Frankly, this is one of those rules that exists as a relic of earlier attitudes. I haven't seen a legitimate case of strategic secession in years, despite constant accusations. I'm thinking the last one to my memory was in Luz de Bia, and one of the last lightning bolts or storms (i don't remember which)?
That was a capital move, not a secession. And it was a bolt, not a storm: part of my outrage at the time was that their "punishment" for moving the capital effectively amounted to nil, since it occurred during the period where the "insta-elections" bug was still extant. This meant that though the ruler lost his position, he healed up at the turn change, and was also re-elected as Ruler, mere hours after the lightning bolt.
But yes, I cannot offhand recall an actual secession that was deemed strategic and punishment handed down for its execution. I believe that the fact that we have the rule against it more or less works.
