[HN Gopher] Alberta separatism push roils Canada
___________________________________________________________________
Alberta separatism push roils Canada
Author : paulpauper
Score : 52 points
Date : 2025-05-23 17:22 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| jleyank wrote:
| 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.
| wagwang wrote:
| alberta is a net tax contributor unlike an annoying unnamed
| province
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| 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.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Alberta is nothing but empty space and sunshine. It is a
| prime location for Solar
|
| It will continue to be an energy juggernaut
| SoftTalker wrote:
| During the summertime maybe? It's pretty far north to
| generate much from solar in the wintertime isn't it?
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| 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
| johnwalkr wrote:
| 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...
| Marsymars wrote:
| In Calgary I rule-of-thumb 10x less solar energy in
| December than in June.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| 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.
| slashdev wrote:
| 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.
| BJones12 wrote:
| > the level of production in the winter would be very
| low, and no batteries can fix that
|
| But overbuilding can. It's already a fairly common idea.
| slashdev wrote:
| You'd need to overbuild by a ridiculous amount. I don't
| think it's currently close to viable.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| 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.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| > 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.
| landl0rd wrote:
| 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.
| bdcravens wrote:
| 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.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| 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.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| 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.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| 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.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > 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.
| slavik81 wrote:
| > 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.
| nonchalantsui wrote:
| 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.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| > 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...
| giltron wrote:
| 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...
| bee_rider wrote:
| 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.
| projektfu wrote:
| 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?
| Gothmog69 wrote:
| Yup this is what the so-called firewall is all about and
| floating an alberta CPP
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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
| earleybird wrote:
| Let's not forget the Salmon Arm salute :-)
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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.
| philipallstar wrote:
| "alt-right" is a much smaller group than you think it is.
| Fricken wrote:
| [flagged]
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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.
| Fricken wrote:
| [flagged]
| bondarchuk wrote:
| What kind of drugs?
| Maxatar wrote:
| Alberta has been particularly hit hard by the opioid
| crisis.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > 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.
| dang wrote:
| 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
| alephnerd wrote:
| Fair enough! If you can edit/remove the first part I'd
| appreciate it!
| dang wrote:
| Ok I've done that and thanks for the kind response!
|
| I'll autocollapse this subthread since it's no longer
| relevant.
| Teever wrote:
| 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.
| enlightenedfool wrote:
| We saw in USA how the highly literate people believed they
| had a functional president for 4 years and even voted for the
| moronic VP next. That literacy doesn't beat common sense when
| it comes to politics.
| dang wrote:
| 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
| dehugger wrote:
| 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.
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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.
| api wrote:
| 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.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >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.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| 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.
| oldpersonintx2 wrote:
| 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
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/cIwx6
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| 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.
| mycatisblack wrote:
| My first thought when reading the title was "divide & conquer"
| api wrote:
| 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.
| palmotea wrote:
| > 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.
| api wrote:
| 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...
| jmward01 wrote:
| 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?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| _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
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| 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.
| BJones12 wrote:
| That's like saying Bernie was unpopular because he couldn't
| win the primary. He was very popular.
| jszymborski wrote:
| No, that's like saying Bernie was unpopular because polls
| of his popularity said he was unpopular.
| nonchalantsui wrote:
| 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.
| BJones12 wrote:
| As someone who grew up in Ontario, I judge this comment to be
| 100% accurate.
| hbsbsbsndk wrote:
| 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.
| aylmao wrote:
| This certainly sounds to me more like a Texas situation.
| Independent for about a year, to then join the USA.
| Alupis wrote:
| 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.
| kergonath wrote:
| > 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.
| Alupis wrote:
| 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).
| kergonath wrote:
| > 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.
| Alupis wrote:
| > 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
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| >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.
| kergonath wrote:
| > 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...
| Alupis wrote:
| 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.
| nonchalantsui wrote:
| 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...
| pessimizer wrote:
| 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 PS.
|
| 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?
| alfor wrote:
| It would join the USA right away. That would be the end of
| Canada.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I can understand Alberta being unhappy with Canada. But
| the solution is to _join the US_? Have they _seen_ the US
| lately?
| jack_h wrote:
| 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...
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| 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.
| dismalaf wrote:
| 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...
| YZF wrote:
| 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?
| BJones12 wrote:
| > 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.
| rfrey wrote:
| 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.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| It's just wild to sit in Alberta and push to become a
| Russian-style oligarchic petrostate.
| dismalaf wrote:
| What makes you think we'd resemble Russia more than, say,
| Norway?
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| 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.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Literally one government ago we elected a leftist party.
| Separation goes back way further than Danielle Smith.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| One government, but two elections and due to a split in
| the right. And "leftist" is... generous.
| dismalaf wrote:
| 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?
| Sprocklem wrote:
| 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.
| jagger27 wrote:
| 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?
| dismalaf wrote:
| Alberta has a wealth fund... We've also paid $67 billion
| to the rest of Canada in equalization payments...
| jagger27 wrote:
| 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.
| dismalaf wrote:
| > 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.
| nonchalantsui wrote:
| 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.
| dismalaf wrote:
| 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).
