This breaks down many of the unintended and unplanned results of a separation decision, with parallels to Brexit. The evidence of experience rests with the leader Canada is fortunate enough to have at this time. Also a point of observation is prior to these decisions, or maybe because of, or independent of the drive to build out a full national growth, Alberta's future is actually looking brighter with the plans in motion. We'll hear much from all sides of the discussion, but this explanation has offered real and concrete lessons for our education. Thanks for writing this. It was very informative.
Thank you for reading carefully and for the observation you added that the dispatch did not name explicitly.
You are right. Alberta's future is brighter with the plans in motion. The pipeline build, the grid doubling, the federal-provincial infrastructure coordination Carney has assembled across the past year — these are the conditions for the working decade Alberta has not had since 2014. The prosperity the separation campaign is selling as the prize for leaving is the prosperity that is already arriving inside the federation. The voter who is being asked to risk one to obtain the other is being sold a trade where they hand over the certain thing for the uncertain thing.
That is the working further argument the dispatch's Section VIII gestures at but does not develop. A subsequent filing will. The Vertical Dispatch is working through the architecture of the October ballot piece by piece across the sequence.
Keep reading. Keep writing back. The observations from readers who can see what the dispatches do not name are the strongest contributions the publication receives.
I voted in the 1995 Quebec referendum. About 1 % difference. Similar demographics. The older Quebecers, who had experienced genuine discrimination, were more leave. They (we boomers) are dying off
Thank you for this, Glen. It puts into stark terms the reality of this particular idiocy.
I would like your view on this: would a vote of 50% + 1 be sufficient to break up the country? What do you think that those who voted to remain Canadian would do and how would that affect how this all played out? And how would such circumstances alter the Canadian gov’t’s negotiating approach?
Three sharp questions. Let me answer them at the depth the questions deserve.
The Vertical Dispatch remains neutral on opinions. Where the publication takes a position, it is because the logic of democracy and the duty to keep the citizen informed point one direction and the empirical record supports it. The PIAAC literacy numbers from Statistics Canada released December 2024 sit underneath every dispatch as a working prior. Nineteen per cent of Canadian adults read at Level 1 or below. Forty-nine per cent at Level 2 or below. Thirty-seven per cent at Level 3. Fourteen per cent at Levels 4 and 5 combined — the four million the publication is written for. A separation referendum is the working hardest cognitive task a democracy can put in front of its citizens. The architecture of what they are voting on lives at Level 4 minimum. The country being asked to vote on it reads at Level 2 in the aggregate. That is the sad state we have to report. It is not a verdict on Albertans. It is a verdict on what Canadian education has delivered.
On your three questions.
Fifty per cent plus one. The Supreme Court's 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec and the Clarity Act of 2000 establish that secession requires a clear majority on a clear question. The Court refused to define the threshold numerically and the Act left the determination to Parliament. Fifty per cent plus one is not automatically sufficient. Parliament decides whether the majority is clear, after the vote.
The Albertans who voted to remain Canadian. They are the working largest constitutional fact most separation advocates ignore. They include the Indigenous nations under Treaties 6, 7, and 8 whose treaty partner is the Crown in right of Canada, not the province. They include the urban populations of Calgary and Edmonton where the working vote splits closer to fifty-fifty. They would not be carried out of Canada by a provincial vote. The negotiation would have to address their continued constitutional standing inside the federation.
The federal negotiating approach. Carney has the receipts and the office. Canada's leverage in the negotiation is larger than the working separating province's leverage in every working dimension — currency, military, trade, treaty obligations, debt assumption, federal asset division. The negotiation, if it ever occurred, would happen under Canadian rules. The terms would not be the working terms Smith is selling.
Each of these three answers deserves its own dispatch. The next working filing in the sequence is in production. It is an unpleasant subject and the publication is not the highest authority on it, but we will file the analysis the empirical record supports.
