Alberta's Ticket Out? Poll

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Alberta's army would be awesome, every soldier would be issued a rifle, ammunition, two grendes, two days worth of rations, ground sheets, a pack of smokes and a case of beer.

Unfortunately during a U.S. invasion the Alberta Army would have driven right by the American's on its way to the Dakotas because they got an invite to a party.

You mean on it's way to a re-supply........

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Let me answer that with a question....

If Texas voted to separate from the U.S., do you think the U.S. would allow it to happen? If Wales voted to separate from Britain, do you think the U.S. would support Wales over Britain?

The west has a way of sticking togething and supporting each other. In the case of Kosovo, you have a population with a different ethnicicity and language than the mother country, and an area that underwent genocide - and even that split the world community of whether or not it was legitimate seccession. With Alberta, you have no history of genocide and a culture homogenous with the mother country. If Kosovo set a dangerous precedent, then Alberta would set an even more dangerous one - one that would have severe implications in every country.

Face it, every country has regions that think the grass is greener on the other side. So I stand by my point that the international community would not recognize it because of the implications it would have on nearly every country,

It's all moot anyway. Quebec, which probably has an even stronger case for independence, has never been able to get more than 50% support in the own province. There was even a question then if the U.S. would support that.

Alberta would have to prove that they are a different nation from Canada, did not have appropriate rights to govern themselves and were marginalized by their mother government.

Ridiculous assertion to compare Alberta to Kosovo and East Timor. Especially when you consider the extremely decentralized system of Canadian Federalism where Alberta arguably have more than their fair share of self-government compared to the rest of the world, let alone other national federal systems.

Absolutely ridiculous.

[Agamemnon]

No

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

Sounds like recent history......although I will say the '90's were a great time for me personally

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_wars

Bad example.

Yugoslavia was a federation of republics - not provinces. The republics involved all had a history of being independent nations in their own right and their politcal unity into one entity was relatively recent and looser than confederation. Think "Soviet Union", but smaller scale.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Let's get real this whole discussion is bunk and crap. There is no way Alberta should or could seperate.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Let me answer that with a question....

If Texas voted to separate from the U.S., do you think the U.S. would allow it to happen? If Wales voted to separate from Britain, do you think the U.S. would support Wales over Britain?

The west has a way of sticking togething and supporting each other. In the case of Kosovo, you have a population with a different ethnicicity and language than the mother country, and an area that underwent genocide - and even that split the world community of whether or not it was legitimate seccession. With Alberta, you have no history of genocide and a culture homogenous with the mother country. If Kosovo set a dangerous precedent, then Alberta would set an even more dangerous one - one that would have severe implications in every country.

Face it, every country has regions that think the grass is greener on the other side. So I stand by my point that the international community would not recognize it because of the implications it would have on nearly every country,

It's all moot anyway. Quebec, which probably has an even stronger case for independence, has never been able to get more than 50% support in the own province. There was even a question then if the U.S. would support that.

during the last referendum by Quebec it was revealed that Paris had already written up its recognition of a Quebec nation and were ready to announce it within hours of the final vote tally.

Precenents have already been set on the national scale due to the passing of the clarity act, it basically said that a province could leave confederation as long as there was a clear vote majority (not 50 + 1), and the question on the ballot was clear and not confusing.

So really, there is already a recognition that provinces can decide to leave if the conditions of the clarity act are met, there is a proper and decisive vote, and the new country negotiates in good faith the terms of the departure.

Our situation is quite different from the european ones. There is no threat of violence, there is really no different ethnic groups in Alberta that stand the risk due to nationhood.

I'm also sure that if Alberta was to decide to leave they would negotiate recognition from the Americans or Mexicans first, and they would have already informed and negotiated basic trade agreements with Sask or B.C.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

Let's get real this whole discussion is bunk and crap. There is no way Alberta should or could seperate.

Yeah but it is fun to talk about it.

I'd rather stay in Canada, but with some serious provincial protectionist strategies.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Bad example.

Yugoslavia was a federation of republics - not provinces. The republics involved all had a history of being independent nations in their own right and their politcal unity into one entity was relatively recent and looser than confederation. Think "Soviet Union", but smaller scale.

The post was a comment on seperation and it's results....stupidity and mob think.

BTW, I understand and know how the Federation worked...and it was different from how the USSR was set up.....but thanks anyway.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Let me answer that with a question....

If Texas voted to separate from the U.S., do you think the U.S. would allow it to happen? If Wales voted to separate from Britain, do you think the U.S. would support Wales over Britain?

