https://unifixion.substack.com/p/political-boundaries-are-no...

~465,000 legally verified signatories to the federalist petition to declare Alberta permanently part of Canada

~360,000 status First Nations persons within Alberta

~330,000 legally unverified signatories to the separatist petition to hold a referendum to separate from Canada

First Nations have successfully argued in court that as consultations with them are required by the Canadian Constitution, no such consultations had even been suggested by separatists.

Apart from the fact that the Alberta population is ~4 million, it is difficult to see how separatists can figure they'd win a referendum to separate.

One of the "separatist" leaders is hiding from the law in Texas. He can stay there.

If there was any legitimacy in this process, the petition that got 150% of the votes in less time would have been addressed first rather than this sham, likely fake one, run by bad actors provably funded by foreign entities.

"Alberta to hold fall referendum on whether to have binding referendum on separating from Canada" https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-separation-r...

The result is that the details of how complex those problems are get ignored or their impact is represented in a diminished way.

In this case currency, debt, indigenous rights/claims and existing legislation are some examples of what is being glossed over and ignored.

The eastern part of BC would want to join AB in leaving but that topic is totaly squashed in BC public discourse and media. Privately is a different story.

It's like the eastern part of Oregon and their relationship to Portland as a good US comparable.

I wonder if the same thing might apply here.

PS. The interviewer was Tyler Cowen, and [the transcript](https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/margaret-atwood/) says:

ATWOOD: I think things will stay kind of the way they are. But think about this very carefully, as people did when it was a distinct possibility. You have Quebec there. The people to the north of Quebec are not French-speaking Quebecers. They’re indigenous people. And they said — and that’s where the hydroelectric power comes from, by the way — they said, “If you separate from Canada, we’re going to separate from you on the same grounds. Different language, older culture, etc.”

And Quebec said, “Oh, no, you’re not.” And they said, “Oh, yes, we are. And by the way, we happen to have a treaty with Canada that says that if any foreign power invades us, they have to defend us.” So if Quebec separates, north of Quebec separates from Quebec, Quebec invades them, Canada invades. You see what I mean?

51st state with the USD absorbing the excess productivity however? It comes down to the negotiations. Right now, huge Albertan budget surpluses get sent to Ottawa to be spent outside of Alberta (largely as a carrot to inhibit other independence movements), which is what motivates the Albertan independence movement. Any Albertans would hope the US to be more egalitarian.

However, the US might put them over a barrel and make similar revenue flows a condition of joining, which would be the smart play for Washington (possibly with some tariff and travel restrictions sticks if they don't). If the 47 admin is bankrolling the content farms producing this independence movement (as Orban was the Daily Wire) then the US has all upsides.

Canada fractured and easier to loot and Alberta entirely undefended from looting. Somehow, I expect that the only Canadians recognising this attack surface are a few bureaucrats too low down in Ottawa to get their voices out and that the parties will just try to fight the anti-independence tactics in the culture war moralising style of the now-departed Freeland, which is a decade out of date and powerless to sway the Albertans.

.

Generalising away from just Canada, one of the great weaknesses of liberal parties worldwide is electoralism. They cannot look at the electorate they have over their desire for the electorate they'd prefer they had. To paraphrase PG, if you don't ditch people who prefer being right to winning you'll deserve the outcome they produce for you.

TLDW: There are some Dutch guys hiring Americans to pretend to be Canadians to put out YouTube slop videos to make money via AdSense on the political-idiot-doomer niche on YouTube (and at least 1 is selling a "make quick money" guide to the scheme). Whether they're just a grifting pyramid or if there are other sources of income driving it is not made clear. Though they insist its entertainment and not paid-for political motivated content (note had they admitted that they'd be in breach of various laws and ToS')

> Smith acknowledged some of those concerns on Thursday, arguing that the federal government has tried to "move towards a more centralised American-style system" and is infringing on provincial jurisdiction.

Ah interesting. I always thought US is rather decentralized with each state with its own government and laws and such. But I guess that's when compared with individual European countries, not Canada.

Then, I wonder if they would like to still have a king https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada as a new country, or would they drop that as well? If they want to drop that, that faction could lean into the current US current protest movement and put up "No Kings" signs and hold rallies and such. It would be good enough for a chuckle at least.

Nobody thought there was any realistic chance of the UK leaving the EU either...

This is being driven by a vocal conspiracy-minded maple-MAGA base that got our current premiere her job.

A majority of Albertans are against any talk of separation.

No chance of succeeding, or st least incredibly slim, and the past success (Brexit), proves the country will slowly rip itself to pieces, weakening unity, engaging in tribalism and resentment.

Cui Bono?

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2026/05/20/investigations/a...

This is clear foriegn political interfierence. It's like mini-brexit. We have a weak, incompitent leader in Alberta who is giving in to her right-wing base so she can stay in power. It's David Cameron all over again.

This feels familiar.

I guess this makes sense, since the traitor/seditionist and freedom-fighter/revolutionary labels are entirely dependant on your affiliation with the associated country. But a lot of Americans have strong negative reactions to this idea, or the idea of Brexit, but almost certainly support their own founding fathers who were likewise traitors to the British Empire.

- Singapore (Malaysia) 1965

- Montenegro (Serbia) 2006

- Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia) 1993

- Iceland (Denmark) 1944

However, these are rare as most secession events are violent. Establishing a new country typically requires a revolution, and there is more support for that broadly in Canada for various reasons than any single province. The Alberta referendum is a polite signal and a test.

The boomer generation and it's broadly left politics is dying off, meaning that the LPC and NDP need to replenish their electoral support to stay in power. It is uncontroversial that they have been doing this using radical immigration policies and throwing money away, particularly via the abuse of definitions of "temporary," and "asylum." Political interference by both India (exporting their independence problem) and China (creating a resource vassal) is undeniable at this point. Canadians with a stake in the country are quite reasonably concerned that their society is being demolished and replaced.

Will they revolt, and could it succeed? It depends on whether they get US sponsorship or not. The more interesting question than the Alberta theater is whether Canada revolts and establishes a republic, or whether it gets annexed by the US or the EU. Alberta is just a canary for these other scenarios, imo.

Trace it back a bit, and you'll find that there's nothing to this that isn't driven by the Department of State.