The Critical Compass Podcast - November 09, 2026


Alberta Independence Infighting Explained： Danielle Smith, UCP AGM & the False Dichotomy

Alberta Independence： Build the Foundation, Not the War Path

Episode Stats


Length

11 minutes

Words per minute

117.44

Word count

1,338

Sentence count

49


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
00:00:00.000 Hi, it's James with The Critical Compass. I'm here at the River Valley, and I want to share
00:00:07.260 my thoughts on some of the drama, some of the infighting, and some of the conflict that seems
00:00:12.720 to be dividing the independence movement, leading into the UCPAGM. I don't want to name names.
00:00:21.680 I don't want to add fuel to any of this, but I want to break down the different schools of thought.
00:00:26.860 it's been said that there will be no independence as long as Daniel Smith is premier from her own
00:00:38.060 words and people's interpretation I feel like that's not a controversial statement it should
00:00:44.360 not surprise anybody and I think most will agree on that very fact now on the flip side
00:00:53.180 I think we can all agree that there will be no independence with the NDP in power as well.
00:01:01.020 So these two competing ideas seems to be fueling much of this divide.
00:01:08.020 Now, let's break down the different schools of thought.
00:01:13.000 I've heard this term of a Daniel Smith loyalist.
00:01:15.860 and that label gets slapped on anybody who seems to just not advocate for Daniel Smith's
00:01:26.560 removal immediately but if we're going to break down that term I think a Daniel Smith loyalist
00:01:33.860 would describe a federalist within the UCP who doesn't criticize Daniel Smith and who is
00:01:42.620 unapologetically a cheerleader who doesn't hold her to her word that would be a loyalist
00:01:52.600 and I don't think that really applies to any independent supporters so if we move
00:02:00.400 down on the spectrum I think there's independent supporters who don't agree with Daniel Smith
00:02:10.300 don't think that her and power will advance us towards independence,
00:02:16.180 but they are unsure of when the best timing for a leadership review,
00:02:23.740 when that might happen.
00:02:26.240 So I think the concern is, for these people in the middle,
00:02:30.040 is that replacing a leader in 2027
00:02:33.360 would fail to keep cohesion in the party
00:02:37.460 and would ultimately hand a win to the NDP.
00:02:43.400 It would fractionate the party, weaken it,
00:02:45.900 and then you'd be stuck with the NDP
00:02:48.500 where the independence advocates have zero power in the NDP,
00:02:55.420 zero influence, versus having some influence in the UCP.
00:03:02.300 So perhaps this middle ground is a perspective of
00:03:07.120 trying to secure a win for this UCP
00:03:11.300 and replacing Smith when there's more stability.
00:03:15.900 That's not a loyalist position
00:03:17.880 and I'm seeing that being framed as a loyalist
00:03:22.900 or they're just bowing down to the establishment.
00:03:29.620 Now let's look at the flip side to that spectrum.
00:03:36.540 You have independence advocates who view Daniel Smith as the biggest
00:03:42.860 hurdle to independence and that she must be removed immediately.
00:03:50.620 What I've noticed with this group is there's no compromise. This is the sole focus and
00:03:57.340 And it's very much a tunnel vision approach.
00:04:01.720 They are hyper-focused on this as the next step forward.
00:04:08.140 I've seen a reluctance for them to take these other perspectives into account
00:04:14.420 or debate the actual strategy aspect of it.
00:04:19.940 I have yet to hear a proposed leader.
00:04:22.880 Not that we're selecting a leader in this part of the process.
00:04:25.780 That happens after a leadership review, but even just having a few ideas of who might be able to bring a broad coalition together within the UCP and secure a win, that should be part of the conversation right now.
00:04:47.000 There should be somebody in mind. And then when a leadership review happens and we go through the leadership selection process, we would have a few of those kind of the front runners step up and actually go through that process.
00:05:03.960 so unfortunately right now i'm seeing this false dichotomy either you support
00:05:12.300 removing smith right now or you are a daniel smith's loyalist and you are controlled opposition
00:05:23.280 and i don't like that framing at all and i don't think it's very helpful and i think it's actually
