Against an Independent Alberta

Despite the rosy predictions for an independent Alberta, the outlook of such a radical change is actually quite dismal in my opinion.

Despite the optimism of some, the separation of Alberta, I believe, would cause a mass social upheaval and long-lasting damage to Alberta's assets.

It is hypothesized that as early as next spring a referendum could be held and it is imaginatively hypothesized that 84 percent of Albertans will vote to separate. If a referendum is held (unlikely) and even if that extremely large proportion voted to separate, that still leaves 16 percent opposed to leaving Canada. Imagined depictions of a glorious future for a separated Alberta and western Canada glibly overlook the division that would arise after separation, setting neighbour against neighbour, brother against brother, sister against sister. When the U.S. separated from the British Empire, the social tensions were intense. Lynchings were invented or at least the name for them was coined at this time, as many were hanged as a tactic of terrorism against loyalists trapped within the seceded colonies. Many fled the anti-loyalist outrages by moving to Ontario, helping found that province.

But of course the yahoos and rednecks (and their intellectual leaders who should know better in the first place), will have the maturity, the common sense and open-mindedness to accommodate pro-Canada activists within a separated Alberta. Not likely.

if some Albertans are dead set against what Canada stands for - equality, mutual respect, a long view of history, concern for the future - while they are within such a Canada, think what they would like to see if their political imagination is free to wander -- a world where electric cars and bicycles are taxed out of use, where women are either whores or mothers, where superbly-paid oil workers are taxed less than the poor, or maybe a future where the poor, the sick, the lame, the old are shipped right out of the province. It would not be difficult to get a groundswell of populist mass-thought to convince many that a struggling country with a population smaller than Denmark's cannot afford "useless" mouths like these.

And the pressures that Oil-berta would face would be large ones. Cross-border movement would be difficult to stop with a border 3000 kilometres long. Criminals on the run would see the new country as a haven or will Oil-berta send them back to Canada if requested? What if they are white males with much money? What if they are wanted for a crime that is not a crime in Oil-berta? A tax refugee trying to escape the higher tax in the Canada compared to Oil-berta? A delinquent child support payee with valuable oilfield skills? Once one side stopped sending back fugitives, then it would be tit for tat.

Would Oil-berta have the same criminal code as Canada? The same foreign policy? the same environmental regulations? If so, then Alberta would have no reason to separate. If they are different then my friend you got problems.

In one radio show I've heard, the moderator was interviewing a southern Alberta Native leader asking what he would do come separation. He said probably leave, and the moderator said "but Trump would not be wanting to accept you." Here's the thing - the loyalist Natives if they fled would go to Canada, their country, not the States. But why should they flee their ancestral homes? Perhaps they would stay and do what they could to oppose the rebellion. Or maybe they would assert their right to stay in Canada. Why should the rebels determine the boundaries of the seceding province?

Sure Calgary, once the top of the heap, now down in the dumps wants a better deal. But it should remember that it does not have the oil - it only counts the money. The oil is up north. Perhaps the north half of the province can make a sweetheart deal with Canada, bail out of Oil-berta and leave southern Alberta to its own devices.

Or what if Edmonton voted to say in Canada while southern Alberta voted to leave? What if that 16 percent is mostly in Edmonton, composing say about 30 percent of the city's voters. This voting block would be too large to simply ignore.

And that 84 percent is likely a republic-an pipe dream. If Quebec with a long history of nationalist and linguistic tendencies came up short of 50 percent in its last referendum, what is saying a large majority, or even a majority of Albertans, would vote to leave? And where does that leave us then?

And many would vote to stay -- despite Calgary's troubles, the Alberta economy is growing, Things could be worse.

And things would be worse with separation. Decades of established trade with the other provinces, Canadian government contracts, Canadian government services, international business would be lost in the unstable situation.

Would Oil-berta be a safe place to invest? The answer would likely be no, not at least in the short term. But speculators and risk capitalists with quick fire sale profits and tax avoidance on their minds, may put their money and their bully-boys in Oil-berta. But it is likely these fierce competitors, these shrewd business people would take little concern for human rights, workers rights, union rights, in their quest for short-term profit. They may fit right in with the new greedy power-crazed government of Oil-berta but would they together serve the needs of the workers, of the ordinary people? Would the Oil-berta government prosecute a venture capitalist who does a hit and run when by not doing so it means millions of dollars to the government coffers? A small country with such a narrow economic window would have difficulty doing the just thing.

International students, tourists would likely stay clear of such an unstable situation. Entertainers would weigh in, in all likelihood against the new government, with its slashing of environmental protection, worker rights, women rights, gay rights, as it turned back to what its supporters see as the golden age of Klein-ism.

Would Oil-berta put a gag on the internet?

Would it put a gag on newspapers, carrying news of the latest anti-loyalist mob violence? Would Oil-berta newspapers still get their multi-million-dollar support from the Canadian government? Not likely. Would they survive? Would they back separation?

So what could we expect in this neo-Klein future?

attacks on environmental groups

attacks on Native groups. With their traditional love of the nature, there would be little place for them in Oil-berta., not to mention their sticky allegiance to a treaty with the Queen, not to mention what is sure to be their use of treaty and land reserve rights to demand profit-sharing with any oil exploration. Is it likely the new government would take their side over the needs of an oil company? Not likely.

A take-over of the Oil-berta economy by U.S. interests. With relations with Canada on a bad keel (for if not why separate?) and almost certainly beset by constant irritations over past shared debts, past shared assets, payments owing, fishing rights, pollution, refugees, criminals, Oil-berta would turn to the U.S. for support, but the U.S would charge a pretty penny - free access to Alberta resources for example. And the former Canadians in Oil-berta would find themselves second class citizens in their own land.

But here's the "exciting" things that could be done after separation:

Alberta would not have speed limits. The toll in lives lost in accidents would be just something that would happen to someone else - for that is how young men think and if nothing else Oil-berta would be a place for young men.

Health care costs could be chopped - life in Oil-berta would be fast, and flashy and shallow and gutsy - and unthinking and unfeeling but very expensive and very wasteful. No place for "losers" - a place only for those who have lost their souls.

Academics and entertainers who backed separatism would be the golden boys - given police escorts wherever they went, their latest pronouncements emblazoned on electronic billboards on every street.

Big trucks would be encouraged. Gas would be cheap. Anything that slowed cars would be discouraged - pedestrian safety would be thrown out the window, freeways would be built everywhere. Public transit slammed, electric cars outlawed.

Oil would be the new creed. And judging by today's attitude the more of Oil-berta's oil that would be sold and the quicker, the better - irregardless of the pollution it causes in the short term and its inevitable running out in the long term. Maybe when it runs out a wiser but poorer Oil-berta could join back up with Canada. But who worries about the future? Albertans don't seem to.

And of course Alberta would lose its rat-free status. With the political and economic turmoil, it would be difficult not to envision an opportunity for rats to slip in. Or say the Canadian government made an incursion maybe 2 kilometres wide and 16 kilometres deep in from Saskatchewan and released 500 or a thousand rats at the spearhead and moved out again. It would be pretty difficult to stop the rats spreading amid all the other chaos. And once rats are in a place it is almost impossible to get rid of them.

Why should Canada do that? Maybe the question more would be more once Alberta separates, why not do it? The trust would be lost...

And in 20 years the "loss" Alberta is suffering from bottled up oilsands would be nothing to the damage done by the rats. And in the future kids would say "was there ever a time when Alberta did not have rats?"

And we would have to say "yes, but we screwed up."