This is topic Okay any albertans here? Question on your nationall loyalties. in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=046353

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
OKay the topic of albertan indpendance has risen in a conversation im having so I'ld like it if some of you speak up why you would not want to break away from Canada.
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
If the Canadian provinces were to join the US as states, would it improve the world or make it worse?
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
probly make you better if it wernet for the tens of thousands of geurillas who would oppose such an obiously unpatriot and treasonous action.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I wasn't aware anyone outside of Quebec had anything resembling a serious independence movement,

How are the Provinces arranged though? Are they in the same position that American States are in? Why do they even want to be independent?
 

---

Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
 
There is no serious independence movement in Alberta. Certainly there are small groups of people who believe Alberta would be better off as its own country, but nowhere near enough that a referendum would produce a 51% majority, let alone the kind of numbers that would be necessary to satisfy the clarity act.

As for Quebec, well I'm no expert, but I think their desire for independence has a lot more to do with Francophone pride than anything else.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Quebec came damned close in their last referendum.

Cultural differences I think are the main reason for Quebec, most of my family that's still there supports independence.
 

---

Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
I'm a second generation Albertan. I don't have an opinion on this, just thought I'd let you know.
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I believe independance in quebec is a big no no and I fully support the right of the government to send in the tanks if need be.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Why?

And do you seriously think that's a good idea?
 

---

Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
 
Ooh, can we Ontarians become independant too?

I've played the game Risk 2210. In that game, Alberta is it's own country. A premonition?
 

---

Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I believe independance in quebec is a big no no and I fully support the right of the government to send in the tanks if need be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
We have Leopard II's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
We have Leopard II's.

---

Less than 70, and Quebec is home to one of Canada's two F/A 18 Superhornet bases, has a mechanized armor brigade, and several other military units.

If it came to blows, I don't really like your chances of invading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by solo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
We have Leopard II's.

---

Less than 70, and Quebec is home to one of Canada's two F/A 18 Superhornet bases, has a mechanized armor brigade, and several other military units.

If it came to blows, I don't really like your chances of invading.

---

You seem to think that the military that is based in Quebec would support the separation. I don't think that would be the case.

Also, from what I understand, the entire Native population in Quebec pretty much opposes separation and would immediately stake land claims on much of the province if they were to vote for separation. I don't know how that would all play out but I do think they would have a pretty big fight on their hands (though it probably would not end up as a military confrontation).

I am an Albertan and I would strongly oppose independence from Canada.

---

I don't necessarily think that the military forces in Quebec would automatically support a measure of independence, but then, I don't even think it would come to that. If they really voted for more independence from the Canadian government, I really don't see Canada charging in there with tanks and occupying them.

Besides, most people in Canada who support the referendums don't want TOTAL separation from Canada. They do want to make their own laws, and think they are politically and culturally disctinct, much in the same way that American independence proponents didn't view themselves as British, but they agree with shared a shared military, shared economy to a degree. They want what many called "sovereignty-association," which is still in principle discussed today. They want to make their own laws, and they want it constitutionally recognized that they are a separate and distinct society from the rest of Canada. They agree with shared economic and military association with Canada.

Anyway, if they REALLY wanted to, your little smattering of tanks wouldn't last very long during an occupation, if Iraq is any example of how determined civilians can take out very powerful and well armored machines, and the Leopard doesn't match up to an Abrams. I still don't think it'd ever come close to being necessary to do that, but I don't think it would work if you tried. Your military is far too small to occupy what would be a new nation of seven million, even in a population where gun ownership is tiny.
 

---

Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
Alberta joining the U.S. would raise the I.Q. of both countries.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Plus a bunch of new timber and oil.

Our cars and houses would thank you.
 

---

Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
 
We can't have 51 states. 50 is such a nice, round number.

Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
55 is good too. Alberta, Ontario, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Cuba. Then we're back to a nice round number.
 

---

Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
...They want what many called "sovereignty-association," which is still in principle discussed today. They want to make their own laws, and they want it constitutionally recognized that they are a separate and distinct society from the rest of Canada. They agree with shared economic and military association with Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by solo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
We have Leopard II's.

---

Less than 70, and Quebec is home to one of Canada's two F/A 18 Superhornet bases, has a mechanized armor brigade, and several other military units.

If it came to blows, I don't really like your chances of invading.

---

You seem to think that the military that is based in Quebec would support the separation. I don't think that would be the case.

Also, from what I understand, the entire Native population in Quebec pretty much opposes separation and would immediately stake land claims on much of the province if they were to vote for separation. I don't know how that would all play out but I do think they would have a pretty big fight on their hands (though it probably would not end up as a military confrontation).

I am an Albertan and I would strongly oppose independence from Canada.

