 |
Posted on 07/09/2005 12:18:50 PM PDT by ConservativeStLouisGuy
|
|
A University of Alberta professor I know sent me a lengthy article he's trying to get published, entitled: "Let's get while the getting's good."
In it, Leon Craig, professor emeritus of political science, lays out a case for Alberta to declare unilateral independence. And he lays it out well.
Craig makes no bones about it.
|
Alberta, he says, should go it alone.
Almost overnight, we would become one of the most prosperous nations in the world.
But -- and this is his key point -- the main reason to secede is not because Albertans would have more money. Not that there's anything wrong with money.
More importantly, we would create a country that reflects our own political and social beliefs, values and traditions, and our understanding of the common good.
Canada, says Craig, has been so badly governed since the Trudeau era, it has doomed itself to a Third World, banana republic fate.
We will become -- are in fact becoming -- the Argentina of the 21st century.
Political corruption gets rewarded instead of punished, productivity slides, and the opportunistic politics of envy becomes the basis of our whole system of national government.
The only promising place left in Canada, he concludes, is Alberta.
And Alberta owes it to itself, to its future citizens, and to like-minded people in the rest of the country to save itself.
As a sovereign and independent nation, he suggests, our population -- viable to begin with -- would double in 10 years, even allowing for a welcome exodus of Albertans who would be happier back in Canada.
Far more good people move to take advantage of opportunity than flee from it.
Our social policies -- marriage and family matters, medicare, civil and religious freedoms, etc. -- would no longer be imposed by the Supreme Court and a handful of Ottawa mandarins.
We could establish our own laws to deal with crime and punishment, and our own separate relationship with the Americans.
If we don't do these things now, he says, we'll sink with the Canadian ship.
The professor dismisses the idea of "refederating" Canada along its original lines of strong provinces and a small central government.
He thinks the rest of the country is too far gone to change back to what it was.
He even gives short shrift to the "West."
Any attempt to create a new federalism, even in the West, he believes will fail. If other western provinces, or parts of provinces, want to join Alberta, by becoming part of it, they should be welcomed.
All that binds Albertans to Canada, he concludes, is sentiment -- an attachment to Canada's once-illustrious military and pioneer past, and to our own provincial part in it.
We must now face the fact that the old Canada is gone forever and the new Canada is disgusting.
So what are we to make of all this?
It's hard to argue against his analysis of the problem.
The Trudeau delusion that you can build a credible nation with "national social programs" is so shallow it's absurd.
And given the stern rejection of the Reform party by eastern Canadians, it's impossible to refute that the only forceful thing Albertans can do is to separate.
Where I disagree with my friend is whether we owe any allegiance to other Canadians.
What is driving more and more Albertans towards separatism is the fact that our original constitutional arrangement -- the political bargain on which Canada was built -- has long since been obliterated by the national government.
Had that not happened, Canada would not be in its present ugly mess.
Alberta is the only province with both the means and the motive to force a restoration of those original terms. Not by asking. By telling.
But we owe it to our nine federal partners -- the other provinces -- to state the terms on which we would be willing to stay. This is something we have never done.
Only if those terms are refused should we decide on independence.
CA is ok mate...they just want a bit of fine tuning...I was in San Diego a couple of months ago..loved it there..everyone was so nice and friendly to my wife and I. I know they are Dems and you hate them..but a bit of Albertan home down talk would make them see the error of their ways. ;-))
"Historically the US political parties have not agreed to admit one state at a time, but could only act if there were two new states, each with equal and opposite "red or blue" tendencies."
Nice analysis. The problem could be fixed by agreeing to allow either Wash, DC, or Puerto Rico as a state. Although I think they just elected a pro-statehood governor, I believe Puerto Rico would probably be an acceptable blue state for the libs. And, of course, Wash, DC, is as blue as they come.
Alternatively, as Texan I'd be willing for Texas to leave the Union in order to allow Alberta to enter! If I correctly recall my sixth grade Texas History class, Texas is the only state that is 'legally' allowed to secede. I think most Texans would be willing to vote for that.
I don't want to rain on your parade but your contention that Alberta feeds money to Ontario is patently false. Ontario is by far the richest province in Canada, and for many years fed money to Alberta. It has never been the other way around.
Furthermore the Alberta oil business is owned more by Ontario share holders than citizens of Alberta.
Unfortunately, if you examine the poll numbers more Albertans voted for the NDP and Liberals combined in the last election than voted for the Conservative party, of course due to our "first past the post" system the seats all went to conservatives. Thus any attempt to conduct a referendum on independance would likely fail. And due to massive movement of people from other provinces to Alberta in the search of jobs the prospects of a successful referendum are likely to get worse in the futur.