The west has a way of sticking togething and supporting each other. In the case of Kosovo, you have a population with a different ethnicicity and language than the mother country, and an area that underwent genocide - and even that split the world community of whether or not it was legitimate seccession. With Alberta, you have no history of genocide and a culture homogenous with the mother country. If Kosovo set a dangerous precedent, then Alberta would set an even more dangerous one - one that would have severe implications in every country.

Face it, every country has regions that think the grass is greener on the other side. So I stand by my point that the international community would not recognize it because of the implications it would have on nearly every country,

It's all moot anyway. Quebec, which probably has an even stronger case for independence, has never been able to get more than 50% support in the own province. There was even a question then if the U.S. would support that.

Would you like me to list the nations who have been recognized as independent in the past several decades?

Answer this: Per the Clarity Act, the federal government has to negotiate with any province that gives a clear mandate to pursue independence via referendum.

What you don't seem to realize is that the first nation that will recognize an independent Alberta would be Canada itself by virtue of those negotiations.

If Canada were to agree to set a province free, what on earth makes you think the rest of the world would disregard that?

The best comparison in recent history was the partitioning of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics via their own democratic process. A dissolution which the world unanimously supported.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah but it is fun to talk about it.

I'd rather stay in Canada, but with some serious provincial protectionist strategies.

Agreed. This is definitely fun to talk about.

[transplant99]

Alberta would have to prove that they are a different nation from Canada, did not have appropriate rights to govern themselves and were marginalized by their mother government.

Honest question....do you think this would be difficult to prove?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

I don't disagree with you post, just wondering why they have such a strong case?

I think Quebec has a stronger case for the following reasons:

Distinct History - Quebec was founded and colonized by different powers than the rest of Canada.

It was also acquired through conquest (France lost to Britain and Quebec was given the Britain as tribute). It might seem unimportant to people in other areas of Canada, but it's a big deal to people in a lot of countries that were annexed through similar circumstances.

Distinct Culture and Language - I think every cutural group has a right to preserve their culture and it's something that is extremely hard to do without soverignty.

And up until the 1970s, there was a huge economic discrepency and class war between French and English in Quebec. The English held something like 80% of the wealth and the French were more poor and working class. This has been rectified to some extent, but probably still isn't even. It's a scar from colonial times when Quebec has handed over to the British as spoils of war.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah but it is fun to talk about it.

I'd rather stay in Canada, but with some serious provincial protectionist strategies.

Agreed as well.

Independence is better than the status quo, imo, but the best option is a new confederation that treats all provinces and regions fairly.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

This might come as a shock to you, but Alberta is not in the middle east, and it is not surrounded by dictatorships and religious fanatics.

In what will further shock you, Kuwait does not actually share a border with the US! I know, I was surprised too, but hey, you learn something new every day, don't you?

And you know what the kicker is? When Kuwait was invaded, the world rushed to its aid.

Are you going to compare Alberta's situation to Europe in the middle ages next?

Wow! Your knowledge of the middle east, after looking at a map is remarkable! Next you're going to be telling me that Iraq has oil too! Geepers!

Kuwait is a perfect example for every fact I provided. Someone wanted their wealth, and they had a military in place. Albeit it wasn't a strong military, but they had one and it took the United Nations (primarily America) to push them out.

Now if you bother to acknowledge context in conversations, you'll see that Kuwait has a STANDING MILITARY even after Iraqi aggression was quelled. Kuwait has the full military support of the U.S., the U.N., and likely Saudi Arabia too. And guess what, spanky? THEY STILL HAVE A MILITARY!

Your argument is being driven further into the pits.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I am hardly a fan of seperation based on Canada USED to function...but those days seem to be a long distant memory and fading quickly.

I was part of the campaign for a no vote for Quebec a mere 15? years ago. Simply because I thought that Canada would be better served by sticking together as one. truth is....there is no "one". There is 3, maybe 4...and that's it.

The country is so entirely and completely segmented and segregated now...what the hell is going to change anything? on top of that, the actions this past week of some of the elected officials responsible for pulling things together have only further alienated many.

Confereration, as it is defined, seems like a long lost cause anymore and has for the majority of my lifetime. Right or wrong, that's how it has been. Polarization between the east, West and Quebec has likely never been stronger.

So what is it we should stay together for?

That is an answer i have looked for a whole lot the last 10 years and was a MAJOR reason I left canada when I had a chance 8 years ago. Its also one of the things that has me hesitating moving back, though I have had plans to on 3 different occasions the last 2 years. (among other circumstances unforeseen at the time)

Now I feel like I have not a lot of reason to go back beyond family and that sort of thing. The country itself? Meh...what country? (A bit rhetorical sounding but the feeling exists)

it was a yes or no question

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Let me answer that with a question....

