Independence: different partners, same dance

The current discussion on independence for Bermuda is not a new one. Back in 1988, when I wrote this column for the Mid-Ocean News, many of the issues then were similar to those now. At the time, I had a distrust of the motives and process of the UBP as government. I’m hearing now from many quarters a similar distrust of the PLP as government. I would suggest we are all wanting the process to go beyond partisanship to what’s best for all the Island’s peoples, now and in the future.

At the end of the column I posed some questions that I believe are as pertinent now as they were to me then.

It is clear to me that a broad cross-section of Bermudians, including MPs of the governing Party, are feeling excluded from the governing process. This is why we cannot afford to have the current government set the terms for independence until we have in place a system and style of government which includes the viewpoints now excluded.

Indeed, I would suggest that what we need most from independence are alternatives to a system of government that tends to concentrate rather than distribute power and wealth, and to a judicial system that seems to dispense justice based capriciously on privilege rather than on rights or wrongs.

But our current leaders have been saying that we have no need of Constitutional or judicial reforms. So for what then are they seeking independence?

It seems to me most countries have moved to independence because of a need to get out from under an oppressive master; to take charge of their own affairs; or as a natural evolutionary step following political maturity.

I have been wondering what Bermuda's reasons might be.

If Bermuda has oppressive masters, it would seem to me they are right here at home; I doubt that independence by itself would rid us of them. We already have charge of our affairs to a considerable degree, although the affairs we don't have charge of do seem to have a way of keeping us in a wrangle. And it would appear we are more near political adolescence than political maturity, and quite a long way from naturally evolving to independence.

Independence might well bring us a new sense of ourselves, and would certainly require those still steeped in colonial mentality to view us differently. But if independence were handed to us right now, would we look at each other and see ourselves as instantly changed individuals; as the pride and strength of a newly independent nation?

Would we immediately trust each other more than before as a consequence of the event? Would our elected government become more a servant of the people than the boss it now tends to be? Would we be more, or less, able to share in the decisions and share in the rewards?

Part of the answer shows in the way the issue is being handled. At the moment, the movement toward independence is being carried wholly by a portion of one political party. It seems obvious to me that others in our community distrust either the motives, the process, or the outcome of that effort.

If our current government refuses to include the opposition parties or the people in the preparation for independence, who can trust they will share the product?

Our government does not have a history of altruistic reasons for its actions. To the contrary, much of its legislation lately appears to have been wholly self-serving. And as it has offered no compelling list of community benefits for seeking independence, I can only assume similar motives.

I suspect the current government is rushing toward independence so that it can use its overwhelming majority in the House to set the terms of independence most favourable to itself. I am convinced that if the terms of independence are set by those now in power, then those now excluded from the decision making process will be further excluded in the future.

We have seen evidence of unchecked dictatorial trends in the current government's exercise of its powers, therefore we must be wary of consolidating more power in the Government's hands — no matter who forms the Government.

This is the reason I vigorously oppose independence at this time.

But the issue of independence is not likely to go away. I believe we should take advantage of the opportunity and use it to examine the way we govern ourselves. Why not take steps to prevent recurrence of the lopsided dominance in Parliament we now have? Why not replace the endless confrontation with a cooperative style of government?

For starters, I'd like to know what practicable options can be found for:

The electoral process - What is the fairest way to choose a government? Who should be elected and who should be appointed? from where, by whom, how often, and for how long?

The governing process - How should those who are elected or appointed conduct our affairs? What rules and standards of personal and official conduct, performance and accountability should apply? And when those standards are not upheld, what methods will we have for removal of offenders from office?

The justice system - What is the fairest way to select and insure the impartiality and integrity of judges?

Human rights - Why should they not be comprehensively and uniformly applied to ALL humans?

Freedom of information - As a "free" society, should not information collected with public funds be accessible to the public unless there are compelling, demonstrable reasons for secrecy?

Citizenship - Who should be citizens? Should born Bermudians have rights or privileges unavailable to 'naturalised' Bermudians?

It seems to me that long before we seek relationships with other countries, we need to improve relations right here at home. Such an effort might remove both the desire for and the resistance to independence. That would be a stroke of leadership.

Comments

[Pittsbay on 22.04.06 at 11:53]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Save for a couple of items, that article could have been written today. Your concerns are as valid today with the PLP government as they were 18 years ago with the UBP government.

