Can't say it any more plain than Mr. Jeff Rath, I had to gronk it to see who this man is, Plain Speak. as corrected by seernewday, Thank You for the correction, much appreciated, gronk screwed me! I apologize.
Straight to the point Interview.
Is it just me or does it seem the plain speak interview's as a whole has maybe turned its page some. I really thank Elon for buying X, yeah it isn't perfect for sure but the doors for information is fully open now.
The post shares a video interview with Marty Sturman, legal counsel for Alberta's independence advocates, confirming recent high-level meetings with Trump administration officials like Stephen Miller to explore secession options, including potential U.S. statehood for political gains like additional Republican senators.
Alberta's separatist movement, led by groups like the Alberta Prosperity Project, has gained traction since 2022 amid economic grievances over oil revenues subsidizing other provinces, with polls showing 20-30% support for independence as of January 2026.
Canadian leaders, including Prime Minister Mark Carney, have condemned the meetings as threats to sovereignty, prompting treason accusations and a counter-petition against secession with over 400,000 signatures, while U.S. involvement risks escalating bilateral tensions over trade and borders.
9 web pages
Economic drivers of Alberta separatism
Quebec sovereignty movement history
who is being interviewed
Searching on X
4 results
Fetching thread on X
Searching the web
12 results
The person being interviewed in the video shared by @GuntherEagleman
(in post https://x.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2018137650541060463) is Marty Sturman, who is identified as the legal counsel for Alberta's independence/secessionist advocates.In the clip, he confirms recent high-level meetings with Trump administration officials (including mentions of figures like Stephen Miller in related discussions) to explore options for Alberta potentially seceding from Canada — and even the possibility of joining the United States as a new state (which could add solid Republican senators and electoral votes). The interview appears to come from a confrontational TV segment where the host pushes back on the narrative.This aligns with the broader context of Alberta separatist momentum (e.g., groups like the Alberta Prosperity Project), economic frustrations over resource sharing with other provinces, and recent polls showing notable (though minority) support for independence. Some Alberta independence supporters in replies push back on the "51st state" framing, preferring full sovereignty instead.
So then the thought occurred, What is or is there an Canadian constitutional succession clause and would Britain have retained sovereign land title or required process for Alberta secession? Anyway Just some FYI stuff...
Sounds like it would require a Canadian Constitutional Amendment?
Canada's Constitution does not provide a straightforward or unilateral path for any province (such as Alberta) to secede (often misspelled as "succeed" in the query). The key legal framework comes from two main sources:The 1998 Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Reference re Secession of Quebec (unanimous opinion).
The federal Clarity Act (2000), which implements and gives effect to that Supreme Court opinion.
Core Requirements for Lawful Secession No unilateral right exists — A province cannot legally secede on its own through a referendum, provincial law, or declaration. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional under Canadian law (and also not supported by international law in this context).
Constitutional amendment required — Secession would necessitate a formal amendment to the Constitution of Canada, because provinces are integral parts of the federation created and defined by the Constitution.
Negotiation process — If a province holds a referendum showing a clear expression of will by a clear majority to leave Canada (on a clear question), the federal government and other provinces would have a constitutional duty to negotiate in good faith. These negotiations must respect the underlying principles of:Federalism
Democracy
Constitutionalism and the rule of law
Protection of minorities (including linguistic, cultural, and Indigenous rights)
Clarity Act details (federal legislation):The House of Commons decides whether the referendum question was clear and whether the result shows a "clear majority" (not automatically 50%+1; it could require a higher threshold depending on context).
The federal government is prohibited from negotiating if either the question or the majority is deemed unclear/insufficient.
Negotiations must address complex issues like division of assets/debts, borders, Indigenous rights/claims, minority protections, citizenship, currency, trade, and more.
There is no guarantee of agreement — negotiations could fail, and secession might not occur even with a strong referendum result.
Indigenous considerations — Any secession process would almost certainly require meaningful consultation and potentially the free, prior, and informed consent of affected First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples (per constitutional duties, the honour of the Crown, and Canada's implementation of UNDRIP).
In short: A referendum is a necessary first step to trigger negotiations, but secession itself can only happen through a negotiated constitutional amendment agreed to by Canada and (at minimum) the other provinces.Does It Require British/UK Consent?No, British consent is not required. Canada has been fully sovereign since at least the Statute of Westminster 1931 (which ended most UK legislative authority over Canada) and especially after the Constitution Act, 1982 (patriation of the Constitution, ending any remaining UK role in amendments). The amending formula is now entirely domestic:Most amendments (including one that would remove a province) fall under the general formula (7 provinces representing 50% of the population + federal Parliament) or the unanimity formula for core changes (all provinces + Parliament), depending on the exact nature.
