Does autonomy ever appease sepratists?

[Cashew]

Think about the Syrian kurds, they claim that they are just looking for autonomy, but that is obviously just a means to an end.

If anything a devolved Scottish parliament has only increased the sense of a Scottish identity, and made an independence referendum a lot more plausible.

I mean if Belarus, Ukraine has been part of the RSSR, there would have been no independence vote, the favor would burn itself out, and they would both be part of Russia today, worst case scenario would be to gerymander Ukraine.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Why would the Syrian Kurds even want independence? Especially as that means, in effect, bring swallowed by Iraqi Kurdistan.

Anyway the question is a bit nonsensical. Obviously a separatist will never be appeased by autonomy - the clue is in the name. But the idea that autonomy will automatically lead to separatist demands is definitely incorrect. There are plenty of autonomous little places - Aland, the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, the bulk of remnants of colonial empires etc. where autonomy and a regional identity have been established without demand for independence. Same with the Basques.

[Famous Mortimer]

Why would the Syrian Kurds even want independence? Especially as that means, in effect, bring swallowed by Iraqi Kurdistan.

Anyway the question is a bit nonsensical. Obviously a separatist will never be appeased by autonomy - the clue is in the name. But the idea that autonomy will automatically lead to separatist demands is definitely incorrect. There are plenty of autonomous little places - Aland, the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, the bulk of remnants of colonial empires etc. where autonomy and a regional identity have been established without demand for independence. Same with the Basques.

If the autonomous area is as rich or richer than the larger unit it's a part of, it can be stopped at autonomy. If they're poorer though, it will only make independence inevitable.

[2952-0-0]

If the autonomous area is as rich or richer than the larger unit it's a part of, it can be stopped at autonomy. If they're poorer though, it will only make independence inevitable.

I think the opposite is true. If the autonomous area is poorer, then it becomes dependent on transfer payments from the central government, raising the question whether it is truly autonomous. In a peaceful, modern country, few people will trade their living standards for the pride of having a team at the Olympics. Separatists must promise what will *not* change (see Alex Salmond promising Scotland...somehow...automatically remains in the EU).

In Quebec, appetite for nationalism has fallen with the fortunes of the province's economy (in no small part because the nationalist movement spurred the exodus of large Anglophone corporate offices and their staff). There's now talk of the death of nationalism as a movement.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Personally I have no idea why any poor autonomous nation would leave a rich benefactor (but I'm a consistent opponent of nationalism, so whatever) especially if you have representation in parliament or are very small and lack resources of your own . Why would you leave a gravy train like that?

Like all gold diggers, they're living the dream: free money to satisfy the vanity of some old weirdo who wants to brag about past success.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why would the Syrian Kurds even want independence? Especially as that means, in effect, bring swallowed by Iraqi Kurdistan.

Pretty sure the Syrian Kurds would be fine merging with the Iraqi, wouldn't they?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The two have rather diverged quite significantly. The KRG is a clientlistic machine, increasingly dominated by the conservative (not Islamist, mind) KDP and the Bearzani family. (at present the left is divided between the old social democratic identified PUK and the anticorruption-leftist-allegedly-Iranian-aligned Gorran). KDP (and PUK tbf) have created the sort of set-up familiar to many resource-flush developing countries - corruption just about everywhere, nonsense public sector jobs for cronies etc. They have worked out they can achieve their aims a lot better without the dead weight that comes with lugging the rest of Iraq around, but to do that they need support from the international community. And it is very hard to win support from the international community (let alone the neighbours) if you start entertaining irredentist ideas about Greater Kurdistan or whatever. Barzani for example, has palled up with Erdogan; and the Irbil government is considered an ally to Ankarra's aims.

The Rojova government has very little interest in that. They are Leftist descendents of the PKK (their political organisations are often considered a front group for them especially by Turkey). They follow the latter day beliefs of Ocalan, who no longer believes in separatism and instead supports a sort of region wide federalisation across the Middle East. In fact, they have sort of transcended Kurdish nationalism and now claim to be fighting for the rights of minorities region-wide (the Turkish party HDP operates under the same claim) They also think (fairly enough) that KRG are selling them out to Erdogan for a selfish goal of independence, which nowadays they are openly hostile to.

So yeah, it's not wanted by Erbil, it's not wanted in Rojova and it is unlikely to be endorsed by any of the main factions. PUK are broadly sympathetic to PKK, but god knows how powerful they are any more.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks for the explanation, Crabcake. I had no idea things were that complicated (although I guess when it comes to the Middle East it's a good idea to assume as a general rule that things are a lot more complicated than they look). Very interesting.

[MaxQue]

No, but it can appease swing voters and some leaners.

[Zinneke]

No, but it can appease swing voters and some leaners.

This is mainly applicable in parts of the West where violence has been limited in the past 50 years, and there are competetive electoral systems. It basically means seperatist or regionalist parties maintain their goal of self-determination but manage to attract other voters based on their economic program and saying that the devolution of power would have a profound economic effect. As a result people vote for these parties without truly wishing full independence, and once concessions are made by state-wide parties towards the demands of these parties, then the swing voters are inclined to support the state-wide party again.

I'm not so sure this applies to parts of the Middle East and Africa where the state-building process is still going.   

Here's a scholarly article on the matter : http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4145308.pdf