Jerry Potts

In this case, redneck is a catch-all that insinuates one is somehow culturally or morally inferior or degenerate. Redneck in this context is used to mean narrow-mindedness (on the flip-side "conservative"), lacking in intelligence ("Alberta did nothing to desrve their present prosperity") or flat-out intolerant ("bunch of redneck bible-thumpers want to ram religion down my throat.") There are no doubt many who agree with the above on this site. I think nationalism has it's place, but there has to be a national will for a nation to be born. Fabricating one doesn't make it valid. I can't argue with you here. You are correct that there are divisions among Albertans, never mind Canadians. I grew up in the south, and lived in Edmonton for a year. You never would have known we were in the same country, never mind province sometimes. Too me it is just further proof that trying to fit all our communities under one umbrella is a grievous error.

I think Tawasakm has summed up this debate quite nicely. What it has degenerated to now is nit-picking about every finite detail of the Albertan identity. The fact is it doesn't matter the lengths one goes to expound upon their affinity for their province, there is a group on this site who will attempt to deconstruct their beliefs. There are reasons for this, mostly ideological. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of those who question the existence of "Albertans" are on the left side of the political spectrum. Alberta has consistently represented the right-wing bogeyman of the Canadian political community. The beliefs that are often attributed to the people of this province BY THE LEFT (you know, "right-wing, redneck, bible-thumper") are a threat to the socialist reconstructionists of Canada, who of course are none of the forementioned. Nor do I think it's a coincidence that a great deal of these people are hyper-nationalistic Canadians whose tolerance extends only to those who parrot their own particular set of beliefs. The fact that the liberal-socialist crowd has wrapped themselves in the Canadian flag and trumpet themselves as the defenders of "Canadian values", is what has really forced a great number of Albertans to develop an affinity with their province. It's amazing how the critics of Alberta are able to define the province based on their own prejudices and pre-conceived notions, but scoff at the idea that Albertans may be able to draw a distinction between themselves and Canadians, and have nothing but scorn and derision for those who do. Rather arrogant, myopic, small-minded and hypocritical, in my opinion.

A Dinning victory might bolster the fortunes of the Alliance, depending on how acrimonious the battle is between Ted Morton and the red tories. If anyone but Morton wins, and does so in a way that is divisive, I can't see Morton sticking around. I'm really hoping this happens actually. Alberta needs a stronger opposition. As for Ralph walking away, this edition of the Western Standard has an interesting perspective. Ric Dolphin figures the "smart money" lies with an October announcemnt, one month after Alberta's centennial celbrations, and on the 25th anniversary of Ralph becoming mayor of Calgary. Sounds plausible to me.

You have presented no facts, just opinion. It would be nice if you had any facts whatsoever to back up your ramblings. Oh really? Why don't you show me where I said this? Ah, I see. There is some super secret hidden meaning to Section 92A and 109 that no one other than yourself seems to know. Perhaps you could back up your contentions with some analysis from a credible source? Why don't you show me where I said this? When? Where? I see, you just listen to the voices in your head. Why don't you show me this "rabid separatist " that you claim I am quoting. Keep digging that hole eureka.

eureka is not intersted in attacking the argument, therefore I speak to him on the only level he understands.

Eureka, You are not interested in debate. Your dismissive, condescending attitude towards myself and other posters is a reflection of your lack of intellect, and it shows in the complete lack of substance you display in defending your own "beliefs". I sincerely regret having quoted ceaser in your place. Frankly you two are peas in a pod, and as a result of my error I have given you an out. You have sidestepped the debate completely, chosing to deal in manufactured anecdotes rather than documented fact. It is too bad that you will never produce facts to substantiate your claims that I am wrong, which undoubtedly is because you don't have any. You know, just because you say things are the way they are doesn't make it's true eureka. Have you ever heard of facts? You should try using them sometime. Well congrats, you have ceased your opportunity and are off the hook. Anyways, slither off an play your violin and sob story. I assume the other posters on this site have been too polite to point out how much of a pompous hypocrite and intolerant buffoon you really are.