The UK Parliament has no veto, approval role, or involvement whatsoever in modern Canadian constitutional changes.
Older colonial-era views (e.g., needing royal assent from the British monarch in a personal capacity) no longer apply to fundamental changes like secession — the monarch acts on the advice of Canadian ministers, not UK ones.In practice, any attempt at secession (like the hypothetical Alberta scenario) would be handled entirely within Canada's domestic constitutional framework, though it would be politically explosive and legally complex. The Supreme Court emphasized that secession is possible in principle but only through lawful, negotiated, multilateral constitutional processes — not unilateral action or external permission from the UK.
yes but as the info shows "Canadian The Supreme Court emphasized that secession is possible in principle but only through lawful, negotiated, multilateral constitutional processes — not unilateral action or external permission from the UK "
They already dissolved all British control
" Does It Require British/UK Consent? No, British consent is not required. Canada has been fully " sovereign " since at least the Statute of Westminster 1931 (which ended most UK legislative authority over Canada) and especially after the Constitution Act, 1982 (patriation of the Constitution, ending any remaining UK role in amendments).
So Alberta is under strictly Canada Constitutional contract agreement, that requires constitutional requirements first, which of course there are no provisions for succession... So yes either Amending the Canadian Constitution Good luck, or negotiation or yes at last force, unlikely
That is why this fella Mr. Marty Struman is going through all the Options of Possibility's, Rights, Obligations and Requirements, I believe they already have the votes for self separation sovereignty, but may not actually to become the 51 US state...IMHO
I feel your patriotism!
It is certainly making the rest of Canada listen to Alberta. They accuse Alberta of Treason. The Liberal party are the Treasonists. Alberta is reacting. Flood the Country with too many 3rd World Gimmigrants and then give them more jobs and rights than the long standing Population. They have betrayed the People who built the Nation. They have robbed Canadians of their place in Society.
Can't say it any more plain than Mr. Jeff Rath, I had to gronk it to see who this man is, Plain Speak. as corrected by seernewday, Thank You for the correction, much appreciated, gronk screwed me! I apologize. Straight to the point Interview. Is it just me or does it seem the plain speak interview's as a whole has maybe turned its page some. I really thank Elon for buying X, yeah it isn't perfect for sure but the doors for information is fully open now.
The post shares a video interview with Marty Sturman, legal counsel for Alberta's independence advocates, confirming recent high-level meetings with Trump administration officials like Stephen Miller to explore secession options, including potential U.S. statehood for political gains like additional Republican senators. Alberta's separatist movement, led by groups like the Alberta Prosperity Project, has gained traction since 2022 amid economic grievances over oil revenues subsidizing other provinces, with polls showing 20-30% support for independence as of January 2026. Canadian leaders, including Prime Minister Mark Carney, have condemned the meetings as threats to sovereignty, prompting treason accusations and a counter-petition against secession with over 400,000 signatures, while U.S. involvement risks escalating bilateral tensions over trade and borders.
9 web pages
Economic drivers of Alberta separatism
Quebec sovereignty movement history
who is being interviewed
Searching on X
4 results
Fetching thread on X
Searching the web
12 results
The person being interviewed in the video shared by @GuntherEagleman (in post https://x.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2018137650541060463) is Marty Sturman, who is identified as the legal counsel for Alberta's independence/secessionist advocates.In the clip, he confirms recent high-level meetings with Trump administration officials (including mentions of figures like Stephen Miller in related discussions) to explore options for Alberta potentially seceding from Canada — and even the possibility of joining the United States as a new state (which could add solid Republican senators and electoral votes). The interview appears to come from a confrontational TV segment where the host pushes back on the narrative.This aligns with the broader context of Alberta separatist momentum (e.g., groups like the Alberta Prosperity Project), economic frustrations over resource sharing with other provinces, and recent polls showing notable (though minority) support for independence. Some Alberta independence supporters in replies push back on the "51st state" framing, preferring full sovereignty instead.
The person in the first frame being interviewed is lawyer Jeff Rath
Thank you, my search sucked, you are correct and post corrected... Ty
So then the thought occurred, What is or is there an Canadian constitutional succession clause and would Britain have retained sovereign land title or required process for Alberta secession? Anyway Just some FYI stuff...
Sounds like it would require a Canadian Constitutional Amendment?