These are the aspects of Albertan independance which must be adressed. A dispassionate examination of reality is called for if you ever want to achieve your goals.
"As they would welcome other provinces, they would probably also welcome Montana, Idaho, western WA, Wyoming, even maybe Utah."
eastern WA, not western...right?
You are right..Alberta has never fed money to Ontario in the strict sense of the word. However, Ontario for years had a pretty neat set up.. whereby they bought cheap Albertan raw materials and got them sent to Ontario using a rate structure on the railways that would have done a robber baron proud. Having manufactured them they sent sent them back to us at a graspingly higher freight rate.
Also we have not forgotten your Trudeau ex communist friend who slapped his National Energy Tax on us which did not benefit Alberta one jot. I was on the Calgary railway station when his train blew through Alberta while he gave us the finger from the window.
The Albertan oil patch is slowly getting owned by the Chinese and other offshore giants. Ontarians have no say in it's development...your hypothosis that Alberta is an NDP and Liberal province would be laughable if you didn't really believe it. This is the trouble with the east..they think everyone loves them. If Alberta is a left leaning province would you like to tell us the last time an NDP or Liberal party ruled here?
The aspects that have to be addressed in this country are the simple facts that the east has ruled the place for a century and the results are there for all to see.
"CA is ok mate...they just want a bit of fine tuning...I was in San Diego a couple of months ago..loved it there..everyone was so nice and friendly to my wife and I. I know they are Dems and you hate them..but a bit of Albertan home down talk would make them see the error of their ways. ;-))"
In San Diego, more likely Republicans.
Population of California exceeds all of Canada.
Of the six counties along the southern coast, four voted Republican. San Diego, Orange, Ventura and San Luis Obispo.
In 2000 those four counties had 7 million people, in total. San Diego city is sixth largest, in US.
What is the Canadian equivalent to a "county?"
My contention is not that Alberta is a left leaning province. My contention is that less people voted for the conservative party in the last federal election than voted for the liberals and NDP combined. The fact that that a referendum wouldn't split the vote of liberals makes the reality of successful referendum an important question that must be adressed.
Furthermore I reject your assersion that I am a "Trudeau Commie". I am REAL capitalist and I make alot of money by not burying my head in the sand and clinging to false notions. I have nothing against Albertan independance, in fact it would probably be good for the rest of Canada since it would inject some reality into their plans for government spending, (because contrary to what you obviously think, the rest of Canada is blessed with practically unlimited natural resources, and is far from financial collapse). I was simply attempting to discuss the issue on a factual basis, but thanks for the personal attacks.
PS last time I was in downtown Calgary there were just as many dirty hippies and liberal yuppy scum walking around as I see in Toronto.
"If I correctly recall my sixth grade Texas History class, Texas is the only state that is 'legally' allowed to secede. I think most Texans would be willing to vote for that."
You recall correctly. As a fellow Texan, I'm with you!
It would have to be the People's Republic of Cascadia. California is a liberal pit of incompetence and socialism and we have been bankrupt for several years.
We are run entirely by the school teacher's unions.
Our leaders are named Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Waxman and Arnie.
If you join us we will tax you, regulate you, bankrupt you and run all your businesses into another state.
Not to mention it would make a great 51st state.
do they have any force?
-
Will this happen during, or after, Hillary's presidency?
That didn't sound right to me, so I looked it up. Alaska in 1958 elected Democrats to all state offices, the House and both Senate seats, mostly by substantial margins.
Meanwhile, Hawaii in 1959 elected Republicans as governor and one of their senators. Their congresscritter and other senator were Democrats.
I don't think your theory of eternal red/blue identity for these two states holds up to the facts.
" Although, just between us, that name 'Alberta' is deader than Queen Victoria and you might want to think about it.:)"
How about "Free Britainnia"?
I didn't mean to imply that no Democrat could ever get elected in AL and no Republican could ever get elected in HI. After all, we know that Reagan carried HI in '84, for example. But HI was and is a blue state, and AL was and is a red state.
But your claim was that the two were admitted together specifically because AK was Republican and HI was Democratic at the time.
In actual fact, of the top four offices (governor, two senators and one congressman), HI split evenly between the parties in the first election and AK gave all four offices to Democrats.
Which is close to being the exact opposite of what you stated.
Yet another lovely theory murdered by a brutal gang of facts.
Yeah, but we tried it once in 1861 and they wouldn't let us go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.