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...)
Quebec also would have been worse off as an independent state, but threatening sovereignty gave (and continues to give) them important bargaining leverage. Additionally, Alberta has long-standing grievances, and ignoring those in favor of a strictly economic analysis is quite... limiting. Albertan sovereignty advocates might also argue that Canada has more to lose in Alberta than it ever did in the case of Quebec.
Quebec would be worse off independent of Canada absolutely, but having access to the ocean not landlocked and remarkably more viable as an independent state.
There are other landlocked countries throughout the world so it's not like it's impossible, but Alberta would be creating an uphill to climb.
Bottom line is that none of Alberta's longstanding limited market oil pipeline grievances are solved by becoming a landlocked independent state.
There are 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.
So you believe threatening to separate is a strategy and that they get more by making threats.
Alberta has oil majority of it foreign owed and wants free pipelines paid by the rest of Canada as subsidy and they got one for free and they believe they get more for free...
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.
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.
Your trade deals are a flash in history. Native Aboriginal Canadians do not owe anything to oil traders south of the border. You can't force them join your ghettos.
What is the nonsense part? What advantages does Alberta gain from separation vis a vis pipelines? They’re never going to get more oil to the pacific in either case. Separating weakens their hand in negotiating gas pipelines to the pacific. No one currently cares if Alberta builds more pipelines to the USA. There is no hindrance here. So what does Alberta gain?
Not to mention all the other things Alberta loses. BC the popular vacation and retirement spot, and like Spain to the British would be closed off to Albertans with their holiday homes now under foreign buyer and speculation taxation.
Trace this separatism bullshit back, and you'll find the fingers of the American right fully entwined in all this.
What all the separatists fail to be aware of is that 98% of Alberta is treaty land. It can't secede as a land-locked province, it could only secede as a bunch of fragmented municipalities surrounded by First Nations.
The only actual way towards it would be invasion and annexation by the United States. I hope that anyone looking forward to that timeline is also looking forward to IEDs.
The issue is not selling more oil but where the profit goes. I work for the Alberta Government, I know a person who works for the Ministry of Energy and Minerals who processes land use rights applications for oil and gas activities. Most of the profit obtained from selling the aforementioned rights goes to the federal government (about 85%), and only about 15% gets reinvested into the provincial department
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.
> 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?
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.
When Quebec held a referendum in 1995 on separation (not secession), the Cree nation in northern Quebec held its own referendum on what to do if Quebec separates, and voted 96% to separate from Quebec and remain in Canada. The Parti Québécois, the provincial gov't of Quebec at the time, sputtered "Quebec is not divisible!" which created a lot of awkwardness around the whole question of Quebec leaving Canada.
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.
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.
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.
As a Western Canadian, I actually think it's the media attention on this that has made it more popular. The vast majority of people in my life think this is a terrible idea. Western Canada, and Alberta, have been shafted by federal Canadian politics for a long time, but Carney seems to be saying the right things ("energy super power", "energy corridor", "streamline infrastructure").
I agree as a Canadian. It feels like there's vastly more reporting on this than there are actual people fully supporting this movement. These things may be getting more coverage because they sound so outrageous and novel, but it's an unpopular idea even among Albertans. It also lacks anything that Quebec's once-mighty secessionist force had - no unified organization pushing for it, no vision for what an independent Alberta would be like, no cultural differences with the rest of Canada, no irreconcilable grievance with the federal government (outside of them not being conservative enough).
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of tension in Alberta - but as it stands, this movement is more of a way to voice discontent, rather than a serious plan to become a sovereign state. IMO, it's not worth a dramatic full-page treatment that paints this as a likely possibility - but foreign reporting on Canadian issues has often been very questionable.
>t feels like there's vastly more reporting on this than there are actual people fully supporting this movement.
Which is everything to say about today's media. They are, wrong, made up and late. They are only here for the clicks and view. Not for informing anyone.
I noticed you called yourself Western Canadian, not Albertan. I agree with your sentiments, but I'm curious. The article quotes "I don’t like the way the Liberals treat Western Canada", but BC is Liberal, is it not?
I spent the majority of my life in BC, but I've been away for the last 15 years.
BC, Quebec and the federal government have prevented further oil industry development while enjoying Alberta tax revenue from said oil industry. That's the basic gripe. And as far as I can tell, it's true.
The whole country is pro-oil now because we've realized we need to be stronger. This election cycle was drastically different compared to the last one which was completely about "climate change". Which was ridiculous imo.
Seperatism is bad, but being pro-Alberta is good. Being pro-Canadian oil and infrastructure development is good.
Before going to secede, Alberta should do what Quebec has done and "practise" being a country: collect its own taxes, run its own police, run its own retirement system, control provincial immigration, ... This will give them a better idea what will be required to go it alone, and test whether their low-tax haven will survive leaving Canada.
The UCP (who seem to have no official opinion on separation) have already begun some of this, with an Alberta pension plan and a new Alberta police force.
(Edit: to be clear, these are just proposals the government is exploring at this point.)
> test whether their low-tax haven will survive leaving Canada.
The math already makes sense from a tax perspective. Alberta is a net contributor to the rest of the country, mainly due to resource royalties.
But to me, the question is whether that would still hold when it has to work out trade deals with two neighbouring countries, while small (pop. 5 million), and landlocked.
> 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.
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.
They can't be an independent country, because their position is indefensible. Over 3/4ths of their borders would be with Canada— that's enough influence and threat to thwart any separatism. Who do you trade with? How do you keep Canadian troops away?
