Better when we're together?

(Update: Just a quick note to let you know that we'll be back in the new year, on Monday 7th January 2013.)

The separatist movements in Scotland (Carrell, 2012) and Catalonia (Guardian, 2012) present a difficult and curious case for the European Union. It must decide whether to support the integrity of present international borders, or the right of peoples to self-determination.

For the separatist countries themselves, the decisions of the European Union on this matter should greatly affect how the public vote in the independence referenda - whether a new small nation has autonomy within a larger federation, or must go it alone, will seriously affect its affluence. For a small nation-state to go it alone will likely mean, in the short term, isolation - resulting in rising costs.

But there are benefits to autonomy. Moving democratic decision-making closer to local communities, along with control of funds raised from local resources and control of taxation can all make democratic representation more direct, and grounded in local needs. If that nation can then secure favourable trade deals with other nations, or additionally gain the solidarity of a larger federal community; being part of local-continental relationship rather than a nation-state can certainly start to look tempting.

A nation with local autonomy and federal solidarity could offer its people everything a nation-state might, but more so. Decisions made closer to those they affect, yet with a much wider legal jurisdiction - making clamping down on things such as tax evasion much easier.

Separatism, with the options it presents, also offer a means of renegotiating relationships between nations - something that will be particularly attractive for peoples that form minority cultures within their present nation-states. For Scotland and Catalonia, in Britain and Spain, this may be doubly so considering the past of imperialist, and more recent centralist, dominance of the majority culture.

In the UK, the right to self-determination for nations has been settled by the UK Government's acknowledgement of the Scottish National Party manifesto, which won majority popular support in 2011, by way of agreeing to hold a referendum (Black, 2012). In Spain the matter is still to be resolved (Tremlett, 2012).

The question now (at least in the UK) is not whether communities have the right to separate and self-govern, but whether it is the right thing to do, based on all of the evidence.

Crucial to answering that question will be the position taken by the EU on statehood for secessionists. And the economic crisis in Europe is serving as a powerful motivator for the EU to present an image of unity, strength and stability to recover market confidence. It may well be that economics will force the EU into offering unfavourable ascension terms, in order to dissuade separatism.

At least for the moment, it seems that the feeling at the European Commission, the EU executive body, is against separatism (BBC, 2012). If that is the case, if the EU shuns separatists, the transition to statehood will be made more difficult due to isolation from the trade and diplomatic status afforded to members. And that will likely encourage voters to use their right to self-determination to maintain the unionist status quo.

==========
References:
==========
+ Severin Carrell's 'Scottish independence: the essential guide'; in The Guardian; 16 October 2012.

+ The Guardian's 'Barca-loners: Will breakaway Catalonia fracture Spain?'; 19 November 2012.

+ Andrew Black's 'Scottish independence: Cameron and Salmond strike referendum deal'; on the BBC; 15 October 2012.

+ Giles Tremlett's 'Catalonia joins Scotland in push for 2014 independence vote'; in The Guardian; 13 December 2012.

+ BBC's 'Scottish independence: EC's Barroso says new states need "apply to join EU"'; 10 December 2012.

Keeping a Healthy Distance

Amongst many issues for which the internet is being assailed, one of the more controversial is the misuse of internet anonymity. It's a complex issue that takes in aspects of free speech (Atkinsowon, 2012) and the psychological impacts of internet use upon our behaviour (Szalavitz, 2010). But what is particularly fascinating is that certain factors enabling questionable 'trolling' behaviour are not dissimilar from those behind the, seemingly at times, heartless austerity programs of some conservative dominated governments.

When we place a real or imagined distance between ourselves and others, it hinders our ability to, as novelist (and Nerdfighter) John Green describes it, 'imagine others complexly'. This distance removes the subject from context, which robs us of perspective, and of empathy (Rifkin, 2010) - and can lead to miscomprehension and even callousness towards others. The chief dangers here, when failing to grasp the complexity of another human being, is dehumanisation.

Part of the risk of dehumanising others is to the one posed to ourselves. When we reduce others to mere caricatures, it becomes all to easy for us to become monsters. Though not all monstrosities are obvious and many can seem quite mundane. This seems to be some of the fuel behind scorn for the UK Government's austerity program and it's slogan of 'we're all in this together' (BBC, 2012); at present being assailed by the opposition over welfare cuts (Helm, 2012).

