptic deathscape. The numbers of dead from medication shortages was supposed to be massive. Was that ever a sane or good-faith prediction?
Purely a protest of the wealthy and the haters of export? It didn't seem like it at the time. I thought they were fighting a Nazi-ridden post-apocalyptic deathscape. The numbers of dead from medication shortages was supposed to be massive. Was that ever a sane or good-faith prediction?
As someone who grew up in Ontario, I judge this comment to be 100% accurate.
The polls that I've seen showed something like 30% wanted independence before the election and now it's in the high 30% to mid 40%[1]. The polls could of course be wrong, but if they're any indication it seems as though it isn't that unpopular of a position, but it is highly contentious.
I'm sure there's a lot of people behind the PR push for independence and similarly there will be a lot of people behind a counter PR push against independence. Assuming that another position exists merely because of powerful interests usually leads to a lot of strife as two sides of an issue can never reconcile their differences; after all you can't debate against a position that is perceived as being held by people due to powerful interests tricking them into holding it. The reverse will also naturally happen.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_separatism#Opinion_pol...
I'm sure there's a lot of people behind the PR push for independence and similarly there will be a lot of people behind a counter PR push against independence. Assuming that another position exists merely because of powerful interests usually leads to a lot of strife as two sides of an issue can never reconcile their differences; after all you can't debate against a position that is perceived as being held by people due to powerful interests tricking them into holding it. The reverse will also naturally happen.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_separatism#Opinion_pol...
I'm assuming the position exists because of the active and obvious manpower involved.
Like I said, there's now people going door to door and flyers being handed out. Important to note, it's not just about separation, it's explicitly in connection to the "Republican Party of Alberta", a newly rebranded political party that has, to date, been entirely inconsequential (the preceding Buffalo Party got 106 votes in the 2023 Provincial Election). There's an obvious and concerted effort to coordinate the sentiment through a single centralized source.
I'm not saying the sentiment didn't exist at all before them, there's always been grumblings, but they are latching on to it and intentionally turning it up to 11.
Like I said, there's now people going door to door and flyers being handed out. Important to note, it's not just about separation, it's explicitly in connection to the "Republican Party of Alberta", a newly rebranded political party that has, to date, been entirely inconsequential (the preceding Buffalo Party got 106 votes in the 2023 Provincial Election). There's an obvious and concerted effort to coordinate the sentiment through a single centralized source.
I'm not saying the sentiment didn't exist at all before them, there's always been grumblings, but they are latching on to it and intentionally turning it up to 11.
My first thought when reading the title was “divide & conquer”
As a born Albertan, it's not unpopular. The current separatists aren't popular politicians per se, but the idea we should push for a new plan with the feds like Quebec and the idea of separation itself is more popular than ever.
And yes, the people funding it have deep pockets. It's the oil industry. You know what else though? The oil industry bankrolls nearly everything in Alberta. Oil royalties are the reason we don't have PST. It employs hundreds of thousands. That money then supports construction, services, etc...
Anyone who was in Alberta when oil was booming knows exactly what it does for the province.
Also, it's Canada's #1 export. It keeps the dollar at least almost respectable. And billions get taken from Alberta to pay for the welfare of Canadians in other provinces. Alberta's GDP per capita is literally 35% higher than Canada's... And that's with them kneecapping us...
And yes, the people funding it have deep pockets. It's the oil industry. You know what else though? The oil industry bankrolls nearly everything in Alberta. Oil royalties are the reason we don't have PST. It employs hundreds of thousands. That money then supports construction, services, etc...
Anyone who was in Alberta when oil was booming knows exactly what it does for the province.
Also, it's Canada's #1 export. It keeps the dollar at least almost respectable. And billions get taken from Alberta to pay for the welfare of Canadians in other provinces. Alberta's GDP per capita is literally 35% higher than Canada's... And that's with them kneecapping us...
Alberta does not pay for the welfare of Canadians in other provinces, it has never paid towards any equalization systems. It has taken billions in debt though, including during COVID when oil flatlined.
The reason Danielle et al were cozying up to US politicians at private events, pushing narratives like embracing America's new direction, isn't for independence or a new federal plan - it's to become the 51st state.
The reason Danielle et al were cozying up to US politicians at private events, pushing narratives like embracing America's new direction, isn't for independence or a new federal plan - it's to become the 51st state.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/federal...
From the horse's mouth...
There's a nice chart at the bottom to show how much each province pays, and which provinces receive equalization payments (it's in red). Alberta pays 50% more per capita than any Eastern province and doesn't receive equalization (obviously).
From the horse's mouth...
There's a nice chart at the bottom to show how much each province pays, and which provinces receive equalization payments (it's in red). Alberta pays 50% more per capita than any Eastern province and doesn't receive equalization (obviously).
[deleted]
What's in this for the oil industry? Not sure that oil companies actively working for separatism makes sense. What would be the consequences if it becomes public that they're doing this?
What sort of pull do the oil companies have over NY Times and other media that's reverberating this?
Money pours in when oil prices are high. That's not exactly under Alberta's control. What happens when there's an energy bear market? What is the push towards alternative energy going to do in the long run? Also Alberta is landlocked which would make exporting oil more difficult if Alberta becomes a country. One of PP's talking point (not wrong IMO) was that not having invested in being able to export to non-US customers was forcing Canada to sell oil for lower prices to the US.
EDIT: another random thought is that a lot of labor in Alberta came from out of the province. How is separating going to impact that?
What sort of pull do the oil companies have over NY Times and other media that's reverberating this?
Money pours in when oil prices are high. That's not exactly under Alberta's control. What happens when there's an energy bear market? What is the push towards alternative energy going to do in the long run? Also Alberta is landlocked which would make exporting oil more difficult if Alberta becomes a country. One of PP's talking point (not wrong IMO) was that not having invested in being able to export to non-US customers was forcing Canada to sell oil for lower prices to the US.
EDIT: another random thought is that a lot of labor in Alberta came from out of the province. How is separating going to impact that?
> What's in this for the oil industry?
The ability to sell more oil at a higher price, and to lose less of the revenue as tax.
The ability to sell more oil at a higher price, and to lose less of the revenue as tax.
Low royalties compared to other jurisdictions, with the possibility of them going lower with an "independent" government comprised of their surrogates.
Complete socialization of externalities: for example oil companies are flagrantly ignoring their legal obligations to clean up abandoned sites, and the current government is moving to assume the liability for them. Having that and similar cost offloading happen without the pesky federal courts interfering is worth some investment.
Complete socialization of externalities: for example oil companies are flagrantly ignoring their legal obligations to clean up abandoned sites, and the current government is moving to assume the liability for them. Having that and similar cost offloading happen without the pesky federal courts interfering is worth some investment.
Honestly, the ideal isn't separatism, but for Canada to end interprovincial tariffs, allow Alberta to transport oil to the coast unimpeded.
Europe is basically begging for oil and gas to replace Russia, but Quebec is blocking any pipelines going east.
Europe is basically begging for oil and gas to replace Russia, but Quebec is blocking any pipelines going east.
I totally agree with that. And really that's what the Conservatives were saying and grudgingly the Liberals adopted but we'll see if they can execute.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/china-canada-oil-trans-moun...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/china-canada-oil-trans-moun...
[deleted]
And now we really need a pipeline going east... Our European allies just asked for it at the G7 again yesterday.
I have lived in Alberta for the last thirty years, but I see myself as a Canadian. The “us vs them” you embrace makes no sense to me because that’s not where I draw my circles. Alberta is not being robbed by Canada in the same way that me moving funds from checking to savings isn’t robbing my checking account.
Everyone can draw a circle such that they feel aggrieved. But that’s no great feat, nor is it commendable.
Everyone can draw a circle such that they feel aggrieved. But that’s no great feat, nor is it commendable.
It's just wild to sit in Alberta and push to become a Russian-style oligarchic petrostate.
What makes you think we'd resemble Russia more than, say, Norway?
There was plenty of opportunity for a sovereign wealth fund for decades within Alberta and for all of Canada. You’re saying now it’s only on the table that the filthy liberal coastal elites won’t be on the unfair dole?
The unaccountable extra-national corporations who control most of Alberta’s oil production won’t suddenly become more generous and compliant to the needs of Albertans upon separation. You don’t have the balls or the leverage to control them. The province will have less leverage in the long run than before without the other two thirds of Canada’s economy to lever with in trade deals.
The main selling point it seems is to make the rest of Canada suffer as hard as possible. Make no mistake, we absolutely will suffer from the withdrawal of being cut off that black tar we’re addicted to from you. But you’re far more addicted to it than the rest of us are. What comes after?
The unaccountable extra-national corporations who control most of Alberta’s oil production won’t suddenly become more generous and compliant to the needs of Albertans upon separation. You don’t have the balls or the leverage to control them. The province will have less leverage in the long run than before without the other two thirds of Canada’s economy to lever with in trade deals.
The main selling point it seems is to make the rest of Canada suffer as hard as possible. Make no mistake, we absolutely will suffer from the withdrawal of being cut off that black tar we’re addicted to from you. But you’re far more addicted to it than the rest of us are. What comes after?
Alberta has a wealth fund... We've also paid $67 billion to the rest of Canada in equalization payments...
Alberta _had_ a sovereign wealth fund. What happened to it? Equalization payments don’t explain of the collapse of the once huge fund. It sure didn’t buy much local diversification!
You’d think Alberta would be more like Norway already then. Instead you have lifted pickup trucks and tailings ponds. Even more wealth won’t solve the cultural bankruptcy that’s making the province upset enough to consider separation to begin with.
To answer your original question, that’s why I think it’ll be more like Russia.
You’d think Alberta would be more like Norway already then. Instead you have lifted pickup trucks and tailings ponds. Even more wealth won’t solve the cultural bankruptcy that’s making the province upset enough to consider separation to begin with.
To answer your original question, that’s why I think it’ll be more like Russia.
> Alberta _had_ a sovereign wealth fund. What happened to it?
It's literally still there. You just need to pay attention: https://www.alberta.ca/heritage-savings-trust-fund
It would be bigger without Canada limiting our export ability and taking money from us for equalization though.
It's literally still there. You just need to pay attention: https://www.alberta.ca/heritage-savings-trust-fund
It would be bigger without Canada limiting our export ability and taking money from us for equalization though.
