Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal.Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
Maybe everyone is a "separatist", if the personal pay-off is right.
Regardless, she is cleverly leaving no rhetorical space to her right, for the real wingnuts to fill. That undermines their ability to co-opt the voters she depends on.
I think the issue is more nuanced than the author claims.
I think she's a realist. And a fervent Albertan who wants the best for her province. If the federal government doesn't remove their heads from their behinds, pressing for separatism may be the only card to play. After all, without oil revenue, the country would fold.
what are the specific policy objectives alberta wants that aren't possible within confederation? and which of those are an independent alberta capable of achieving?
Realist for what? Driving away investment. This whole shtick is complete nonsense and what she gets for courting a separatist contingent of Alberta that's rural and out of touch.
“Realism” is an odd word to use for a strategy that consists of threatening separation from Canada to increase one politician’s leverage.
A realist secures durable gains for her constituents. Danielle Smith toys with national rupture as a pressure tactic — at a moment when democratic cohesion actually matters — while offering no concrete, achievable policy outcomes that separation would improve. That’s not realism. It’s plainass brinkmanship.
And let’s be honest about whose interests are being protected here. It is not Albertans broadly — but rather her narrow circle of insiders who benefit from deregulation, grievance signalling, and permanent conflict with Ottawa. Smith’s record isn’t one of hard-nosed governance; it’s one of feeding conspiratorial narratives, picking fights she knows won’t resolve, and keeping herself politically indispensable by manufacturing crisis.
“The country would fold without oil revenue” isn’t an analysis--it’s just chest-thumping meant to excuse her reckless behaviour. Canada’s economy is diversified. Alberta’s is not. Threatening separation doesn’t strengthen Alberta’s hand; it undermines investor confidence, weakens interprovincial trust, and inflates Smith’s personal leverage while everyone else absorbs the risk.
If this were about protecting Albertans, we’d be talking about specific policy wins achievable within Confederation. There is no published, costed, or publicly debated plan because separation was never meant to be implemented—only wielded. Committing one to paper would expose how unserious the undertaking actually is. Instead, we get theatrical defiance, vague menace, and a premier who benefits politically every time the temperature rises.
That’s not passion. That’s a self-interested power play—half-baked, high-risk, and carried out with the maple leaf held hostage.
After all, without oil revenue, the country would fold.
Manufacturing accounts for about triple the GDP of O&G extraction (approx. 10% vs approx. 3%). Alberta has the highest GDP per capita in Canada, but in absolute terms it's at 15.3% of national GDP which is substantially less than Ontario (38.5%) and Quebec (19.8%). BC is also not tremendously far behind Alberta at 13.8%.
I think there's a bit of self-mythologizing in Alberta about it being the engine of the Canadian economy. It's certainly a very important piece, as O&G is one of Canada's major exports - but, it's not solely propping up the country like many think. Albertan separation would be an economic disaster for both Canada and Alberta, but it wouldn't destroy Canada.
I live here on Alberta and feel the same way but with a specific concern. People can be convinced to vote against their own best interests pretty easily. Confusing wording on a referendum question combined with an effective misinformation campaign means that we can easily get an outcome where confused people vote for an option that is going to obliterate themselves. Not good.
Myself and my family have the means to leave if I wish but many others do not. I feel bad for those who would be trapped here in that situation.
it seems far fetched but Trump has been copying Putin tactics and Putin did something similar in Crimea in 2014 which ultimately led to the full out war in Ukraine.
I don't think there's a single example in human history of a region like Alberta separating into an independent state while bordered by a much more powerful neighbor with similar culture and openly-stated annexation goals.
And then there will be the issue of what parts of Alberta separates from Alberta, because there's no way in hell they're leaving with intact borders. In fact I'd say it's Canada's obligation to protect any part of Alberta that wants nothing to do with Smith's mad exercise.
