Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Tech Style & Beauty Kitchen & Dining Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentRob Breakenridge: Alberta separatism just got a whole lot more volatileWith muddled referendum question, Danielle Smith risks undermining all the progress she's made You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Premier Danielle Smith on Wednesday, May 13, 2026 in Edmonton. Greg Southam-PostmediaCALGARY — Well, if Alberta’s premier was looking to duck the accusation that she was the one putting a separation question on the ballot, she’s created an unusual bit of plausible deniability.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorThat’s because the question the premier has decided will be asked of Albertans really isn’t a separation vote at all. It will carry the political baggage and divisiveness of one, but there’s no potential outcome here, at least initially, that would trigger Alberta’s exit from Confederation.This isn’t even a yes/no question. It comes down to a symbolic embrace of a united Canada versus a potential path to a possible and actual separation vote. It’s a question meant to assuage two opposing camps that instead will end up antagonizing both to varying degrees.This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againAbove all, though, it still steers the province into a disruptive campaign clouded by uncertainty and risks the very real progress Alberta has achieved. It could yet consume the premier who worked to deliver those victories.Presumably, Danielle Smith sees this as a compromise or a clever solution to the political problem of the pressure to allow a separation vote and the obstacles that have prevented that. She took to the airwaves Thursday night to inform Albertans of the new question to be added to the October referendum ballot.It’s not exactly Longest Ballot territory, but it’s a mouthful: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”It’s a referendum on a referendum- or a bit of a referendum appetizer, if you will. Arguably, it’s redundant, too, since the Alberta government has already commenced a “legal process,” which is to appeal the court ruling that blocked the separatists and their binding constitutional question in the first place. If that ruling is overturned, there’s (apparently) 300,000 separatist signatures sitting and waiting to be verified which would indeed prompt such a referendum.Even Smith herself acknowledged that “this proposed referendum question does not directly trigger separation,” and argues that it also therefore doesn’t run afoul of the recent court ruling. But that also saps it of any meaning or any clarity.Why now, then? The premier argues that “kicking the can down the road only prolongs a very emotional and important debate.” However, a referendum on an unclear question that leaves the door open for a subsequent referendum does not resolve this at all. It raises the stakes and prolongs the debate at the same time.The premier also deferred to the “700,000 signatories” to the duelling petitions in this realm, namely the Forever Canadian and Stay Free Alberta campaigns. This referendum question is an awkward mashup and revision of what both petitions had put forward.Neither side seems too happy, however. Supporters in both camps would surely bristle at the idea that they’re getting what they want here. But we’re being plunged into this, regardless.To her credit, Smith made it clear that she will “be voting for Alberta to remain in Canada,” and pledged to continue the fight “to restore and strengthen provincial rights under the Canadian constitution.”There is merit in those efforts. Alberta has legitimate grievances and it would only expand and bolster that list for the rest of the country to dismiss or disregard that. Those that would seek to punish Alberta for going down this path only risk further fanning the flames of discontent.The risk for Smith — and, by extension to Alberta — is that she has made her job harder, both by weakening her own position and undermining the progress we’ve already made.The pipeline memorandum of understanding with Ottawa represents a tremendous win for Alberta (and for Canada), as does the progress on removing the Clean Electricity Regulations, the oil and gas emissions cap, and other “bad laws” that Trudeau foisted upon us. As the premier says, “we are winning hearts and minds to our cause right across the country “That certainly was the case. Now, it’s all overshadowed by what she’s choosing to unleash.The separatist movement seems well ensconced within the UCP and undoubtedly many of Smith’s maneuvers over the last year can be chalked up to trying to shield her leadership from that fate that befell her predecessor. Judging by the initial separatist reaction to Smith’s plan, that threat remains very real. As such, the cloud of further political chaos looms large.Alienating Canadians while simultaneously angering both federalists and separatists within Alberta has some obvious political downsides. Smith was building a political legacy, but that legacy may now be reduced to this one very fateful decision.This is now the defining, all-consuming issue in Alberta politics for the next several months, and potentially for the next year or more depending how things play out.The stakes are higher than people may realize. At least if the separatists had achieved their goal of a binding constitutional vote, everyone would understand the implications.Instead, we have a muddled question — muddled even further by the nine unrelated questions on the ballot — that’s ripe for complacency and protest votes. There’s all kinds of volatility and unpredictability in play now.The responsibility rests at the feet of the premier. It’s up to her to minimize the damage. Either way, this will define her legacy.Rob Breakenridge is a Calgary-based podcaster and writer. He can be found at robbreakenridge.ca and reached at rob.breakenridge@gmail.com Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.