This is absolutely a common question and it often provides some measure of legitimacy to western separatism movements. There are a few strategic differences worth noting. https://twitter.com/farmerjim79/status/1322031533872459778

Some of the following points are my own thoughts, or distillation of points made in Western Separatism, which was published in 1981. I like it because it captured a particular moment that is similar to now.

Ways Quebec separatism is different:
Geography. It matters. Quebec has natural/built infrastructure (river and ports) that are central to an industrial trade economy. The core energy of western separatism lives in AB, with spill into SK. Easier if MB or BC come on board.

Culture. French Canada is old, with its own history of New France and being a country that was worth fighting over. It has a sense of nationalism. Language and history are bound with this. Alberta/Sask are creatures of Canadian federation.

Messiness. The Quebec separatism movement is older than you think. Originated as rural right wing dissatisfaction in 1930s. It took many different manifestations, internal fighting, new orgs/parties to distil into Parti Quebecois in 1960s-70s. It took a lot of attempts.

Rural/urban divide. Separatism in Quebec got much strength/energy following Quiet Revolution, when Quebec society was remade. Only when separatism sentiment was strong in *both* rural and urban spaces did they truly build into consensus and force.

Leadership. Charismatic leadership is absolutely key. There is no Quebec separatism without Rene Levesque, who first tried to convince Liberal colleagues of his ideas, then formed a new party.

Intellectual support. Quebec separatism gained force and legitimacy and a lot of intellectual firepower when it tapped into and was supported by university-trained professors, students and intellectuals.

Debate. It's not a problem that the various western separatism movements don't agree *yet*, but eventually they have to figure out what it is they want. Separation/distinct country? Become a US state? Who is separating? Or is it just increased sovereignty for provinces?

Western separatism often argues that their economic situation would rise after separating. Quebec knew it would likely drop -- yet they still wanted it. That's an indicator that economic as primary motivator likely isn't enough.

Quebec separatism is about societal renewal with a social democratic platform. Western separatism bedrock is economic renewal. Society renewal is not as well developed or understood. Quebec separatism draws energy from the left; western separatism from the right.

Details matter. Quebec spent time thinking about how much they'd have to pay Ottawa to take over railways, post offices, airports, military bases, federal buildings and federal debt, amongst other things. Divorce settlement, as analogy.

Yes, the federal government had to create a formula around the trigger mechanism to start a separation process in Canada -- but, like Brexit in Britain, that's the *start* of the process, not the end. The devil is in the details.

And in both cases -- Quebec separatism and western separatism -- a plan that doesn't include First Nations at the table *will not* succeed. That's bedrock truth. Without First Nations at the table, there is NO separation.

Negativism (anti-Trudeau, anti-Ottawa, anti-Lauentian elite) is not nation-building. What are the positive goals, outcomes, nationalistic feelings and are they strong enough to replace that sense of Canadianism?

If separatism sentiment rises and falls depending on who is in power in Ottawa, it's not strong enough. It has to be strong and ardent *no matter who* is in power in Ottawa. Western separatism is not there yet. It's mostly reactionary/adversarial.

So in the end -- and this list is by no means exhaustive -- these are a few of the thoughts I have had on the differences between Quebec and western separatism -- but I am by no means an expert. I'm interested in hearing other/additional thoughts.

And if your response is that I just don't *understand*, that's not good enough. If you want western separatism to succeed, you have to make clear statements why it should and how it can get there.
It's far harder then you think.

And @farmerjim79 ... this thread's for you...!