A bit of pot and kettle going on here don't you think eureka? You have no facts to back up your conjecture, so you resort to moralizing and personal attacks thinking you can bully and demean those who do not share your myopic point of view in to submission. All your boasting of press kits and newspaper credentials doesn't mean a thing if you can't, and seemingly after 12 pages of bloviation, won't back it up. I have read numerous well thought out and thought provoking submissions from kimmy and others only to see you dodge the question and fabricate your own notions of Albertan and Canadian history, regardless of the truth. As I expected, you are presented with the facts, and still refuse to acknowledge the truth. You are highly contemptable in my estimation because you are the type intolerant left-wing rube who is unable to engage in healthy discourse lest they discover that the little dream world they've been living in is nothing more than a delusion. As for this: Unlike yourself, I am willing to admit my mistakes, as in this case the misattributing of one quote, and I apologize for giving you the only avenue of retort you have in this whole discussion. It will be the last mistake of this kind, trust me. Frankly there are so many quotes of this "calibre" from various blowhards on this site it's hard to keep them straight. However, you resort back to fabricating the facts almost immediately by saying I used the quote in question to reference your obvious intolerance of Albertans. Must be pathological. How exactly do you explain away comments such as these ones? You seem to think you're a real card, when in fact you're a snivelling little coward who won't own up to his own intolerant comments. Typical leftie tactic, dodge the question and attack the opposition. Quite frankly, there is no discussion to be had with the likes of you, but I look forward to your next episode nonetheless.