---

I don't necessarily think that the military forces in Quebec would automatically support a measure of independence, but then, I don't even think it would come to that. If they really voted for more independence from the Canadian government, I really don't see Canada charging in there with tanks and occupying them.

Besides, most people in Canada who support the referendums don't want TOTAL separation from Canada. They do want to make their own laws, and think they are politically and culturally disctinct, much in the same way that American independence proponents didn't view themselves as British, but they agree with shared a shared military, shared economy to a degree. They want what many called "sovereignty-association," which is still in principle discussed today. They want to make their own laws, and they want it constitutionally recognized that they are a separate and distinct society from the rest of Canada. They agree with shared economic and military association with Canada.

Anyway, if they REALLY wanted to, your little smattering of tanks wouldn't last very long during an occupation, if Iraq is any example of how determined civilians can take out very powerful and well armored machines, and the Leopard doesn't match up to an Abrams. I still don't think it'd ever come close to being necessary to do that, but I don't think it would work if you tried. Your military is far too small to occupy what would be a new nation of seven million, even in a population where gun ownership is tiny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
The benefits aren't one way. You really think Canada could sustain their military as is without the money that comes from Quebec?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Alberta has large oil revenues, and only three million people, that's a bit of a no brainer.

---

Well, tell that to the Albertans. The last time this came to a head, their take on it was "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark." That gem, courtesy of Ralph Klein -- then mayor of Calgary, who went on to be Premier of Alberta for just about 14 years (1992-2006) -- became a popular bumper sticker.

On the other hand, Quebec is projected to receive CDN$16.7 billion in federal transfers in 2006-07, of CDN$62 billion in total federal-provincial transfers. That's 27%, whereas Quebec comprises 23% of Canada's population. In contrast, Alberta is projected to receive CDN$5.1 billion, 8.2% of the total, while comprising 10.3% of Canada's population.

Is that fair? Arguably, yes, since Alberta is perennially rich and Quebec is perennially poor -- but I'm not talking about whether Albertan feelings of alienation are justified. As a Nova Scotian by birth and Ontarian by place of residence, I'm one of those "Eastern bastards" who Ralph Klein would have gladly allowed to freeze in the dark. I'm just pointing out that Quebec's perpetual status as a "have-not" province in the equalization formula and incessant demands for special treatment by the federal government (for example, see the recent re-opening of the "is Quebec a nation?" issue during the Liberal leadership campaign) are part of the reason why some Albertans feel alienated.

I'm also suggesting that Canada could indeed sustain our military as-is without Quebec, all other things being equal -- that is to say, the military installations and troops that are not in Quebec could be maintained. However, since I think the "departure" of Quebec would lead to the dissolution of Canada, I think the question is academic.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Pel -

The Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, not so much. The others, yes I was kidding.

twinky -

Doesn't Quebec also provide like a fourth of the Canadian GDP?

Don't worry about freezing in the dark, it's actually more expensive to send Albertan oil to the east of Canada than it is for them to just sell it to America, which means Eastern Canada imports a lot of it's oil from elsewhere. Besides, Quebec hydroelectric dams provide a massive amount of the energy in the east. You're one of the few (if not the only) Western first world nations that EXPORTS energy. Though I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that your nation is MASSIVE and full of tons of natural resources while being relatively way underpopulated.

Alberta is going to be in trouble in a century when oil is no longer king and they don't have much of an economy, around which time I'm betting they'll be singing a different tune. They'll still have lumber, and some other stuff, but they won't be anywhere near the diversity of the Ontarioan or Quebec economies, which will hum along just fine.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pelegius:
I was joking. Ha-ha.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Doesn't Quebec also provide like a fourth of the Canadian GDP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Don't worry about freezing in the dark, it's actually more expensive to send Albertan oil to the east of Canada than it is for them to just sell it to America, which means Eastern Canada imports a lot of it's oil from elsewhere. Besides, Quebec hydroelectric dams provide a massive amount of the energy in the east. You're one of the few (if not the only) Western first world nations that EXPORTS energy. Though I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that your nation is MASSIVE and full of tons of natural resources while being relatively way underpopulated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Alberta is going to be in trouble in a century when oil is no longer king and they don't have much of an economy, around which time I'm betting they'll be singing a different tune. They'll still have lumber, and some other stuff, but they won't be anywhere near the diversity of the Ontarioan or Quebec economies, which will hum along just fine.

---

Alberta's got uranium as well, and with no debt they're in a better position to handle it than any other provinces would be. Also, a good chunk of Ontario's economy is tied up in the automotive sector, and it's very difficult to predict where that will be in 100 years.

