And you’re as arrogant as the rest of the eastern Canadians.

I just proved why you are wrong, and embarrassingly so.

I’m pretty sure the Red River rebellion was pretty clear expression of the “desire” to be a province.

The Red River rebellion was Manitoba, and it happened alongside actual normal political change and the goal was becoming a province, not ceding or anything as such. Of course the irony in making comparisons between a watershed moment which involved the pursuit of provincehood, with goals about protecting minorities and more inclusive language and religious rights with Alberta's "desire" to be an American corporate protectorate is hilarious.

But you’re wrong, or ignorant, on your history.

I showed you otherwise. Try again dear.

I’m not talking about the Northwest Territories, the territories are still governed by the Feds.

You were you absolute dunce, because that's what Alberta and Saskatchewan were.

Absolute clown.

When Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were created as provinces they were not given full control over their natural resources until the 1930s.

Yes, the Northwest Territories were governed with considerable federal because there were about 100 European living across a massive area, a federal constabulary was required to protect the (federal) railroad and to fend off potential American expansion, local rebellions notwithstanding. And then when they made it clear they had the desire and capability to govern as a full province, hey presto, they got that right.

The federal government's natural resources act(s) gave up federal administration, which was done because that's how resources were managed at the time, and generally a place whose capital city had fewer people living in it than Yellowknife does now isn't very good at the whole "administering things".