Spare me the condescension Eureka. I've read your "argument". Frankly characterizing the discussion on this forum as an "argument" would be a misnomer. Unless this is what passes for an "argument" on this board these days: Personal opinion and unsubstantiated comment passed off as "fact" You display disturbing intolerance towards the people of Alberta. Your comments betray a definite prejudice toward them, which is funny because, for someone who seems unclear as to what defines "an Albertan", you seem to have had no problem developing a very specific hatred towards the people of this province. For example: Real Canadians, eh? That's rich. Then there's your distortion of historical events and presentation of "dangerous misinformation and misperceptions" about Albertan and Canadian history. Wow, thanks. This is why Alberta was forced in to near bankruptcy, and why Aberhart had to pursue many measures, a number of them ultra vires in order to pull the province out of debt. Then there's this gem: This is complete garbage. Where do you concoct this crap? Alberta was built by a large contongent of people who had no connection to this province whatsoever. If you knew anything about Alberta history, you might know this fact: "By 1901 there were nearly 6,000 American citizens in Alberta but, interestingly enough, nearly 11,000 of all immigrants had been born in the United States. Over the next two decades, from 1900-1915 approximately 82,000 Americans arrived in the province, and by 1916 those of American birth constituted nearly 19% of the total population. " http://www.albertasource.ca/alphabet/artic...p?article_id=17 "By 1911, 22 per cent of Alberta's population was American born, making them the largest immigrant group. By the 1920's, in the southern region, up to half the farmers were American." http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=8...x=19&y=4&size=2 "People of German and Scandinavian origin formed the largest non-British minorities in Alberta, with the Germans comprising 11% of the population of 374,000 and the Scandinavian 8 percent by 1911." p.313 H. Palmer, Strangers & Stereotypes: The Rise of Nativism,The Prairie West- Historical readings "Prior to World War I, the largest group of American settlers that came to Alberta were the Mormons or Latter-day Saints (LDS) from Utah." http://www.albertasource.ca/alphabet/artic...?article_id=429 "Alberta in the twentieth century was an immigrant society. Until the 1930's half of its population was foreign born." http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=860632&size=2 "By 1914 over half the population of Alberta could trace their roots to Britain." http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=860635&size=2 "By 1918 just over 18% of Alberta's population was British born." http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=860636&size=2 "Between 1898 and 1914, nearly 600,000 American immigrants, mostly farmers from the midwest, came to western Canada." "perhaps as many of one-third of those coming from the U.S. were actually European-born." http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=860639&size=2 Then you contradict yourself on the question of resource ownership: Well, what is it? Here, let me help you out: Section 92A, which was added in 1982, to summarise states: "The provinces can regulate non-renewable natural resources, including forestry and electrical energy, and can even regulate exports. However, the federal government can also regulate exports in this area, and federal laws are paramount." Section 109 of the Constitution Act states as follows: "109. All Lands, Mines, Minerals, and Royalties belonging to the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the Union, and all Sums then due or payable for such Lands, Mines, Minerals, or Royalties, shall belong to the several Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any Trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any Interest other than that of the Province in the same. (56) " http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e...ml#distribution Where's Alberta you say? well, I'm glad you asked: "(Endnote #56). Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan were placed in the same position as the original provinces by the Constitution Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.). " http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/endnts_e.html#(56) This in conjunction with section 92A, which states: "NON-RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES, FORESTRY RESOURCES AND ELECTRICAL ENERGY Laws respecting non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources and electrical energy 92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to a. exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province; b. development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and c. development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy." http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e...ml#distribution Seems to mean the following: "The provinces have more limited legislative authority, "direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes." Provinces also own the natural resources within their boundaries." http://www.cepra.ru/publics/eng_fiscal.htm The above synopsis was penned by Dr. J. Peter Meekison. Here are his credentials: "Dr. J. Peter Meekison is University Professor Emeritus of Political Science of the University of Alberta having retired from the university in June 1996. From July 1974, for ten years, he served with Alberta Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, seven and a half of those years as Deputy Minister. During the 1978-81 constitutional negotiations, Dr. Meekison developed and prepared the formula, tabled by Alberta, which ultimately became the amending formula in the Constitution Act, 1982. As constitutional adviser to the Alberta government, he was actively involved in the Meech Lake Accord discussions and the discussions leading to the 1992 Charlottetown Accord. Currently, Dr. Meekison serves on the boards of Canadian Policy Research Network Inc. and the Advisory Council of the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen’s University. He is an Officer of the Order of Canada and a recipient of the 125th Anniversary of Canada Medal and the Lieutenant Governor’s Medal for Excellence in Public Administration for the Province of Alberta. Dr. Meekison received his undergraduate education at the University of British Columbia and his graduate education at the University of Western Ontario and Duke University." http://www.cwf.ca/abcalcwf/doc.nsf/doc/E34...7256BCE006B58BE I'm sure they're almost as good as yours eureka, but being from Alberta I suppose disqualifies him from being a qualified source in your mind. So please dispense with spreading half truths about provincial resource ownership in the future. Nurtured eh? This is why 1000's of settlers were left to their own devices on the bald-assed prairie, parkland and bush, subject to discriminatory incremental freight-rates, predatory practices by eastern based lending institutions, and subject to higher priced on Canadian goods as lower-cost American goods had their prices inflated as a result of protective tariffs. This also was in the days before EI, Equalization and social transfers. Oh, and then there was the little fact that the prairie provinces were left with subordinate status to the other provinces as they were deprived of the benfit of their natural resources for the first 25 years. I assume giving Alberta equal status to the rest of the provinces was the "miswriting"?. Oh, we haven't forgotten what the east has done for the west. I think you've got it wrong eureka: the pioneers and consumers of the west nurtured the Canadian state, not the other way round. Oh yes, then there's the NEP: Complete garbage. You sure know how to twist the facts. The NEP was all about Canadianization of the oil industry, and it was done at the expense of the companies who were doing exploration in Alberta at the time. As you conveniently forget to mention, or likely didn't know at all, the NEP would prevented companies who did not have at least 50% Canadian ownership from engaging in production. Considering exploration in the Alberta oilpatch was driven by American companies and subsidiaries, activity in some sectors dried up over night. In addition, the new government revenue scheme that introduced an increased share of federal royalties (25% of total revenues), and measures such as implementing a blended price scheme and wellhead taxes meant companies couldn't get out of Canada fast enough, relocating south of the border where there was a shortage of rigs while leaving the workers behind. Considering the Canadian oilpatch was under-developed and unable to pick up the slack, the NEP turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. The purpose of the NEP was also not to increase exploration in Alberta, but in areas like the Beaufort Sea where the royalties would be the exclusive domain of the feds. Why do you think Petro Canada spearheaded the development offshore? The NEP failed because world oil prices plummeted, and while Alberta likely would have entered a recession, it was greatly accelerated due to what amounted to a federal revenue grab. Really. Well I am from an oil town that exploded in rage against the federal government the moment the NEP was announced. The people here needed no prompting from politicians in expressing their rage towards the feds. These people were easy converts to the WCC, WestFed, United West and were quite fond of boycotting eastern goods, burning your hero trudeau in effigy, and sporting bumper stickers that said "Pierre Elliott Trudeau Rips Off Canada" and the old favorite "Let The Eastern Bastards Freeze In The Dark." Then the coup de grace, when all else fails, the pass off unsubstantiated and unspecific anecdotes as fact: I think I've discoverd the problem: Let me guess, you will "deal with my effort at length shortly", as you do not have time for it now. However if you do, spare me the flights of fancy, dangerous misinformation and misperceptions that your apparent favourite brand of leader has been spreading. I don't have time for it.

