Western Separation

[Leader Circle]

I think the are about 11 billion reasons to separate. That would be the amount of equalization money sent to Ottawa in 2003 with little return.

Equalization money is funded from general revenues which means there is absolutely no way to calculate how much comes from Alberta. However, in terms of total dollars - Ontario pays much more into the pot than Alberta does so Ontario has more right to complain.

If the Liberals can be ousted in the next election, I would not support separation. If the Liberals make government after the next election, I will support separation as strongly as I can!!!

Would you support separation of Red Deer If Albertans elected an NDP gov't because people in Calgary and Edmonton decided they are sick of the Conservatives? If you have a problem with the first past the post system that gives absolute power to a minority then you could start by advocating change to the way Alberta elects its gov't. However, I am pretty sure that you don't have a problem with the electoral system in Alberta because it elects people who you agree with. That makes you a hypocrite if you complain about the flaws in the Canadian electoral system but ignore identical flaws in the Alberta electoral system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Alberta electoral system is heavily flawed, that is why I would support a federal Alberta system as proposed by the SPA. I do not believe in giving absolute power to a minority and don't think that Ralph has Albertans best interests in mind. That is why the SPA is a provincial party, trying to rid Alberta of such a system and make the MLA's responsible to the people.

[Riverwind]

Your comment seems to contradict itself. On one hand you can't calculate Albertas portion and on the other Ontario pays more. Please clarify.

The total tax revenue collected in Ontario is much larger than the tax revenue collected from Alberta which means Ontario's contribution to 'general revenue' is larger. That is the basis for my statement.

[Riverwind]

The Alberta electoral system is heavily flawed, that is why I would support a federal Alberta system as proposed by the SPA. I do not believe in giving absolute power to a minority and don't think that Ralph has Albertans best interests in mind. That is why the SPA is a provincial party, trying to rid Alberta of such a system and make the MLA's responsible to the people.

The SPA party could advocate change to the electoral system in Alberta and Canada without pushing seperation. Advocating seperation, like terrorism, is an morally unacceptable form of political expression since both ideologies justify social violance and chaos in the name of correcting 'injustices'.

[Leader Circle]

The Alberta electoral system is heavily flawed, that is why I would support a federal Alberta system as proposed by the SPA. I do not believe in giving absolute power to a minority and don't think that Ralph has Albertans best interests in mind. That is why the SPA is a provincial party, trying to rid Alberta of such a system and make the MLA's responsible to the people.

The SPA party could advocate change to the electoral system in Alberta and Canada without pushing seperation. Advocating seperation, like terrorism, is an morally unacceptable form of political expression since both ideologies justify social violance and chaos in the name of correcting 'injustices'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you draw the line between separatists and terrorists? Are you saying Quebec is a nation of terrorists? You need to get your facts straight! I guess you want Alberta to shut up and keep agreeing with everything Ottawa tells it to do?

And now I would like to introduce Sparhawk, Canada's newest dictator!!!

[Mad_Michael]

The title of Mad is right! I'll leave it at that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Am I correct to presume that you have no rebuttals to any of my arguments or statements?

Not surprising, separatists love to rant, rave and whinge, but rarely are capable of substantiating or justifying their position to anyone but a fellow true believer.

[Riverwind]

How do you draw the line between separatists and terrorists? Are you saying Quebec is a nation of terrorists? You need to get your facts straight!

Quebec separatists are ethically no different from terrorists because they wish to use the the threat of violence to get their way. Think about it: if it is impossible to reform the existing constitutional structures within the country then it will be be impossible to 'negotiate' any separation from the country. However, separatists know that but don't care because they think they can just declare a UDI if negotiations break down. But what is a UDI? It is a declaration of war that must be backed up with violence if it is to have any meaning what so ever. If people die while a province tries to enforce its UDI then separatists will have blood on their hands: just like terrorists. The only difference is separatists like to believe they are not advocating violance - but this is just because they are in denial.

I guess you want Alberta to shut up and keep agreeing with everything Ottawa tells it to do?

I said nothing of the sort. I simply said that there are legitimate ways to advocate change in a democratic society are there are illegitimate ways. Advocating separation and terrorism are illegitimate.

