It’s important to keep sight of the big picture. Evidence from countries around the world teaches us about the long-term, widespread consequences that separatist forces threaten to unleash. Separatist movements spurred by ideological pride only hurt the separating society, especially if they win.

Watch: Activist Andy Chan delivers FCC talk despite protests

First, separatist movements, radical to begin with, risk having parts of their support base take up arms in political frustration. In the 1960s and 1970s in Canada, a Quebec sovereignty movement emerged which proposed to separate the province from Canada, riding on the same fears of cultural assimilation that Hong Kong localists are raising. The Quebec sovereignty movement gave rise to a militant organisation called the Front de Libération du Québec.

Members grew zealous enough to plant bombs in government offices, the stock exchange and even postboxes – attacking anything seen as benefiting the government and anyone who they felt opposed their revolutionary separatist vision. Although the separatist political parties denounced the violence, a political platform with only a radical vision and ideological fervour is dangerously unpredictable and has the inherent potential to branch out into an armed movement.

Second, division breeds division. The rationale used by radical Hong Kong localists to justify separatism doesn’t stop at splitting Hong Kong from China, but technically includes dividing Hong Kong itself.

If we justify the right to secession based on cultural differences and sense of belonging, then we will find ourselves on a slippery slope whereby we must offer the same right to Filipinos, Indians, expats, those against independence or any group that doesn’t feel part of the independence activists’ vision of Hong Kong.

The fact is that political or cultural differences are hardly grounds for secession. Otherwise, the US would have been pulled apart by its “red” Republican-voter dominated and “blue” Democrat-supporter states.

The biggest risk isn’t how other countries would treat Hong Kong after independence, but how China would. If China chose to boycott Hong Kong exports, impose heavy trade tariffs on the city or even sanction Hong Kong altogether, which would be its right if it were a foreign country, our economy would buckle and we would have to bear the burden for a long time.

For an independent Hong Kong, the opportunity that the largest market in Asia now represents could easily turn into the nightmare of competition.

There are far less drastic ways to ensure Hong Kong preserves its culture and identity without jeopardising its entire future. But, like Quebec, this requires negotiation with the central authorities and moderation from local radicals. We must abandon ideology for pragmatism, part of which means being willing to make concessions.

Hong Kong doesn’t need independence or a radical movement – there’s nothing to suggest either would resolve our existing problems. We need policies that serve the real needs of the many, on housing, social services and immigration, not the sensationalist power grabs of a few.

Anson Au is a scholar and writer whose work covers culture, health and politics. He is currently a visiting scholar at the Seoul National University Asia Centre and at Yonsei University, as well as a PhD student in sociology at the University of Toronto