[ben_w]

> But the proposals in the article defining "subversion" to include environmental activism, independence movements, or criticism of UK policy show how quickly these things expand beyond their original scope.

Yes, but I wouldn't put "independence movements" in that list. Much as I'm relaxed about the Welsh and Scots' independence movements, for Northern Ireland to do whatever it wants including the current kicking-can-down-road approach, and for any future potential from the Cornish and London vague aspirations that nobody currently takes seriously…

… if I was a hostile foreign power, then I would absolutely support all of those campaigns. And more. (Independence for Langstone! :P)

[Zigurd]

I would do the same. But the response should be to root out foreign influence campaigns, and foreign money sponsoring divisive voices. A policy that marks your own people as subversive starts from a disadvantaged position.

[IAmBroom]

So, you support the government labeling those movements as "subversion"? Your opinion isn't very clear here. If so, why are those movements so different, or are you supporting the government's move entirely, because of those cases?

[ben_w]

Noticing that an issue has two opposing sides with good points doesn't mean I must pick a side to favour, nor even that I am competent to do so.

I'm in no position to weigh these things even in isolation, let alone against each other.

All I can do is say that I sympathise with everyone in the UK who wants independence from Westminster, and yet I would absolutely abuse the hell out of that kind of sentiment if I was a foreign agent trying to undermine the UK. Divide and conquor, very old technique.