I can not recall who said it recently, but it seems apt in the circumstances - "...the PLP are out UBPing the UBP..."

[SmokingGun on 22.04.06 at 12:06]

I agree with Pittsbay 100%.
I agree with Stuart 100%.

Stuart - please see if you can get Mr. Zuill to republish this letter in it's entirety in the Royal Gazette. It is simple proof that we are still in a time when neither nor is the right party to take us independent. We have so much else to deal with at this time that we should prepare for the decision to be decided by our children's children.

[SmokingGun on 22.04.06 at 12:20]

From the RG there is a funny and interesting article: "Where in the world is Bermuda?" By Ross David Pollack.

As he proves, we don't even know where we are now. How the heck are we supposed to know where we should be going in the future?

[J Starling on 22.04.06 at 13:03]

I would like to first say that I would prefer a democratic federal republic of all British citizens with representation in an all-British assembly and with local autonomy. I don’t see this happening anytime soon. Despite this, I am not opposed to independence for Bermuda. I think the current discussion of independence is worthwhile and educational for us all as a people. I agree that the process by which we declare independence should be discussed as well – I don’t see why we cannot discuss both at the same time.

But what kind of independence? The current rhetoric seems to be focused solely on the political ‘in name’ independence. To me this is simply dependence by another name. If we want true, actual, material in fact independence we must increase our national self-reliance. How can we be independent when American sanctions (like they impose on Cuba), or a similar economic blockade, can cripple us overnight? We are forced to maintain the status quo lest we risk capital flight from IB. Under the current economic system we would be doomed to neo-colonialism like we see so many brothers and sister throughout the Caribbean, Africa, Latin America and Asia. I would oppose this neo-colonialism as much as this formal colonialism, if not more.

We must increase our national self-reliance. We have limited resources – limestone, natural biodiversity, limited agricultural ability, fisheries, sea-water, natural aesthetic beauty, strategic location and our people. Despite this, I see no reason whatsoever why we cannot become self-reliant in energy and potable water production. Laws can be passed allowing reverse electricity meters, rewarding home energy production through solar power, more can be done to harness our hydroelectric potential, solar panels can be installed on office buildings, windmills can even be constructed off the northeast coast. Increased energy efficiency through bulk purchase and distribution of compact fluorescents alone could reduce our energy dependency. Public reverse osmosis plants can be constructed to provide potable water in the face of natural variations in rainfall. This has the spin-off of increased agricultural productivity (hydroponics) and hydrogen production for fuel cell vehicles and energy production. We can increase our ability to produce clothing through industrial hemp plantations. We can research our indigenous biodiversity for medical uses, as well as alternative foodstuffs. Careful (sustainable) marine management could in the long run boost our fisheries and allow us self-reliance in animal protein. Community based and run agricultural cooperative as well as composting could reduce our waste production (reducing fuel consumption for garbage trucks), plus an emphasis on container growing of tomatoes, peppers, herbs, as well as garden bananas, paw paws, citrus and squash could all reduce our dependence on imported foodstuffs. A national plan to provide starches (maize, sweet potatoes, cassava, arrowroot, quinoa, etc.) could be implemented. This could be incorporated into a future national service plan. A conversion to apartment block building could reduce our impact on open space (freeing up land for agriculture and recreation) and allowing for a more sustainable housing solution. Above all we must diversify our economy. IB is all well and good but even a cursory glance at mono-culture industries (plantation systems!) show they don’t last forever, as shown by our history of boom and bust (ambergris, pearls, tobacco, whaling,, privateering, onions, arrowroot). Grenada has a world class medical school. Surely we can have a similar institution here that would help balance the accounts? A greater reliance on local hotels – cottage colonies, bed and breakfasts, combined with a reliance on local products could help also.

Yes, we will need a better defensive military as well to at least make us a ‘poison shrimp’ to deter any potential aggressors (would it be worth their while?). Of course we should have butter before bullets, but we most protect our butter all the same!

All of this is possible; it is not pie in the sky. The technology exists. The ability for us to achieve this is there. All that stands in the way is a psychology of dependence that says we cannot do this, we cannot achieve this. But we can.