People act like a referendum will settle the issue immediately. In reality it would be just the start of negotiations, about pretty much damn near everything.
well either provinces are sovereign or they aren't; if they are then they can up stakes in their entirety, if they aren't then they can't vote to separate anyway
That voting to separate automatically means the entire province becomes independent, whole and indivisible. I'm not aware of any sort of constitutional document that guarantees anything like that, and it would be an especially sketchy situation in Alberta vis a vis treaty lands.
if a provincial government is empowered to declare independence via referendum the the territory over which that province is sovereign would go with it, otherwise the provincial legislature is voting to create a vatican city within canada whose boundaries are the physical limits of the provincial parliament
if you have a squabble about the limits of the province's sovereignty over territory that's something to discuss during separation negotiations. this is why quebec solidaire's approach to sovereignty has always made the most sense to me; a vote first to open negotiations and write a new constitution consulting all relevant stakeholders (including first nations) then a second vote to ratify
less than a year ago, Venezuelan fisherman would have scoffed at the idea that they should fear getting double tapped by the full might of the US Navy, yet here we are
now granted we aren't Venezuela but this administration is wildly unpredictable, honestly who knows wtf they might do next
Hopefully, but many countries promised to protect Ukraine if russia invaded after ukraine gave up their nukes.... and... well... 12 years of war has shown that they won't. Us includes.
it was never intended to stop the imperial core from cannabalizing itself, but to stop rival peer powers from invading the periphery
if russia attacked canada NATO would respond, as it would be expected to if iran attacked, say, turkey, but when it turns out the call is coming from inside the house it's not so clean cut
NATO has never been tested by a NATO member invading another, and the US is the leading military power in NATO. No one can say with certainty exactly how that would go down, and NATO wasn't really conceived around the possibility of intra-NATO conflict.
What we can say is that any of the outcomes are really bad (non-nuclear intra-NATO war, pan-NATO nuclear holocaust, NATO dissolution and the annexation of Canada, NATO-backed Canadian insurgency that eventually sees an incredibly bloody independence, or a decade of US-backed skirmishes across the Alberta People's Republic)
NATO is an extension of American foreign policy. They likely wouldn't participate, but they also wouldn't do anything to stop it. Without the US there is no NATO.
I don't think Article 5 applies for warfare between Nato members. It's only for attacks from outside. And of course in a realpolitik sense, we're on our own.
What a nation is obligated to do on paper and what they will actually do when push comes to shove our two very different things. Do you really see any western nation engaging in open military conflict with the United States? At best they will make a bunch of noises that will be ignored, and as much as I hate to say it, I think America would be proven right in calling their Bluff by doing so
As much as we might enjoy pointing and laughing as they realise how much they fucked up by leaving Canada, doing that would harm Canada as well. Alberta is annoying, but they're still part of Canada, and we're still better off with them, and they're better off in Confederation.
They won't accept the loss. They'll complain about it, try and mollify themselves with platitudes about how Edmonton and Calgary aren't real Albertans, and then try again using borderline illegal legislation to get another referendum more in their favour.
any Albertan who wants to leave is free to leave right this moment. but for some reason they overwhelmingly just keep making idiotic noises while staying on native land.
The refs setting up the vote clearly have one outcome in mind and it's concerning they are setting all the rules for the contest with liberal use of the notwithstanding clause.
And they aren't going to move on from a failed vote. Did Quebec?
The first referendum failed by a much larger margin then the very close 1995 result but the sovereignty cause was inarguably stronger from 1981-1995 then it was from 1996-2010.
Between the first and the second we had the patriation, meech, and charelottetown, all seen as betrayals. I doubt we’ll change the constitutional status quo much in the future.
In any case, if the support for independence is tiny, then yes a referendum will put it to bed. If not it will not.
What I am assuming is that if we’ve been told the truth about Albertans wanting to stay in Canada by an overwhelming majority which I myself think is probably the case, then there isn’t any place to wedge a defeat of the remain camp.