[Mad_Michael]

Equalization money is funded from general revenues which means there is absolutely no way to calculate how much comes from Alberta. However, in terms of total dollars - Ontario pays much more into the pot than Alberta does so Ontario has more right to complain.

Per capita, or total? Where are your numbers derived from?

Your comment seems to contradict itself. On one hand you can't calculate Albertas portion and on the other Ontario pays more. Please clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Makes perfect sense. You can't calculate a perfect per-capita contribution rate from each province specifically. All you can do is apportion the total by provinces and on this basis, Ontario supplies vastly more funding to this than Alberta due to the vastly higher population.

[Mad_Michael]

From the SPA website:

http://www.separationalberta.com/why.asp

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Righto... under the heading of "National issues that waste taxpayer dollars and frustrate Albertans: "

We find... "No Serious National Debt Reduction" - which is true only if you ignore the seven consecutive years of Martin's national debt reduction policy.

And of course... "Out of control National Debt" - yes, under Martin's direction, Canada will next year become the owner of the smallest per capita national debt in the Western world.

If this is the kind of crap the SPA is shoveling regarding debt, I wonder how much else there is bullshit... when I have more time, I'll be sure to have a look.

No surprises really - Quebec separatism has always been built on lies and propaganda, I can't expect Alberta to be any different.

[Black Dog]

Quebec separatists are ethically no different from terrorists because they wish to use the the threat of violence to get their way. Think about it: if it is impossible to reform the existing constitutional structures within the country then it will be be impossible to 'negotiate' any separation from the country. However, separatists know that but don't care because they think they can just declare a UDI if negotiations break down. But what is a UDI? It is a declaration of war that must be backed up with violence if it is to have any meaning what so ever. If people die while a province tries to enforce its UDI then separatists will have blood on their hands: just like terrorists. The only difference is separatists like to believe they are not advocating violance - but this is just because they are in denial.

Sorry, but that's bogus. Your theory that a UDI would be an act of war is patently silly. You're basically saying that Canadians are imprisoned within the confines of the current system and any attempt to reform or reject the system should be met with violence. This is completely contrary to the basic principle of self-determination upon which democracy rests.

I don't agree with seperatism as the solution to Alberta's woes, but reject any equivocation between its proponents and terrorists. (By the way, even if separation did lead to violence, there's no way someone fighting for their independance against

[Leader Circle]

The title of Mad is right! I'll leave it at that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Am I correct to presume that you have no rebuttals to any of my arguments or statements?

Not surprising, separatists love to rant, rave and whinge, but rarely are capable of substantiating or justifying their position to anyone but a fellow true believer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

whinge..... do I smell a former banned poster?

or just another TROLL?

[Leader Circle]

I think the are about 11 billion reasons to separate.

By this reasoning, Toronto alone has 20 billion reasons to separate.

...If Alberta has no debt, why should we held pay the national debt?

Because Alberta was legally incorporated under the Canadian Government - thus Albertans have a proportional share of said debts, incurred to the theoretical benefit of Albertans. Repudiation of said debts would turn Alberta into a banana republic.

It was started by Trudeau, why would we help anything that involved that loser?

You are showing your ignorance of actual facts here - which really calls into question the validity of your other statements.

We would get rid of the useless GST! Lets have elected officials that are forced to vote the way the people want them to. (there's a novel idea). 

If elected representatives were required to have a poll election or referendum in every riding of the country for every decision as you are suggesting here, I respectfully submit our governance would be worse (and far more annoying).

I am sure there are many more reasons for separation, but I don't want Alberta to separate if we can find an accountable government.

I'm still waiting for the first valid reason to be given. All hear so far is just whinging.

If the Liberals can be ousted in the next election, I would not support separation. If the Liberals make government after the next election, I will support separation as strongly as I can!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So long as that Alberta 'Reform' group controls the Conservative Party of Canada, there is no one else who can form a Government in Canada besides the Liberal Party and thus, endless Liberal election victories are foreseen as probable. Eventually Albertans might figure it out that they are the ones causing the Liberal majorities, not Ontario.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A rebuttal for you would be...don't feed the trolls.

As far as the 11 billion reasons versus Toronto's 20 billion, Toronto actually sees a fair bit of money from the feds. Whereas, Alberta doesn't get anywhere near the return money that Toronto sees. Equalization, my ass!

Mikey, did Trudeau not start the national debt?