I agree we need to change our system of government. It is divisive. It reinforces a psychology of dependency of master-servant relations. So what if we have a say for five seconds every five years? We should have a say every five seconds of those five years. We need a right of recall and a code of ethics, agreed on by the people by consultation. I feel we need a system of people’s assemblies, one based on an elected parish council system, with national delegates from each constituency who are accountable to the people at all times. This can be mirrored in the workplace as well (after all, the issues concerning where I live on the island differ from those concerning work issues, but together they constitute our lives). Only this system can involve the people in decision making all the time and prevent the rise of elitism and dictatorships. A people’s democracy is simply a dictatorship of the people over special interests and elitism. I feel only this system can end the deep divisions and victimisations of people that we have under the current system of Westminster party hypocrisy. The exact nature of these councils must be worked out by the people for the people.

Real independence can only come about by the people being involved in decision making, gaining confidence in their own self-reliance and social responsibility, combined with a concerted effort to increase our national self-reliance. We may never be 100% self-reliant (after all, though an island geographically, we are part of a global ecosystem and community), but we can be much more self-reliant than we currently are, and with self-reliance, only then can we have real political independence.

[J Starling on 22.04.06 at 13:04]

Wow. Um, I got a bit carried away. Sorry that its a bit long, but hopefully its all on topic.

[SmokingGun on 22.04.06 at 13:16]

Very much so. There are many things that can be done that you discuss. The point is we should be working towards getting them in place today before we shoot ourslves in the foot and try to do it all after the fact. Imagine we find ourselves in a very well managed and self-sustaining state. Then would be a good time to discuss cutting the cord.

[Uncle Elvis on 22.04.06 at 14:31]

I think the question, with regard to what you propose, is:

Do we WANT to pay that price for Independance.
Personally, some of the stuff that you talk about is awesome. The power generation and reverse osmosis plants are very good ideas, but, to be honest, I don't particularly want to see Bermuda revert to an agricultural economy. I don't believe that hemp for clothing is a viable alternative when there are other countries with WAY more resources than we have that can do it better and cheaper.
I also would be against the apartment complex idea. We're already on our way there, with huge condo complexes going up all over the show. A concerted effort to do this is not the way to go, if you ask me.

Most of the stuff that you suggest would be brilliant, regardless of whether we go independant. I'd much rather see us working to get us to THAT point than attaching it to the independance issue.
The other problem I have is that these things would take years, if not decades, to implement. What do we do in the meantime? We can't just jump from an international business/tourism economy to a pseudo-self sustaining agricultural one in such a short time.
I, for one wouldn't want to, in any event.

Pittsbay, I was thinking those very words as I was reading the piece. "The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[novote on 22.04.06 at 16:21]

I wish that you hadn't told us that this was written in 1988.

I'd like to have seen people's repsonses to it, as if it were a current atricle and then seen what people would have had to ssy when they found out!

Good article though.

[silencedogood on 23.04.06 at 13:39]

Great piece Stuart.

JStarling--Great ideas. It would be nice to have some backwards planning on these issues and on the order of implementation.

What I find more dismaying than anything with local politics is the lack of vision and goal-setting for everyone's benefit. Regardless of which party picks up some of these ideas they are worth exploring.

I also think your post helps illustrate that if you can get two sides, parties, etc. to agree on a common goal it's much easier to manage disagreements over implementation.

[Seán Pòl Ó Creachmhaoil on 23.04.06 at 14:09]

Here, here! At this point, I cannot think of anything useful to add to that, Stuart. In context of the current, recurrent debate, you've rather said it all.

In light of what someone else added, though, I do, also, reckon our relationship with Britain demands redressing if we are to stay British, but that's really a seperate issue. I've long supported the notion that constituencies and seats in Westminister should be assigned to voters in the remaining overseas territories, or whatever they are being called this week (reminds me of the constant change of what term is considered-politically correct in refering to Blacks. I mean Coloureds, I mean African Americans...it doesn't really matter as, as long as the attributed MEANING remains the same, and negative, any term will quickly lose its shine. I, for one, do not take my 'colonial' status as a slight to my character, any more than the amount of melanin in my skin. But, that's another other thing entirely...).