The rights of the majority matter too, at least as much. Montreal is Canada's second largest port and Quebec controls the St. Lawrence. Quebec doesn't have the right to hurt the rest of Canada like that.
No, I think she is just allowing the people to have a voice. If it means they get a vote, so be it. Quebec got recognition by Stephen Harper in parliament as being a nation within Canada. If Alberta could gain something from this, some concessions like their own pension plan or better transfer payments like Quebec enjoys then why not?
The formula is applied equally across the nation, it isn't province specific. So any change to benefit Alberta would also benefit other provinces to larger degrees.
If Alberta wants to get more out than it puts in, there's a pretty clear path: stop all oil and gas extraction.
It’s not that simple. She aligns in many ways with the Rath’s of the world, but in reality she’s closer to a federalist who is not a big fan of ottawa. Not as federalist as kenney though. She cannot openly support the anti separatist or separatist sides without pissing off the mushy middle or the less hardcore separatists or anti separatists. So you got this weird balancing act where one minute she is appealing to the separatists and the next minute the mushy middle
No she is the Premier of a Canadian province so she is constrained not to be as openly secessionist as she clearly is. Every move her government has made has been to make sure a separation referendum happens as soon as is practicable under conditions ideal for the separatists. This isn't subtle they keep changing their own legislation to make it easy or push back on judicial constraints.
Scott Moe I think is being led by his crowd, but still probably thinks of himself like you think Smith does, but those two had very different reactions when the Premiers all got together and signed a bald statement of unity in response to Trump's annexation talk. Smith was the only one who refused while planning a fan trip to the inauguration.
Let's not forget about the land in Alberta. If Albertans want to separate, they'll realize that "Alberta" doesn't exist without the Treaty lands with Indigenous people.
I think Danielle Smith is a separatist the way Justin Trudeau was a feminist. It's good for her public image, and she makes a lot of the right noises in the direction, but when push comes to shove she's going to do what's right for her political career.
Smith isn't a separatist, she is just giving that flank of the UCP that won't be satisfied with any level of resistance against Ottawa something to distract them from coming after her.
She is willing to lose an election, she is not willing to be fragged by her own party.
She is as mercenary as any other politician but she also made the calculus (years ago) that this was where her mob was headed and she is angling to stay on top of it. She still regularly has to talk to audiences that are not pro-secession, but she's also quietly doing everything she can to ensure a referendum takes place soon under conditions ideal for the separatists.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
Maybe everyone is a "separatist", if the personal pay-off is right.
Regardless, she is cleverly leaving no rhetorical space to her right, for the real wingnuts to fill. That undermines their ability to co-opt the voters she depends on.
I think the issue is more nuanced than the author claims.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
I think she's a realist. And a fervent Albertan who wants the best for her province. If the federal government doesn't remove their heads from their behinds, pressing for separatism may be the only card to play. After all, without oil revenue, the country would fold.
what are the specific policy objectives alberta wants that aren't possible within confederation? and which of those are an independent alberta capable of achieving?
I really don't see Canada folding because of a loss of 3% of GDP. Sure, that would hurt, but it wouldn't cause an economic collapse.
We would fold as a country? You need to take a look at those figures a little closer.
Realist for what? Driving away investment. This whole shtick is complete nonsense and what she gets for courting a separatist contingent of Alberta that's rural and out of touch.
“Realism” is an odd word to use for a strategy that consists of threatening separation from Canada to increase one politician’s leverage.
A realist secures durable gains for her constituents. Danielle Smith toys with national rupture as a pressure tactic — at a moment when democratic cohesion actually matters — while offering no concrete, achievable policy outcomes that separation would improve. That’s not realism. It’s plainass brinkmanship.
And let’s be honest about whose interests are being protected here. It is not Albertans broadly — but rather her narrow circle of insiders who benefit from deregulation, grievance signalling, and permanent conflict with Ottawa. Smith’s record isn’t one of hard-nosed governance; it’s one of feeding conspiratorial narratives, picking fights she knows won’t resolve, and keeping herself politically indispensable by manufacturing crisis.