To preface this I have been lurking on this debate for its entirety, and have refrained from commenting until now. However, I think that the author of this comment is missing the point entirely when he makes this comment about Alberta. There are many pertinent analogies that apply to Alberta in this case, and all reflect the nascent stage of nationalism the western region of North America called "Alberta" finds itself in. There is a reason there are nations in Europe today. These are collective groups of people who shared comment characteristics, be it language, culture or geography, who came together to provide mutual benefit. Their experiences as a collective created bonds which in time evolved in to nations. For many of these nations, the ties that bound were formed in struggles against a greater entity, the Hapsburg or Ottoman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, or even the British Empire in the case of the United States. While Canada is one of the oldest states in the world, it is far from mature as a nation, and is still in a formative stage compared to the nations of Europe. The oldest nations in the world, most of which are found in Europe, are constantly evolving, boundaries being redrawn, allegiances born and broken. Why do we in our arrogance and short sightedness think Canada should be any different? Canada as an autonomous entity was created in 1867, and has constantly evolved, adding provinces and territories, creating autonomous first nations jurisdictions within these groups. Remember, Canada's own independence has evolved over this time, with the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 and the subsequent wrangling over Meech Lake and Charlottetown. Quebec and Newfoundland are further along in their nationalistic debates because they are older. That's it. Both have unique cultures that distinguish themselves from the one size fits all nature of Canadian nationalism. Unfortunately in a country that occupies the scope of the Canadian nation, this kind of catch-all nationalism will never successfully integrate all peoples. In the case of Alberta, yes as a province we are only 100 years old. But as far as the initial stages of nationalism goes, we are no different than the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and a host were at this point in their history. Alberta started off as a colony in a Canadian Empire, just as the forementioned nations did as part of the British. A combination of populations evolving together, developing common characterisitics and a culture based on shared experiences, in combination with the isolation and alientation of being far removed from a central government has fomented regional pride and an identity. If you come to Alberta, you will find that there is a distinct mindset and culture, based on a shared history and experiences, and people are very proud of it. Identifying oneself as an Albertan is just an indicition of the pride one feels in this history, of one's acomplishments or of the accomplishments of the collective. To deny this exists is to be ignorant of the reality. There are those on this site who question Albertans who claim a regional identity by saying that there is nothing that distinguishes us from other Canadians. Well no one here attempts to deny the distinctiveness of the British, Americans, Australians or Kiwi's. As people we all share the same language, same culture and our societies are all derived from instititions that were passed on from the English. What distinguishes us are the regional variations, the dialects, the cultural quirks, the institutions that have been formed regionally to meet challenges that were distinctive to one's particular jurisdiction. To chalk up Alberta's divergence from the central and eastern Canada as being the result of "political greed or self interest" is only half correct. All nations and allegiances in this world exist because of self interest. It is hypocritical to maligne Albertans for acting for their own benefit when Canada owes its roots to the same philosophy. Why did the four founding colonies come together? For reasons of economics and political self interest. Canada's formation was more a business deal than the birth of a nation, as was the addition of the West. It is not greedy for Albertans to look out for their own. It's what communities do. And when communities are presented with challenges from outside entities to struggle against they find common cause and come togther to fight against them. This is what forms nations. Give Canada one hundred years, and unless the nation adopts a model more akin to the European Union or Swiss federation, the regional differences will be greater than ever, if Canada even exists at all.