The usual argument has been that, as long as we have a seperate, local parliament, it wouldn't be fair for us also to have seats in Westminister. I remember a Tory back-bencher with a home here, when the Tories were in Government, suggesting that London Parliamentarians from colonies be restricted to voting only on issues that directly concerned their constituencies, which I suppose is a possible resolution. In any case, that argument against giving us seats was made pointless when Scotland and Wales were both given their own devolved legislatures. Of course, some might argue that it had already been demonstrated to be pointless by the dearly-departed Stormont government.
My only real complaint with the colonial relationship Bermuda has with Britain remains that Bermudians are denied the right to determine, at the ultimate level, who governs them, and that those at that level have no accountability to citizens in the colonies. This lack of accountability accounts (pardon the pun) for the cavalier manner in which the UK government stripped me of rights I was born with when they passed the Immigration Act of 1971, and then stripped me of my citizenship altogether in 1983. The effect of those two acts on my life were quite severe. I don't see that my British citizenship, and the attendant rights, were ever the result of the generosity of those lately or previously in power. I don't see that they ever had the right to strip me of them without my consent, or without even informing me.
And among the resons I never voted for the UBP, even though I could never stomach the PLP's politics, is the fact that the UBP spent too much time worrying about what was good for Bermuda, and not for Bermudians. As Graham Greene wrote, one cannot love humanity, one can only love people. Well, Bermuda seems to have done very well over the last forty years. I only wish I could say the same. The UBP, as government in 1982, had a year in which to protest the Citizenship Act, 1981, but did nothing. The first I, in common with most I know, learnt of that act was when I had my expired passport replaced in 1984 and found that my citizenship had changed. What response they would have succeeded in getting from the London government, I don't know, but the UBP had decades in which to fight for the strengthening of Bermudians' positions within the British state, and they did nothing. Added to their failures at home, I was left throughout the '80s and '90s with no party I could consider voting for, and seriously considering the advisability of having introduced party politics in the first place. I'm not sure that we'd be better off without parties, but I fail to see, at the moment, how we could possibly be worse. I'm still left without a party that I wouldn't consider it a self-inflicted wound to vote for. And if the UBP did little or nothing to better my lot, the PLP seems determined only to worsen it. Independence is diametrically opposed to the interests of Bermudians. As before, I keep hearing arguments about how it would be better for Bermuda. Those arguments seem dubious, and poorly-reasoned at best. But, whatever the benefits for Bermuda, the effects upon me will all be negative. I fail to grasp why the London government is allowed to be the sole determiner of the relationship that colonies will have with it, or of the rights citizens in those colonies will be allowed. Rather than fight for our rights within the larger British state, and within Europe, we are still left with a government that wishes only to end that relationship altogether. And, as under the UBP, the silence the British government hears from colonial governments allows it to ignore the interests of the citizens of those colonies entirely.

But that, also, is another thing entirely. Or, is it? I somehow sense through the fog an underlying pattern connecting all of these things and more, but maybe I'd need to be a Jedi to resolve it.

[J Starling on 23.04.06 at 21:48]

Smoking Gun

I don’t think there is any problem with discussing the issue of independence now. As a colony the notion of independence will continuously come up in Bermudian politics. Until we are independent there will always be those who argue for it. It is a central part of our current political discourse. Furthermore, there is no harm in discussion – it helps to educate us all. I believe that the questions that we must confront and resolve as a people, now and always are: 1) Who are we? 2) What is the nature of our situation? 3) What is the history of our situation? 4) Can we, as a people, change our situation? 5) How can this be done? 6) What do we wish to change our situation to?

