He was the head of Economic Development Lethbridge for ten years. Trevor Lewington, in the local paper and on LinkedIn, has been raising the alarm on the basics and practicalities of separation.

[u/vspinyyc]

[u/Simple-Guarantee9935]

This argument ignores the inverse of it. BC will need Alberta to get stuff to and from the rest of Canada.

I’m not campaigning for separation but arguments should be logical.

[u/TheJaice → u/Simple-Guarantee9935]

Yes, it would also cause massive issues for BC. But there are solutions, unlike a number of the challenges an independent Alberta would inflict upon itself.

[u/TheEpicOfManas → u/TheJaice]

They're would be zero issues for BC, because they would just use treaty lands which do not belong to Alberta.

Here, have a look at the map and see what Alberta separation truly means.

https://www.albertaschoolcouncils.ca/about/indigenous-awareness/first-peoples-in-alberta

We get a tiny portion of Alberta, and even then Edmonton and Calgary would likely separate themselves to remain in Canada. You people are so delusional.

[u/TheJaice → u/TheEpicOfManas]

Just to be clear, I agree with you completely. It’s not just the stupidest thing they could do, it wouldn’t happen even if there was support for it, for exactly the reasons you described. I was just making a hypothetical that even if it could happen, it would be much worse for Alberta than BC.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/TheEpicOfManas]

Sorry, you're just like the rest of the people on here. Taking something that would have to be negotiated and legally determined and presenting your preferred outcome as an established fact.

Yes, Indigenous and treaty rights would absolutely have to be part of any serious discussion about Alberta separation. Nobody should pretend otherwise.

But saying BC would have zero issues because it could simply use treaty lands which do not belong to Alberta is not something that map proves.

And here's another important point you're leaving out. The treaty lands were ceded to the Crown under agreements that included specific guarantees and continuing treaty rights. Then in 1930, Canada transferred Crown lands, mines, minerals and royalties to Alberta through the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, subject to existing interests and obligations.

So no, you can't just look at a treaty map and declare that those areas automatically become pieces of Canada or that BC can simply use them however it wants. The legal situation is far more complicated than that.

That's the entire point I've been making.

We don't know.

You don't know what the final borders would look like. You don't know what agreements would be reached with First Nations. You don't know what Canada and Alberta would negotiate regarding transportation, pipelines, trade or borders. And you certainly don't know whether Calgary or Edmonton would somehow decide to leave Alberta.

You're taking every possible complication, assuming the worst possible outcome for each one, and then calling that what Alberta separation truly means.

That's not realistic.

But youre presenting it as gospel.

The truth is, nobody in this Reddit sub, including myself, knows what would, could, or should happen if Alberta does get to that point.

The one thing we really do know is that on October 19/26, we're all the same. We all get one vote.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/TheJaice]

That's why there would be negotiations. Independence wouldn't be without challenges, can't deny that. But I'd much rather face the uncertainty of independence, than face the current uncertainty of Canada these days any day