00:05:30.440 fractionating the movement more than providing solutions if you're gonna have
00:05:36.700 this ideological litmus test then this 500,000 this 25% support is gonna get
00:05:44.300 smaller and smaller it's gonna get spread out and our efforts are going to
00:05:48.300 be diluted so it's worth having conversations and it's worth
00:05:54.800 understanding why somebody may think the way that they will I can fully
00:06:01.460 understand why somebody would be so passionate and would want to remove
00:06:07.220 Smith right now I don't think she's helping but at the same time there's a
00:06:14.120 greater conversation to be had about what the risks what's what are the pros
00:06:19.760 and cons of any strategy what are the risks and what pathway has the least
00:06:26.840 amount of harm and I think there's some people that they view the replacing
00:06:34.160 Smith right now is the only principled option that any other option is
00:06:39.620 compromising on your principles and they would either abstain from a boat or they
00:06:48.140 would let the NDP come in because they cannot fathom supporting another corrupt government
00:06:56.880 and I can understand that but I think the NDP would be worse for the movement than any other
00:07:08.520 option. It's not fear-mongering. This is a legitimate risk. This is one outcome and that
00:07:17.280 outcome has consequences. So it's worth discussing that. Now, I also want to talk about leadership,
00:07:28.140 not the premier, not elected leadership. I'm talking about prominent advocates in whatever
00:07:38.400 organization or TPA, those leadership roles, I feel like they come with a certain expectation
00:07:48.240 of conduct, decorum, and those actions should be subject to criticism from anybody, constructive
00:07:58.640 criticism, to find out which strategies, which behaviors, which conduct during the petition,
00:08:05.900 during the referendum, which of these strategies were effective and why were they effective?
00:08:13.600 Which ones were not effective? And which ones benefited, which ones harmed?
00:08:20.660 I think we should be having that conversation and no particular person is immune from criticism.
00:08:26.640 so i don't care how passionate or what little wins one person has accumulated along the way
00:08:36.200 we should still be able to reflect on their actions as a whole
00:08:40.280 so there's been a lot of great work from a lot of people and i will give the benefit of the doubt
00:08:49.260 for a lot of these individuals that they did their very best with the information that they had
00:08:55.340 and they advocated in the way that they thought would be most effective.
00:09:02.020 With that being said, there's some behavior and there's some conduct
00:09:06.300 that will not help build the movement going forward.
00:09:12.000 If we zoom out, what's going to hinder, what's going to slow the movement
00:09:17.000 is if it's perceived to be reactionary, if it's perceived to be emotional,
00:09:22.940 If it's perceived to have no long-term vision, then this is the kind of thing that prevents moderates and other people who do not like disruption, that prevents them from getting on board.
00:09:40.200 They don't want a toxic movement. They don't want a movement where advocates are slinging mud at each other.
00:09:48.280 They don't want something that's volatile.
00:09:51.220 And they don't want something that, well, if something doesn't go their way, will burn down the house.
00:09:59.940 I think that's not the way to go.
00:10:02.040 And we have to think about long-term solutions, change across all institutions, and building a robust movement with a well-thought-out, mature strategy.
00:10:18.600 And that might mean moving from a more decentralized approach to a more centralized approach with a leader that members can hold accountable.
00:10:28.560 it may mean supporting a party like alberta now a federal party advocating for alberta independence
00:10:36.880 may mean helping certain advocates building parallel institutions
00:10:43.040 and it may just mean continuing to volunteer and continuing to reach out
00:10:48.680 with those around you in your immediate circles
00:10:51.800 So, what are your thoughts on the kind of strategy we need going forward?
00:11:01.640 What are your thoughts on the kind of conduct we should be expecting from leaders?
00:11:06.920 And what are your thoughts on what the Alberta UCP AGM will look like?
00:11:14.040 Hopefully you found this breakdown useful in navigating these different schools of thought.
00:11:18.840 And thanks for watching and we'll see you in the next one.