If Texas voted to separate from the U.S., do you think the U.S. would allow it to happen? If Wales voted to separate from Britain, do you think the U.S. would support Wales over Britain?

The west has a way of sticking togething and supporting each other. In the case of Kosovo, you have a population with a different ethnicicity and language than the mother country, and an area that underwent genocide - and even that split the world community of whether or not it was legitimate seccession. With Alberta, you have no history of genocide and a culture homogenous with the mother country. If Kosovo set a dangerous precedent, then Alberta would set an even more dangerous one - one that would have severe implications in every country.

Face it, every country has regions that think the grass is greener on the other side. So I stand by my point that the international community would not recognize it because of the implications it would have on nearly every country,

It's all moot anyway. Quebec, which probably has an even stronger case for independence, has never been able to get more than 50% support in the own province. There was even a question then if the U.S. would support that.

Well, let me be clear. I think we're getting too lost in could-bes and what-ifs on totally different levels.

For Alberta to even get to the point of International Recognition, one would need:

- A Catalyst to form the basic "Grass is Greener" complaining mentality, to a situation of unreconcilable differences. This could even be something with an Alberta-friendly federal government in office, for instance, another province separating first.

- A Referendum where the "Yes" vote has a Clear Majority, which probably would be more like 55-70% than just 50% + 1.

- Negotiations as per the Clarity Act to successfully figure out debtload, assets, passports, currency, type of separation (sovereignty association, outright secession, etc.), timeframe, military, any means to settle unreconciable differences (namely, a constitutional conference, money, etc.)

If Alberta/BC/Quebec/whoever actually got that far without Canada or the province(s) itself blinking and capitulating... then International recognition would come into play. This recognition would depend greatly on type of separation, amicability, etc.

It would set a collossal precedent, and the western world would be in new territory, and everyone would be looking anxiously at their potential breakaway states. This hasn't really happened before to a liberal democracy. The closest (but not the same) was Czechoslovakia... and the world accepted that unconditionally because it was an act of democracy. Europe didn't descend into chaos.

For a non-Canadian example, if Scotland seceeded from Great Britain democratically, and without any use of force, I think the world would have to recognize it, whether they like it or not. Largely because in executing negotiations and concluding them successfully, the former nation is, in itself, acknowledging the new nation's existence.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think Quebec has a stronger case for the following reasons:

Distinct History - Quebec was founded and colonized by different powers than the rest of Canada.

It was also acquired through conquest (France lost to Britain and Quebec was given the Britain as tribute). It might seem unimportant to people in other areas of Canada, but it's a big deal to people in a lot of countries that were annexed through similar circumstances.

Distinct Culture and Language - I think every cutural group has a right to preserve their culture and it's something that is extremely hard to do without soverignty.

And up until the 1970s, there was a huge economic discrepency and class war between French and English in Quebec. The English held something like 80% of the wealth and the French were more poor and working class. This has been rectified to some extent, but probably still isn't even. It's a scar from colonial times when Quebec has handed over to the British as spoils of war.

Firstly I an against seperation.

To speak to your point:

Language: have you been to Acadia, New Brunswick, Manitoba?
Distinct Culture: so is mine, and my neighbours'. What makes their culture distinct?
History: again have you been to other area's of the east?

We are a great big f_cked up "family"......

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Would you like me to list the nations who have been recognized as independent in the past several decades?

And I would be willing to bet that all had legitimate causes for independence. Would you like me to list regions that have declared independence and never received international recogntion? We could play that game all day...

Answer this: Per the Clarity Act, the federal government has to negotiate with any province that gives a clear mandate to pursue independence via referendum.

What you don't seem to realize is that the first nation that will recognize an independent Alberta would be Canada itself by virtue of those negotiations.

The Clarity Act does not replace a country's right to protect its self interests.

If Canada were to agree to set a province free, what on earth makes you think the rest of the world would disregard that?

The best comparison in recent history was the partitioning of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics via their own democratic process. A dissolution which the world unanimously supported.

Again, like the Yugoslavia and Soviet Union examples, you have a country that comprised of entities that had a history of being independent countries but amalgamated for vaious political reasons. In the example of Czechs and Slovaks, the decision wasn't even their own. Not relavent to the discussion at all.

Show me an example of a country that became independent but; a) never had a history of independence, b) shares the same culture and language of the country it belonged to, c) did not suffer tragedies such as genocides, and d) is not inaccessible due to being overseas.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

it was a yes or no question

Which I didnt answer yes or no.

Whats the problem?

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Which I didnt answer yes or no.

Whats the problem?

your fence sitting