An important factor to consider is that provinces in Canada are not like states in the U.S.: they are not sovereign bodies in themselves, they are administrative divisions to which certain federal powers are delegated. Alberta was created within Canada by subdividing what was then the Northwest Territories, already part of Canada.
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.
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.
> Alberta was created within Canada by subdividing what was then the Northwest Territories, already part of Canada.
The same is true of the majority of the US states. The original 13 colonies and Texas and Florida (and maybe a few more?) had some preexisting status, but the rest were created out of Federal territories.
True, but they were then granted the same sovereign status as the original 13 colonies, and Texas, and Florida.
One example of the difference is that in the US, there's state and federal criminal law, and state authorities draw their legitimacy from the state constitution. The criminal code in Canada is entirely federal.
Territories were not merely cut up into states. They were cut up into states in a way to ensure there would be an equal number of free states and slave states. Certain states might not have existed if not for these considerations.
> 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).
> 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?
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.
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.