Uncle Elvis

To be politically independent we must approach or achieve economic independence. I do not advocate our retrogression to a purely subsistence peasant society of a primarily agricultural economy. I do advocate vastly improving our current low level of self-sufficiency in the realms of energy, food and water. These are the most important. We have the technology to deal with energy and water satisfactorily. I am not sure how long they would take to be implemented, but I sincerely believe that they will pay for their initial construction and subsequent maintenance within twenty years. Food wise, I believe with careful management of our marine resources (sea grass, mangroves and coral reefs + sustainable harvesting levels) we can be self-sufficient in sea-foods. Aquaculture could assist with certain shellfish (I believe scallops and clams are currently being researched). Currently huge fishing fleets exploit our territorial marine exclusive zone – this should instead be utilized for local self-sufficiency and not Japanese restaurants first. I understand that household composting can reduce garbage by up to 40% further reducing fuel consumption for garbage trucks. This compost could easily be used increase our local agricultural potential be it in household plant containers, neighborhood communal gardens, school gardens or a coordinated state agricultural system. I doubt we have enough space to adequately fulfill our population needs, although hydroponics could help. Regardless, the food could guarantee healthy food for school children and the poor via food banks. In a crisis, should rationing be necessary (economic embargoes, American economic collapse, world war) this system could mean the difference between survival and local collapse. It might not be four star cuisine, but it would suffice for immediate survival. I believe it should include a national service of some sort (part of a mandatory system, like the Regiment, but expanded beyond solely defense and hurricane clean-ups). There is a very potent effect on the individual and collective psyche brought on through contact with agriculture. One learns to appreciate the role of nature, soil chemistry, the importance of compost, the ecology of pest and beneficial organisms on crops; it reduces our general alienation from food, and with it, nature as a whole. In short, it engenders a growing awareness of our oneness with nature and the need to appreciate and protect it. Besides, food always tastes better when produced locally and by the sweat of ones own brow, and one can take pride in the results. I fully admit we have limited material resources (minerals, heavy industrial capacity) and that is why I am definitely not arguing for a completely closed economic state. We can achieve this, but not without reducing our population to about a tenth or less that it currently is. What I am arguing for is to increase our level of flexibility, economically (and thus politically), in the response to a crisis that could see our temporary isolation from the world community. Yes, the necessary socio-economic reforms and technological implementation would take years, perhaps even decades to be put in place. This doesn’t matter. We need to start them, for our own sake and from the even bigger picture of possible world environmental catastrophes. Besides, as long as the independence issue exists, we cannot avoid making self-reliance the cornerstone of our national development – unless this talk of independence is just that, talk and a meaningless independence in name only. “The more things change the more they stay the same.” Only as long as we the people choose to let decisions be made by default (random market forces, elitists, opportunists, etc) and not by design. We must organize ourselves in our communities, as a community, and together create a system whereby we, the people, control the government. To that end I advocate the need for a movement for peoples assemblies complete with the right of recall.
Silencedogood
I agree, this Westminster hypocrisy has to go. I will work with all who are willing to work with me together to see these and other ideas made concrete. We may disagree on some things, but we can still work together on that which we do agree on.

Seán Pòl Ó Creachmhaoil

Comràdaì, I support the idea of a federal democratic republic where each region has local autonomy. As long as the current British parliament (and ultimately a hereditary monarch who actually has more power than most think) has the final say on issues affecting all of our lives, I feel we should have elected representation and the right of recall (right up to the head of state. Naturally, we do not want to be swamped with British Britons (English, Welsh, Scottish) with their greater populations and wishes to escape their weather, but I’m sure we can arrange a suitable relationship for us all. You have correctly brought up the issue of the British revoking our passports in the early 1980s. Notwithstanding the obviously racist underpinnings of this law (fear of Hong Kong emigrants prior to the handover), this clearly shows that what the British giveth, they too can taketh. Only what the people win for themselves can the people defend. Yes, with independence we might lose our current passport status, but Britain’s history shows us we can lose it all the same.
To truly build a new Bermuda we must not only speak of democracy – we must also practice it in all respects. The policy of self-reliance and self-sufficiency, undertaken cooperatively for the common good must be stressed if we wish to achieve real and meaningful independence. The current system is profitable for now, but we delude ourselves to think that it will last forever. Even a cursory glance at economic history shows that economic crises are inevitable and being highly dependent on any one industry (IB) would be folly and a criminal neglect of our children’s welfare. We must begin now to plan for the future economically, while socially we must strive to build a new value system where the lust for money, power and individual selfish gain are no longer the motivating factors of society.

[SmokingGun on 24.04.06 at 09:53]

J Starling - discussion is all part of the preparation. I have no problem with that. I just think the decision should be held off until we've got our house in order.

For instance Ace is opening an office in Scotland that will have 450 jobs competing with it's Bermudian employees. Today many Bermudians would have the privilege of being allowed to take one of those jobs in Ace Scotland with little issue. Get some experience and head back home. Not the case if we go independent.