[Riverwind]

Sorry, but that's bogus. Your theory that a UDI would be an act of war is patently silly.

What if Quebec declared a UDI and decided that it was not responsible for any of the national debt? What would Canada do? Nothing and hope the international community would step in a force Quebec to pay its fair share? How would the internation community do that? Sanctions? A UDI is an act of war because it can provoke others to make extreme choices in order to defend their interests. To suggest that a UDI is acceptable in any democratic country is patently silly.

You're basically saying that Canadians are imprisoned within the confines of the current system and any attempt to reform or reject the system should be met with violence.

I did not say that. I simply said that negotiation within the current consititutional framework is the only legimate avenue for change.

This is completely contrary to the basic principle of self-determination upon which democracy rests.

Where does the prinicipal of self determination stop? Does it apply to the natives in northern Quebec and Alberta? How about the Anglos in Western Quebec? Self-determination is a not an abosolute right - it must be balanced with pragmatic concerns. Quebec seperatists argue that the borders of Quebec must be preserved for the sake of 'social order'. I make the same arguement regarding the borders of Canada.

[Mad_Michael]

The title of Mad is right! I'll leave it at that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Am I correct to presume that you have no rebuttals to any of my arguments or statements?

Not surprising, separatists love to rant, rave and whinge, but rarely are capable of substantiating or justifying their position to anyone but a fellow true believer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

whinge..... do I smell a former banned poster?

or just another TROLL?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you smell someone with a degree in political science and twenty years of following Canadian politics.

[Leader Circle]

How do you draw the line between separatists and terrorists? Are you saying Quebec is a nation of terrorists? You need to get your facts straight!

Quebec separatists are ethically no different from terrorists because they wish to use the the threat of violence to get their way. Think about it: if it is impossible to reform the existing constitutional structures within the country then it will be be impossible to 'negotiate' any separation from the country. However, separatists know that but don't care because they think they can just declare a UDI if negotiations break down. But what is a UDI? It is a declaration of war that must be backed up with violence if it is to have any meaning what so ever. If people die while a province tries to enforce its UDI then separatists will have blood on their hands: just like terrorists. The only difference is separatists like to believe they are not advocating violance - but this is just because they are in denial.

I guess you want Alberta to shut up and keep agreeing with everything Ottawa tells it to do?

I said nothing of the sort. I simply said that there are legitimate ways to advocate change in a democratic society are there are illegitimate ways. Advocating separation and terrorism are illegitimate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still find it hard to draw a line between separatists & terrorists. Terrorists fight for a cause with no respect for life or consequences.(Their own & others lives.)

Separatists usually try to separate themselves from a country because they are unhappy with their national government. They are protecting their culture, religions or beliefs from being crushed by a tyranny. These separations are not always violent, but they can be. Do you think we should still be a British colony? We separated from them peacefully. Were the Americans a bunch of terrorists when they struggled for independence from the UK?

These are two vastly different groups.

[Leader Circle]

The title of Mad is right! I'll leave it at that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Am I correct to presume that you have no rebuttals to any of my arguments or statements?

Not surprising, separatists love to rant, rave and whinge, but rarely are capable of substantiating or justifying their position to anyone but a fellow true believer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

whinge..... do I smell a former banned poster?

or just another TROLL?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you smell someone with a degree in political science and twenty years of following Canadian politics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OMG a degree!! Are you available for an autograph session later?

I have not followed Canadian politics that long due to my age. I do not know all there is to know about politics and am the first to admit it, are you?

I do keep up on current events and have some memories of past events and if they are wrong, I like being enlightened, but am still afforded an opinion.

[Mad_Michael]

A rebuttal for you would be...don't feed the trolls.

No, a rebuttal would reply to the points I've made regarding the position that you've put forward here. I have called into question the veracity of some of your statements.

As far as the 11 billion reasons versus Toronto's 20 billion, Toronto actually sees a fair bit of money from the feds. Whereas, Alberta doesn't get anywhere near the return money that Toronto sees. Equalization, my ass!

$20 billion figure is the NET loss of tax funds in Toronto. It is gross-receipts.

Speaking of which, the $11 billion figure given appears to ignore net receipts to Alberta. The SPA website mentions this. I find it hard to believe there are no hospitals, universities, mortgaged buildings, airports or bridges in Alberta, let alone any old people or welfare cases. Provinces receive general funding back from the Federal government to fund these various services.