Canada's Constitution does not provide a straightforward or unilateral path for any province (such as Alberta) to secede (often misspelled as "succeed" in the query). The key legal framework comes from two main sources:The 1998 Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Reference re Secession of Quebec (unanimous opinion). The federal Clarity Act (2000), which implements and gives effect to that Supreme Court opinion.
Core Requirements for Lawful Secession No unilateral right exists — A province cannot legally secede on its own through a referendum, provincial law, or declaration. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional under Canadian law (and also not supported by international law in this context). Constitutional amendment required — Secession would necessitate a formal amendment to the Constitution of Canada, because provinces are integral parts of the federation created and defined by the Constitution. Negotiation process — If a province holds a referendum showing a clear expression of will by a clear majority to leave Canada (on a clear question), the federal government and other provinces would have a constitutional duty to negotiate in good faith. These negotiations must respect the underlying principles of:Federalism Democracy Constitutionalism and the rule of law Protection of minorities (including linguistic, cultural, and Indigenous rights)
Clarity Act details (federal legislation):The House of Commons decides whether the referendum question was clear and whether the result shows a "clear majority" (not automatically 50%+1; it could require a higher threshold depending on context). The federal government is prohibited from negotiating if either the question or the majority is deemed unclear/insufficient. Negotiations must address complex issues like division of assets/debts, borders, Indigenous rights/claims, minority protections, citizenship, currency, trade, and more. There is no guarantee of agreement — negotiations could fail, and secession might not occur even with a strong referendum result.
Indigenous considerations — Any secession process would almost certainly require meaningful consultation and potentially the free, prior, and informed consent of affected First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples (per constitutional duties, the honour of the Crown, and Canada's implementation of UNDRIP).
In short: A referendum is a necessary first step to trigger negotiations, but secession itself can only happen through a negotiated constitutional amendment agreed to by Canada and (at minimum) the other provinces.Does It Require British/UK Consent?No, British consent is not required. Canada has been fully sovereign since at least the Statute of Westminster 1931 (which ended most UK legislative authority over Canada) and especially after the Constitution Act, 1982 (patriation of the Constitution, ending any remaining UK role in amendments). The amending formula is now entirely domestic:Most amendments (including one that would remove a province) fall under the general formula (7 provinces representing 50% of the population + federal Parliament) or the unanimity formula for core changes (all provinces + Parliament), depending on the exact nature. The UK Parliament has no veto, approval role, or involvement whatsoever in modern Canadian constitutional changes.
Older colonial-era views (e.g., needing royal assent from the British monarch in a personal capacity) no longer apply to fundamental changes like secession — the monarch acts on the advice of Canadian ministers, not UK ones.In practice, any attempt at secession (like the hypothetical Alberta scenario) would be handled entirely within Canada's domestic constitutional framework, though it would be politically explosive and legally complex. The Supreme Court emphasized that secession is possible in principle but only through lawful, negotiated, multilateral constitutional processes — not unilateral action or external permission from the UK.
or a “Declaration of Independence” voted on July 2, and if necessary, final text adopted on July 4
Rhode Island declared independence May 4, 1776. https://www.amrevmuseum.org/virtualexhibits/season-of-independence/pages/rhode-island-act-repealing-allegiance-to-great-britain-may-4-1776#
yes but as the info shows "Canadian The Supreme Court emphasized that secession is possible in principle but only through lawful, negotiated, multilateral constitutional processes — not unilateral action or external permission from the UK "
They already dissolved all British control " Does It Require British/UK Consent? No, British consent is not required. Canada has been fully " sovereign " since at least the Statute of Westminster 1931 (which ended most UK legislative authority over Canada) and especially after the Constitution Act, 1982 (patriation of the Constitution, ending any remaining UK role in amendments).
So Alberta is under strictly Canada Constitutional contract agreement, that requires constitutional requirements first, which of course there are no provisions for succession... So yes either Amending the Canadian Constitution Good luck, or negotiation or yes at last force, unlikely That is why this fella Mr. Marty Struman is going through all the Options of Possibility's, Rights, Obligations and Requirements, I believe they already have the votes for self separation sovereignty, but may not actually to become the 51 US state...IMHO I feel your patriotism!
you did a lot of research on this! good work, let’s see what deal can be made
Canada has outright said they are about to arrest people for treason and insurrection. At this point, I don't think they care!
It is certainly making the rest of Canada listen to Alberta. They accuse Alberta of Treason. The Liberal party are the Treasonists. Alberta is reacting. Flood the Country with too many 3rd World Gimmigrants and then give them more jobs and rights than the long standing Population. They have betrayed the People who built the Nation. They have robbed Canadians of their place in Society.
If that happens, half of Canada will soon follow. Then what, eh?