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| 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.
| vdupras wrote:
| And, also famously, Hitler's playbook with Czechia.
| earlyriser wrote:
| 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.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| 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.
| jszymborski wrote:
| 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
| vdupras wrote:
| 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.
| decimalenough wrote:
| 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.
| vdupras wrote:
| 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.
| qball wrote:
| 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.
| nonce42 wrote:
| 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.
| sequoia wrote:
| > 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_h
| ighe...
| stego-tech wrote:
| 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.
| vdupras wrote:
| 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"?
| bjourne wrote:
| That weird neighbour of yours who like to meddle in others
| affairs? They've done it before...
| dustbunny wrote:
| 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.
| Teever wrote:
| 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
| BJones12 wrote:
| > 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.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| 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".
| YZF wrote:
| 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?
| Teever wrote:
| 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.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| I find it interesting that one of only 7 NDP MPs elected in
| the last election was in Alberta.
| rfrey wrote:
| How old are YOU? I think there's a certain age bracket who
| thinks the US would never invade Canada, and if you were a
| bit _older_ you might not be so certain.
| fatbird wrote:
| 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.
| palmotea wrote:
| > 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).
| returningfory2 wrote:
| > 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.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I mean if you gloss over the concept of slave states then
| sure.
| jmclnx wrote:
| 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.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| > 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.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| 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.
| a-priori wrote:
| 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.
| belval wrote:
| 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?
| a-priori wrote:
| 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).
| llm_nerd wrote:
| 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.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| > 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!
| pvg wrote:
| 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.
| marcusverus wrote:
| 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.
| pvg wrote:
| _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.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| 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
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > 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.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| 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.
| krapp wrote:
| >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.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| The people who vote are the only ones that matter, in this
| context.
| krapp wrote:
| 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.
| BJones12 wrote:
| 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...
| dang wrote:
| 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 hn@ycombinator.com 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.)
| bhewes wrote:
| 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.
| FpUser wrote:
| 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.
| qingcharles wrote:
| 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?
| antognini wrote:
| 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.
| rgblambda wrote:
| 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.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| 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...)
| nickff wrote:
| 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.
| jszymborski wrote:
| 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.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| 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.
| slashdev wrote:
| 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.
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| 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?
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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.
| unsnap_biceps wrote:
| 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
| slashdev wrote:
| That's not the reason. The oil goes by train which is
| more polluting and has the same consequences when trains
| derail.
| DFHippie wrote:
| > 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.
| slashdev wrote:
| 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.
| DFHippie wrote:
| Here's a thought experiment: if the diesel train works as
| well as the pipeline, why build the pipeline?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Here's another: if a diesel train produces no pollution,
| why not use it everywhere?
| slashdev wrote:
| It doesn't work as well, it costs more. But it's still
| better to use the train than to slow production
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| 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.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| 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.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I dont know anything about quebec but honestly this
| statement is so one-sided that it translates to "noise" and
| "rage bait" level
| jszymborski wrote:
| If Canadians are worried about Trumps threats of absorption,
| then I as a citizen of an independent Alberta would be
| petrified.
| guywithahat wrote:
| 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.
| canadiantim wrote:
| 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.
| landl0rd wrote:
| 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.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > 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?
| landl0rd wrote:
| 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.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| 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".
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| 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.
| Gothmog69 wrote:
| [flagged]
| rfrey wrote:
| This is as true as Trump's claim that the US subsidizes
| Canada $200 billion/year. It's a made-up outrage point.
| dang wrote:
| > 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
| vkou wrote:
| > 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.
| hodder wrote:
| 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.
| apercu wrote:
| No personal financial bias at all?
| neom wrote:
| 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
| perihelions wrote:
| 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)"_)
| some_random wrote:
| Credible news organizations require some amount of evidence
| before publishing.
| blast wrote:
| "US leadership has without ambiguity signaled US' intention"
|
| That's a pretty funny way to describe the Trolling Bloviator.
| cafard wrote:
| Canadians will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that at
| least Alberta made noises about secession 40 or 50 years ago.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| More recently than that. Alberta independence is a can that
| gets kicked around quite a bit
| Projectiboga wrote:
| 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...
| nayuki wrote:
| More and more, I can see how the "Jesusland" map is a stereotype
| that fits reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map ,
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Jesuslan...
| dang wrote:
| Let's please not do regional flamewar here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| dustbunny wrote:
| 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").
| diego_moita wrote:
| 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.
| tavavex wrote:
| 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.
| cryptoegorophy wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Most people who see Russian propaganda everywhere never stop
| and look back to see the connection between their ideology and
| Russian propaganda.
| dblohm7 wrote:
| 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.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| you'd figure that the mere invocation of the name would
| dissuade such a person from the idea!
| petermcneeley wrote:
| What % of the participants of the trucker protest were from
| Alberta?
| thr0waway001 wrote:
| 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.
| krooj wrote:
| 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.
| squigz wrote:
| 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?
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > 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?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-23 23:01 UTC)