Jim Mason holds a BSc in engineering physics and a PhD in experimental nuclear physics; he lived and worked in Alberta for 17 years and is currently retired and living near Lakefield, Ontario.Hello again from your Token Easterner.Thanks to all who read my recent piece and to those who provided comments. I tried to respond to these, especially the ones that were critical, but because of the pressures of life, I may have missed a few. My apologies to the commenters.There were a couple of lengthy comments — both of which were determined by a readily available AI detector to have been 100% AI-generated — which were mostly straw man logical fallacies, but to which I replied anyway, in detail, in the comments thread, and I suggest people have a look at these responses.Generating these responses prompted a number of additional perspectives on some alleged issues that the commenter raised. I thought that these might be worth exposing to a broader audience as they could impact voting decisions on October 19. Following are selected segments of the comment, in quotes and italics, followed by my response.“Finally, the article tells Albertans to disregard emotion, nostalgia and “faux patriotism,” as though anyone who wants to remain Canadian must be irrational or manipulated. That's not an argument; it's an attempt to discredit disagreement before engaging with it.”What I actually said was that you shouldn’t make your decision based on these things, but base it on logic, realism, and true, not faux, patriotism.The reasons for voting for Option 1 that I have seen/heard so far have been mostly based on emotion — primarily fear — wistful affection for an imagined past, and loyalty to a country that we have been told for the last 11 years no longer exists, Canada having become a post-nation state with “no core identity, no mainstream”, that is systemically racist and filled with white supremacists who have committed genocide. It seems a strange thing to which to be loyal.Logic would conclude that Alberta has been badly treated by the federation since it became a province; realism would indicate that, absent some compelling reason, the likelihood of spontaneous changes to that situation is somewhere between zero and nil; and true love of country would recognize that the root cause of the problems that plague Alberta is the defective structure of the federation, which is deleterious to the entire country, and prompt people to want to do something to fix that.That ‘something,’ under the present circumstances, would be to vote in favour of Option 2..“You can love Alberta, believe Ottawa has mishandled important files and still conclude that independence isn't the best solution. You can also support exploring constitutional change without believing separation is inevitable.”But if you do the first two, you can’t do nothing … which is what voting for Option 1 is. And, of course, a vote for Option 2 is not a commitment to independence. It is simply initiating a process that might, at some undefined point in the future, lead to a vote that might provide a “clear majority” in favour of independence. Or might not … depending on what the situation becomes.If “exploring constitutional change” actually results in producing constitutional change that fixes things, then independence becomes irrelevant, so the future vote is not required or, if held, would be resoundingly defeated.But so far, I have not heard a single supporter of “Remain” — especially any from the federal government … most especially the prime minister — propose exploring a single constitutional change that would address the structural defects that enable the “mishandling of important files” to the detriment of Albertans.Why would anyone think that such proposals will magically and spontaneously appear following a vote in favour of Option 1 when none have been made in the preceding decades despite evidence that they were required, and especially since none have been proposed in response to the current quest for independence?“The real question isn't whether Albertans are dissatisfied. It's whether this particular process is likely to deliver meaningful reforms, what it will cost, what happens if negotiations fail, and whether the potential benefits justify the risks.”I conclude from the first sentence that it is acknowledged that Albertans are dissatisfied. But the real question is not as you suggest. The real question is what is going to be done about it.This dissatisfaction has been known for a very long time, and absolutely nothing has been done about it. There is no credible evidence to suggest that a vote in favour of Option 1 will change this. There is, however, a distinct possibility that a vote in favour of Option 2 might change this. Such a vote is certainly more likely to deliver meaningful reforms than a vote in favour of Option 1. A non-zero probability, even if small, is larger than a zero probability.It is bizarre that we should be obsessed with the cost of the legal process to define a question for a referendum, especially when the Clarity Act pretty much says what it should be, when we don’t seem at all concerned about the cost of helping the Ukrainians secure their independence or the Palestinians achieve theirs with all our gifts to UNRWA … or, for that matter, the cost of the Alto high-speed rail system — especially the cost to every Albertan taxpayer who will wind up disproportionately funding it, when the system will provide no material benefit to Albertans.Of course, negotiations should never be started if there is any possibility of failure. Good grief! Are you serious? In fact, success is more likely if the cost of failure — for both parties — is high. That is, perhaps, the reason the federal government is so reluctant to try to negotiate a resolution to Albertans’ dissatisfaction: the cost of both failure and success is much higher for the federal government than it is for Albertans. For the feds, failure means the loss of a disproportionate amount of revenue relative to any cost savings, the headaches of dealing with a non-contiguous country, the risk that Saskatchewan and British Columbia will follow Alberta, and, perhaps most importantly, being forever identified in the history books as the prime minister and government that presided over the breakup of the country. Success means the same loss of revenue with no cost savings. While it avoids the other costs of failure, it incurs the loss, in perpetuity, of significant amounts of power and the ability to unilaterally impose its will..Every decision in every negotiation requires an assessment of the benefit gained or lost against the risk associated with making the demand or concession. In every labour negotiation, there is a risk that every demand or concession could render the company unviable with disastrous consequences for all concerned. But we don’t avoid all labour negotiations because of that.It is my argument that for any meaningful measure to be taken to address Albertans’ dissatisfaction — and improve the country as a whole — serious negotiations need to be precipitated and that the only way to do that is with a resounding vote in favour of Option 2.“If Option 2 is genuinely a high-reward choice, make the case with a credible plan and realistic outcomes — not by declaring the risks zero and pretending everyone who chooses Option 1 must be content with everything Ottawa does.”The reward associated with Option 2 is either (i) a revamped constitution that adequately addresses the dissatisfaction of Albertans or (ii) an opportunity to vote on entering into negotiations intended to achieve independence, given the willingness — or reluctance — demonstrated in the interim by the federal government and/or the rest of Canada to seriously try to address this dissatisfaction.The value of these rewards depends on the value placed on sovereignty and self-determination.The current federal government seems to have placed a very high value on these two very things, being prepared to risk about 45% of Canada’s GDP on the basis that a negotiated trade deal with the US would reduce them. It is telling that this same federal government seems reluctant to allow Albertans to exercise their own sovereignty and self-determination.Since no credible plan has been proposed by the Remainers to address Albertans’ dissatisfaction — indeed, it is not clear that Remainers think that Albertans’ dissatisfaction even warrants addressing — it seems bizarre to insist that “a credible plan with realistic outcomes” be put in place by others to address dissatisfactions that Remainers don’t think need to be addressed. And, of course, insisting that the plan be “credible” and that the outcomes be “realistic” is just the “No-True-Scotsman” logical fallacy, allowing the Remainers to arbitrarily declare that any plan is either not ‘credible’ or does not have ‘realistic’ outcomes … or both.As the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu put it, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”.The journey may or may not have a predefined destination or a predefined route to get there. But if it does, it is entirely likely that both will change as experience indicates better options. But one thing is certain: if you don’t take that first step, you can never complete the journey and reach any destination.There is no pretending that “everyone who chooses Option 1 must be content with everything Ottawa does.” However, pretending that the federal government and the rest of Canada won’t interpret a vote in favour of Option 1 as exactly that is … well … delusional.On October 19, vote in a way that you won’t ever be embarrassed to tell people how you voted.Respectfully,Your Token Easterner.Jim Mason holds a BSc in engineering physics and a PhD in experimental nuclear physics; he lived and worked in Alberta for 17 years and is currently retired and living near Lakefield, Ontario.