Never mind the fact that it shrunk or stagnated in value due to mismanagement for decades. Oil prices are low and you have a single buyer who hoses you already.
Equalization transfers have cost $67 billion TOTAL since 1957. Less than a billion per year. Alberta collects >$25 billion PER YEAR in royalties. Canada isn’t your enemy here. Your province is addicted to a bad deal. You could have built refineries 50 years ago. That’s not possible now. Imagine how much control of those new facilities would go to unaccountable corporations? It wouldn’t be a good deal and the capex is insane.
The federal govt has been supportive, even under Trudeau, for increasing export opportunities. And you think that will get easier, especially through BC, after secession? Why?
Alberta needed to pivot hard away from oil 20 years ago. The US wont need Alberta crude forever.
Equalization transfers have cost $67 billion TOTAL since 1957. Less than a billion per year. Alberta collects >$25 billion PER YEAR in royalties. Canada isn’t your enemy here. Your province is addicted to a bad deal. You could have built refineries 50 years ago. That’s not possible now. Imagine how much control of those new facilities would go to unaccountable corporations? It wouldn’t be a good deal and the capex is insane.
The federal govt has been supportive, even under Trudeau, for increasing export opportunities. And you think that will get easier, especially through BC, after secession? Why?
Alberta needed to pivot hard away from oil 20 years ago. The US wont need Alberta crude forever.
> You could have built refineries 50 years ago
We literally have refineries in Alberta.
https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/projects/canadian-refinerie...
> Alberta needed to pivot hard away from oil 20 years ago.
Why would you pivot away from something the world needs? Just yesterday at the G7 our European allies asked why we have interprovincial barriers, and requested a pipeline going east and LNG terminal so they can reduce their dependence on Russia.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/it-surprises-us-eu...
Also our economy is more diverse than Ontario or BC. If you were here you'd see that, while oil and gas is a massive windfall, there's a lot of other stuff happening.
https://financialpost.com/globe-newswire/fraser-institute-ne...
See, the thing is, our GDP per capita is 35% higher than Canada's as a whole... We haven't squandered anything. And what do we get from the rest of Canada? Barriers to further development...
We literally have refineries in Alberta.
https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/projects/canadian-refinerie...
> Alberta needed to pivot hard away from oil 20 years ago.
Why would you pivot away from something the world needs? Just yesterday at the G7 our European allies asked why we have interprovincial barriers, and requested a pipeline going east and LNG terminal so they can reduce their dependence on Russia.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/it-surprises-us-eu...
Also our economy is more diverse than Ontario or BC. If you were here you'd see that, while oil and gas is a massive windfall, there's a lot of other stuff happening.
https://financialpost.com/globe-newswire/fraser-institute-ne...
See, the thing is, our GDP per capita is 35% higher than Canada's as a whole... We haven't squandered anything. And what do we get from the rest of Canada? Barriers to further development...
[deleted]
The general right-wing friendliness of the movement. If not fully Russian-style kleptocratic petrostate then at least American style fascism. If the Alberta conservatives were courting European relationships that would be one thing, but it sure seems like the Alberta and Canadian conservatives in general are fellow travelers with the russo-hungaro-american-etc authoritarian nationalists.
Literally one government ago we elected a leftist party. Separation goes back way further than Danielle Smith.
> Literally one government ago we elected a leftist party.
Over the last (say) 50 years, how many left-leaning governments have there been in government? It's basically been right-ish since Lougheed in 1971:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premiers_of_Alberta#Li...
Notley was in for less than four years:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premiers_of_Alberta_by...
Over the last (say) 50 years, how many left-leaning governments have there been in government? It's basically been right-ish since Lougheed in 1971:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premiers_of_Alberta#Li...
Notley was in for less than four years:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premiers_of_Alberta_by...
One government, but two elections and due to a split in the right. And "leftist" is... generous.
There is nothing left of the NDP except the literal communist parties that get like 0.001% of the vote... How is that not leftist?
Having nothing on your left doesn’t make you leftist. If I drive in the right hand lane and there’s nothing on my left, I am not driving in the left hand lane.
The Alberta NDP under Notley was a centrist party and its policies were far more aligned with the federal liberals than the federal NDP. Obviously, there has been a change in leadership, but I don't see any reason to believe that the Alberta NDP will be any less centrist under Nenshi.
Agreed. Immediately after the election this was talked about heavily, but all the rural western Canadians I know are super pro-Canada and not in favor of separatism. It feels like it's even less popular now because of how nationalistic the boomer generation became during this election cycle.
As someone with deep connection to the rural roots of this place, this seperatism stuff feels fake.
As someone with deep connection to the rural roots of this place, this seperatism stuff feels fake.
Those who promote separatism often have the most to gain from instability. A divided populace is far easier to exploit than a unified one, and the same goes for a fractured government. The UK, the US, Canada, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see more of these overtures from western countries in the decade ahead.
People whose sole skill is exploitation of others always seem to believe they can run the world better than others; it’s why they bankroll these movements.
People whose sole skill is exploitation of others always seem to believe they can run the world better than others; it’s why they bankroll these movements.
How can we tell if a populace is unified or not? If Canada and the US merged, would it be more "unified"? Would the world population be more "unified" under a world government?
If not, what makes the existing governments more legitimate than those fake "unification dreams"?
If not, what makes the existing governments more legitimate than those fake "unification dreams"?
The West, and especially the US orbit, is obviously under heavy propaganda attack, but the reason it's working is that it's exploiting a deep reservoir of resentment that was already there.
> The West, and especially the US orbit, is obviously under heavy propaganda attack, but the reason it's working is that it's exploiting a deep reservoir of resentment that was already there.
And I bet liberals will focus on the former in an attempt to ignore the latter, just like they did with Trump.
And I bet liberals will focus on the former in an attempt to ignore the latter, just like they did with Trump.
I can’t stand Trump and didn’t vote for him but I understand why some people did, and people like him will keep getting elected until the rest of the political world removes its head from its ass and realizes that no, they cannot just eat cake. Any politician or movement able to channel the rage that’s out there is going to win.
When it comes to foreign influence we need to be asking why people are so angry that they can be swayed by some lame low effort memes and honestly kind of dumb propaganda. Russian, Chinese, and other propaganda is not even very good, but it doesn’t have to be. It just has to channel that rage.
As for what’s wrong, there’s a list but I think the top item on that list is something almost disappointingly boring. I am a huge believer in the housing theory of everything:
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...
When it comes to foreign influence we need to be asking why people are so angry that they can be swayed by some lame low effort memes and honestly kind of dumb propaganda. Russian, Chinese, and other propaganda is not even very good, but it doesn’t have to be. It just has to channel that rage.
As for what’s wrong, there’s a list but I think the top item on that list is something almost disappointingly boring. I am a huge believer in the housing theory of everything:
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...
Information warfare is still warfare. Now that we are in the age of information, and disinformation, maybe it is time that countries, and populations, start taking information warfare more seriously. If there really is an entity bankrolling this in an effort to create something that doesn't exist, then what is the appropriate response?
Since this comment caused negative reactions, does anyone have a comment about why this is such a bad observation?
The dominant media in the west, the Postmedia Network, is owned by foreign and conservative interests so there's certainly potential for outside influence.
If one took Trump at his word that he'd like to annex Canada this is absolutely a strategy to take. Help along a flimsy and non-viable break away movement, then justify the need to rescue and liberate the repressed minority break away group as casus belli to invade an annex the entire country. This was the Putin playbook with Ukraine.
If one took Trump at his word that he'd like to annex Canada this is absolutely a strategy to take. Help along a flimsy and non-viable break away movement, then justify the need to rescue and liberate the repressed minority break away group as casus belli to invade an annex the entire country. This was the Putin playbook with Ukraine.
And, also famously, Hitler's playbook with Czechia.
> Critics say that these [federal regulations] limited Alberta’s ability to fully extract and export its mineral and fossil fuel wealth.
Of course they do! one of the key pillars of trying to mitigate global warming is reducing dependency on fossil fuels, which means not "fully extracting" it.
What's the alternative -- extract as much as possible now so we can line our pockets, and let the next few generations deal with it?
Of course they do! one of the key pillars of trying to mitigate global warming is reducing dependency on fossil fuels, which means not "fully extracting" it.
What's the alternative -- extract as much as possible now so we can line our pockets, and let the next few generations deal with it?
This is oil talking and how does oil talk? Via oil companies. Americans own a lot of oil in Alberta. Americans are Astroturfing. They do it at home and abroad and that is how Citizen United produced corporate personhood in USA.
If Alberta wants to separate and it's native people/aboriginals who own much of the land, don't go along, are they going to go to war?
If Alberta wants to separate and it's native people/aboriginals who own much of the land, don't go along, are they going to go to war?
Alberta government is trying to rile up people to distract from their own going healthcare scandel where the MP and her party are complicit in stealing billions of funding.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/ousted-alberta-mla-sa...
As an eastern Canadian I'm all for expansion of oil production and building a cross country pipelines, but the UCP as a party seem very corrupt.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/ousted-alberta-mla-sa...
As an eastern Canadian I'm all for expansion of oil production and building a cross country pipelines, but the UCP as a party seem very corrupt.
This Astral Codex Ten (Slate Star Codex) article is what led me to think Alberta would be better off if it separated from Canada:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-cities-and...
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-cities-and...
That's a whole new view of Jane Jacobs! You should post this as a submission to HN sometime (maybe in a few weeks, after which it won't seem like a follow-up to this thread). If you want to do that, email [email protected] and we'll arrange to put it in the second-chance pool (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308), which guarantees at least a bit of frontpage time.
(Edit: I suppose I should hasten to add that my response here isn't about Alberta/Canada. Just about JJ.)
(Edit: I suppose I should hasten to add that my response here isn't about Alberta/Canada. Just about JJ.)
Many issues here, as in a lot of SSC stuff, I'll pick one for fun
> Stagflation is not a strange monster from legend. It is, Jacobs says, just the normal state of everything. Backward economies are in fact constantly in a state of stagflation.
Prices didn't use to change persistently upward! That's an industrial revolution time. Stagflation is pretty well and conventionally understood by monetary econ at this point.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Jg6G
> Stagflation is not a strange monster from legend. It is, Jacobs says, just the normal state of everything. Backward economies are in fact constantly in a state of stagflation.
