Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Does Alberta really want to join the USA?

A few nights ago on a British TV news show (Newsnight) an American Republican spokesman - perhaps he was even a Congressman - asserted that not only did Greenlanders want to join the USA but when it comes to Canada, Alberta was already asking to join. I know he made the first bit up, but it was news to me about Alberta. Is there an iota of truth in his claim or that another hallucination?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
I note that you raised two quite separate strands of thought amone those not wanting to be governed from Ottawa:

Independence. I.e. Alberta becomes a sovereign nation. How that would work only its residents can decide.

Change of nationality. I.e Alberta becomes an American state, not independent at all, and subject now to a different policies, laws, public services, etc. Alberta has a border with the USA's Washington state, but is otherwise surrounded by Canada, along borders defined simply by longitude and latitude lines.

One effect is that Canadians travelling between British Columbia the rest of the Southern half of their country, would be crossing into a foreign country and out the other side.

I think the USA option raises another practical point. I believe Canada fully uses the SI units of measure, as the UK does for almost everything. The USA insists keeping the Imperial units (it calls them "American"), outside of science and engineering. I wonder how that would work? ..


Secession calls are quite common around the world. The Basques in Northern Spain, Scots and Welsh wanting to dis-unite the United Kingdom, various European and Asian lands with their own motives.

Nationalist sentiment in Northern Ireland is different though, wanting to merge with Eire; more like the Albertans wanting to become American, though with more historical logic.

The difference is that those Irish and Canadians want to join established nations.


Full independence is a very different matter. "Newania" would need establish and pay all by itself for its own:

Its own currency and fiscal system,
Security services, Customs, Police and Judiciary,
Civil Service,
Legal system including national laws on e.g. enviromental protection that could affect the neighbours,
Education, health and welfare services - buildings and personnel, and benefits systems.
Postal and telephony services,
Motor-vehicle and Driver Licencing and taxing,
Military services,
Roads, railways, airports, harbours (Alberta is land-locked; Wales, Ulster and Scotland are not).
Electrical and gas networks,
Diplomatic services and missions.

It would have to negotiate new relationships with its neighbours including the nation of which it was once part; and its own memberships of a slew of international bodies, treaties and alliances. (The UK belongs to about ninety of these, e.g. UN, NATO, ISO, MarPol, ...)

All difficult and expensive; and made more difficult by risking peculiar mis-matches in laws, etc; a result of over-"devolution" in the UK.

Fine if Newania has a sizeable population and thriving industry that can export lots of goods and/or services. If not, it could really struggle if no longer supported by the rest of its erstwhile nation and having insufficient resources and income for self-support. For our own example, Scotland might make it alone but I doubt Wales could.

(European secessionists wanting their Newlandia to join the EU, are gambling first on being allowed, and secondly, being supported by taxpayer-funded grants from the rest of the bloc. I do not know if an American Alberta would receive parallel support from the USA at large.)


I fear many of the breakaway calls in some countries are from a mixture of "greener grass" disaffection, historical grudges that really should be laid to rest, overweening optimism, and pure romanticism based on centuries past.
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@ArishMell I didn't raise two points, but just one: about the desire to join the USA. It was @hippyjoe1955 who raised it in his helpful response from his point-of-view in Alberta, explaining why the two shouldn't be conflated. Your points about integration help to show that glib talk of taking over/merging/invading another sovereign state is just that: glib.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ArishMell Well when you are tied to a boat anchor sinking in the ocean it might be a good idea to sever the ties. Alberta is almost twice the size of the British Isles. Much of the neighbouring area is leaning separatist as well. Saskatchewan and northern BC could well join Alberta in leaving Canada.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@FreddieUK I was really respond to the diverging strains of replies.

I do respect HippyJoe's view as he does live there, and I think his forefathers suffered badly from the colonists. When it comes to annexing - a different matter again - the residents are the last people to be considered.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 What is driving that, and what would they do: secede or switch nationality?
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@ArishMell
When it comes to annexing - a different matter again - the residents are the last people to be considered.

Just like the British Empire ☹
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@FreddieUK Yes, indeed!

At least we generally tried to hand the lands back in functioning condition and some became successful in their own right.

I think of the European powers Britain was among the first to hand most of the territories either back to their rightful people or at least to descendants of the original settlers. France and Belgium perhaps the last. Albeit after sometimes violent struggles though.

It does excuse the original colonising of course, although we cannot apply 21C thinking to 17C ideas; only see it as wrong in retrospect.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ArishMell I met a Doctor from Ireland who had moved to Canada at the height of the sectarian violence in his homeland. Being a Canadian where my best friend was a Catholic and I was Protestant I was baffled why there was any kind of fight in Ireland. He quietly said "Nobody likes a bully". The light went on Ireland was like Alberta and the rest of Canada was like England. There is so much history it would take days to explain. Maybe I can give an example. 1885 some folks who had European fathers and Native American mothers we call Metis. They were farming some good land. They sought title for their land like people in Ontario had. They were denied. When they protested Ontario sent out its army and killed a bunch of the Metis with Gatling guns. That is the kind of bigotry we are talking about. No body likes a bully. Maybe another example. My uncle had a small farm on some hardscrabble land. One year it was exceptionally dry. He didn't have enough grain to feed his cows. He asked my dad for some help. Dad had extra oats that year so he sold some to my Uncle at a greatly reduced price. My parents were terrified. They had broke the law. The law said that Alberta farmers could only sell their oats and other cereal grains to the government. My uncle had broken the law as well. He was supposed to buy grain only from the government. At the time the Canadian government was taking the grains and 'selling' them to the USSR. Of course the USSR didn't have the money to pay for the grain so the Canadian government was lending the money to the USSR to buy the grain from the Canadian government. However the Canadian government had a monopoly so they simply reduced payments to the Alberta farmers. Nobody likes a bully.
mossyboots · 51-55, F
@hippyjoe1955 Not simply 'Nobody likes a bully'. Nationalist and Republicans who were predominately Catholic wanted the end of British rule to merge Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. Well, fair enough. But there were many who also wanted their own countrymen out because of simply being Protestant. Hateful women swearing at Protestant children going to school, berating them. It went a lot deeper than wanting to achieve a United Ireland.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@mossyboots The bully the doctor was talking about was the United Kingdom. The Irish people in the south saw the North as being occupied territory.
mossyboots · 51-55, F
@hippyjoe1955 Yes, I realise who he was talking about. I also understand the situation. I'm pointing out it went deeper than just wanting a unitied Ireland, there was so much hate for those Irish people who were not Prodestant. Really, religion should not have been any part of it. They should not only have been striving for a United Ireland if that is what they wanted, but peace to bring it about.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@mossyboots Religion was a convenient dividing line to the greater problem of imposed lordship over a nation. As for hatred it is most common among the conquerors. Here in Canada we experience the same kind of hatred. Alberta wants to hold a vote on becoming its own nation. The hatred pouring out of the dominant region aka Ontario is more than a bit worrisome.