No one disputes that Alberta is a 'net' tax contributor in Canada, what I object to here is the assertion that Alberta is unique in this respect. When it comes to paying for Canada, Ontario pays the largest share and has been doing so since day one.

Mikey, did Trudeau not start the national debt?

I consider that name to be insulting and therefore would request that you do not use it. It is not my name.

And Pierre Elliot Trudeau most certainly did not start the national debt in Canada - not even close. If you are obsessed about who created debt in the country, the Administration of Brian Mulroney (which was strongly supported in Alberta I might add) accounts for by far the largest share of the Canadian national debt.

[Mad_Michael]

OMG a degree!! Are you available for an autograph session later?

Actually, I have three degrees, but felt that to announce that would have been pretentious. I only add the information now since you seem set upon mocking me and that is tiresome.

I have not followed Canadian politics that long due to my age.

That much is obvious.

I do not know all there is to know about politics and am the first to admit it, are you?

Absolutely. However, what I do know is that a lot of what you are saying about Albertan separation is as honest and truthful as that which is commonly asserted to support Quebec separatism. In other words, lots of lies and propaganda. When I'm familiar with the data or the issues, I'll do my best to correct any erroneous assertions.

I do keep up on current events and have some memories of past events and if they are wrong, I like being enlightened, but am still afforded an opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, you have the right to hold any opinion you like. However, the minute you go posting that opinion in a public discussion forum, others can and will hold your words to account.

[Mad_Michael]

I still find it hard to draw a line between separatists & terrorists. Terrorists fight for a cause with no respect for life or consequences.(Their own & others lives.)

Separatists usually try to separate themselves from a country because they are unhappy with their national government. They are protecting their culture, religions or beliefs from being crushed by a tyranny. These separations are not always violent, but they can be. Do you think we should still be a British colony? We separated from them peacefully. Were the Americans a bunch of terrorists when they struggled for independence from the UK?

These are two vastly different groups.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Northern Ireland, the Basque, Southern India, Indonesia and early 1970's Quebec, all offer examples of separatist terrorism.

[Riverwind]

I still find it hard to draw a line between separatists & terrorists. Terrorists fight for a cause with no respect for life or consequences.(Their own & others lives.)

True. I do not mean to suggest that separatists are exactly the same as terrorists - I merely want to point out that both terrorists and separatists use the threat of violence to get what they want.

Separatists usually try to separate themselves from a country because they are unhappy with their national government. They are protecting their culture, religions or beliefs from being crushed by a tyranny.

Now you are guilty of taking analogies to an extreme. It is ridiculous to suggest that any injustice 'suffered' by the people of Quebec or Alberta comes close to a 'tyranny'. The people of East Timor, Ache, Tibet or even Taiwan may be able to use the 'freedom from tyranny' argument. But not any part of Canada.

These separations are not always violent, but they can be. Do you think we should still be a British colony?

Canada was a colony - not an integral part of the UK. Furthermore, our peaceful exit was done entirely on terms acceptable to the British. If we had wanted it sooner or on our own terms then we would had to fight for it. Canada is constantly evolving. Canada today is a lot different than what is was in Trudeau's time and will be a lot different 30 years from now. Demanding 'separation now' is an act of impatience that will inevitably have serious unintended consequences.

Were the Americans a bunch of terrorists when they struggled for independence from the UK?

Technically, they were terrorists from the point of view of the British. However, they were also a colony and could legitimately make the 'freedom from tyranny' argument because they were subject to laws and taxes passed by the British gov't with no democratic representation within that gov't. However, you cannot talk about the American War of Independence without talking about the civil war. The Americans have decided unequivocally that separation of any state is not an acceptable basis for any democratic discussion in their country. Do you doubt the democratic credentials of US institutions?

[canadian_conservative]

The west is going to stay with us forever and Canada is not breaking up any time soon. We have no worries whatsoever. Leader's circle the topic starter is just prudent to start a fight thats all he's hunting for is an argument to feed on.

[Guest eureka]

Should Quebec declare UDI, it would ot legally be reponsible for any share of the National Debt. The Debt belongs to Canada and both Quebec and Canada would be new entities. The debt would be entirely the responsibility of the federal government.