Prices didn't use to change persistently upward! That's an industrial revolution time. Stagflation is pretty well and conventionally understood by monetary econ at this point.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Jg6G
[deleted]
An important factor to consider is that provinces in Canada are not like states in the U.S.: they are not sovereign bodies in themselves, they are administrative divisions to which certain federal powers are delegated. Alberta was created within Canada by subdividing what was then the Northwest Territories, already part of Canada.
Albertans certainly feel a distinct identity within their province, but that doesn't map to a prior nation, state, or other entity that could be considered coequal with Canada. It's more like a child suing for emancipation from their parent. Their entire identity was created within the Canadian context.
Who knows what effect that will have on separation if it comes to pass, but you can't really analogize separation to secession by a U.S. state.
Albertans certainly feel a distinct identity within their province, but that doesn't map to a prior nation, state, or other entity that could be considered coequal with Canada. It's more like a child suing for emancipation from their parent. Their entire identity was created within the Canadian context.
Who knows what effect that will have on separation if it comes to pass, but you can't really analogize separation to secession by a U.S. state.
> Alberta was created within Canada by subdividing what was then the Northwest Territories, already part of Canada.
The same is true of the majority of the US states. The original 13 colonies and Texas and Florida (and maybe a few more?) had some preexisting status, but the rest were created out of Federal territories.
The same is true of the majority of the US states. The original 13 colonies and Texas and Florida (and maybe a few more?) had some preexisting status, but the rest were created out of Federal territories.
True, but they were then granted the same sovereign status as the original 13 colonies, and Texas, and Florida.
One example of the difference is that in the US, there's state and federal criminal law, and state authorities draw their legitimacy from the state constitution. The criminal code in Canada is entirely federal.
One example of the difference is that in the US, there's state and federal criminal law, and state authorities draw their legitimacy from the state constitution. The criminal code in Canada is entirely federal.
I mean if you gloss over the concept of slave states then sure.
Can you explain what you mean?
Territories were not merely cut up into states. They were cut up into states in a way to ensure there would be an equal number of free states and slave states. Certain states might not have existed if not for these considerations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states
This only reinforces my point, which is that most of the states don't have any preexisting status and were created by the federal government.
> Albertans certainly feel a distinct identity within their province, but that doesn't map to a prior nation, state, or other entity that could be considered coequal with Canada. It's more like a child suing for emancipation from their parent. Their entire identity was created within the Canadian context.
Your analysis is too legalistic. You could have said the same thing about the US, pre-1776, and you'd have missed (or been trying to gaslight away) the elephant in the room. Nations and identities can form on their own, brand new, and don't require an appeal to some prior legal entity.
> Alberta was created within Canada by subdividing what was then the Northwest Territories, already part of Canada. ... Who knows what effect that will have on separation if it comes to pass, but you can't really analogize separation to secession by a U.S. state.
I believe you could say the same of many of the Southern states that suceeded during the civil war (e.g. Alabama and Mississippi were created within the US by Congress, out of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Territory).
Your analysis is too legalistic. You could have said the same thing about the US, pre-1776, and you'd have missed (or been trying to gaslight away) the elephant in the room. Nations and identities can form on their own, brand new, and don't require an appeal to some prior legal entity.
> Alberta was created within Canada by subdividing what was then the Northwest Territories, already part of Canada. ... Who knows what effect that will have on separation if it comes to pass, but you can't really analogize separation to secession by a U.S. state.
I believe you could say the same of many of the Southern states that suceeded during the civil war (e.g. Alabama and Mississippi were created within the US by Congress, out of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Territory).
> Nations and identities can form on their own, brand new, and don't require an appeal to some prior legal entity.
Fair, in theory. In practice, it's a bit silly when the roots of western separatism are an economic policy from 50 years prior, and the fact the BC won't play ball on all the pipelines AB wants to build to the coast.
I think the analogy to parental emancipation is actually pretty good just because it does happen. It's a thing. And when Quebec came within 1% of separating in the 1995 referendum, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a unilateral declaration of independence would be illegal, but that the federal gov't would be required to negotiate a separation in good faith.
> Alabama and Mississippi were created within the US by Congress
Yes, but in doing so they were granted the same sovereign status as existing states. Alberta's relation to the federal gov't is the same as any American city's to the state in which it's located. If Pittsburgh wanted to separate from PA, what would that be like?
Fair, in theory. In practice, it's a bit silly when the roots of western separatism are an economic policy from 50 years prior, and the fact the BC won't play ball on all the pipelines AB wants to build to the coast.
I think the analogy to parental emancipation is actually pretty good just because it does happen. It's a thing. And when Quebec came within 1% of separating in the 1995 referendum, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a unilateral declaration of independence would be illegal, but that the federal gov't would be required to negotiate a separation in good faith.
> Alabama and Mississippi were created within the US by Congress
Yes, but in doing so they were granted the same sovereign status as existing states. Alberta's relation to the federal gov't is the same as any American city's to the state in which it's located. If Pittsburgh wanted to separate from PA, what would that be like?
I thought I read elsewhere the Indigenous people would succeed from Alberta and stay wilt Canada if this ever happens. Plus the same article said much of the "wealth" is on Indigenous Lands. Leaving Alberta with little.
> Plus the same article said much of the "wealth" is on Indigenous Lands. Leaving Alberta with little.
I don't think that's true.
About 1% of Alberta's land is first nations reserves. The productive agricultural land and oil sands land is definitely outside of that 1%.
Edit: Maybe you're confusing this with crown land? But if Alberta was independent, crown land would just be Alberta government-administered land.
I don't think that's true.
About 1% of Alberta's land is first nations reserves. The productive agricultural land and oil sands land is definitely outside of that 1%.
Edit: Maybe you're confusing this with crown land? But if Alberta was independent, crown land would just be Alberta government-administered land.
Alberta's lands are part of a treaties that First Nations have with Canada. The literal reserve lands themselves are less relevant than the vast traditional territories that Alberta First Nations are sharing with Canada under some treaty obligation.
I'm not terribly familiar with the minute details of the numbered treaties that cover the area of Alberta, but I am aware from recent reporting that the local First Nations do not see Alberta as having any right to separate and take FN lands with them.
I'm not terribly familiar with the minute details of the numbered treaties that cover the area of Alberta, but I am aware from recent reporting that the local First Nations do not see Alberta as having any right to separate and take FN lands with them.
Alberta would need the consent of the councils for Treaty 4, 6, 7 and 8 in order to take their land with them. The treaties are between various First Nations and the Crown of Canada and are not transferable to an independent Alberta without consent.
Some provinces have non-treaty land, acquired through land purchases or conquest. Quebec, for example, had the right to take roughly the southern third of its territory when it discussed separatism. But that's not the case with Alberta — it is entirely composed of treaty land.
This means that Canada cannot grant them independence, even if it were to accept the results of a referendum that meets Clarity Act requirements. That alone makes Alberta separatism a non-starter. There's no legal route for Alberta to separate from Canada without negotiating new treaties with the treaty councils in order to get their consent, and they've already signalled they are not willing to do so.
Some provinces have non-treaty land, acquired through land purchases or conquest. Quebec, for example, had the right to take roughly the southern third of its territory when it discussed separatism. But that's not the case with Alberta — it is entirely composed of treaty land.
This means that Canada cannot grant them independence, even if it were to accept the results of a referendum that meets Clarity Act requirements. That alone makes Alberta separatism a non-starter. There's no legal route for Alberta to separate from Canada without negotiating new treaties with the treaty councils in order to get their consent, and they've already signalled they are not willing to do so.
I genuinely wonder if and how that would hold though, you need the buck to stop somewhere, if Alberta were to vote to leave Canada you may call it illegal as you want to they won't just say "this is treaty land" and cancel their own referendum.
Say they separate politically and renege on the treaty, the first nations will go to the ICC? Or ask Canada to invade its own province? What support if any would the later have with the Canadian elector, sending the army to fight against other Canadians?
It's very similar to the old constitutional argument that separatism needs a "clear majority" which sparked questions that following a "yes" in Quebec the supreme court would have to statute on whether 51% is a "clear majority". Would Quebec actually have just accepted a ruling against them from a institution that is not really theirs?
Say they separate politically and renege on the treaty, the first nations will go to the ICC? Or ask Canada to invade its own province? What support if any would the later have with the Canadian elector, sending the army to fight against other Canadians?
It's very similar to the old constitutional argument that separatism needs a "clear majority" which sparked questions that following a "yes" in Quebec the supreme court would have to statute on whether 51% is a "clear majority". Would Quebec actually have just accepted a ruling against them from a institution that is not really theirs?
My point is that legally the First Nations have the right to not consent to the separation of provinces from the country. Of course, it's always possible for parties to act illegally...
If Alberta did unilaterally declare independence (which would be illegal according to Reference Re Secession of Quebec [1998]), the First Nations have the right to call upon Canada to defend their treaty rights under the "peace and good order" terms of the treaties.
If Canada did grant Alberta independence without First Nations consent, or Canada refuses to defend their treaty rights, they would have a claim that Canada had violated their rights to self-determination under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which Canada ratified in 2021. But UNDRIP is a non-binding resolution, so I don't think they'd have a case with the ICC or ICJ (even assuming it had jurisdiction).
If Alberta did unilaterally declare independence (which would be illegal according to Reference Re Secession of Quebec [1998]), the First Nations have the right to call upon Canada to defend their treaty rights under the "peace and good order" terms of the treaties.
If Canada did grant Alberta independence without First Nations consent, or Canada refuses to defend their treaty rights, they would have a claim that Canada had violated their rights to self-determination under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which Canada ratified in 2021. But UNDRIP is a non-binding resolution, so I don't think they'd have a case with the ICC or ICJ (even assuming it had jurisdiction).
I'm from Alberta and I'm quite concerned about this topic. This recent HN comment[0] has been on my mind lately.
I've lived here my whole life and while I have some level of sympathy for the sense of western alienation I feel that it's more of an identity thing that's been fomented by bad actors over the decades for their own personal political agendas and now that it's embedded into people's sense of self from birth it has become hyper-real and a great threat to me and the economic stability of the place that I call home.
Nefarious people can really take advantage of these sentiments and get the people who truly believe them to eagerly do some fantastically bad things that are against their self interest.
I don't know what can be done about that. Like what's the "Ape together Strong"[1] counter to this divisive bullshit?
Alberta has a highly educated population, and one that has robust blue collar abilities, pretty good infrastructure, A shit load of natural resources, enviable geographic advantages in terms of security and isolation, and overall a very good quality of life.
