Something similar may have happened with San Francisco, which separated from San Mateo county, and confined at the end of its peninsula, lost place to growing Los Angeles in the south. You don't want to cut yourself off from further development and resources because you never know what could happen in the future.
California may seem like it's wealthy, self-sufficient, dynamic and powerful now, but 20 years after independence it may start to look like a rundown rump state. San Francisco is already sort of unsustainable and kept going by people who make their money elsewhere, isn't it?
If California becomes independent, America will develop another Hollywood or Silicon Valley elsewhere, and Asians who invest in North America's west coast because it looks stable and dynamic might decide to take their money some other place.
If independence does come, though, I wouldn't assume that inland areas of California would stick with the US. There would be a lot of conflict, a lot of movement of peoples, and some violence -- all of that forced on people who probably don't want to have to make a choice about which way to go.
It worked the other way around in California -— What’s now called San Mateo county separated from San Francisco — because San FranSicko’s government was way too corrupt for the SMateo residents to stomach
I tend to agree with you...whenever separation clauses have been invoked with most cities...it hasn’t exactly been thought out very well.
In this case, if California did reach some legal stage of doing this (I seriously doubt)...I do believe that the northern third of the state (Jefferson) would likely separate from the country of California, and reapply to enter the US.
The key problem I see is that there are a dozen-odd regions of the US which would like to follow an exit (southern Florida for example). All of this exit-business would give people the impression that exit would fix their problems, but in truth....just double the issues they already face.