Such governing attitudes and opposition to them has not been limited to the UK. In Chile, students have been leading protests for a better education system, in response to which President Pinera (Goodman, 2012) has said:

'We would all like education, health care and many other things to be free, but when all is said and done, nothing in life is free. Someone has to pay.'

There seems a certain kind of callousness necessary to so summarily dismiss the paid-for-by-tax support networks that the most disadvantaged depend upon. And distance is a problem here - it's not necessary to have been poor to understand their plight, only to have empathy based on a realistic comprehension of the difficulties faced.

Reason requires distance from the emotive aspects of matters, in order for the facts to be clearly assessed. But this does not mean keeping a distance from the realities of poverty and of suffering; nor does it require coldness towards others (particularly when you think no one can see you).

Walling yourself in behind pre-determined opinions, and only that information that supports your views, is a self-destructive path whether you're part of a semi-aristocratic government or an internet user hurling abuse from behind the mask of anonymity. Real solutions require a realistic perspective.

==========
References:
==========
+ Victoria Atkinsowon's 'Online anonymity is ugly - but it's vital for free speech'; in The Telegraph; 19 July 2012.

+ Maia Szalavitz's 'Empathy and the Internet'; in The Huffington Post; 17 June 2010.

+ Jeremy Rifkin's 'The Empathic Civilisation'; on RSA Animate; 6 May 2010.

+ BBC's 'Coalition and Labour clash over "strivers' tax" claim'; 6 December 2012.

+ Toby Helm's 'Ed Miliband to wage war on George Osborne over benefit cuts'; in The Guardian; 9 December 2012.

+Amy Goodman's 'Part Two: Camila Vallejo & Noam Titelman on Massive Chilean Student Protests, Post-Pinochet Chile'; on democracynow.org; 17 October 2012.

Living in the Moment

It has become commonplace to implore people to live in the moment - to be more impulsive and more spontaneous. To encourage them to let go of tomorrow and to seize the day. But what are the implications of not considering the implications?

Firefly's Jayne Cobb is the perfect example of a character living in the moment. He has a preconceived focus - himself and getting paid - and a notion as to their order of precedence - 1: Himself, 2: Getting Paid, 3: Everything Else.

Yet while this driving motivation makes Jayne's behaviour consistent, in a way that those around him can have some stable idea of what to expect - that he will always look to himself first - it also drives a number of conflicts that damage Jayne's own interests. His selfish focus leads to an attempted sell out of fellow crew members - the fugitives Simon and River - and the betrayal his Captain, Mal.

Jayne's intense focus upon deriving the maximum personal benefit from each task leaves him disconnected from the bigger picture. While in isolation his actions furthered his narrow and impulsive interests, in context, these separate actions formed a patchwork, a whole, a sum that threatened the very aims that motivated the parts.

This is no singular trope. From Scott Pilgrim, to Bender Rodriguez, to even the Dark Lord Sauron, a narrowly focused intent on completing immediate tasks to achieve desired aims, has kept characters blind to greater dangers on the horizon.

Becoming caught in this kind of narrow bubble is a danger, all too prevalent, in the real world (Green, 2012). Not least amongst these dangers is the limiting of our ability to change (McGilchrist, 2011) - something that has been observed of the persistence of governments with economic austerity even as it struggles to achieve the stated aims (Wintour, 2012).

A narrow focus on immediate tasks, and obstacles to be overcome, can deprive us of the important information that context offers us about our actions. But, possibly an even greater danger is that, we can lose perspective - and without perspective we can become detached from the larger consequences of our actions.

This can lead us into repeating our mistakes - our lack of comprehension only serving to blind us, as our behaviour impacts upon ourselves and those around us.

==========
References:
==========
+ Iain McGilchrist's 'The Divided Brain'; RSA Animate on YouTube; 21 October 2011.
+ John Green's '#42: Globalization II - Good or Bad?'; Crash Course World History on YouTube; 9 November 2012.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'George Osborne prepares for climbdown on missed fiscal targets'; in The Guardian; 2 December 2012.