You are mistaken, but let’s say you aren’t. Alberta votes to separate as it legally can do. What do you think is going to happen to what’s under the ground? Of course Alberta will take that with them, along with all the current obligations that exist from the Federal government such as those related to aboriginal rights along with all the Federal land within its borders. That is the most likely scenario.
Believe all you want I’m wrong but the evidence is right in the article you posted.
Unlike with Quebec which was a near thing then, future secession votes will be required to be more than 50%+ 1 and assuming that is possible then it will come down to negotiating terms from currency to indigenes.
Taking lessons from other regimes that were entirely oil dependent.
Over-dependence on natural resources can lead to various economic and environmental problems, including the “resource curse,” reduced economic diversification, and unsustainable resource management practices. This dependency can result in economic volatility, lower growth, and potentially hinder the development of other sectors.
Alberta could have done what Norway did and built an immensely wealthy Heritage fund benefitting all Norwegians.
Alberta did not.
It seems the ‘Clarity Act’ doesn’t provide much clarity. It could mean 50%+1 or it could mean a supermajority or it could mean anything parliament wants it to mean. Parliament could say they won’t negotiate even if it is a clear question and a supermajority. They have lots of outs in the act. I can’t imagine that the relationship would become better if they did that.
Alberta just declares itself independent and uses a similar law that Quebec has on its books that says it has a right to self determination. But what would happen then? You’d send troops into Alberta. What’s that going to look like? There are enough troops in Canada to hold Balzac maybe, but not much more. (Balzac, population of 1. But they’re a tough sob!)
Taking lessons from other regimes that were entirely oil dependent.
Over-dependence on natural resources can lead to various economic and environmental problems, including the “resource curse,” reduced economic diversification, and unsustainable resource management practices. This dependency can result in economic volatility, lower growth, and potentially hinder the development of other sectors.
Alberta could have done what Norway did and built an immensely wealthy Heritage fund benefitting all Norwegians.
Alberta did not.
What is the purpose of this argument? I could counter than Norway didn’t have to support the rest of Northern Europe and kept all its revenue for itself. Or I could say Canada has the same opportunity with all of its resources, which are as immense as Alberta’s, to do the same as Norway and it hasn’t. All Canada has done is put itself into crippling debt through years of Liberal misrule. You had the opportunity to fix it and yet did not.
Fix it by nationalizing petrochemicals?
Yep the Libs blew it.
Quit repeating the “crippling debt” tripe…I’m a Keynsian…and the boohoo poor oppressed Alberta is getting old as well.
You were given goverance of the wealth and gave it away to the multi-nationals making you a laughing stock and leaving the rest of Canada with the clean up bill. 
Please provide a cite to the section of the Constitution which gives Parliament the power to nationalise provincial property, assigned to the provinces by s 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867:
Confirmed for the four western provinces by the Constitution Act, 1930 in the four Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, such as this paragraph for Alberta:
Confirmed as well by s. 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867, added to the Constitution as part of the Patriation package:
Where do you see the federal Parliament has the power to unilaterally alter the Constitution of Canada and take over the natural resources?
Why not nationalize the lumber industry? Or the auto industry? Why Alberta’s industry? Why are you fixating on oil as the industry that should have been nationalized?
Alberta provides money to the rest of Canada that it doesn’t get back. Or are you going to deny that? Money it earns from the Oil industry. Are you going to deny that? Then why hasn’t Canada taken those ‘royalties’ and created a fund from them like Norway? Did they use the money to pay for things like health care, etc, like your article says Alberta squandered its money on?
Don’t say Alberta did or did not do this or that when everyone else in Canada had the exact same opportunity and still does.
You want to nationalize petrochemicals?: Quebec can meet Europe’s gas needs: producers
I wonder why the Liberals won’t nationalize that?
It’s past my bedtime by a fair margin but I will leave you with this.
It’s tautologically true that the number of troops in Canada is greater than the number of troops in Alberta.
This illustrates one of the main fallacies with secession. There numbers assume the economies are connected like lego bricks, and can just be snapped apart at the clear divisions. Not so. These regional economies are linked by infrastructure, families and businesses that cross internal borders, and all sorts of things you don’t notice until Wexit happens.
