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.
I had been sick of hearing them complain about Trudeau for years.
They thought it was obvious things were going to swing the other way and instead the country voted to stay on the same path that Trudeau literally resigned from.
Canada is basically a one party state at this point. It would be like if the only US media was the NY Times, MSNBC and CNN. The media jumped on Trump's comments about the 51st state and swung the election with ease.
It is not just Alberta, the people I know are in Ontario but there is nothing they can do. They would for sure move to Alberta if this happened. It will all be framed like this is some crazy fringe idea though even though 19 of 20 Canadians I know would agree.
The absurd thing to me with Alberta separatism is that there is no way the US would allow this. They would be a defenseless resource rich territory for Chinese infiltration.
Canada is in huge trouble. They are basically single party, money laundering haven at this point with a Soviet style media brainwashing regime.
Ultimately, In the long run I think Canada ends up a casualty caught in the cross fire between the US and China.
Conservatives should be more upset about Erin O’Toole losing to Trudeau than about Poilievre losing to Carney - that was more indicative of a bad party leader winning over a better one.
It was a vote against Poilievre, I'm not a fan of career politicians, less of those who only seem to have slogans and no bills with their names on them (well okay he got one passed).
I was slightly hopeful he'd take his pension and fuck off, yeah I'm in the trades too.
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.
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.
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.
Many movements "wittingly" receive external support. From wikipedia[0]:
> In 2022, a report by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) identified Qatar as the most significant foreign donor to American universities. The research revealed that from 2001 to 2021, US higher education institutions received US$13 billion in funding from foreign sources, with Qatar contributing donations totaling $4.7 billion to universities in the United States.
In addition to investing in US Universities, Qatar is also host to the the Hamas political apparatus, which operates out of Doha.
Foreign propagandists don't exclusively target right wing radical movements, they are very happy to exploit leftists as well!
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_involvement_in_US_highe...
I'm Latin-American, so this doesn't sound at all nutty to me. The USA has long been doing this: from successful attempts promoting separatism in Panama and Texas, to failed attempt in Sonora and Baja California (officially a private citizen acting in his own accord, but conveniently enjoying the complacency of the US Government). It's one of the strategies big powers use, and there's more examples of this in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world.
I think it's worth considering that perhaps this isn't Russian-fueled separatism, but American-fueled. The would gain a lot USA from an independent Alberta. It'd go the way of Texas— independent for about a year and then incorporated into the United States. Moreover, Alberta statehood would create a geographical rift in Canada that would place immense pressure on British Columbia to go independent or join the United States too.
It would also make the future annexation of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon much more likely, which would not only give the USA better access to the North-West Passage [1] and a wealth of resources, but it would connect Alaska to the rest of the continental USA.
[1]: https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/future-northern-sea-route...
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.
Which is why it's important to remember that polls are a moment in time and the circumstances of that moment.
One divisive comment from Carney or his cabinet. One Trump truth. One more set of tariffs. That's all it takes for a 20% swing in polling that already shows that shows that 36% of Albertans are for leaving[1].
Also worth adding that everyone is sleeping on Saskatchewan which is crucially important to Canada, even more ignored by the Liberals than Alberta, and just as likely to leave.
Saskatchewan is also suffering China's tariffs on Canada, which Carney has not ever responded to and ignores almost as much as he ignores Saskatchewan itself[2].
[1] https://angusreid.org/referendum-alberta-saskatchewan-smith-...
[2] https://www.rbc.com/en/thought-leadership/the-trade-hub/food...
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.
For all of the doomsday talk, hand-wringing, and sky-is-falling bluster, nothing substantial/consequential seems to have materialized.
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.
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).
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.
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".
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.
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…
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.
You can begin here:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/19/how-has-bri...
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?
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...
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?
The ability to sell more oil at a higher price, and to lose less of the revenue as tax.
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.
Europe is basically begging for oil and gas to replace Russia, but Quebec is blocking any pipelines going east.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/china-canada-oil-trans-moun...
Over the last (say) 50 years, how many left-leaning governments have there been in government? It's basically been right-ish since Lougheed in 1971:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premiers_of_Alberta#Li...
Notley was in for less than four years:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premiers_of_Alberta_by...
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?
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.
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.
Equalization transfers have cost $67 billion TOTAL since 1957. Less than a billion per year. Alberta collects >$25 billion PER YEAR in royalties. Canada isn’t your enemy here. Your province is addicted to a bad deal. You could have built refineries 50 years ago. That’s not possible now. Imagine how much control of those new facilities would go to unaccountable corporations? It wouldn’t be a good deal and the capex is insane.
The federal govt has been supportive, even under Trudeau, for increasing export opportunities. And you think that will get easier, especially through BC, after secession? Why?
Alberta needed to pivot hard away from oil 20 years ago. The US wont need Alberta crude forever.
We literally have refineries in Alberta.
https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/projects/canadian-refinerie...
> Alberta needed to pivot hard away from oil 20 years ago.
Why would you pivot away from something the world needs? Just yesterday at the G7 our European allies asked why we have interprovincial barriers, and requested a pipeline going east and LNG terminal so they can reduce their dependence on Russia.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/it-surprises-us-eu...
Also our economy is more diverse than Ontario or BC. If you were here you'd see that, while oil and gas is a massive windfall, there's a lot of other stuff happening.
https://financialpost.com/globe-newswire/fraser-institute-ne...
See, the thing is, our GDP per capita is 35% higher than Canada's as a whole... We haven't squandered anything. And what do we get from the rest of Canada? Barriers to further development...
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.
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).
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.
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...
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.