“The country would fold without oil revenue” isn’t an analysis--it’s just chest-thumping meant to excuse her reckless behaviour. Canada’s economy is diversified. Alberta’s is not. Threatening separation doesn’t strengthen Alberta’s hand; it undermines investor confidence, weakens interprovincial trust, and inflates Smith’s personal leverage while everyone else absorbs the risk.
If this were about protecting Albertans, we’d be talking about specific policy wins achievable within Confederation. There is no published, costed, or publicly debated plan because separation was never meant to be implemented—only wielded. Committing one to paper would expose how unserious the undertaking actually is. Instead, we get theatrical defiance, vague menace, and a premier who benefits politically every time the temperature rises.
That’s not passion. That’s a self-interested power play—half-baked, high-risk, and carried out with the maple leaf held hostage.
Alberta is not single handedly funding Canada. The country existed before the current oil boom, it'll exist after it
Manufacturing accounts for about triple the GDP of O&G extraction (approx. 10% vs approx. 3%). Alberta has the highest GDP per capita in Canada, but in absolute terms it's at 15.3% of national GDP which is substantially less than Ontario (38.5%) and Quebec (19.8%). BC is also not tremendously far behind Alberta at 13.8%.
I think there's a bit of self-mythologizing in Alberta about it being the engine of the Canadian economy. It's certainly a very important piece, as O&G is one of Canada's major exports - but, it's not solely propping up the country like many think. Albertan separation would be an economic disaster for both Canada and Alberta, but it wouldn't destroy Canada.
If alberta wants to separate let them. If they don't, this isn't a story. It's pretty simple. Have the vote, watch it fail and move on.
I live here on Alberta and feel the same way but with a specific concern. People can be convinced to vote against their own best interests pretty easily. Confusing wording on a referendum question combined with an effective misinformation campaign means that we can easily get an outcome where confused people vote for an option that is going to obliterate themselves. Not good.
Myself and my family have the means to leave if I wish but many others do not. I feel bad for those who would be trapped here in that situation.
Legit concern
They could say it was rigged and American tanks could roll across the border
You don't seriously believe this do you
it seems far fetched but Trump has been copying Putin tactics and Putin did something similar in Crimea in 2014 which ultimately led to the full out war in Ukraine.
What tactics do you refer to specifically
I don't think there's a single example in human history of a region like Alberta separating into an independent state while bordered by a much more powerful neighbor with similar culture and openly-stated annexation goals.
And then there will be the issue of what parts of Alberta separates from Alberta, because there's no way in hell they're leaving with intact borders. In fact I'd say it's Canada's obligation to protect any part of Alberta that wants nothing to do with Smith's mad exercise.
People act like a referendum will settle the issue immediately. In reality it would be just the start of negotiations, about pretty much damn near everything.
well either provinces are sovereign or they aren't; if they are then they can up stakes in their entirety, if they aren't then they can't vote to separate anyway
Where does it say that?
what do you mean by 'it'?
That voting to separate automatically means the entire province becomes independent, whole and indivisible. I'm not aware of any sort of constitutional document that guarantees anything like that, and it would be an especially sketchy situation in Alberta vis a vis treaty lands.
if a provincial government is empowered to declare independence via referendum the the territory over which that province is sovereign would go with it, otherwise the provincial legislature is voting to create a vatican city within canada whose boundaries are the physical limits of the provincial parliament
if you have a squabble about the limits of the province's sovereignty over territory that's something to discuss during separation negotiations. this is why quebec solidaire's approach to sovereignty has always made the most sense to me; a vote first to open negotiations and write a new constitution consulting all relevant stakeholders (including first nations) then a second vote to ratify
less than a year ago, Venezuelan fisherman would have scoffed at the idea that they should fear getting double tapped by the full might of the US Navy, yet here we are
now granted we aren't Venezuela but this administration is wildly unpredictable, honestly who knows wtf they might do next
Wouldn't NATO have something to say about it?