What Alberta needs is to be honest with itself and recognize that so many of our issues are caused by ourselves and our inability to coordinate as a people against internal and external forces. Separating won't change that, it'll only make it worse.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43487443
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/apes-together-strong
I've lived here my whole life and while I have some level of sympathy for the sense of western alienation I feel that it's more of an identity thing that's been fomented by bad actors over the decades for their own personal political agendas and now that it's embedded into people's sense of self from birth it has become hyper-real and a great threat to me and the economic stability of the place that I call home.
Nefarious people can really take advantage of these sentiments and get the people who truly believe them to eagerly do some fantastically bad things that are against their self interest.
I don't know what can be done about that. Like what's the "Ape together Strong"[1] counter to this divisive bullshit?
Alberta has a highly educated population, and one that has robust blue collar abilities, pretty good infrastructure, A shit load of natural resources, enviable geographic advantages in terms of security and isolation, and overall a very good quality of life.
What Alberta needs is to be honest with itself and recognize that so many of our issues are caused by ourselves and our inability to coordinate as a people against internal and external forces. Separating won't change that, it'll only make it worse.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43487443
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/apes-together-strong
> I've lived here my whole life and while I have some level of sympathy for the sense of western alienation I feel that it's more of an identity thing that's been fomented by bad actors...
As someone who grew up in Ontario, there is a real "f*ck Alberta" mentality in the central provinces.
As someone who grew up in Ontario, there is a real "f*ck Alberta" mentality in the central provinces.
I grew up in Alberta and now live in Ontario and in my mind it's less "fuck Alberta" and more "I don't give a fuck about Alberta". Most Ontarians don't care about Alberta, its well being, or what its citizens want. Perhaps this is inevitable in a country as large as Canada.
A good parallel is America's "flyover country".
A good parallel is America's "flyover country".
I'm from BC. Seeing Alberta and the US as some sort of parallel to Russia and Ukraine feels like some new level of paranoia.
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?
Alberta is not going to separate from Canada. The US is not going to invade Canada. This is just noise. There's plenty of things that matter that we need to focus on instead of this nonsense.
I guess Brexit shows us that the public can vote for stupid things.
> What Alberta needs is to be honest with itself and recognize that so many of our issues are caused by ourselves and our inability to coordinate as a people against internal and external forces. Separating won't change that, it'll only make it worse.
Can you expand on this? What sort of issues do Albertans cause to themselves?
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?
Alberta is not going to separate from Canada. The US is not going to invade Canada. This is just noise. There's plenty of things that matter that we need to focus on instead of this nonsense.
I guess Brexit shows us that the public can vote for stupid things.
> What Alberta needs is to be honest with itself and recognize that so many of our issues are caused by ourselves and our inability to coordinate as a people against internal and external forces. Separating won't change that, it'll only make it worse.
Can you expand on this? What sort of issues do Albertans cause to themselves?
I'm a bit busy at the moment so my comment will be in point form.
* Tying personal identity to a commodity which has a price that experiences guaranteed and radical fluctuations.
* Being the only province that doesn't have a provincial sales tax to provide some sort of stability to the provincial budget.
* Perpetually voting conservative at a provincial and federal level regardless of what that those policies those parties propose and enact, or the corruption that they blatantly practice.
* Embracing an 'us or them' mentality in all things, being unwilling to compromise or work with people viewed as outsiders. Any push back from outsiders leaders to Albertan leaders feigning moral injury in a way that would make a soccer player at the world cup blush.
* Letting oil companies act with impunity (orphaned wells, policies to hobble wind and solar)
* Always reactive -- never proactive. “Please God, give me one more oil boom. I promise not to piss it all away next time.”
* Bizarre centre of the universe thinking that ultimately stems from an insecurity of realizing that it's not and never will be and not being able to accept that it's okay.
* Head in the sand mentality w.r.t. climate change and therefore no planning for long term water sources for southern Alberta.
* Tying personal identity to a commodity which has a price that experiences guaranteed and radical fluctuations.
* Being the only province that doesn't have a provincial sales tax to provide some sort of stability to the provincial budget.
* Perpetually voting conservative at a provincial and federal level regardless of what that those policies those parties propose and enact, or the corruption that they blatantly practice.
* Embracing an 'us or them' mentality in all things, being unwilling to compromise or work with people viewed as outsiders. Any push back from outsiders leaders to Albertan leaders feigning moral injury in a way that would make a soccer player at the world cup blush.
* Letting oil companies act with impunity (orphaned wells, policies to hobble wind and solar)
* Always reactive -- never proactive. “Please God, give me one more oil boom. I promise not to piss it all away next time.”
* Bizarre centre of the universe thinking that ultimately stems from an insecurity of realizing that it's not and never will be and not being able to accept that it's okay.
* Head in the sand mentality w.r.t. climate change and therefore no planning for long term water sources for southern Alberta.
I find it interesting that one of only 7 NDP MPs elected in the last election was in Alberta.
Sounds like the rest of Canada.
Seriously though, to some of your points:
- If the province can be funded without a sales tax that sounds like something that benefits the people, not sure why this is a problem. If the province runs into budget issues I'm sure they'll figure out where to get the money. There has to be some advantage to this.
- The NDP was the provincial (majority) government 2015-2019. I guess people weren't happy with them so they voted for a different government. That sounds like democracy in action not perpetually voting one way. The last federal conservative government was a while back (Harper) and really there is not a ton of difference (IMO) between the Liberals and the Conservatives in terms of policy and I would argue the Liberals have been plenty corrupt. I don't recall a lot of corruption under Harper (but that might just be me not paying attention). I think for a province like Alberta supporting a party which calls for investing in resource production and export is pretty logical (and is really the logical thing for Canada that even Carney has called for in response to PP).
- Why would oil companies care if Alberta uses wind or solar (is it worthwhile doing solar?). Presumably most of their product is for export. https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/dashboard/renewable-ene... shows that Alberta is actually switching to more renewable energy.
- Is there a real risk of running out of water in Southern Alberta? I'm not familiar with the situation.
Seriously though, to some of your points:
- If the province can be funded without a sales tax that sounds like something that benefits the people, not sure why this is a problem. If the province runs into budget issues I'm sure they'll figure out where to get the money. There has to be some advantage to this.
- The NDP was the provincial (majority) government 2015-2019. I guess people weren't happy with them so they voted for a different government. That sounds like democracy in action not perpetually voting one way. The last federal conservative government was a while back (Harper) and really there is not a ton of difference (IMO) between the Liberals and the Conservatives in terms of policy and I would argue the Liberals have been plenty corrupt. I don't recall a lot of corruption under Harper (but that might just be me not paying attention). I think for a province like Alberta supporting a party which calls for investing in resource production and export is pretty logical (and is really the logical thing for Canada that even Carney has called for in response to PP).
- Why would oil companies care if Alberta uses wind or solar (is it worthwhile doing solar?). Presumably most of their product is for export. https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/dashboard/renewable-ene... shows that Alberta is actually switching to more renewable energy.
- Is there a real risk of running out of water in Southern Alberta? I'm not familiar with the situation.
Well that's just it, Over the long run Alberta has proven that it is not able to run a balanced budget[0][1][2] and the only times where it has come close have been achieved through a combination of high oil prices, the selling off of municipal and provincial assets which ultimately cost Albertans more in the long run, and heavy cuts to infrastructure and social spending that are merely deficits of a different kind.
At the same time the development of the O&G industry put great strain on existing infrastructure with schools massively underfunded, understaffed and with too many students[3] and the Alberta capital of Edmonton not having a new hospital constructed since 1988 while the population has nearly doubled.[4]
The NDP win in 2015 was a complete aberration that is unlikely to be repeated in the future. From 1971 to 2015 the Progressive Conservatives held power until the combination of electorate fatigue towards their rule and a schism in the party lead to a vote split that enabled the NDP to win. the price of oil promptly shit the bed[5] causing the return of massive deficits and this combined with sustained attacks on the provincial NDP inaccurately painting it as anti O&G industry lead to a narrow NDP defeat and the return of the PCs reborn as the UCP. To look at it another way with the UCP in office until at least 2027 that means that we're looking at conservatives running Alberta for 52 of 56 years or 93% of the time.
It's also noteworthy that in the past twenty years the only Premier to successfully complete a full term and not have to resign in disgrace or be ousted by the party has been the NDP leader. Every other conservative Premier has stepped down before completing a full term. Functionally what's occurring in Alberta is that the Premier is picked at the conservative party leader convention and many centre or centre left Albertans buy party memberships to have a say in the leader because they understand that the actual provincial election does not determine who the leader is.
Your question about why O&G companies care so much about solar and wind production is a good one, I think it's a combination of two things -- One they view the success of it anywhere as a threat to their continued existence and two they have truly bought into the propaganda that their industry puts out about climate change so they're in complete denial about the necessity to move away from hydrocarbon extraction. Alberta was making great strides to move towards renewable energy but those moves were squashed by the UCP in the past few years when they implemented an outright moratorium on new projects which scuttled a lot of projects and has effectively neutered the industry in Alberta as investors are now seeking more politically stable regions for their investments[6] despite Alberta having tremendous potential for solar and wind production[7].
Much of Southern Alberta is located in a region known as Palliser's Triangle[8] which is susceptible to periodic droughts. With much of the region dependent on glacier fed rivers that originate in the Rocky Mountains it is only a matter of time before those glacier sources dry up and ground water sources prove to be insufficient for the burgeoning population of Calgary and the agriculture industry. Tough decisions will need to be made and the current UCP leader's ambitions to double the population of Alberta by 2050[9] may just not be tenable.
[0] https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/50-Ye...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_budget#Historical_budg...
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-s-5-2b-budge...
[3] https://calgaryherald.com/news/in-a-crisis-hundreds-of-schoo...
[4] https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/alberta-puts-2m-to...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_oil_glut
[6] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/solar-wind-investment...
[7] https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-sources/renewable...
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliser%27s_Triangle
[9] https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2024/08/09/alberta-government-b...
