That appears to confirm that you were at least in large part referencing my reply. That’s fine, I just want to make sure we’re on the same page.
I actually hold all separatists in equal contempt, Quebec, Alberta, whichever. They’re all adherents to profoundly foolish political and economic notions that they could viably go it alone in today’s world outside of Canadian confederation. I’m gonna quote lenaitch for a second here because he’s usefully added some nuance:
I actually use ‘sovereignty’ and ‘separation’ deliberately. There’s much but far from total overlap.
Quebec has decades of head start in politically maturing a sovereignty movement. They’ve created both provincial (separatist) and federal (sovereigntist) parties that duly elect members to sometimes form the provincial government in Quebec, and to provide a legislatively meaningful bloc (sorry, it’s just the right word for it) in the federal Parliament. They’ve created both have secured, over and over, a democratic mandate from their body politic for those views to be part of crafting law and policy.
Among the larger Quebec sovereignty movement, there is a smaller separatist movement. They’re silly, and they screwed the province economically with their referenda. Capital flight was immense. But, outside of the separatists, Quebec sovereigntists have achieved a fair bit of democratically legitimate political power, and have achieved certain policy levers for the province in doing so. Do I agree with them all? No. But in a federalist society like ours is it legitimate? Yes.
Alberta does not have this. There’s no coherent and minimal rational leadership within the Alberta sovereignty movement, and what there is seems to be nearly entirely outright separatist. I don’t believe Alberta can claim to have a meaningful sovereignty movement outside of and distinct from the various fractured and factionalized separatist groups and individuals. There has been no coalescing of popular support around a group who could build a party at either level to compete electorally. There has periodically been talk of a pro-Alberta or pro-Prairies political party that doesn’t contest seats elsewhere and would function like Bloc Québécois, but nothing has come close to getting off the ground. There has been no provincial party of any significance that has adopted an official separatist policy, and the UCP, while they certainly have some sovereigntist views, have been unable to extricate this explicit and official standpoint from the implicit and arguably insurgent separatist presence within the party. The UCP has failed to really define both what it is and what it is not.
Given another decade, Alberta could certainly grow a more mature political discourse around both sovereignty and separatism, and actually have coherent and identifiable groups achieve a democratic mandate to achieve either just the former, or both. Those coherent grounds would be political parties with all the mechanics and democratic legitimacy thereof. But the province is not remotely there politically, and the various figures jostling to be front and center in the separatist movement are, well… I don’t think they’re who a province would put their faith in at a general election.
And so, when I start a post referring to Quebec sovereigntists and Alberta separatists, it’s in recognition of those realities. It’s a nuance born of precision, not a slip born of bias. When I later refer to both provinces’ groups of separatists using that specific term, that’s also deliberate.
I trust that clarity helps.