Hopefully, but many countries promised to protect Ukraine if russia invaded after ukraine gave up their nukes.... and... well... 12 years of war has shown that they won't. Us includes.
unlikely NATA comes to canada's aid. they would be fighting in US' backyard and Russia would take advantage to invade the Baltic states, Poland, etc
i would think france and GB would operate at least humanitarian missions
Then respectfully what is the point of NATO haha
it was never intended to stop the imperial core from cannabalizing itself, but to stop rival peer powers from invading the periphery
if russia attacked canada NATO would respond, as it would be expected to if iran attacked, say, turkey, but when it turns out the call is coming from inside the house it's not so clean cut
Defending against Russia. That was why it was created.
I don’t think that NATO ever envisioned a situation where the American president is clearly a Russian asset.
NATO has never been tested by a NATO member invading another, and the US is the leading military power in NATO. No one can say with certainty exactly how that would go down, and NATO wasn't really conceived around the possibility of intra-NATO conflict.
What we can say is that any of the outcomes are really bad (non-nuclear intra-NATO war, pan-NATO nuclear holocaust, NATO dissolution and the annexation of Canada, NATO-backed Canadian insurgency that eventually sees an incredibly bloody independence, or a decade of US-backed skirmishes across the Alberta People's Republic)
Given how NATO has done nothing to stop the spats between Turkey and Greece, I don't expect anything to come from the Atlantic Council.
NATO is an extension of American foreign policy. They likely wouldn't participate, but they also wouldn't do anything to stop it. Without the US there is no NATO.
I don't think Article 5 applies for warfare between Nato members. It's only for attacks from outside. And of course in a realpolitik sense, we're on our own.
The United Staes is the biggest part of NATO.
I don’t think that any European countries would go to war to defend Canada from America.
Wouldn't the UK and Australia be obligated to protect Canada as we are still technically part of the Commonwealth?
What a nation is obligated to do on paper and what they will actually do when push comes to shove our two very different things. Do you really see any western nation engaging in open military conflict with the United States? At best they will make a bunch of noises that will be ignored, and as much as I hate to say it, I think America would be proven right in calling their Bluff by doing so
I don’t think that the commonwealth includes any military alliance.
I'm not entirely sure - there are clauses for "peace" though.
Vehemently opposed to separation but this is fear mongering in my opinion
As much as we might enjoy pointing and laughing as they realise how much they fucked up by leaving Canada, doing that would harm Canada as well. Alberta is annoying, but they're still part of Canada, and we're still better off with them, and they're better off in Confederation.
They won't accept the loss. They'll complain about it, try and mollify themselves with platitudes about how Edmonton and Calgary aren't real Albertans, and then try again using borderline illegal legislation to get another referendum more in their favour.
any Albertan who wants to leave is free to leave right this moment. but for some reason they overwhelmingly just keep making idiotic noises while staying on native land.
The refs setting up the vote clearly have one outcome in mind and it's concerning they are setting all the rules for the contest with liberal use of the notwithstanding clause.
And they aren't going to move on from a failed vote. Did Quebec?
We’ve been told that support for staying in Canada in Alberta will be overwhelming. If that’s the case, then yes, I expect them to move on.
If the Yes camp loses by a fraction of a percent after the No camp cheated, then I don’t expect them to move on.
"after the No camp cheated"
It’s a matter of history.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
As is the "money and the ethnic vote" remark.
Nonsense
It’s recently been admitted by Jean Chrétien’s minister of immigration, he’s been called by the HoC to explain himself right now.
That’s on top of the illegal money spent on the no camp that morphed into the illegal money of the adscam scandal.
As I said, it’s undisputed recorded history.
No it wasn’t, give me a break.
You sound like Trump with the stolen election nonsense.
So, people just admitted to it for fun?
Your idea of him admitting to it again sounds like Trump’s claim that a Georgia election official “admitted” 300,000+ votes were illegal.