At the same time the development of the O&G industry put great strain on existing infrastructure with schools massively underfunded, understaffed and with too many students[3] and the Alberta capital of Edmonton not having a new hospital constructed since 1988 while the population has nearly doubled.[4]
The NDP win in 2015 was a complete aberration that is unlikely to be repeated in the future. From 1971 to 2015 the Progressive Conservatives held power until the combination of electorate fatigue towards their rule and a schism in the party lead to a vote split that enabled the NDP to win. the price of oil promptly shit the bed[5] causing the return of massive deficits and this combined with sustained attacks on the provincial NDP inaccurately painting it as anti O&G industry lead to a narrow NDP defeat and the return of the PCs reborn as the UCP. To look at it another way with the UCP in office until at least 2027 that means that we're looking at conservatives running Alberta for 52 of 56 years or 93% of the time.
It's also noteworthy that in the past twenty years the only Premier to successfully complete a full term and not have to resign in disgrace or be ousted by the party has been the NDP leader. Every other conservative Premier has stepped down before completing a full term. Functionally what's occurring in Alberta is that the Premier is picked at the conservative party leader convention and many centre or centre left Albertans buy party memberships to have a say in the leader because they understand that the actual provincial election does not determine who the leader is.
Your question about why O&G companies care so much about solar and wind production is a good one, I think it's a combination of two things -- One they view the success of it anywhere as a threat to their continued existence and two they have truly bought into the propaganda that their industry puts out about climate change so they're in complete denial about the necessity to move away from hydrocarbon extraction. Alberta was making great strides to move towards renewable energy but those moves were squashed by the UCP in the past few years when they implemented an outright moratorium on new projects which scuttled a lot of projects and has effectively neutered the industry in Alberta as investors are now seeking more politically stable regions for their investments[6] despite Alberta having tremendous potential for solar and wind production[7].
Much of Southern Alberta is located in a region known as Palliser's Triangle[8] which is susceptible to periodic droughts. With much of the region dependent on glacier fed rivers that originate in the Rocky Mountains it is only a matter of time before those glacier sources dry up and ground water sources prove to be insufficient for the burgeoning population of Calgary and the agriculture industry. Tough decisions will need to be made and the current UCP leader's ambitions to double the population of Alberta by 2050[9] may just not be tenable.
[0] https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/50-Ye...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_budget#Historical_budg...
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-s-5-2b-budge...
[3] https://calgaryherald.com/news/in-a-crisis-hundreds-of-schoo...
[4] https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/alberta-puts-2m-to...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_oil_glut
[6] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/solar-wind-investment...
[7] https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-sources/renewable...
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliser%27s_Triangle
[9] https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2024/08/09/alberta-government-b...
If Alberta wants to separate to be on their own it is a lunacy. They will gain nothing in the end.
I suspect that in reality there is a plan to just simply sell it to the US - separate first and then join the US later. I bet some politicians on either side of a border are actively involved. They should be fucking quartered.
In the US states can not secede. I wish it was the same in Canada. Except couple of borderline cases splitting a country is never good idea.
I suspect that in reality there is a plan to just simply sell it to the US - separate first and then join the US later. I bet some politicians on either side of a border are actively involved. They should be fucking quartered.
In the US states can not secede. I wish it was the same in Canada. Except couple of borderline cases splitting a country is never good idea.
I believe US states can secede legally, but does it not require the same sort of burden as federal constitutional amendments? e.g. a large proportion of the other states have to agree?
There is no recognized mechanism for states in the US to secede. Probably the consensus view among constitutional scholars is that accession to the United States is permanent --- that is, there is no way for a state to secede once it joins the union. There is a minority view that a state could secede with the consent of the Federal government or other states, but what would constitute agreement is not spelled out. If there were a serious attempt at secession it would probably require a constitutional amendment, so in practice it would require the consent of 3/4 of the states.
While there's no precedent of a state seceding, looking at Filipino independence as the closest example, it only required the President's signing of a treaty and the Senate's ratification of said treaty to cede U.S. sovereign territory.
US territories are a rather different situation because they are not sovereign entities in the way that US states are. US territories are essentially land owned and administered by the federal government so the federal government is free to acquire and dispose of them as it wishes. But the states are sovereigns in their own right that have entered into a compact vis-a-vis the federal government and the other states. Because the sovereignty of the federal government emerges from this compact of the collection of individual states, the federal government generally does not have the authority to modify the terms of the compact without the assent of the states.
I think that's a very peculiar definition of sovereign. Would most not agree that if a state cannot enter into international treaties or unilaterally withdraw from organizations they are members of, then they are not sovereign.
e.g. The UK was able to leave the EU without the EU's consent, but the same cannot be said for Nebraska leaving the US.
Also, US territories are self governing. e.g. Puerto Rico and Guam. They aren't governed directly by the federal government. The only major difference between a territory and a state is in voting rights and congressional representation. I believe there's an exemption from federal income tax as well.
e.g. The UK was able to leave the EU without the EU's consent, but the same cannot be said for Nebraska leaving the US.
Also, US territories are self governing. e.g. Puerto Rico and Guam. They aren't governed directly by the federal government. The only major difference between a territory and a state is in voting rights and congressional representation. I believe there's an exemption from federal income tax as well.
The theory is that the states forfeit certain aspects of their sovereignty, but not their entire sovereignty, by entering into a federation with the other states in the United States. The specific aspects of their sovereignty that they forfeit are those powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. As you note, this would include the ability to enter into treaties. But the 10th Amendment (at least in theory) guarantees that they retain their sovereignty in all other areas of governance.
There is still a distinction between US territories and states, because while in practice the territories are self governing, they have no Constitutional right to self governance. The federal government grants them some degree of autonomy as a matter of pragmatism, but the federal government has the power to revoke this autonomy by a simple act of Congress. The same cannot be said of states.
There is still a distinction between US territories and states, because while in practice the territories are self governing, they have no Constitutional right to self governance. The federal government grants them some degree of autonomy as a matter of pragmatism, but the federal government has the power to revoke this autonomy by a simple act of Congress. The same cannot be said of states.
Having lived in Alberta and Quebec as an American this is funny as hell, but that is Canada got to do something with too much time inside.
Canadians will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that at least Alberta made noises about secession 40 or 50 years ago.
More recently than that. Alberta independence is a can that gets kicked around quite a bit
There is also a major First Peoples presence in Alberta. This will complicate any attempts to seccede and complicate any union with the USA. https://www.alberta.ca/map-of-first-nations-reserves-and-met...
Secession would require renegotiating Treaties 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10. Good luck with that.
Polls are all in the 35-45% range, just like brexit. If Alberta separates, after replacing everything the federal government does, they'll have freedoms returned and have $25 billion/year more to spend on themselves.
Albertan culture and identity has been under attack for 10 years and it has caused a great division in the country. Certainly an unprecedented national unity crisis with 3 active serious separatism movements.
There are a number of interest groups who are going to boost alberta separatism.
USA greatly benefits due to oil and food trading; but more importantly the oil is priced in USD. Alberta likely switches to the USD or rolls their own.
Most other oil trade nations are going to boost for their separatism.
Gun rights advocates will essentially undo the gun bans. Not to mention allow handguns for wildlife protection. Absurd that Canada prohibits carrying a handgun in grizzly territory.
national defense corporations like lockheed martin will be able to sell the F35 to Alberta no problem. They benefit billions right away.
oil and gas industry unlocks trillions of $ by separating.
Quebec separatists will do all they can to get them to separate; alberta goes first and quebec will be able to follow.
Liberals, especially in Toronto, will heavily insult and push albertans out of canada. Without alberta, Canada essentially becomes a single party democracy run by the liberals.
There's so many interest groups boosting separatism, it's going to pass easily. Can you tell me even 1 group that has any good arguments for alberta to stay in confederation?
Albertan culture and identity has been under attack for 10 years and it has caused a great division in the country. Certainly an unprecedented national unity crisis with 3 active serious separatism movements.
There are a number of interest groups who are going to boost alberta separatism.
USA greatly benefits due to oil and food trading; but more importantly the oil is priced in USD. Alberta likely switches to the USD or rolls their own.
Most other oil trade nations are going to boost for their separatism.
Gun rights advocates will essentially undo the gun bans. Not to mention allow handguns for wildlife protection. Absurd that Canada prohibits carrying a handgun in grizzly territory.
national defense corporations like lockheed martin will be able to sell the F35 to Alberta no problem. They benefit billions right away.
oil and gas industry unlocks trillions of $ by separating.
Quebec separatists will do all they can to get them to separate; alberta goes first and quebec will be able to follow.
Liberals, especially in Toronto, will heavily insult and push albertans out of canada. Without alberta, Canada essentially becomes a single party democracy run by the liberals.
There's so many interest groups boosting separatism, it's going to pass easily. Can you tell me even 1 group that has any good arguments for alberta to stay in confederation?
What % of the participants of the trucker protest were from Alberta?
Call me a conspiracy theorist but most of these post/articles/info is a Russian propaganda. It fits a textbook narrative of divide and conquer. I’ve seen same patterns in other parts of the world and similar thing seems to be in seed stage here as well as USA. It is a slow grind towards a long term goal.
Most people who see Russian propaganda everywhere never stop and look back to see the connection between their ideology and Russian propaganda.
[deleted]
The people of Alberta seem wholly uneducated and unconcerned of climate change. Who will they sell the oil to when the world burns around them?
If Alberta were to separate, I can only imagine it would be to become part of the USA. If Alberta became part of the USA, there would be many factors pushing the North West Territories, the Yukon and British Columbia to follow.
The Northwest Territories and Yukon simply make sense for the USA to want. It connects Alaska, they're relatively unpopulated (which makes annexation easy), and as northern trade routes become more feasible, are strategic for the USA to try to claim.
British Columbia has sizable population, but can it exist as part of Canada, isolated from the rest of Canada?
I think the geography of Canada is fascinating. It has long been a "river country", like Pakistan or Egypt, built around the St. Laurence river [1]. It inherited sizable "extra" territory on the west from the British— territory the Brits kept from the USA back when they were in a position to defend it.
This non-St. Laurence Canada has slowly been populating, but looking at North American maps— from population density [2], to roads [3][4], to railroads [5], it just seems so relatively disconnected at the longitude of Lake Superior. I don't really know if it's possible to build a big city in the Thunder Bay/Nipigon area, but it almost feels like there should be one there.
I get that Ottawa was made the capital in 1857 as a compromise between French and English speaking Canada, but if the USA keeps pushing this rhetoric (and we all know it's the USA behind Alberta separatism), would it be beneficial to move the Capital to Winnipeg? It's closer to the actual center of Canada, which would not only exert more influence on the west, but be a forcing function on east-west connectivity and with it, union.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada#/media/Fi...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada#/media/Fi...
