As an Albertan, would you EVER support seperation from Canada?

[Resolute 14]

You collossally overestimate Canada's importance.

Personally, I think it is a given that the international community would recognize a new Albertan State. As you state, the division of Czechoslovakia was mutually agreed to. Given that Alberta (or Quebec) and Canada would ultimately negotiate and agree to terms of separation, the world community would respect that.

Hell, by simply agreeing to such terms, Canada itself would become the first nation to recognize an independent Alberta (or Quebec). This is one of the reasons why I don't buy Rouge's jilted lover argument.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In fact, Alberta was created BY Canada.

No, in fact, Alberta was bought by Canada from the Hudson Bay Company, the feds created the Alberta Act which enabled it to be recognized as a province.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

You collossally overestimate Canada's importance.

Personally, I think it is a given that the international community would recognize a new Albertan State. As you state, the division of Czechoslovakia was mutually agreed to. Given that Alberta (or Quebec) and Canada would ultimately negotiate and agree to terms of separation, the world community would respect that.

Hell, by simply agreeing to such terms, Canada itself would become the first nation to recognize an independent Alberta (or Quebec). This is one of the reasons why I don't buy Rouge's jilted lover argument.

It's not a jilted lover argument. More like a jilted lawyer. They don't have to be jilted to try and get whatever they can out of us and I think they'll be able to get a hell of a lot and after that, they'll try to get more. Why? Because that's what they do. Every country tries to get the best deals it can, and it's got nothing to do with being jilted and everything to do with more money.

I think Alberta would be at the mercy of our neighbours, and we'd have one product to sell, and they would take advantage of that terrible bargaining position. You don't. That seems to be about the gist of it.

[icarus]

Canada would have to agree to allow Alberta to secede, which would be unlikely to happen as I see it.

As for unilateral secession, see: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...scr2_0217.html.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Stupidest argument I have ever heard...and even worse example.

There was this guy name of Jacques Demers...couldn't write much more than his name, and that was only after someone showed him how.

Well he used to talk about this game called hockey a whole bunch, even taught it quite successfully for a while, even has an award or two from the highest level for his "expertise" on the subject.

He couldn't even identify the letters needed to spell hockey, let alone use them in correct order.

Seems to me he did just fine both understanding and being an expert, all without writing the word hockey.

What a ridiculous comment. Simple minds indeed.

And here comes another simple minded calpuck fool to the rescue.

Hockey and separation are two completely different subjects, comparing the two is simply out of touch. Hockey is a physical game that is played, separation is a political and diplomatic act. Demers or any other illiterate person couldn't be involved in such a task as separation, or somebody that lobbies for separation. You would need to be educated on the subject, and that involves reading and writing, unlike hockey, in which knowledge can be gained by simply watching or playing the game.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

And here comes another simple minded calpuck fool to the rescue.

Hockey and separation are two completely different subjects, comparing the two is simply out of touch. Hockey is a physical game that is played, separation is a political and diplomatic act. Demers or any other illiterate person couldn't be involved in such a task as separation, or somebody that lobbies for separation. You would need to be educated on the subject, and that involves reading and writing, unlike hockey, in which knowledge can be gained by simply watching or playing the game.

You should just leave this thread.

Transplant is hardly a "simple minded calpuck fool", although me and him don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, I can still respect his judgement and opinions.

Give it up already Zara, he misspelled a word, stop trying to discredit him over that.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You should just leave this thread.

Transplant is hardly a "simple minded calpuck fool", although me and him don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, I can still respect his judgement and opinions.

Give it up already Zath, he misspelled a word, stop trying to discredit him over that.

Again, I brought up many valid points about separation that went unnoticed, and instead of snakeeye responding to that post he continually went back to my side point about his misspelling. I wanted to move up but the guy kept bringing up the point.

Moving on..

[Zarathustra]

Sorry to respond to my own post, but here is a question for those who support separation:

Since the process of separation would most likely need to be started by means of a revolution, what makes you think a bunch of right wing conservative Albertans would start a separatist revolution, considering that most, if not all revolutions are initiated/stimulated by the far left?

[Patek23]

Who says Alberta just couldn't pull out of all ties with canada and claim soverneigty, it would certainly take a while to become official and most certainly illegal but it's not impossible.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Sorry to respond to my own post, but here is a question for those who support separation:

Since the process of separation would most likely need to be started by means of a revolution, what makes you think a bunch of right wing conservative Albertans would start a separatist revolution, considering that most, if not all revolutions are initiated/stimulated by the far left?

