3 ms·

> Albertans certainly feel a distinct identity within their province, but that doesn't map to a prior nation, state, or other entity that could be considered co

> Albertans certainly feel a distinct identity within their province, but that doesn't map to a prior nation, state, or other entity that could be considered coequal with Canada. It's more like a child suing for emancipation from their parent. Their entire identity was created within the Canadian context. Your analysis is too legalistic. You could have said the same thing about the US, pre-1776, and you'd have missed (or been trying to gaslight away) the elephant in the room. Nations and identities can form on their own, brand new, and don't require an appeal to some prior legal entity. > Alberta was created within Canada by subdividing what was then the Northwest Territories, already part of Canada. ... Who knows what effect that will have on separation if it comes to pass, but you can't really analogize separation to secession by a U.S. state. I believe you could say the same of many of the Southern states that suceeded during the civil war (e.g. Alabama and Mississippi were created within the US by Congress, out of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Territory).

fatbird 1y ago
> Nations and identities can form on their own, brand new, and don't require an appeal to some prior legal entity. Fair, in theory. In practice, it's a bit silly when the roots of western separatism are an economic policy from 50 years prior, and the fact the BC won't play ball on all the pipelines AB wants to build to the coast. I think the analogy to parental emancipation is actually pretty good just because it does happen. It's a thing. And when Quebec came within 1% of separating in the 1995 referendum, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a unilateral declaration of independence would be illegal, but that the federal gov't would be required to negotiate a separation in good faith. > Alabama and Mississippi were created within the US by Congress Yes, but in doing so they were granted the same sovereign status as existing states. Alberta's relation to the federal gov't is the same as any American city's to the state in which it's located. If Pittsburgh wanted to separate from PA, what would that be like?

fatbird 1y ago

> Nations and identities can form on their own, brand new, and don't require an appeal to some prior legal entity. Fair, in theory. In practice, it's a bit silly when the roots of western separatism are an economic policy from 50 years prior, and the fact the BC won't play ball on all the pipelines AB wants to build to the coast. I think the analogy to parental emancipation is actually pretty good just because it does happen. It's a thing. And when Quebec came within 1% of separating in the 1995 referendum, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a unilateral declaration of independence would be illegal, but that the federal gov't would be required to negotiate a separation in good faith. > Alabama and Mississippi were created within the US by Congress Yes, but in doing so they were granted the same sovereign status as existing states. Alberta's relation to the federal gov't is the same as any American city's to the state in which it's located. If Pittsburgh wanted to separate from PA, what would that be like?