A serious question for you. What would it take for you to NOT vote UCP, leaving outright separation off the table?

It will be interesting to see what happens at the UCP AGM in late November. They are truly between a rock and a hard place which is a good thing.

If they decide to oust Smith in favour of a strong separatist voice they will have no chance of winning a majority in the next provincial election.

If they choose to keep Smith in they will have to abandon outright separation as a policy and fall in behind her Sovereign Alberta within a united Canada idea.

Regardless I expect that there will be some members move from the UCP to Guthrie’s Alberta Progressive Tory party over the next year or so.

A real possibility that we will see a minority government, either NDP or UCP (likely the former) and Guthrie holding the hammer

I know this will be deleted by the mods, but I’m going to say it anyway.
i have lost any faith i had in Alberta and its citizens. They said that they hate Danielle Smith but all voted to give her MORE power!

the lowest bar was voting to stay in Canada and I’m truly shocked that Alberta said yes, but then they said yes to everything else.

I'm an Albertan that is happy the separation vote was a clear no, but i don't thing that will stop the sepratists that have working on it for years.

What i am worried about is the 9 question that will give the government a perception of a mandate to continue to waste money restricting access to government services that people pay taxes for, rather than putting those funds towards the services.

If the separatists want to continue then the can form a political party and see how well they are recognized.

So as the referendum count underway, we can see that the Federalists are in the lead, revealing that people beyond the separatists are willing to vote. So that's the big issue addressed. But then there are the 9 other questions whose current results...concerns me. From my read of the situation, it seems like people gave so much press to the Separatist dilemma that it lead to neglect on the other questions being raised.

Oh yes, there has been plenty of No to the Nine signages around, but as someone who don't actively participate in political messaging on telling people how to vote, I will say that the message isn't immediately clear. Of course, now I know that it meant "stay in Canada, vote no to the 9 other questions," but at first, I thought the sign was simply telling people to vote No to specifically Question 9. That aside, it doesn't really lay out, even as a flashy one-liner, as to why I need to vote that way.

And so here we are. As of me writing this post (and it will continue to fluctuate as the minutes goes by), here are the percentages:

• Q1: Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities? Yes: 57.5%
• Q2: Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta-approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services? Yes: 55.9%
• Q3: Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non-permanent legal immigration status to reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially-funded social support programs? Yes: 57.4%
• Q4: Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family’s use of the healthcare and education systems? Yes: 57.1%
• Q5: Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta provincial election? Yes: 60.9%
• Q6: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to have provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King’s Bench and Appeal courts? Yes: 50.1%
• Q7: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate? Yes: 52.2%
• Q8: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs? No: 51.6%
• Q9: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to better protect provincial rights from federal interference by giving a province’s laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of constitutional jurisdiction priority over federal laws when the province’s laws and federal laws conflict? Yes: 50.6%

For this post, I'll focus specifically Q2-6 and 8-9, as the first question can go either way depending on how much you trust in the role of small governments.

To me, Question 2 to 4 troubles me in the aspect that it is quite heavily weighted towards "Yes" with the ramification of restricting an immigrant's ability to access to the social welfare they pay for via taxes. Delaying it to them for a year doesn't change that sometimes, situations exist where they need aid before that. Someone experience their first Canadian winter and falls ill? Oops, looks like they aren't eligible for healthcare. Hell, why stop there, let's charge them a premium for it! ...All this just looks to me like Albertans want to treat immigrants as a second-class citizen, likely out of belief that they are out here stealing jobs (that is indeed limited, but it's not their fault that our job market is weak) and leeching off the system. Something that echoes worryingly to our rowdy national southern neighbour.

Question 5 is also a one that is reflected down south and to that I have nothing more to say than the fact that passport, birth certificate, citizenship card, and the like are already required to obtain an ID, and if presented with the Driver's License, will have the mark to indicate citizenship.

Question 6 just screams conflict of interest if the province has any say in determining who gets to be the judge.

Question 8, although No is the leading answer, it is a very close fight. To the point I don't quite understand the rationality of people who believes that it is sane in any degree to take in Federal funds for programs while vetoing the program in question. It is like buying goods or services and the distributor simply tells you "hm, no, I won't give it to you after all."

And finally, the Question 9, another very close fight. Provincial laws to supersede Federal law? Look, I understand there are times when there are Federal legislation that is objectionable (see: proposed implementation of social media ban), but to operate as a nation, you shouldn't be able to overturn whatever law that displeases the province in some form. It sets a terrible precedent. (Of course this doesn't mean the province doesn't try to do that anyway, see the book banning in the past year).

To to conclude my vent for those of you that read this far, I hope you all still voted, and maybe give some of these points some consideration if you voted differently. Or heck, feel free to raise counters to the comment below. Have a good rest of the week, all.

Given the turn out in Quebec referendum in 1995 and the strong position that the First Nations communities took in the issues Election Alberta should have been better prepared on these communities.

If so how?

An estimated approx 70% of UCP party members admit to being separatist and they will continue to push their separatist agenda, despite the Stay in Canada win. Separatist have infiltrated the dominant political party in Alberta. What can be done to get them out of the UCP? They should form their own party with a stated party platform of separation but the fear is that splits the conservative vote.

what happened to “no to the nine?” why are we still falling for the racist ucp propaganda?

