In another dispatch from the darkest depths of Laurentia, published in the Globe and Mail, Andrew Coyne writes:

"It is not so delightful that she thinks it is up to them – or rather, that she thinks it is up to Canada to beg for its right to exist, and Albertans to decide whether it has begged in the appropriate fashion."

The premise of Coyne's argument is that Albertans should not be allowed to decide whether they wish to remain in Confederation.

But that is precisely what Quebecers were permitted to do in 1980 and again in 1995.

No one told Quebec voters it was inappropriate for them to decide Canada's future. No one argued Quebec had no right to ask the question. In fact, the federal government spent years and millions of dollars making the case for Canada because it accepted that the decision ultimately rested with Quebec voters.

That wasn't Canada "begging for its right to exist." It was, instead, democracy in action. 

The Supreme Court's ruling in the Reference re Secession of Quebec did not abolish that principle. Quite the opposite. 

The Court found that a clear expression of support for independence would create a constitutional obligation to negotiate. The subsequent Clarity Act was built on the assumption that a province's citizens are entitled to express their wishes through a referendum.

Coyne may dislike the prospect of Alberta independence. That's a perfectly legitimate political position.

But his claim goes much further than opposing independence.

He is arguing that Albertans should not even possess the same democratic right Quebecers exercised twice within living memory.

If it were up to Quebecers to decide whether Quebec should remain in Canada, why isn't it up to Albertans to decide whether Alberta should remain in Canada?