Totally Free, Totally Independent

Totally Free, Totally Independent

A lot of territorial changes are anticipated in the wake of a letter from Theresa May to Donald Tusk. By triggering Article 50 it clear that the political map of Europe will need to be redrawn. There is a great deal of uncertainty of how Britain’s leaving of the European Union will be managed, what form trade arrangements will take, what new international arrangements will be made, how will new opportunities be handled. Although slightly apprehensive, I am optimistic that this is a step in the correct direction and one which will allow us to become more democratic, more responsible and able to have relationships with a wider range of people and places.

It is also likely that this change may lead to changes in the make up if the ‘United’ Kingdom itself.  The S.N.P. see Brexit as an opportunity to push for a second independence referendum and, were they successful, Plaid Cymru may follow suit. Although this is rather opportunistic of the S.N.P., I have no concerns over this. Smaller is better in terms of democracies and, in the absence of a federal or canton system in the U.K. , four smaller nations would be less undemocratic than one large unit. These smaller states would be more flexible and responsive than their larger progenitor. This could possibly, though not necessarily, lead to better economic and social systems.

My only concerns are that the S.N.P., with its large state policies and plans to seek continued membership of the European Union, is not promoting policies which bode well for an independent Scotland’s future. On the one hand their policies suggest a future reminiscent of the nightmare of Venezuela (Inefficient oil-backed socialism) while Europe’s policies sugest and equally unsavoury prospect of a Greek future (of externally imposed austerity and reduced public spending).

If we are going to try to use nation states to break up bigger units and bring power closer to people we have to be careful that we manage to do this. Break up the United Kingdom by all means but break up the European Union also.  Don’t bring powers back from London simply to send them further away to Brussels. If we are going to ‘Cry Freedom’ lets go for full freedom and independence. Fully free we can work out our economic and social plans for ourselves.

 

 

 

via Daily Prompt: Territory

It is just as important to go out as it is to come in.

It is just as important to go out as it is to come in.

via Daily Prompt: Border

Borders are strange beasts. We all accept them  despite little evidence that they are to our benefit. We often only become aware of them when we realise that they are a problem to us, for example in times of war or civil unrest when we need to move. Borders are there to impede our movement, to keep us where we are whether we want to be there or not. Unfortunately, most interest is focused on the use of border to keep people outside. In Britain and other areas of Europe this has become a major feature of political debate – “How can we secure our borders and keep people out ?

This dislike of movement is against all the evidence which has shown that immigration has a  positive effect on societies – both economically and socially. There is no incentive for people to move to make matters worse somewhere else, that is the role of states with their wars and empire building. We, as individuals, move to be able to improve our lot and, at the same same time, improve the lot, through trade and work, of our new neighbours.

The real concerns, that immigration may have the effect of undercutting the wages of local workers, or that it may overstretch the provision of welfare services, are easily dealt with. The first problem’s solution lies in good syndicalist movements and the organisation of workers. Through effective unionisation and collective bargaining it is possible avoid this potential downside of immigration. Indeed, if immigration improves the economy, as it invariably does, there is more wealth to be distributed; the task is to distribute this more fairly (rather than to allow deleterious effects on the economy, through banning movement. which mean everyone has less).

The second concern, over the utilisation of welfare services such as health or education could again easily be managed. Rather than have these schemes based on taxation and residence, return them to insurance based schemes. People could then make provision for their services whatever their country of origin. Schemes would soon develop which would aid people in their movement, the effects of the local levels of supply and demand would encourage the development of varied services which would meet the local needs. The free market makes better, more appropriate, services for local societies and much more quickly than the cumbersome and slow processes of central national planning.

But to return again to the beginning, border do not just keep people out, they keep people in. According the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10th December 1948 (UDHR) we have the right to leave any country including your own. However, this is a basic right that is largely ignored.  Try and leave your country of residence without a passport and you will find it well nigh impossible legally. No carrier will assist you, you will not be able to start discussion with any other country where you may wish to go.

This right to leave any country forces on nations a negative obligation that they do not impede our movement and that they issue all the necessary travel documents without undue delay. In essence this means that the country issues passports to its citizens. However, this is not done as a matter of course and is not always done without payment. This control over our ability to leave is a restriction on our liberty and something that should not be tolerated. We are free men and women, we are not the property of our state.

Next time you witness refugees fleeing disasters, whether these be natural or, more likely state made, remember how borders are slowing down their flight to safety and making it less likely that they will succeed. Think also on the matter of how you would flee if there were a change in your country’s rulers so that you and your family were at risk, or how you would flee were there a natural disaster or war. Would you be happy to see the barbed wire of the border fence and happy to meet the border guard ?

Borders – we don’t need them.

 

12631355_1535511463443851_986112354597069408_n

Border

I am not proud of where I was born.

I am not proud of where I was born.

Another Saint’s Day is around the corner and I will yet again seem many people posting that they are proud to be soemwhere-ish – Scottish, Welsh, Irish, English or whatever. Most of these people will not be immigrants, indeed many will tend to harbour hostile feelings to newcomers to their country. However, surely it is only migrants who have the right to proclaim themsleves proud to be Welsh, French, American or whatever.

I am not proud of where I was born. I had no say in the matter and played no part in the choice. There was not one ounce of effort on my part in this acheivement, nor was it any evidence of any special skill or knowledge I had acquired.

Being proud of where you were born is just one step up from being proud in having been born. Being proud simply because you exist, a smugness and fuzzy warm glow of knowing, just like everyone else knows, you are not dead. A positive feeling born out of nothing whatsoever. A life’s acheivements must be exteremly meagre, and success paltry, if this is something to shout about.

Someone who navigated the globe, uprooted themselves and their family,moved and mastered a new culture and life, has something of which to be proud. They could honestly proclaim their nationality as a badge of some success. Those of us that never moved might correctly feel content and happy, possibly even feel lucky at our stroke of fate, but surely not proud. Indeed, if we face difficulties perhaps we should feel a degree of shame that we never tried to escape and make a better life elsewhere.

In the days of kings and commoners there was a use for this  phoney, national sentiment – it helped the common herd rally behind the flag and give their lives for the wealth of the aristocracy. It still can be the source of violence and can still be used to dupe the population. It allows our leaders to fool us that our interests are best served by allegiance to a flag rather than looking at our present situation. It is an idea which should be discarded as out-dated and odious.

So, while we have borders, let the new arrivals celebrate their mastery of a new culture and life. Those of us who were just born lucky will have to find some other way to boast. Those with no aceivements, the really needy and insecure can be proud of their hair colour, or the number of their fingers, if it helps. We will try not so show our disdain.