The only justification for pursuing a policy of separation is that the group will be more ethical if it achieves independence. This raises an interesting question. If the opposite of separation is enslavement then the argument against separation can only be that the more ethical position is enslavement, and this is a preposterous claim.
Nations are composed of semi-autonomous political jurisdictions. Nations themselves are part of what is called a family of nations. Nations on paper are sovereign but they sign away some of this sovereignty in trade and mutual support agreements. These agreements can and have led to World Wars, so these mutually binding treaties are not to be dismissed as harmless or inherently beneficial.
Provinces and states are lower level political jurisdictions that make up a nation. Nations can back away from trade and other deals. It is more difficult for a unit of the nation to sever ties with the higher-level order. However, if severance is possible for nations why is it so difficult for lower level jurisdictions to gain autonomy?
What is desired is not isolation but a new framework of engagement. What is wanted is a relationship in which mutual ends can be pursued more vigorously than the existing framework permits.
No one advocates separating because the present situation is working well. No one runs from the better to what is worse. What this tells us is that there are two different perceptions when separation is opposed, however, this suggests that perhaps the union as fashioned, benefits one member more than another.
The state contends that the parts must remain together for the good of the whole while some parts at least are saying that the whole is not good for the parts and the relationship needs to be renegotiated. Which prompts us to question how do we determine what the best interest is of the whole and the part?
If the union is not fair to all parties then there are parts that will be strongly in favor of the union continuing and others that will be strongly in favor of dismantling the union or at least renegotiating its terms.
The Principle of Subsidiarity states all matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority. (Wikipedia).
· Ownership of local resources by locals; no ownership of local resources by non-locals.
· The systematic elimination of ownership of local resources by non-locals.
Separation is a call for greater control over local issues by locals. It ought to founded in a desire for more direct choices by ethical persons to create more ethical results.
A MANUAL FOR THE PROVINCES