In any case, I'm not so willing to make such sweeping predictions about what life will be like in the 22nd century. Still, I agree with the thrust of your point, which is to say that Ontario and Quebec have more diverse economies than Alberta.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Thanks.

Let me put it this way:

At the current level of oil prices, it's become ecnomically feasible for renewables to compete, and that's really at the vanguard of their arrival, they haven't gotten prices down to where I really think they'll be in even twenty years, let alone a hundred. Tidal energy, wave energy, solar, etc, it's all here NOW, and more on the way. Prices for oil are only going to go up, and the further up they go, the more billions that get spent on renewables, the costs drop, energy from their production rises, etc etc.

Quebec stands to make a lot of money from it, they have a burdgeoning renewable energy industry. And I think Ontario does as well. Cars aren't going anywhere, they're changing. Renewable energy is what is going to make a hydrogen economy work, and it's going to be domestically supplied.

I think the price of oil is going to skyrocket in the next fifty years, then flatline. The hope of oil is in China (maybe not even they, they're trying to go green ahead of time), India, and the third world. If they don't get into an oil consumer economy, there's no one to really sell oil too, especially if that plasmylosis thing takes off in the US (might have the wrong word there, the process that takes pretty much EVERYTHING we have that's waste and turns it into oil and water).

I think it's a justified guess, to say that anyone heavily reliant on oil isn't going to be riding high in a hundred years. It took us a hundred years to get to where we are, it'll take another hundred to get to the next step.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I'm unconvinced by the hydrogen economy argument, and I've heard it before. My fourth year design project in engineering school was actually a fuel cell control system, and our supervising professor was an ardent "hydrogen economist." Looking at the scope of the petrochemical refining and distribution infrastructure on this continent alone, the cost of replacing that with hydrogen production and distribution on a comparable scale is absolutely staggering. If it's cost-effective, it'll happen, but oil would have to well and truly tank. I don't think oil will tank unless we come up with a cheap method for producing materials comparable to plastics in terms of variety of applications.

It's also worth noting that hydrogen is a "renewable" resource only if you produce it through electrolysis. At this point, electrolysis is still an energy loser from an efficiency standpoint. A lot of hydrogen, however, is produced by methane reformation -- that is, it comes from natural gas.

I don't currently see hydrogen as a panacea, though I recognize it may have potential as part of the energy solution depending on what happens down the line.
 

---

Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
 
twinky, what'd you think of Dion winning the Liberal leadership? It was the outcome I was vaguely hoping for (Ignatieff too long out of the country / too inexperienced, Rae too much Ontario baggage, Kennedy not speaking French), but I didn't follow all that closely.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I never really considered Dion. I'm not sure why -- possibly I just forgot to look at him because there was no media focus on him at all. From the little I did know about him, I thought the sentiment that it was time for a Liberal leader from somewhere other than Quebec might rule him out.

I liked Rae, but having lived in Ontario for most of the last seven years I still see a lot of anti-Rae sentiment, and I think that would have really hurt him. (I don't think the anti-Rae sentiment is justified, but that's beside the point.)

I wasn't quite sure what to make of Ignatieff. I think the Liberals weren't quite sure either.

I really liked Kennedy. Actually, what makes me interested in Dion is the fact that Kennedy supported him after the first couple of ballots. Kennedy's the sort of guy who could draw me toward the Liberals and away from the NDP (and maybe Greens).
 

---

Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
 
Originally posted by Soara

quote:

---

But Alberta is smack in the middle of Canada. It would be weird to have it be a different country and have Canada on three sides of it. Also, techincally they wouldn't be able to say "eh" any more, since that's totally just a Canadian thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Having lived the better part of my 20 years in Minnesota I find it offensive to think that Canada has a monopoly on "eh."

....I live in Illinois now and I still can't live down the fact that one time I said "aboot" instead of about.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
I'm unconvinced by the hydrogen economy argument, and I've heard it before. My fourth year design project in engineering school was actually a fuel cell control system, and our supervising professor was an ardent "hydrogen economist." Looking at the scope of the petrochemical refining and distribution infrastructure on this continent alone, the cost of replacing that with hydrogen production and distribution on a comparable scale is absolutely staggering. If it's cost-effective, it'll happen, but oil would have to well and truly tank. I don't think oil will tank unless we come up with a cheap method for producing materials comparable to plastics in terms of variety of applications.

It's also worth noting that hydrogen is a "renewable" resource only if you produce it through electrolysis. At this point, electrolysis is still an energy loser from an efficiency standpoint. A lot of hydrogen, however, is produced by methane reformation -- that is, it comes from natural gas.

I don't currently see hydrogen as a panacea, though I recognize it may have potential as part of the energy solution depending on what happens down the line.

---