Revolution??

Come on, lets be serious here. No one is going to start a full fledged revolution, at this point in time at least.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Who says Alberta just couldn't pull out of all ties with canada and claim soverneigty, it would certainly take a while to become official and most certainly illegal but it's not impossible.

How do you think that is possible? Do you know how many people in Alberta are employed by the federal government? Do you think that all those people would just give in? Cutting ties would be impossible unless you built a "Berlin" wall around Alberta (which I'm sure the RCMP and military would stop from happening).

[Footscray]

First for it to become possible it needs to remotely approach 50% support in Alberta which it hasn't. There is a definite over representation of white male extreme conservatives among the hockey crowd and I don't think this debate has ever really been this spirited in mainstream Albertan society. Even Ralph Klein has dismissed this idea.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Who says Alberta just couldn't pull out of all ties with canada and claim soverneigty, it would certainly take a while to become official and most certainly illegal but it's not impossible.

I don't know who else says Alberta just couldn't pull out of all times and claim sovereignty, but I'll say it: Alberta can't just pull out of all ties with Canada and claim sovereignty.

The more I think about this subject, the more I realize how much of a hopeless pipe dream it is. It's just not going to happen people.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Revolution??

Come on, lets be serious here. No one is going to start a full fledged revolution, at this point in time at least.

Exactly, another reason why Alberta separation is not going to happen.

We've got about 20 reasons now why Alberta won't separate in the future unless something drastic occurs.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Exactly, another reason why Alberta separation is not going to happen.

Revolutions aren't the only way to separate you know.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Revolutions aren't the only way to separate you know.

Revolution is the main way a group of citizens within a country form a separate country without aid from outside nations.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Who says Alberta just couldn't pull out of all ties with canada and claim soverneigty, it would certainly take a while to become official and most certainly illegal but it's not impossible.

It's called the Clarity Act and basically it gives the Federal government unilateral decision making powers on whether or not a province has legitimate and popular cause for secession.

The popular majority for seperation as defined by the Supreme Court is a
"clear majority". Yeah... pretty vague... even for the Supreme Court. But since the decision in ...1999 (I think?) debate in the House of Commons unofficially decided that something around a 60-66% majority would constitute something sizable. So yeah... no chance Ralph gets to put on a crown and rule the Western Republic of Alberta.

Does anyone here think that the Federal government would actually just let Alberta up and leave completely unilaterally? Is anyone here that naive that they would think this would be a marginally positive thing for Alberta to do?

EDIT: I cannot spell.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Again, I brought up many valid points about separation that went unnoticed, and instead of snakeeye responding to that post he continually went back to my side point about his misspelling. I wanted to move up but the guy kept bringing up the point.

Moving on..

Perhaps if you bothered to focus on those points rather than patting yourself on the back for your delusions of mental superiority, I might have noticed them.

Feel free to repost them, and I'll try to respond.

Or, continue pretending you arent trying to use dictionary.com as a substitute for intelligence.

Your choice.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Word's like can't, won't and never are far too absolute for politics.

Anything can happen, without much difficulty at all, if enough people support the idea.

But to get that support you'd have to have meet two conditions: 1) most people thinking that the federal government makes their lives worse not better and 2) most people thinking that the situation would get a lot better if the government were all based in Edmonton

The first is a no brainer. No one has ever gotten a lot of support for the second. If someone could present the positive vision of what Alberta could be without Ottawa they'd have it and it the ground running with 30%-50% support I'd say.

I can't see it happeneing, but I'd be in (or rather, out) for sure if it did.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Word's like can't, won't and never are far too absolute for politics.

Anything can happen, without much difficulty at all, if enough people support the idea.

But to get that support you'd have to have meet two conditions: 1) most people thinking that the federal government makes their lives worse not better and 2) most people thinking that the situation would get a lot better if the government were all based in Edmonton

The first is a no brainer. No one has ever gotten a lot of support for the second. If someone could present the positive vision of what Alberta could be without Ottawa they'd have it and it the ground running with 30%-50% support I'd say.

I can't see it happeneing, but I'd be in (or rather, out) for sure if it did.

You need a third condition
3) The people who fit condition 1, must have no value in anything else Canadian, and being willing to make a decision like this based solely on a political party.
Unlike many people in this thread, that is where most Albertans (even very conservative ones) squash the idea of seperatism.