As much as I think we should be, I think the west is a long way from separating... Should Harper lead this party in to the next election, contrary to some of you, I have seen no evidence of a groundswell of support outside of the traditional Alliance and Tory camps suggesting that a Harper-led CPC will perform some sort of miracle at the polls. After losing in grand style to the Liberal party in the spring election, I'm sure the CPC 'braintrust' will identify the Alliance stigma the party holds in the east as being their Achilles Heel, and will move quickly to rectify this. As a result, a new Eastern leader and moderate platform focussing on "fiscal conservatism" and not much else will come to the fore as all original Reformers, western conservatives and socons will be shut out of the decision-making mechanisms of the party. As a result, I would expect a great number of western conservatives to turn their backs on federal politics for good and focus on the provincial level. However, separation will never fly in most of our lifetimes, because while westerners talk a good game when it comes to independence, most do not have the heart or the stomach for it. Instead expect initiaives such as the Alberta Agenda to continue to come to the forefront. If McKay runs and wins, then who knows. Will his deal with Orchard prove suffiicient to destroy his credibility out East? You've gotta know the Lib's, ND's, the Orchard-Clark gang and our liberal media will try, and based on their efforts in the past, will probably succeed.

Forgive me for being cautious, but don't you think both sides are popping the corks a little prematurely here considering neither party has officially ratified this merger? It's kind of an affront to those who are on the 'No' side or as of yet undecided as to how they stand. It's like election night in the west when the result is already a foregone conclusion. Why bother voting? Or maybe this is the idea.... Hmmmmmm....

Considering the amount of rhetorical masturbation and ego-stroking that goes on on this site, I thought you folks would endorse pornography 100%. How does the "Alberta separatist party" look bad? Elaborate.

BTW Alliance Fanatic, What is the original source on this interview? Can you post a link? Thanks...

Really. You must be very insightful because somehow you managed to read this in to an interview where nothing of the above sort was mentioned? Hmmmm. You seem pretty left wing to me. I challenge you to present one shred of evidence to prove what you stated is true. Unless you can back up your codswallop with FACT, not bluster, hearsay and conjecture, perhaps you had better stick to your potato politics.

The Clarity Act allows us to separate...

I asked this poll on another forum under another name, however, I'd love to hear your opinion. My thoughts: Failure of the PC's and Alliance to combine forces leads to decimation of both parties at the polls as the Martin Liberals run roughshod over the nation. This further accelerates feelings of alienation and disenfranchisement amongst western, and particularly Albertan conservatives. A mass exodus of support from the Alliance to provincial organizations such as the ARL or the Western Independence parties of BC & Sask and the Separation Party of Alberta will follow as the federal political scene completely loses relevance amongst a large number of westerners. Eddie, call me up in Redmonton one of these days!!!

So explain why Saskatchewan with some of Canada's largest oil and gas reserves is floundering. It wouldn't have anything to do with the rampant nationalization of the provinces energy industry by the provincial government (ever heard of Saskoil?). Alberta has bent a little too far to accommodate the energy industry in recent times in my opinion, but it was due to the Manning government's positive attitute towards business, and a willingness to look south for investment in the absence of Canadian investors that Alberta is 'King Oil'. Canadian Energy Policy since that time has consisted of repeated efforts by the federal liberals to usurp Alberta's burgeoning oil wealth through statist intervention in a constitutionally allocated area of provincial jurisdiction( St. Laurent's Trans Canada Pipeline, Trudeau's National oil policy of 1973 following the oil spike of the Yom Kippur war, Trudeau's viscious National Energy Program of 1980, Kyoto of today). I agree with the last statement though, why aren't we doing better out here. If Alberta is full of rich oil men, I certainly don't know any. Klein is fallling over himself to appease big business while selling out Alberta's resource wealth, and in conjunction, the provinces potential to diversify and ensure long-term proseperity. The latter half of the Klein revolution in my estimation has been a colossal failure. By the way, I'm not a socialist. Just a disgruntled conservative.