The **Un-Canadian Party**

brief explanation...

Q1: NO - don't want to see working age persons restricted as to where they can work (if Quebec does, STOP it)

Q2: Yes - visitors not getting welfare etc

Q3: Yes- waiting period to be eligible

Q4: Blank - fee for education & medical (yes to 'a', no to 'b')

Q5: YES! - citizenship ID to vote

Q6: Yes - provincially appointed judges, local culture

Q7: No - elect Senators. Mob rule

Q8: No - opt out but get federal money. Take the money = take the rules

Q9: No - provincial laws trump federal. I am a federalist

Context: over 70 years of age, ex-Libertarian Party member (now center-right), spend only half of every year in Canada, low income (living on GIS), university-educated.

Albertans just slammed a door that Washington tried to pry open.

Unofficial results show about 76 per cent voted to stay in Canada. About 24 per cent backed a path toward separation. Official results come October 29.

Look at who leaned on the scale. Separatist leaders met State Department officials three times. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called Alberta a natural partner for the United States. Elon Musk told Alberta to leave. The Globe and Mail reported that Republican operatives helped separatist leaders.

Washington calls the meetings routine. Separatists talked openly about a $500 billion American credit line. That is not routine. That is a bid.

It failed. But a quarter of Alberta said yes, and the movement already plots to unseat Premier Smith. Stay awake.

The timing is everything. Canada held together weeks before the American midterms. Democrats lead the generic ballot by about nine points. Prediction markets put a Democratic House above 90 per cent and the Senate near 63 per cent. A president who loses Congress does not go quietly. Expect a fight over the count, over the seating of Congress on January 3, and over the courts.

Canada just avoided facing that storm with a crack in its own house.

It is also a steadier partner for Europe today. Canada has preferential access to the EU defence fund known as SAFE, the only country outside Europe that does. It runs its largest overseas mission in Latvia. It is now one of three framework nations for NATO's northern division. Europe needs allies that do not break. Canada did not.

Europe needs them now. Russia is probing Article 5 every month.

In September 2025, 21 Russian drones crossed into Poland and shut airports. Poland invoked Article 4. Days later, three Russian jets flew inside Estonian airspace for 12 minutes. A Russian drone sat in Romanian airspace for about four hours. This past July, a Russian cruise missile crashed in Poland's Lublin province.

In September, the Institute for the Study of War warned that Russia could seize a sliver of Estonia near Narva and dare NATO to take it back. The goal is hesitation. If allies hesitate, the alliance cracks without a full war. Western intelligence has flagged possible action against Poland or the Baltics built for exactly that.

The timelines are close. Poland's prime minister warns of conflict by 2027. Germany's defence minister says 2029. NATO's secretary general says within five years. My verdict: Poland or the Baltics get tested first. Small. Deniable. Timed while Washington is distracted.

Meanwhile the Gulf burns. The Iran war began February 28. Israel and Hezbollah have fought in Lebanon since March 2. The Houthis hit Saudi airports and energy sites almost daily. The West Bank, Syria and Iraq sit between armed camps.

Now the circle widens. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey signed a mutual defence pact in August. Pakistan's defence minister says his country will use whatever means are available to defend the kingdom. France is sending troops and air defences. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Turkey is in NATO. Read that twice.

How does it end? Analysts expect Ukraine to grind on as a stalemate through 2027, and NATO believes Russia can fund it that long. The Gulf gets a patched truce that keeps breaking, because Iran ties peace to Lebanon and Israel refuses. Neither front ends cleanly. They merge.

Here is how World War 3 forms. Russia pushes the edge of NATO. Iran's allies squeeze the Gulf. Pakistan, Turkey and France get pulled in. Oil spikes. Shipping lanes close. Europe begs Washington for help and finds a country consumed by its own election crisis. Two blocs harden. Russia and its partners against Europe, Canada, Britain and every loyal NATO ally.

If America cracks after January 3, with a contested seating and unrest in the streets, its allies stand alone. Other Western democracies with deep divides will feel the same pull.

Workers pay first. Fuel. Food. Rent. Then the sons and daughters. A country that asks everyone to carry more owes everyone fair pay, strong unions and a real say.

That is why Alberta mattered. A united Canada ships energy, food, minerals and troops to Europe. A broken one ships nothing.

Keep Canada whole. Fund the alliance. Protect the workers who will carry the load. Watch January 3. Do not look away.

GC

Sources: The Globe and Mail; CNN; Institute for the Study of War; Associated Press; Silver Bulletin; CBC News: The National; Global TV, The Vancouver Sun, CTV News, Keep Alberta Rolling

By now 8am Oct 20 we now have the polling showing about an 75%-80% of people voting to remain across the province.

Will the 25% who voted to leave see this quasi-vote to stay or leave as a defeat?

Personally I’m worried they’ll see it as a challenge that they need to do better convincing the public rather than acknowledge the people of the province want to stay.

I want to see real results not just what CBC says…

Blog post by Garth Turner, former MP about Referendum and Smith

https://www.greaterfool.ca/