This breaks down many of the unintended and unplanned results of a separation decision, with parallels to Brexit. The evidence of experience rests with the leader Canada is fortunate enough to have at this time. Also a point of observation is prior to these decisions, or maybe because of, or independent of the drive to build out a full national growth, Alberta's future is actually looking brighter with the plans in motion. We'll hear much from all sides of the discussion, but this explanation has offered real and concrete lessons for our education. Thanks for writing this. It was very informative.
Friend,
Thank you for reading carefully and for the observation you added that the dispatch did not name explicitly.
You are right. Alberta's future is brighter with the plans in motion. The pipeline build, the grid doubling, the federal-provincial infrastructure coordination Carney has assembled across the past year — these are the conditions for the working decade Alberta has not had since 2014. The prosperity the separation campaign is selling as the prize for leaving is the prosperity that is already arriving inside the federation. The voter who is being asked to risk one to obtain the other is being sold a trade where they hand over the certain thing for the uncertain thing.
That is the working further argument the dispatch's Section VIII gestures at but does not develop. A subsequent filing will. The Vertical Dispatch is working through the architecture of the October ballot piece by piece across the sequence.
Keep reading. Keep writing back. The observations from readers who can see what the dispatches do not name are the strongest contributions the publication receives.
Glen
I voted in the 1995 Quebec referendum. About 1 % difference. Similar demographics. The older Quebecers, who had experienced genuine discrimination, were more leave. They (we boomers) are dying off
As always, great reporting!
Thank you for this, Glen. It puts into stark terms the reality of this particular idiocy.
I would like your view on this: would a vote of 50% + 1 be sufficient to break up the country? What do you think that those who voted to remain Canadian would do and how would that affect how this all played out? And how would such circumstances alter the Canadian gov’t’s negotiating approach?
Thank you.
Friend,
Three sharp questions. Let me answer them at the depth the questions deserve.
The Vertical Dispatch remains neutral on opinions. Where the publication takes a position, it is because the logic of democracy and the duty to keep the citizen informed point one direction and the empirical record supports it. The PIAAC literacy numbers from Statistics Canada released December 2024 sit underneath every dispatch as a working prior. Nineteen per cent of Canadian adults read at Level 1 or below. Forty-nine per cent at Level 2 or below. Thirty-seven per cent at Level 3. Fourteen per cent at Levels 4 and 5 combined — the four million the publication is written for. A separation referendum is the working hardest cognitive task a democracy can put in front of its citizens. The architecture of what they are voting on lives at Level 4 minimum. The country being asked to vote on it reads at Level 2 in the aggregate. That is the sad state we have to report. It is not a verdict on Albertans. It is a verdict on what Canadian education has delivered.
On your three questions.
Fifty per cent plus one. The Supreme Court's 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec and the Clarity Act of 2000 establish that secession requires a clear majority on a clear question. The Court refused to define the threshold numerically and the Act left the determination to Parliament. Fifty per cent plus one is not automatically sufficient. Parliament decides whether the majority is clear, after the vote.
The Albertans who voted to remain Canadian. They are the working largest constitutional fact most separation advocates ignore. They include the Indigenous nations under Treaties 6, 7, and 8 whose treaty partner is the Crown in right of Canada, not the province. They include the urban populations of Calgary and Edmonton where the working vote splits closer to fifty-fifty. They would not be carried out of Canada by a provincial vote. The negotiation would have to address their continued constitutional standing inside the federation.
The federal negotiating approach. Carney has the receipts and the office. Canada's leverage in the negotiation is larger than the working separating province's leverage in every working dimension — currency, military, trade, treaty obligations, debt assumption, federal asset division. The negotiation, if it ever occurred, would happen under Canadian rules. The terms would not be the working terms Smith is selling.
Each of these three answers deserves its own dispatch. The next working filing in the sequence is in production. It is an unpleasant subject and the publication is not the highest authority on it, but we will file the analysis the empirical record supports.
Keep reading. Keep writing back.
Glen