[3]: https://www.cec.org/north-american-environmental-atlas/major...
[4]: https://koordinates.com/layer/110462-north-american-roads-20...
[5]: https://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/map-rail-canada/
The Northwest Territories and Yukon simply make sense for the USA to want. It connects Alaska, they're relatively unpopulated (which makes annexation easy), and as northern trade routes become more feasible, are strategic for the USA to try to claim.
British Columbia has sizable population, but can it exist as part of Canada, isolated from the rest of Canada?
I think the geography of Canada is fascinating. It has long been a "river country", like Pakistan or Egypt, built around the St. Laurence river [1]. It inherited sizable "extra" territory on the west from the British— territory the Brits kept from the USA back when they were in a position to defend it.
This non-St. Laurence Canada has slowly been populating, but looking at North American maps— from population density [2], to roads [3][4], to railroads [5], it just seems so relatively disconnected at the longitude of Lake Superior. I don't really know if it's possible to build a big city in the Thunder Bay/Nipigon area, but it almost feels like there should be one there.
I get that Ottawa was made the capital in 1857 as a compromise between French and English speaking Canada, but if the USA keeps pushing this rhetoric (and we all know it's the USA behind Alberta separatism), would it be beneficial to move the Capital to Winnipeg? It's closer to the actual center of Canada, which would not only exert more influence on the west, but be a forcing function on east-west connectivity and with it, union.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada#/media/Fi...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada#/media/Fi...
[3]: https://www.cec.org/north-american-environmental-atlas/major...
[4]: https://koordinates.com/layer/110462-north-american-roads-20...
[5]: https://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/map-rail-canada/
People underestimate the anger that has festered in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and parts of BC due to Pierre Trudeau's National Energy Program [0]. It caused a severe recession across western Canada back in the 80s and 90s leading to the Reform Party movement, Social Credit movement (a proto-MAGA movement), and the BC Liberals (a reform party splinter that uses the Liberal name, and all the liberals got pushed into the BC NDP as a result), and that resentment has festered.
Secession is a pipe dream, but do not underestimate the anger and conservatism in Western Canada outside of Greater Vancouver, Nanaimo, Victoria, Kelwona, and a couple other islands of liberalism in a sea of conservatism - there's no cultural or social difference between Abbotsford and Bellingham (edit: whitcom county, did not realize Bellingham gentrified), or Lethbridge and Great Falls. Western Canada's resource-driven economy also plays a major role in this because for a lot of Canadians it's their only shot at middle class salaries and life.
At least Carney grew up in Alberta during that era, so he can probably avoid the misteps that Justin Trudeau and his father did when dealing with Western Canada.
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
Secession is a pipe dream, but do not underestimate the anger and conservatism in Western Canada outside of Greater Vancouver, Nanaimo, Victoria, Kelwona, and a couple other islands of liberalism in a sea of conservatism - there's no cultural or social difference between Abbotsford and Bellingham (edit: whitcom county, did not realize Bellingham gentrified), or Lethbridge and Great Falls. Western Canada's resource-driven economy also plays a major role in this because for a lot of Canadians it's their only shot at middle class salaries and life.
At least Carney grew up in Alberta during that era, so he can probably avoid the misteps that Justin Trudeau and his father did when dealing with Western Canada.
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
While I agree with your general statement here, are you saying that Abbotsford and Bellingham are both conservative towns? Greater Whatcom county, certainly, but Bellingham is a very liberal city.
Political leaning aside I agree that Western BC and Western WA are nigh identical culturally. Can't speak for anything further east as I don't live there.
Political leaning aside I agree that Western BC and Western WA are nigh identical culturally. Can't speak for anything further east as I don't live there.
I mean Whatcom county!
Bellingham may have changed over the past few years - last time I spent a significant amount of time there was in the 2000s.
At least on the BC side, other than Nanaimo, the others haven't really shifted from conservative to liberal.
Bellingham may have changed over the past few years - last time I spent a significant amount of time there was in the 2000s.
At least on the BC side, other than Nanaimo, the others haven't really shifted from conservative to liberal.
Sounds like the same pattern as the USA. The non-scientific wing of the environmental movement gutted industries across the interior, and in the end all we did was move fossil fuel burning and pollution overseas in exchange for poverty and resentment. (In fact, we probably burn more carbon by manufacturing overseas and then burning a ton of bunker diesel to ship it here on container ships.)
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
As you can see these policies did nothing.
Seems to be slowing a bit, probably due to technological improvement. In the end there is only one thing that will reduce CO2 emissions: technologies for generating energy from non-fossil sources that are competitive with fossil fuels. Solar and wind are getting there.
If fossil fuels are still cheaper than other sources, then they will be burned somewhere and energy intensive industries will flock to wherever has the cheapest energy (and labor). The only way to stop this would be a global scale agreement to curtail fossil fuel use, and developing nations would never agree to this.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
As you can see these policies did nothing.
Seems to be slowing a bit, probably due to technological improvement. In the end there is only one thing that will reduce CO2 emissions: technologies for generating energy from non-fossil sources that are competitive with fossil fuels. Solar and wind are getting there.
If fossil fuels are still cheaper than other sources, then they will be burned somewhere and energy intensive industries will flock to wherever has the cheapest energy (and labor). The only way to stop this would be a global scale agreement to curtail fossil fuel use, and developing nations would never agree to this.
>As you can see these policies did nothing.
Yea, if we didn't reduce energy usage in the US the global average would be far higher than it is now. Those factories would have moved out of the US anyway due to labor costs, and higher energy costs. Efficiency in energy production lowers costs. You're probably not old enough to remember how damned bad pollution in the US used to be.
Burning bunker fuel on large ships is insanely efficient per km traveled. Mostly because the amount of material on said ships is staggering.
Also, we've raised those countries overseas out of poverty. We are talking about billions of people. World wide CO2 usage increased because more of the world walked away from farming dirt and is now producing useful economic product.
Yea, if we didn't reduce energy usage in the US the global average would be far higher than it is now. Those factories would have moved out of the US anyway due to labor costs, and higher energy costs. Efficiency in energy production lowers costs. You're probably not old enough to remember how damned bad pollution in the US used to be.
Burning bunker fuel on large ships is insanely efficient per km traveled. Mostly because the amount of material on said ships is staggering.
Also, we've raised those countries overseas out of poverty. We are talking about billions of people. World wide CO2 usage increased because more of the world walked away from farming dirt and is now producing useful economic product.
[deleted]
Let's not forget the Salmon Arm salute :-)
Heh. That was a bit before my time, but I spent a couple years in a rust (wood?) belt town in BC as a kid, and the anger and resentment was palpable even then.
The kind of populist anti-business and anti-establishment anger I saw amongst the post-Reform and post-Social Credit guys was the exact same as that which I saw among MAGA all the way back in 2015.
I think Canadians (in reality Ontarians and Quebeckers - but not like they could read English anyhow /s) really underestimate the MAGA style populist alt-right trend.
Stuff like Rebel News was always in the water back west.
It's the exact same type of right-wing I see across NorCal (real NorCal starts north of Yuba), Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana.
The Quebecois alt-right is deep in the FN and Zemmour pipeline as well.
The kind of populist anti-business and anti-establishment anger I saw amongst the post-Reform and post-Social Credit guys was the exact same as that which I saw among MAGA all the way back in 2015.
I think Canadians (in reality Ontarians and Quebeckers - but not like they could read English anyhow /s) really underestimate the MAGA style populist alt-right trend.
Stuff like Rebel News was always in the water back west.
It's the exact same type of right-wing I see across NorCal (real NorCal starts north of Yuba), Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana.
The Quebecois alt-right is deep in the FN and Zemmour pipeline as well.
"alt-right" is a much smaller group than you think it is.
It wouldn't be accurate at all to paint the BC Liberals as a reform party splinter group. While the party was half taken over by conservatives, rats fleeing their own sinking ship, the reality is that the party up until the last leader Falcon was always lead by individuals with strong Federal Liberal party ties. It's always been a right of centre Liberal party and was clearly even more right wing given its big tent coalition status with Fed Conservatives but labelling it as some sort of Reform Party western grievance party is absolutely a step too far.
The boring reality is that the BC NDP occupied all the space on the left and so the only viable space for the Liberals was more right of centre. Should be noted, not at all an unusual space for a Liberal to be. When the conservative Social Credit party imploded the BC Liberals took them on and it became a defacto two party system with the BC Liberals on the right.
The previous leader Clark kicked the can on a Fed Liberal leadership and we can see already from the actions of Carney that the right of centre Fed Liberals are alive and well.
The boring reality is that the BC NDP occupied all the space on the left and so the only viable space for the Liberals was more right of centre. Should be noted, not at all an unusual space for a Liberal to be. When the conservative Social Credit party imploded the BC Liberals took them on and it became a defacto two party system with the BC Liberals on the right.
The previous leader Clark kicked the can on a Fed Liberal leadership and we can see already from the actions of Carney that the right of centre Fed Liberals are alive and well.
[flagged]
Please don't do regional flamewar on HN, such as putting down populations.
Like national flamewar and religious flamewar, it's a circle of hell we want to avoid here. You can make your substantive points without it, so please do that instead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Like national flamewar and religious flamewar, it's a circle of hell we want to avoid here. You can make your substantive points without it, so please do that instead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's also worth mentioning the influence of insular religious groups in Alberta. Hutterites, Mennonites, Doukhobors, and Mormons moved to Alberta to escape oppression/oversight and their presence has had a lasting impact on the culture and political structure of Alberta.
Rural Canada was fairly poor back in the day, but being poor doesn't mean you are gullible or some "aw shucks" ingnoramus.
For someone with a partial high school education an Oil job was the only job that would afford them the kind of salary a UT or McGill grad could demand in Toronto or Montreal back in the day.
As such, attacking the ONG industry feels like an attack on livelihoods for a lot of people.
If you turn a culture war into a class war, us liberals and progressives cannot win.
For someone with a partial high school education an Oil job was the only job that would afford them the kind of salary a UT or McGill grad could demand in Toronto or Montreal back in the day.
As such, attacking the ONG industry feels like an attack on livelihoods for a lot of people.
