Should states/regions etc. have a right to secede from their nation-states?

[Zioneer]

It depends on why they're seceding. Are they facing immense violence, actual tyranny, and so forth, like South Sudan or East Timor? Then yes. Are they seceding for the sole purpose of holding other human beings in bondage, like the Confederacy? Then no.

I would say that in democratic nations, it's not that great of an idea to secede since you theoretically have the better chance to help your region within that framework, but it should be allowed. In non-democratic nations, I would be more inclined to treat the desire to secede seriously. So, in say, Scotland or Quebec, I think it's a dumb idea economically for them secede, but I wouldn't be that opposed to the Rohingya wanting to secede from Myanmar, for example.

With that ongoing mess in the Ukraine, I'm opposed to the Eastern Ukraine seceding because it's pretty clear that Russia is basically invading and using the locals anger at western Ukraine to seize half the country. Most legitimate secessions should be done without foreign soldiers occupying the would-be nation.

[Zioneer]

I would say that in democratic nations, it's not that great of an idea to secede since you theoretically have the better chance to help your region within that framework, but it should be allowed. In non-democratic nations, I would be more inclined to treat the desire to secede seriously. So, in say, Scotland or Quebec, I think it's a dumb idea economically for them secede, but I wouldn't be that opposed to the Rohingya wanting to secede from Myanmar, for example.

This is an interesting perspective, but flawed (leaving aside the Myanmar example, as Rakhine state is only about 20% Rohingya). Developing countries are often very vulnerable and often fear they will be completely Balkanised if they allow parts of themselves to fly off willy-nilly on ethnic grounds (which would result in potential chaos if the partition is carried out haphazardly or under ethnic chauvinist grounds - see Pakistan). That's why the developed world is so unwilling to recognise Somalliland - because it would cause Puntland and other separatist areas to start arguing, and then nobody can economically develop because it all crashes into ethnic bickering.

I didn't actually know how many Rohingya were in Myanmar, but good to know.

And I get the economic argument, but I feel it pales in comparison to moral arguments; if oppression or violence is encouraged against a group, they should have the right to at least potentially secede from the oppressor nation, because otherwise, what ability do they have to resist said oppressor? Shouldn't the Rohingya for example, have the right and ability to stop their wider society from oppressing them? And if all other avenues are explored and failed, then why not secession?

Again, South Sudan and East Timor are good examples; there's no way they could have gotten democratic rights, so their secession was justified, regardless of the economic cost to the parent nation.

[Zioneer]

I would say that in democratic nations, it's not that great of an idea to secede since you theoretically have the better chance to help your region within that framework, but it should be allowed. In non-democratic nations, I would be more inclined to treat the desire to secede seriously. So, in say, Scotland or Quebec, I think it's a dumb idea economically for them secede, but I wouldn't be that opposed to the Rohingya wanting to secede from Myanmar, for example.

This is an interesting perspective, but flawed (leaving aside the Myanmar example, as Rakhine state is only about 20% Rohingya). Developing countries are often very vulnerable and often fear they will be completely Balkanised if they allow parts of themselves to fly off willy-nilly on ethnic grounds (which would result in potential chaos if the partition is carried out haphazardly or under ethnic chauvinist grounds - see Pakistan). That's why the developed world is so unwilling to recognise Somalliland - because it would cause Puntland and other separatist areas to start arguing, and then nobody can economically develop because it all crashes into ethnic bickering.

I didn't actually know how many Rohingya were in Myanmar, but good to know.

And I get the economic argument, but I feel it pales in comparison to moral arguments; if oppression or violence is encouraged against a group, they should have the right to at least potentially secede from the oppressor nation, because otherwise, what ability do they have to resist said oppressor? Shouldn't the Rohingya for example, have the right and ability to stop their wider society from oppressing them? And if all other avenues are explored and failed, then why not secession?

Again, South Sudan and East Timor are good examples; there's no way they could have gotten democratic rights, so their secession was justified, regardless of the economic cost to the parent nation.

?? My argument isn't an economic one?

I was referring to the "nobody can economically develop" bit, where you mentioned Somalia. I guess I misread it and assumed the economic bit was a bigger part of your argument. My mistake.