The singular reason for permanence being granted, as stated in the Pacifica map thread, is a nation’s status as being, and I quote, “too important to the community’s canon history”. Permanence should not be granted for good roleplaying, nor should it be done as a “service” to the receiving nation’s roleplayer.
Evidently not, seeing as how they’re not mentioned in a significant capacity anywhere on TSPedia and seeing as how none of them have been referenced in any conversations that I have heard regarding major RPs such as the Reizen Civil War.
Scopoa has just two mentions on TSPedia, neither of which are in a significant capacity, and IUFA membership does not function as an automatic referential permanence for participating nations.
I can’t find any mention of Ikoania’s role in the Sedunn-Ezervulge conflict outside of its initial release after Peter I’s War.
How? I’ve only ever heard that it participated; and if nothing that it did in that roleplay relied explicitly on it being in the exact location that it is now, then it can be made referential with no lore conflicts.
Its specific location is not, as far as I can tell on TSPedia, referenced in a manner that would make it critical to the Serevan War, making referential permanence the preferred status in the absence of further information.
Which is why, in the absence of any indication that said crucial role is dependent on their exact location, I suggested referential permanence. Full permanence should be reserved only for nations whose specific location is critical to the specific lore that justifies their permanence.