If you turn a culture war into a class war, us liberals and progressives cannot win.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[flagged]
> Either way their victim complex is preyed upon by an industry that has been working to undermine Canadian unity for decades.
I thought we were taking about Alberta, not Quebec.
I thought we were taking about Alberta, not Quebec.
Please don't perpetuate regional flamewar, or any flamewar, on HN. It just makes things worse.
(Your comment would be fine without that first bit.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(Your comment would be fine without that first bit.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
mmooss(3)
mmooss(2)
30 October 1995 was the day Canada almost tore itself in half[1]. Within hours of the vote capital started to exits, the banks shut down domestic FX trading to stop the bleeding, the loonie slumped, and Quebec-listed stocks went to shit.[2] ofc, ottawa responds by slashing transfers and public spending in the 1995-97 budgets. [3]They literally said, very loudly to province “do more with less.” Health care, social services, and infrastructure entered a period of massive of under investment, while provinces raised tuition, tolls, and property taxes to plug the gap. That all started the Clarity Act fight[4].
As a Canadian, I left Canada because my countrymen insist on shooting us in the foot, mostly in my opinion, because Canadians don't have enough to worry about on average. It seems we are hell bend on continuing the trend. It seems Canadians will do anything to avoid building a cohesive country... 30 October 1995 flipped Canada from build mode to the fetal position, and we're still in it.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
[2]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=841344
[3]https://thewalrus.ca/betting-on-separation/
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act
As a Canadian, I left Canada because my countrymen insist on shooting us in the foot, mostly in my opinion, because Canadians don't have enough to worry about on average. It seems we are hell bend on continuing the trend. It seems Canadians will do anything to avoid building a cohesive country... 30 October 1995 flipped Canada from build mode to the fetal position, and we're still in it.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
[2]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=841344
[3]https://thewalrus.ca/betting-on-separation/
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act
Thanks for sharing your comments and perspective. I read an article on HN this morning about housing and the need to build more of it. One of the comments mentioned that social housing construction in Canada dropped significantly in 1995—presumably due to the fallout from Quebec's referendum and the broader context you described.
Taken in an even wider context, Canadians really got fucked hard: https://x.com/decenter_hi/status/1926730931080986915
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
won't happen but the point is to reset the balance of power
basically Alberta will be like Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction: "You can't ignore me!"
but Americans also tend to underestimate or disbelieve that right-wing sentiment exists in Canada
most Americans think Canada is like Berkeley on a continent-scale...Justin Trudeau believed that too and he was reviled eventually
basically Alberta will be like Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction: "You can't ignore me!"
but Americans also tend to underestimate or disbelieve that right-wing sentiment exists in Canada
most Americans think Canada is like Berkeley on a continent-scale...Justin Trudeau believed that too and he was reviled eventually
[deleted]
It is fascinating to me that there is never a discussion about US states seceding. Well to put that another way, there is a discussion when it's a red state like Texas that is mad that the federal government wants clean air and good healthcare -- Texas spent Biden's term setting up "consulates" and fanning separation threats -- but why do we never hear serious talk about "blue" states seceding, and the mere notion is consider traitorous and "undivided under god" or something civil war incantions?
Comparing the trivial complaints Albertans have relative to the federal government[1], just looking at what is happening in the US right now, where the country is objectively and rapidly becoming a profoundly corrupt, banana-republic level idiocracy, and I cannot fathom how the West Coast, New England, New York and the like want to continue to be dictated to by people like MTG or Mike Lee, or have to watch the news everyday to see what new catastrophe the self-dealing felonious president has announced.
I mean, in actual polling, 9% of Canadians want to join the US (the absolute high was 15% of Albertans). 20% of Americans want their state to join Canada. Isn't that Amazing?
So, start the process?
[1] - Most of Alberta's complaints are nonsensical. The NEP program mentioned elsewhere, for instance, promised a coast to coast pipeline system. Alberta refused it, yet now strangely one of their biggest grievances is that there isn't a coast to coast pipeline system. Keystone XL was't cancelled by Canada, it was by the US which has always been extremely antagonistic to the province, and is rapidly replacing it with North Dakota (a state that produces about 4x the per capita oil value, but whose residents see very little value from the same). The federal government recently dropped $35B for a pipeline because commercially most big oil companies refuse to spend money on Albertan projects, but just want to rile up the low-info rubes into thinking somehow it's actually the federal government's fault. See Petronas cancelling an LNG project because spending billions on a terminal in a world flooded with low price LNG isn't worthwhile...still somehow a grievance about the federal government.
Comparing the trivial complaints Albertans have relative to the federal government[1], just looking at what is happening in the US right now, where the country is objectively and rapidly becoming a profoundly corrupt, banana-republic level idiocracy, and I cannot fathom how the West Coast, New England, New York and the like want to continue to be dictated to by people like MTG or Mike Lee, or have to watch the news everyday to see what new catastrophe the self-dealing felonious president has announced.
I mean, in actual polling, 9% of Canadians want to join the US (the absolute high was 15% of Albertans). 20% of Americans want their state to join Canada. Isn't that Amazing?
So, start the process?
[1] - Most of Alberta's complaints are nonsensical. The NEP program mentioned elsewhere, for instance, promised a coast to coast pipeline system. Alberta refused it, yet now strangely one of their biggest grievances is that there isn't a coast to coast pipeline system. Keystone XL was't cancelled by Canada, it was by the US which has always been extremely antagonistic to the province, and is rapidly replacing it with North Dakota (a state that produces about 4x the per capita oil value, but whose residents see very little value from the same). The federal government recently dropped $35B for a pipeline because commercially most big oil companies refuse to spend money on Albertan projects, but just want to rile up the low-info rubes into thinking somehow it's actually the federal government's fault. See Petronas cancelling an LNG project because spending billions on a terminal in a world flooded with low price LNG isn't worthwhile...still somehow a grievance about the federal government.
There is endless talk about US states seceding but this question was settled by what is still the country's deadliest war. There's no meaningful 'process' by which a US state can secede so the talk is limited to talk.
Will the United States exist for the remainder of human history simply because "there is no handy 'process'" by which states can secede? The idea is silly. If people actually cared about such things, the US would never have come into existence. After all, as of 1776, the question of rebellion was clearly settled by the Treason Act of 1351. There was no meaningful 'process' by which the colonies could secede. And yet the American revolution happened. It happened in the same way that history always happens. Not in strict adherence to some scrap of paper, or in accordance to a process flow chart, but off the cuff. After all, what proportion of successful secession movements in human history have followed a strictly legal process? I can only think of a few, all small nations, all in the last 100 years or so. Bismarck was right (as usual) when he said:
> Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided... but by iron and blood.
When people are determined to secede, they won't be stopped by words. They'll be stopped by "iron and blood", or they'll be on their way. I've heard many Americans express their fear of another civil war, but I have never heard a single one express their support for starting one and sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives for the sake of preserving a polity.
> Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided... but by iron and blood.
When people are determined to secede, they won't be stopped by words. They'll be stopped by "iron and blood", or they'll be on their way. I've heard many Americans express their fear of another civil war, but I have never heard a single one express their support for starting one and sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives for the sake of preserving a polity.
Will the United States exist for the remainder of human history simply because "there is no handy 'process'" by which states can secede? The idea is silly.
I'm not sure why you're telling me your silly idea, I didn't say that.
Canada has had a reasonably recent, nearly successful political secessionist movement and two effectively failed efforts at constitutional reform to address it. Secession is not a settled issue in Canada the way it is in the US which is why it has a different valence in that context.
I'm not sure why you're telling me your silly idea, I didn't say that.
Canada has had a reasonably recent, nearly successful political secessionist movement and two effectively failed efforts at constitutional reform to address it. Secession is not a settled issue in Canada the way it is in the US which is why it has a different valence in that context.
The NEP also applied price controls on domestic sales of oil, effectively forcing Alberta to sell oil to other provinces at below market rates:
> The NEP's Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax (PGRT) instituted a double-taxation mechanism that did not apply to other commodities, such as gold and copper (see "Program details" item (c), below), "to redistribute revenue from the [oil] industry and lessen the cost of oil for Eastern Canada" in an attempt to insulate the Canadian economy from the shock of rising global oil prices[20] (see "Program details" item (a), below). In 1981, Scarfe argued that by keeping domestic oil prices below world market prices, the NEP was essentially mandating provincial generosity and subsidizing all Canadian consumers of fuel, because of Alberta and the other oil-producing provinces (such as Newfoundland, which received funding by the NEP for the Hibernia project).[14]: 8
and
> Estimates have placed Alberta's losses between $50 billion and $100 billion because of the NEP.[32][33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
> The NEP's Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax (PGRT) instituted a double-taxation mechanism that did not apply to other commodities, such as gold and copper (see "Program details" item (c), below), "to redistribute revenue from the [oil] industry and lessen the cost of oil for Eastern Canada" in an attempt to insulate the Canadian economy from the shock of rising global oil prices[20] (see "Program details" item (a), below). In 1981, Scarfe argued that by keeping domestic oil prices below world market prices, the NEP was essentially mandating provincial generosity and subsidizing all Canadian consumers of fuel, because of Alberta and the other oil-producing provinces (such as Newfoundland, which received funding by the NEP for the Hibernia project).[14]: 8
and
> Estimates have placed Alberta's losses between $50 billion and $100 billion because of the NEP.[32][33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
> just looking at what is happening in the US right now, where the country is objectively become a profoundly corrupt, banana-republic level idiocracy,
Half the population, or perhaps slightly more, doesn't agree with that.
Half the population, or perhaps slightly more, doesn't agree with that.
> the country is objectively become a profoundly corrupt, banana-republic level idiocracy
>> Half the population, or perhaps slightly more, doesn't agree with that.
Trump just publicly accepted a $400 million Boeing 747 from one of Hamas's largest financial benefactors [1]. His meme coin operation is tantamount to a political donation machine without the corresponding financial disclosures [2]. And he's shaking down law firms with executive orders unless they donate tens of millions in pro bono legal work to his administration and its pet causes. [3]. This is a non-exhaustive list of just his corruption scandals from just the last month.
If Biden had done any one of these things, Fox News would have his supporters frothing at the mouth and (literally) picking up arms. But when Trump does all 3 and more, they don't even bat an eyelash. At this point, it seems less likely that they don't agree he's corrupt, and more likely that they just don't care, as long as its their guy at the helm.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_support_for_Hamas
2. https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/23938695868353
3. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/legal-...