[Seán Pòl Ó Creachmhaoil on 24.04.06 at 12:17]

I agree with you, J Starling, on finding areas for co-operation and concentrating on them, and much else you say.
I'm completely against using conscription, though, to achieve it...conscription has ruined the character of the Bermuda Regiment, by comparison to its voluntary forebears. In the case of the Bermuda Regiment, it’s not even necessary. The units it was amalgamated from were raised to defend Imperial assets (ie., the Dockyard). Although Bermudian militias had historically been mustered in earlier centuries against internal threats (rioting sailors...mutinous slaves), the notion that Bermuda needs to raise an army against its own populace dates to the 'sixties, and I would hope that we all agree that that was a temporary aberration, not to be repeated. Some would say we didn't need military forces then, either, just political, social, and economic equality. But, that's me going off on one of my tangents...More importantly, in relation to conscription, it seems like a form of slavery, to me, and is fundamentally dehumanising. I certainly wouldn't extend it to pig-muckers and coolies.

As for agriculture, Bermuda was a failed agricultural economy in the 17th Century - although, I'll admit that crops were then intended for export. The only reason that industry lasted for 72 years was the abundance of cheap labour, thanks to indentured servitude, and the interference of the Somers Isles Company, which did its best to prevent Bermudians turning to the sea. Bermudians had so little land under cultivation that they were obliged to harvest three crops a year, and could not allow fields to lie fallow. Even then, Bermuda had problems with population growth. 10,000 Bermudians were obliged to emigrate before American independence closed the door.
When they succeeded in getting rid of the Company, turning to the sea is precisely what Bermudians did. Some might say that the basis of the economy became, not shipbuilding or seafaring, but salt...and as anyone who has read "The History of Mary Prince" will know, however vital that was to Bermuda's success, and even survival, forced labour was cruel and the Bermudians who did the raking suffered horribly.

Even with a third of Bermuda's manpower at sea at any one time, and the population lowered by emigration, Bermuda was unable to support itself in terms of food during the American War of Independence. During the American War of 1812, and at other times of crisis, the shortage of food was used as an excuse to rid the island of 'useless bellies', by patriotically exporting horses and slaves. The population, today, must be five or six times what it was then (it was 12,000 in 1870, as I recall-and that included more than 2-3,000 soldiers and sailors stationed in Bermuda).

If it's assumed that our brief experiment with export agriculture around the turn of the 19th/20th Century indicates that we can produce sufficient crops to support ourselves, then that's based on an uninformed idea of that industry. Bermuda was able to export small crops of what were often received to be poor quality, and to sell them at inflated prices precisely because they were a few days sail (faster by steam) from North American cities, which could not obtain crops locally during the winter due to frozen ground. However little, and however poor, it was a seller's market, ‘til the nature of the US agricultural and transport industries closed off that opportunity. Now, Bermuda buys onions from America. As for the importance of that industry to Bermuda, it was itself inflated by the desperate times brought on by the loss of the shipbuilding and seafaring industry, and the shock which followed the end of the American Civil War. It was still necessary to import labour from Portuguese and West Indian islands, and the real crutch that carried Bermuda from its maritime industry to the advent of tourism was actually defence infrastructure.
As the loss of the Turks forced Bermuda’s maritime industry to diversify, the economy was much more diverse at the turn of that Century than most realise today, with three primary industries (defence infrastructure, agriculture, and tourism), and what remained of the maritime trade. At that time, Bermudian sailors, Black and White, were emigrating to other countries where they could continue their trades.

Today, I think we'd be better off collecting the population into Hamilton, again, and returning as much of the Island to a (cedar) forested condition as possible. Agriculture is almost as destructive to the environment as strip-mining, and urban sprawl.

In any case, if a dozen acres of arable land couldn't sustain a population of 10,000, it certainly won't sustain one nearer 70,000. Also, it's unlikely ever to be economically feasible to attempt to develop agriculture beyond its current level, as it will always be cheaper to import substantially greater, and more varied, quantities of food. Bermudian farmers would do best to do what the few remaining family farms in the USA have done, and target a niche market...that is, organics. That is one area in which people ARE willing to pay more for their food.