Another reason for the near impossibility of any negotiated separation. All Quebec could negotiate is the amoint of Canada's National Debt it would assume in order to avoif financial and economic reprisals from the new Canada.

There is no group in Canada, provincial or otherwise that qualifies for the right of "self-determination." The Helsinki Accords on that cannot be interpreted to favour such a right. Quebec has tries for decades to provide justification using that argument and it has failed abysmally to convince anyone other than one small group of academics sought out for their sympathies.

Self-determination within Canada can only be used in the philosophical sense of individual self-determination.

Interestingly, the gradual expulsion of English speaking Canadians from Quebec does bring that province a step closer to acquiring the right. That is partly the reason for the language laws: to create a "nation" that does not now exist by removing the materials that prevent the jelling into a distinctive mix.

[Mad_Michael]

The west is going to stay with us forever and Canada is not breaking up any time soon.  We have no worries whatsoever.  Leader's circle the topic starter is just prudent to start a fight thats all he's hunting for is an argument to feed on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I've offered Leader's Circle an argument, but he appears to be disinclined to take it up. Thus, I should think his real goal is to just help to spread the propaganda and to hide when challenged.

[Mad_Michael]

Should Quebec declare UDI, it would ot legally be reponsible for any share of the National Debt.  The Debt belongs to Canada and both Quebec and Canada would be new entities. The debt would be entirely the responsibility of the federal government.

Not quite. If anything was this simple, countries all over the globe would be playing this trick.

Repudiation of debt is very, very serious and no aspiring separatist nation can possible consider this possibility with any seriousness. Repudiating debt would paralyze the banking sector of any region upon doing so. A newly declared state with a 'less than junk bond' ranking on their sovereign debt ain't going to last long in this world given that export economies are underwitten by government loan guarentees - loan guarentees that would not be available if one repudiates the debt.

The ultimate irony is that by any reasonable consideration, the largest portion of the Canadian national debt is due to Quebec (or Quebec was the primary or majority receiver of such spending).

Interestingly enough, according to the studies I've seen, if Quebec were to separate from Canada, that would result in a 10-15% drop in Quebec's GDP and a corresponding 10-15% increase in GDP for the rest of Canada. That ought to tell you who fiscally benefits the most from Canadian confederation.

[Black Dog]

What if Quebec declared a UDI and decided that it was not responsible for any of the national debt? What would Canada do? Nothing and hope the international community would step in a force Quebec to pay its fair share? How would the internation community do that? Sanctions? A UDI is an act of war because it can provoke others to make extreme choices in order to defend their interests. To suggest that a UDI is acceptable in any democratic country is patently silly

Well, hypotheticals aren't really useful, but I would expect that Canada would seek out other means of negotiating a compromise. And I can't see how a UDI, if undertaken with the consent of the population in question, can be anti-democratic. Seems to me such a thing would be perfectly in line with the principles of democracy.

I did not say that. I simply said that negotiation within the current consititutional framework is the only legimate avenue for change.

Negotiation within the current consititutional framework is the only legimate avenue for change because the constitution says it is. That's a circular argument.

Where does the prinicipal of self determination stop? Does it apply to the natives in northern Quebec and Alberta? How about the Anglos in Western Quebec? Self-determination is a not an abosolute right - it must be balanced with pragmatic concerns. Quebec seperatists argue that the borders of Quebec must be preserved for the sake of 'social order'. I make the same arguement regarding the borders of Canada.

National borders are not immutable. I don't accept the serperatist argument for maintaing the current borders of Quebec, so I don't really accept your similar interpretation either.

[Leader Circle]

The west is going to stay with us forever and Canada is not breaking up any time soon.  We have no worries whatsoever.  Leader's circle the topic starter is just prudent to start a fight thats all he's hunting for is an argument to feed on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I've offered Leader's Circle an argument, but he appears to be disinclined to take it up. Thus, I should think his real goal is to just help to spread the propaganda and to hide when challenged.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will argue with you, I just don't have the time to do so. I have what is called a job, I do not vote NDP or Liberal, therefore I have to work!

Sorry if this 'job' word scares you, it's actually not that bad!

I think Trudeau was the originater of the national debt!

My info is not propaganda, I was passing along some info on the latest poll!

As far as CC goes, we must not feed them damn trolls!