It’s nonsense.
Doesn't really track with Quebec does it.
The first referendum failed by a much larger margin then the very close 1995 result but the sovereignty cause was inarguably stronger from 1981-1995 then it was from 1996-2010.
Between the first and the second we had the patriation, meech, and charelottetown, all seen as betrayals. I doubt we’ll change the constitutional status quo much in the future.
In any case, if the support for independence is tiny, then yes a referendum will put it to bed. If not it will not.
And that’s democracy.
You're assuming the Leave side want to play fair, and will accept a result they don't like.
Ask any modern Briton how likely that is.
I am not assuming that.
What I am assuming is that if we’ve been told the truth about Albertans wanting to stay in Canada by an overwhelming majority which I myself think is probably the case, then there isn’t any place to wedge a defeat of the remain camp.
The rights of the majority matter too, at least as much. Montreal is Canada's second largest port and Quebec controls the St. Lawrence. Quebec doesn't have the right to hurt the rest of Canada like that.
No, I think she is just allowing the people to have a voice. If it means they get a vote, so be it. Quebec got recognition by Stephen Harper in parliament as being a nation within Canada. If Alberta could gain something from this, some concessions like their own pension plan or better transfer payments like Quebec enjoys then why not?
Alberta is free to opt out of the CPP, no one is keeping them in except the will of its own citizens.
What payments specifically? If it's equalization, Quebec doesn't enjoy anything more than it is entitled to.
It's a formula, not some arbitrary amount. In order for Alberta to get more out of equalization, it would need to reduce its economic output.
The formula will have to be changed.
The formula is applied equally across the nation, it isn't province specific. So any change to benefit Alberta would also benefit other provinces to larger degrees.
If Alberta wants to get more out than it puts in, there's a pretty clear path: stop all oil and gas extraction.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
It’s not that simple. She aligns in many ways with the Rath’s of the world, but in reality she’s closer to a federalist who is not a big fan of ottawa. Not as federalist as kenney though. She cannot openly support the anti separatist or separatist sides without pissing off the mushy middle or the less hardcore separatists or anti separatists. So you got this weird balancing act where one minute she is appealing to the separatists and the next minute the mushy middle
Finally an earnest response w a brain.
Hence one of her political stripes is opportunistic.
No she is the Premier of a Canadian province so she is constrained not to be as openly secessionist as she clearly is. Every move her government has made has been to make sure a separation referendum happens as soon as is practicable under conditions ideal for the separatists. This isn't subtle they keep changing their own legislation to make it easy or push back on judicial constraints.
Scott Moe I think is being led by his crowd, but still probably thinks of himself like you think Smith does, but those two had very different reactions when the Premiers all got together and signed a bald statement of unity in response to Trump's annexation talk. Smith was the only one who refused while planning a fan trip to the inauguration.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
Alberta was not built by Albertans alone. People and buisiness all across this nation put in the effort to help build what we see today.
Let's not forget about the land in Alberta. If Albertans want to separate, they'll realize that "Alberta" doesn't exist without the Treaty lands with Indigenous people.
They'd get a pitchy-patchy sliver.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
I think Danielle Smith is a separatist the way Justin Trudeau was a feminist. It's good for her public image, and she makes a lot of the right noises in the direction, but when push comes to shove she's going to do what's right for her political career.
Smith isn't a separatist, she is just giving that flank of the UCP that won't be satisfied with any level of resistance against Ottawa something to distract them from coming after her.
She is willing to lose an election, she is not willing to be fragged by her own party.
She is as mercenary as any other politician but she also made the calculus (years ago) that this was where her mob was headed and she is angling to stay on top of it. She still regularly has to talk to audiences that are not pro-secession, but she's also quietly doing everything she can to ensure a referendum takes place soon under conditions ideal for the separatists.
déclencher un referedum se fait pas à la léger (comme david cameron a appris); beaucoup plus facile de gagner une vote que de naviguer la suite
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]