Sure, it’s easy to say “okay, now Alberta supplies air traffic controllers and maintains its stretch of the highway formerly known as Trans-Canada,” but the logistics in making this happen are not so simple.
A newly independent Alberta would find itself missing rather a lot of essential aspects for a while, and find that the cost to get up to speed more than offsets any financial benefits of independence for quite a few years.
Most of the people advocating for it are pretty vague in the details.
Well, no, the overwhelmingly likely scenario is that no such vote will take place.
Nothing in that article addresses the constitutional issue.
Canada is a federal country. Sovereignty in Canada is divided between the federal government and the provinces.
A referendum vote is almost assured given the decreased numbers needed to trigger it.
Whether the referendum results in a majority is anyone’s guess. That the rest of Canada will allow separation is wildly unlikely. It wants the egg that the goose lays, even though it hates the goose, and will use any means to keep the eggs coming in. At that point Alberta will have to make a decision on unilaterally declaring its independence.
It’s not. It’s doomed.
I’d like to make a gentle observation. Your point of view is so at odds with my experience, and that of other posters, that I think you really would benefit from exposing yourself to a broader range of people and sources.
I’m not Albertan, but my great-great-great-grandmother is buried in Alberta, as are my grandparents; my aunt and some cousins live there, and I have friends and colleagues from there, as well. I first visited in 1972. I don’t think I’m completely ignorant about the issues in Alberta, or the rest of Canada’s attitudes towards Alberta.
Alberta is not All That. True, you have oil & gas wealth, agricultural wealth, and other sources of wealth. What you don’t seem to realize is that the rest of Canada is pulling its weight, too: we’re not actually as dependent on Alberta as you seem to think. Look up some stats if you don’t believe me.
We don’t actually hate Alberta. Why would we? We’re puzzled at some of the cultural disconnect, such as the weird admiration for the world’s most incompentent leader, DJ Trump, but we actually consider you a pretty fundamental part of Canada. Only you and eastern BC are really (to my mind) the West; only you and Sask & MB are really (to my mind) the Prairies.
Your post comes across as paranoid, and not reality-based. I think it might be healthy to look at WHY you believe in this extreme situation, and then really consider whether you might be wrong.
I hope I don’t come across as condescending. You seem like an intelligent person, but your beliefs aren’t tracking with the reality I’ve experienced, nor with that of anyone else here, nor with anyone else I know from Alberta.
Did you not miss the crack about being racist just in this thread?
With 24% of Albertans feeling they are respected by the rest of Canada, I would suggest that my perception is closer to reality.
Although, according to the poll below, I’d think Quebecers should be even more upset. But I guess it is nice to be number two in this case. The poll is a couple years old.
Frankly, I’m surprised at how many people feel the same as I do. RickJay says that a referendum won’t pass. I’d normally agree with that, but now, given the sentiment that Canada will only ever elect parties that actively work against our interests, I’m not so sure that it won’t pass.
You keep saying that the rest of Canada hates Alberta, and when asked for cites, you keep on producing cites that Alberta, and you in particular, hate the rest of Canada. Do you see the disconnect, here?
The article says that Alberta feels like the rest of Canada hates them (which tracks what you feel). But it does not say that the rest of Canada actually does hate them.
10% of Canadians say that Alberta is their least-favourite other province. But that says nothing about “hating”—if I like all 10 provinces, I still like my least favourite. If I hate a bunch of them, I’m not singling Alberta out.
For me, Alberta is annoying, in that its tendency toward the right wing is very much at odds with my world view. But it’s not like I think Albertans are bad people. (Though I have to say, the only person who ever seriously expressed the belief that I was in league with Satan was an Albertan, so it’s a certainty that some Albertans hate me.)
So the election is over and much of this thread seems to have turned into a debate with Uzi about Albertan secession. Could that maybe be taken to another thread and let this one become the Canadian equivalent of the “Keir Starmer tries to lead the UK”?
I was thinking the same thing.
Maybe split it into a thread about “Alberta - Canada relations” around post 852?
But I’d prefer this thread to peter out with the election news, and start a new thread going forward to discuss Carney and his government.
I’d also prefer the new thread to be titled in the same pattern as the old one about Trudeau:
“How’s Carney doing, Canada?”
A bit more neutral than “attempts to lead”, which I find patronising.