The sea, however, is a different matter. I recall what happened to the last major attempt to kick-start a commercial deep-sea fishery in Bermuda (defeated by a Canadian gunboat). Personally, I think a change in the attitudes of our fishermen is required. I listened to them harp and moan, and pull illegal stunts, all through the 'eighties and ‘nineties as the government acted to stop their overfishing of reef species. I can't remember the last time I saw a hind, and Bermudians eat all sorts of things we considered unfit two decades ago. Meanwhile, as you point out, our deeper waters draw fleets from Japan and Taiwan. I don't know if there is any likelihood of developing an export industry around tuna caught by Bermudian vessels. I'm sure it's theoretically possible, though, and, as the oceans become overfished, and supply begins to be outstripped by demand, I would think its getting more possible. Even if subject to tax, I'm sure that if the Asians are willing to send fleets here to operate for months on end, they'd be willing to buy from us, even at a higher price. I'm curious as to whether Bermuda's catch would be included within Britain's quota, though.
Either way, I reckon the size and lucrativeness of the Bermudian market for fish like tuna is high enough to justify a more substantial industry than one Cuban long-liner that needs to be tied to the dock to prevent it sinking.

And, I'm just as certain that trying to pursue any economic or food self-sufficiency, or security, through developing local industries focused on a local market is absurd.

There has never been a time when Bermuda was not dependent on foreign trade. Any security we achieve may be through diversifying local industry, but what we will need to do, ultimately, is what we have always done, which is to go after foreign capital. The misfortune of the last century is that, even with the great prosperity it has brought, we've brought it by selling Bermuda. As prosperous or successful as Bermuda was in previous centuries, it achieved it by Bermudians going out into the world, in command of their own destinies, and sending money back. Of course, there are far too many people in Bermuda who have been woefully prepared to go out into the world, today, and compete. If they cannot compete in Bermuda, they certainly cannot overseas, even if we give them each a dozen foreign passports. I blame tourism, myself…we spent too long getting payed too much to do unskilled labour that required no education or adaptability, and that Third-World immigrants perform with a greater efficiency and work-ethic.

In any case, this is only peripherally connected to the current independence debate. This idea of somehow becoming self-reliant, in terms of reducing our exchange with the outside world, usefully illustrates the barely-expressed, fantastical element of the argument for independence, by those who see the solution to the political and economic disadvantages in our relationship with the outside world as being, not to strengthen our position, or to achieve a balance we can live with, but to sever the relationship. If we do become independent in the near future, I reckon our new national symbol should be the holy grail.

Curiously, I've been living in Scotland for a year, now...and as you can probably tell, I'm hard at work. You know, I'd probably blather less if we had smilies, here...!

[SmokingGun on 24.04.06 at 12:40]

SPOC - we live in a global village. It is more effiecent for us to import food, tourists and investment dollars and to export smiles.

[Seán Pòl Ó Creachmhaoil on 24.04.06 at 12:50]

Yes...thanks for coming. Come again. Bring more money...or, maybe we'll go back to privateering and come get it ourselves... (big, warm, friendly smile)...I'll confess I've never understood the utility of a smile. I practice for hours in front of the mirror. It's simply not logical, Captain...

I don't object to tourism, but I reckon we're naieve to think we can restore it to what it was, and I'm not sure it'd be advisable to, even if we could. It's main advantage, today, is as a provider of jobs for the multitude who have been failed by their families and the education system...

[SmokingGun on 24.04.06 at 14:06]

I agree SPOC - Neither do I imagine we will see the numbers of old but we certainly can see tourism continue it's move upmarket and help pay a few bills.

The reality is we have very limited resources in a physical sort of way yet we have abundant in a fiscal manner. The key is to make sure the time spent in Bermuda by not just our visitors but those that choose to make a living here is rewarded with a sense of value, pride, satisfaction and good will. This comes from making sure the island is safe, secure, well educated and clean.

The truly one sustainable resource that we have to worry about is our children. We must be enterprising in the quests we follow for our future generations depend upon it. Bermuda may be another world but it is in a fragile galaxy.....

[Seán Pòl Ó Creachmhaoil on 25.04.06 at 10:31]

I don't have kids, myself, but I'll admit to worrying for the future of my nephews and nieces.

[SmokingGun on 25.04.06 at 12:25]

SPOC - your words ring true in my life as well. They also ring true in the current thread on Gunfire on Court Street.

[Seán Pòl Ó Creachmhaoil on 26.04.06 at 08:53]

Like the ringing echo of gunfire from a smoking gun?

I do apologise. I've been resisting the urge to that insensitive humour for a day now, and had to let it out.

Thanks, though, SmokingGun.

Personally, I'd rather think I'd been mistaken, overblown, and paranoid, given what I've been saying...but what you and everyone else here are saying denies me that escape.