>> Half the population, or perhaps slightly more, doesn't agree with that.
Trump just publicly accepted a $400 million Boeing 747 from one of Hamas's largest financial benefactors [1]. His meme coin operation is tantamount to a political donation machine without the corresponding financial disclosures [2]. And he's shaking down law firms with executive orders unless they donate tens of millions in pro bono legal work to his administration and its pet causes. [3]. This is a non-exhaustive list of just his corruption scandals from just the last month.
If Biden had done any one of these things, Fox News would have his supporters frothing at the mouth and (literally) picking up arms. But when Trump does all 3 and more, they don't even bat an eyelash. At this point, it seems less likely that they don't agree he's corrupt, and more likely that they just don't care, as long as its their guy at the helm.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_support_for_Hamas
2. https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/23938695868353
3. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/legal-...
> Half the population, or perhaps slightly more, doesn't agree with that.
You seem to be mistaking Trump's support as a share of the vote in the last election for a measure of current beliefs aboht his Administration as a share of the entire population.
That involves many errors.
And, on top of that, you are mistaking popularity as a measure of truth of a claim about facts, not popular opinion.
You seem to be mistaking Trump's support as a share of the vote in the last election for a measure of current beliefs aboht his Administration as a share of the entire population.
That involves many errors.
And, on top of that, you are mistaking popularity as a measure of truth of a claim about facts, not popular opinion.
>Half the population, or perhaps slightly more, doesn't agree with that.
If you're implying that half the population or perhaps slightly more voted for Donald Trump, perhaps as extrapolation from Trump having "won the popular vote," you would be incorrect. Only about 63% of the eligible voting populace voted in 2024, and of those, marginally more voted for Trump than Harris (49.9% vs 48.4%). So a more realistic estimate of the total pro-Trump populace would be closer to 30%. While the narrative that Trump voters command half, or over half, of the entire US population is common it has never actually been true.
And this doesn't even take into account the number of Trump voters who are currently dissatisfied with the regime's behavior - the ones who despite all evidence to the contrary saw absolutely nothing wrong with Trump, trusted his motives and integrity, and just thought he would bring the price of eggs down.
Also, who cares? They're wrong. Donald Trump is objectively the most corrupt and least competent President in living memory.
If you're implying that half the population or perhaps slightly more voted for Donald Trump, perhaps as extrapolation from Trump having "won the popular vote," you would be incorrect. Only about 63% of the eligible voting populace voted in 2024, and of those, marginally more voted for Trump than Harris (49.9% vs 48.4%). So a more realistic estimate of the total pro-Trump populace would be closer to 30%. While the narrative that Trump voters command half, or over half, of the entire US population is common it has never actually been true.
And this doesn't even take into account the number of Trump voters who are currently dissatisfied with the regime's behavior - the ones who despite all evidence to the contrary saw absolutely nothing wrong with Trump, trusted his motives and integrity, and just thought he would bring the price of eggs down.
Also, who cares? They're wrong. Donald Trump is objectively the most corrupt and least competent President in living memory.
The people who vote are the only ones that matter, in this context.
The people who voted for Trump are a subset of the people who voted, and that set does not contain "half the population" in any meaningful context.
By what measure do you come up with that?
Nationwide, Trump's approval rating is somewhere around 42-46%. And just to be clear, early in a term presidential approval rating is in a honeymoon period where the public is trying to make the best of the next four years and sees it with rose coloured glasses. Obama had a 65% approval rating. Biden had a 57% approval rating. Both at the same stage in their presidency.
On every single issue, the public disagrees with how Trump has acted. From immigration to trade and tariffs to education to health. And he's currently in the "lie about everything and promise the world" stage, but much like his first term that has an expiry date when people realize that he is incredibly stupid and lies with every breath. There will be no trillion dollar windfall from tariffs "paid for by the other country" (though there is the most regressive, largest tax hike in US history), everything is going to get more expensive, and the "Golden age" is going to be a dire descent to a fallen empire. There will be no $5000 DOGE savings cheques or elimination of taxes on tips or overtime, egg prices haven't dropped 95%, gas isn't $1.99, and the Ukraine war keeps going on. He isn't going to eliminate the debt or even the massively exploding deficit with his magical crypto scam shitcoin.
But Trump will self-enrich himself and everyone who pays his extortion racket. His trade war grift seems mostly targeted at getting various Trump co projects going, along with fellating his pal Elon's various companies.
But regardless, I'm not talking about the US as a whole. No one in Canada wants Kentucky or Texas or Florida joining us, and those people can herald their orange idol however much they want. But on the West Coast Trump has a 30% approval rating. In much of New England and New York he's mid-30s. Again, despite this being the honeymoon period.
Yeah, the areas I talked about hugely disagree with this government.
So do something about it. Again, red people and states talk about this all the time.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/marjorie...
https://www.newsweek.com/texas-secession-closer-anyone-think...
If the so-called Blue states don't want to be dragged back a hundred years into this growing anti-science, corrupt idiocracy, start taking the same tact. Somehow it's only incomprehensible when the better states broach it.
Nationwide, Trump's approval rating is somewhere around 42-46%. And just to be clear, early in a term presidential approval rating is in a honeymoon period where the public is trying to make the best of the next four years and sees it with rose coloured glasses. Obama had a 65% approval rating. Biden had a 57% approval rating. Both at the same stage in their presidency.
On every single issue, the public disagrees with how Trump has acted. From immigration to trade and tariffs to education to health. And he's currently in the "lie about everything and promise the world" stage, but much like his first term that has an expiry date when people realize that he is incredibly stupid and lies with every breath. There will be no trillion dollar windfall from tariffs "paid for by the other country" (though there is the most regressive, largest tax hike in US history), everything is going to get more expensive, and the "Golden age" is going to be a dire descent to a fallen empire. There will be no $5000 DOGE savings cheques or elimination of taxes on tips or overtime, egg prices haven't dropped 95%, gas isn't $1.99, and the Ukraine war keeps going on. He isn't going to eliminate the debt or even the massively exploding deficit with his magical crypto scam shitcoin.
But Trump will self-enrich himself and everyone who pays his extortion racket. His trade war grift seems mostly targeted at getting various Trump co projects going, along with fellating his pal Elon's various companies.
But regardless, I'm not talking about the US as a whole. No one in Canada wants Kentucky or Texas or Florida joining us, and those people can herald their orange idol however much they want. But on the West Coast Trump has a 30% approval rating. In much of New England and New York he's mid-30s. Again, despite this being the honeymoon period.
Yeah, the areas I talked about hugely disagree with this government.
So do something about it. Again, red people and states talk about this all the time.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/marjorie...
https://www.newsweek.com/texas-secession-closer-anyone-think...
If the so-called Blue states don't want to be dragged back a hundred years into this growing anti-science, corrupt idiocracy, start taking the same tact. Somehow it's only incomprehensible when the better states broach it.
> but why do we never hear serious talk about "blue" states seceding, and the mere notion is consider traitorous and "undivided under god" or something civil war incantions?
Because conservatives own the media and push their agenda. Its of no use to them to portray things accurately. For instance, gun violence in red states is significantly worse than in blue, but the media pushes their narrative that simply going to Chicago is taking your life in your own hands.. you’re gonna get shot for sure, better to stay away! Which, coincidentally, means that those folks never investigate the truth of the matter and often they push the narrative!
Because conservatives own the media and push their agenda. Its of no use to them to portray things accurately. For instance, gun violence in red states is significantly worse than in blue, but the media pushes their narrative that simply going to Chicago is taking your life in your own hands.. you’re gonna get shot for sure, better to stay away! Which, coincidentally, means that those folks never investigate the truth of the matter and often they push the narrative!
[deleted]
neves(3)
nayuki(1)
Not surprising given the Times' background, that the CIA isn't mentioned at all as a suspect. Despite that quietly funding and boosting separatist groups is their quintessential modus operandi; that they've done this hundreds of times all over the world; and US intelligence is the most well-funded in the world; and US leadership has now without ambiguity signaled US' intention to end Canada as a sovereign nation.
They acknowledge the politician, sure; but they disregard the enormous state apparatus that politician wields, what it does and is capable of. The New York Times is pretty consistent about ignoring it.
Note US administration-aligned media has lately been spotlighting US annexation of Alberta[0], despite only 18% support in actual Alberta[1].
Note also the related intelligence admissions about Greenland[2].
[0] https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369677470112 ("Canadian lawyer leading delegation to DC to make Alberta a state")
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-join-u-s-poll-1.743431... ("...the most support for that proposal in Alberta with 18 per cent of respondents agreeing Canada should join the U.S.")
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43910874 ("U.S. Orders Intelligence Agencies to Step Up Spying on Greenland (wsj.com)")
They acknowledge the politician, sure; but they disregard the enormous state apparatus that politician wields, what it does and is capable of. The New York Times is pretty consistent about ignoring it.
Note US administration-aligned media has lately been spotlighting US annexation of Alberta[0], despite only 18% support in actual Alberta[1].
Note also the related intelligence admissions about Greenland[2].
[0] https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369677470112 ("Canadian lawyer leading delegation to DC to make Alberta a state")
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-join-u-s-poll-1.743431... ("...the most support for that proposal in Alberta with 18 per cent of respondents agreeing Canada should join the U.S.")
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43910874 ("U.S. Orders Intelligence Agencies to Step Up Spying on Greenland (wsj.com)")
"US leadership has without ambiguity signaled US' intention"
That's a pretty funny way to describe the Trolling Bloviator.
That's a pretty funny way to describe the Trolling Bloviator.
Credible news organizations require some amount of evidence before publishing.
This is one of those cases where I would hope that extremely strong federalism is exercised from Ottawa: essentially, Alberta could be dissolved, stripped of its provincial status and relegated to a territory. From that point, allow for further subdivision to the various First Nations people, allowing reformation into other territories or offer provincial status. The rest of it could be federally administered - see how they like that.
As much as it pains me to say it, Canada's diversity is also it's weakness, and there needs to be precedent - perhaps not as severe as in the US - that you do NOT leave the dominion.
As much as it pains me to say it, Canada's diversity is also it's weakness, and there needs to be precedent - perhaps not as severe as in the US - that you do NOT leave the dominion.
Putting aside that this isn't that popular a position in reality, why do you think such actions from the federal government would go over well with not only Albertans, but the rest of us in the rest of the country?