The only way this could happen is if the only other country Alberta borders, the United States, strongly supports the separation— strongly enough to break ties with Canada over it that is. And if it does, I suspect Alberta wouldn't be independent very long. All trade and most defense would be with and thanks to the United States. It'd be easy for the USA to annex Alberta.
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.
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?
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.
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!
Sounds like the desires of spoiled brats in my opinion. Alberta enjoys low income taxes (10% flat until a VERY high amount), no provincial sales tax, and lots of money from oil. Life is very good in Alberta generally and yet they still want more. People say Alberta gets shafted by federal politics it's rather selfish to want to benefit even more from oil considering that is the one thing that is bringing down this world. Sounds like the real problem is that the selfish brats just want to freeload off more oil because they want the cheap life of high consumerism. Sad.
The "spoiled brats" are the eastern Canadians who take billions of dollars from Alberta while enjoying overrepresentation in the federal government and voting against the interests of the people who fund their provinces. Eastern Canadians enjoy favourable deals with the federal government and denigrate Albertans who protest the unfairness of it. For all the hate Alberta gets, they sure are eager to keep them in Canada...
As an Albertan I really have to wonder who is behind this PR push. Immediately after the election there were people coming to my door, asking about my attitude towards separatism. There's been flyers and news articles, and now there's an article in the NY Times? Considering the relative unpopularity of the movement, whoever is bankrolling this has a big reach and deep pockets.
I think this is part of the Balkanization of the West ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics ) and I'm really surprised this is not stronger in Quebec, but I guess it's more easy to orchestrate a propaganda campaign in English.
Quebec separatism isn't popular right now, but I also think the the balkanization of the West is coming. The separatist party in Quebec has pretty good support right now, not because separatism is popular, but because of the lack of options.
Next elections are in 2026 and I think that by then, something, I don't know what, but some event, some context difficult to predict, will put back Quebec separatism on the forefront. This time around, there will be many, many less people coming to the front to defend Canada, which is already pretty weak now.
So yeah, that's my wild prediction: Canada doesn't exist anymore in 2027.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
I have lived in Alberta for the last thirty years, but I see myself as a Canadian. The “us vs them” you embrace makes no sense to me because that’s not where I draw my circles. Alberta is not being robbed by Canada in the same way that me moving funds from checking to savings isn’t robbing my checking account.
Everyone can draw a circle such that they feel aggrieved. But that’s no great feat, nor is it commendable.
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.
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.
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"?
The West, and especially the US orbit, is obviously under heavy propaganda attack, but the reason it's working is that it's exploiting a deep reservoir of resentment that was already there.
> The West, and especially the US orbit, is obviously under heavy propaganda attack, but the reason it's working is that it's exploiting a deep reservoir of resentment that was already there.
And I bet liberals will focus on the former in an attempt to ignore the latter, just like they did with Trump.
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?
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.
Readit News
So the only viable outcome really is American annexation. (Additionally not advancing the Albertan grievance of only selling oil to one customer...)
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.
Alberta has oil majority of it foreign owed and wants free pipelines paid by the rest of Canada as subsidy and they got one for free and they believe they get more for free...
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.
Not to mention all the other things Alberta loses. BC the popular vacation and retirement spot, and like Spain to the British would be closed off to Albertans with their holiday homes now under foreign buyer and speculation taxation.
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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/enwwwm/map_of_the_...
(Probably with Colorado + NM as a little USC exclave now, and maybe with Saskatchewan joining Alberta as part of Trumpland.)
Deleted Comment
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.
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?
If we fixed our voting system to be more truly representative I think some of these divisions would go away.
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.
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
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.
Which is everything to say about today's media. They are, wrong, made up and late. They are only here for the clicks and view. Not for informing anyone.
Dead Comment
I spent the majority of my life in BC, but I've been away for the last 15 years.
BC, Quebec and the federal government have prevented further oil industry development while enjoying Alberta tax revenue from said oil industry. That's the basic gripe. And as far as I can tell, it's true.
The whole country is pro-oil now because we've realized we need to be stronger. This election cycle was drastically different compared to the last one which was completely about "climate change". Which was ridiculous imo.
Seperatism is bad, but being pro-Alberta is good. Being pro-Canadian oil and infrastructure development is good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_United
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.
Deleted Comment
(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.
To be clear, none of this has been enacted. The UCP love to threaten, but those initiatives have not proven to be popular with Albertans.
> But to me, the question is whether that would still hold when it has to work out trade deals with two neighbouring countries, while small (pop. 5 million), and landlocked.
And when Alberta needs to take on all the things that the federal government does for them.
The only way this could happen is if the only other country Alberta borders, the United States, strongly supports the separation— strongly enough to break ties with Canada over it that is. And if it does, I suspect Alberta wouldn't be independent very long. All trade and most defense would be with and thanks to the United States. It'd be easy for the USA to annex Alberta.
Mind you it's not a bastion of first world quality of living.
Switzerland is in a similar position, albeit surrounded by the EU, and they are part of the Schengen region.
Usually what you do is prioritize good enough relations to avoid war.
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.
I'm sure the other provinces also wish they had such high paying jobs and contributed more in taxes!
Avg individual income Alberta: 74,237
Avg individual income New Brunswick: 57,336.
I’d expect that even the least wealthy province is a net tax contributor. Equalization is only ~5% of the total budget.
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.
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.
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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?
Everyone can draw a circle such that they feel aggrieved. But that’s no great feat, nor is it commendable.
As someone with deep connection to the rural roots of this place, this seperatism stuff feels fake.
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.
If not, what makes the existing governments more legitimate than those fake "unification dreams"?
And I bet liberals will focus on the former in an attempt to ignore the latter, just like they did with Trump.
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.