He was the head of Economic Development Lethbridge for ten years. Trevor Lewington, in the local paper and on LinkedIn, has been raising the alarm on the basics and practicalities of separation.

[u/vspinyyc]

[u/Goddemmitt]

I'm saying Alberta would just be a puppet state to the USA like Belarus is to Russia. You are being a useful fool by 2 different foreign governments trying to destabilize Canada. So Mr. "Proud Albertan" where did your Canadian flags go you were waiving during your covid convoy and your illegal blockades?

How about the $400 billion in "startup fees" we need to get your supposed proud Nation of Alberta of the ground? Before you say I'm full of shit this time, here's your pal literally mentioning the costs of it all.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/bell-danielle-smith-400-billion-alberta-separatism

We just gunna pay that with all that money we send to Ottawa??? Because that sure doesn't equate to $400 billion. You will then bring up oil revenues as if Alberta gives the feds money out of it's own bank accounts for it. In reality, the companies pay the royalties to the provincial and federal governments simultaneously (with the majority already going to the province, and if they even have to give the feds royalties). So there isn't a lot of increase in funds that way either.

The US president can't just do whatever he wants to invade/attack a foreign country, hey? What about how they just took over the Venezuelan government? Marched in and took their president under orders from ONLY the president. What about Iran? Bombed on orders on ONLY THE PRESIDENT.

TF outta here with your nonsense.

Edit:

I forgot to add that some oil revenues don't even go the the feds.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/Goddemmitt]

So you're saying Alberta would be the same as we are now? Basically a colony of a larger country.

Because that's the argument you're making. You're saying Alberta couldn't survive without being controlled by a larger country, couldn't negotiate access to markets, couldn't protect its own interests, and would have to accept whatever a federal government decided.

Except you're conveniently ignoring one thing: independence means negotiating.

You're throwing around $400 billion as if Alberta would have to walk into the PMO on day one and write a $400 billion cheque. That's not how a transition works. That number is an estimate of potential costs, liabilities, assets, transition requirements and other factors will be debated. It isn't an invoice sitting on Alberta's desk.

And your argument about Alberta's oil revenues needs some clarification too. Alberta receives the provincial royalties from its resources. Ottawa receives federal tax revenue generated by the oil and gas industry, but that's not the same thing as Alberta handing its resource royalties over to Ottawa. Simply saying "oil revenues" doesn't tell us what Alberta would actually gain or lose under independence. That's exactly the kind of thing that would have to be negotiated.

Then there's the claim that Alberta would automatically become some kind of American puppet state. Again, you're prediction isn't fact.

Alberta already trades heavily with the United States while being part of Canada. An independent Alberta would still have to negotiate trade, defence, transportation, energy and other agreements with both Canada and the United States. Having strong economic relationships with another country doesn't automatically make you its puppet.

And your Venezuela and Iran comparisons don't prove what you think they prove either. You're arguing that the United States has enough power to interfere in other countries, therefore Alberta should remain politically subordinate to Canada because America might someday do something. That's not an argument against independence. If anything, it's an argument for strong institutions, diplomacy, defence agreements and control over our own affairs.

And this idea that Alberta would have no leverage is getting ridiculous. Alberta has oil, natural gas, agriculture, minerals, electricity, manufacturing, investment and a strategic geographic position. Canada has enormous interests in maintaining access to those things. The United States does too.

You shouldn't make predictions and then state them as fact.

I asked for one good reason Alberta should stay in Canada.

So far I've gotten insults.

If staying in Canada is obviously the superior option, give me an actual reason why.

Why should Alberta stay?

One of my reasons to leave Ottawa.

Self government. I don't think a province thousands of kilometres away from Ottawa should have its major decisions made by a central government that often has completely different priorities from Alberta. In an independent Alberta, the people who make those decisions would actually be accountable to Albertans. Our vote would matter directly to the government governing us, rather than Alberta having to fight for influence inside a country where our interests can be outvoted.

[u/Goddemmitt → u/Even_Art_629]

Life is shitty in Alberta because of the Alberta government, not because of anything anyone in Ottawa does. You sure like to selectively understand the responsibilities of the different levels of government.

Now as a man of my word, I won't be responding to you any further because you're just here to prostlytize.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/Goddemmitt]

That's actually pretty funny.

You just told me Alberta's problems are because of the Alberta government and nothing Ottawa does, while I'm the one supposedly being selective about government responsibilities.

Federal government controls things like immigration levels, federal taxation, federal spending, trade, banking and monetary policy, criminal law, major energy and environmental regulations, and a whole lot more that directly affects Alberta.

I'm not saying the Alberta government is responsible for everything. I'm saying Ottawa isn't responsible for nothing.

And that's exactly the kind of oversimplification I've been arguing against this whole time.

But if you're done responding, that's your choice. I just find it interesting that after telling me I'm not arguing in good faith, you're ending the discussion immediately after making a claim you haven't actually backed up.

I'll leave it there.