"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you
understand what it means?

Scotland

Right. So all of GB is a socialist country, since it has the same
government. You really are a fool.

Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

It's certainly not. And just goes to show you don't know what socialist
means. Claiming to be a socialist country isn't the same as being one.

Failed socialist states always say that the "wrong sort" of socialism was to
blame.
As with "Nu Labour"
They can't grasp that all socialism will fail.
Simply because there is no incentve to work,be productive or innovative.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 17/09/2014 17:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



UKIP is LIBERTARIAN. That is, it believes in LESS government and MORE
power in the hands of the people themselves.

That's rubbish, they want out of "europe" so *they* have more power.
They don't care about anyone else.


When we are out of the EUSSR, they will be out of a job.
They are true Brits.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"J.B.Treadstone" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:17:01 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Michael Chare
writes
On 14/09/2014 22:04, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 14/09/2014 19:33, news wrote:
On 14/09/2014 19:11, Lawrence wrote:
Does anyone know what will happen to the BBC if the Scotts leave UK?
Will they have to pay us for BBC Scotland? Will we get a licence
rebate?

Nobody ****Knows**** anything about what will happen to anything if
the Scotts leave the UK.

Its all currently bluster and lies from politicians - working out the
details doesn't even start until after the vote.

(How anyone can come to an informed descision in the circumstances is
completely beyond me, but luckily I don't have to vote)

Actually 90% of the bluster and lies are from the SNP. God help them
if
the vote is yes when the reality strikes the electorate.


No, no-one should help them not even god.


I do wonder whether they will conclude that full independence is not
worth the cost and the effort when they start making plans.

Most of the fervent YES supporters seem convinced that total
independence
will mean a land of milk and honey and free beer (subject to a minimum
price of 45p per unit). Common sense has gone completely out of the
window.

If the fervent YES supporters seem convinced that total independence
will mean "a land of milk and honey and free beer", then here are some
things they should consider:

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across the
world.
It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to try & establish
even a tenth of this representation. As they would no longer be part of
the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a foreign land would have to
seek
help from their own embassy or HC.

It doesn't work like that with plenty of other similar sized countrys.

2] What about car licence plates?
Will Scottish vehicles have to be fitted with new licence plates?

Hardly any country leaving has bothered do it like that.

With 2.7 million cars on Scottish roads that is a lot
of licence plates to replace, & who would pay for it?.

Whatever they do, the same ones that pay for it now.

The vehicle owner, the Scottish government?

The vehicle owner is the only one that ever can ultimately.

And while we're at it, what about admin? Will
Scotland pay the DVLA in Swansea for that, or
create a hugely expensive new system of their own?

That stuff is up for grabs.

As an addition to this, some years ago when the question of Scottish
independence was raised, when asked how things were going to be paid
for, a Scottish spokesperson said by using revenue from their oil & gas.
When it was pointed out that the duty on vehicle road tax was far more
profitable than the revenue obtained from North Sea oil, he went quiet...

Irrelevant to whether its perfectly doable as Norway proves.

3]Treaties signed by the UK on behalf of Scotland, when it was part of
the
UK, will have to be completely renegotiated by a Scottish government.

It doesn't work like that. No one who has ever left has done it like that.

Didn't happen with the ex colonys when they got independence either.

That's also going to cost an independent Scottish government. When
Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic & Slovakia, it required 30
Treaties & some 2000 legal agreements to give effect to the separation.

And was clearly perfectly doable. Same when Singapore left Malaysia.

And Papua New Guinea left Australia.
Note what happened there.

Big Les Wade wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Big Les Wade wrote

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and
individuals will be able to continue holding sterling
accounts and notes (as Puerto Rico does with US
dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

Nothing trivial about it.

'Trivial' meaning 'obvious'.

But in such a set-up the Scottish government would not
be able to borrow money by issuing sterling-denominated
debt instruments (because London wouldn't back them)

You've mangled that utterly.

Well I tried to keep it simple for you.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

and therefore it couldn't manage its
own public finances independently.

Wrong.

To do that, it must issue its own
debt - i.e. launch its own currency.

How odd that all those places that use USDs manage to do that fine.

Do what?

Issue their own debt, obviously.

Manage their public finances independently?

Nope.

No they don't.

Wrong.

They manage them subject to their access to US dollars,
which is strictly limited by Washington's economic policy.

Same with those that use the euro. They manage fine anyway.

And that is more problematic, because it requires Edinburgh
to persuade the markets that it can and will repay the debt.

How odd that all those places that use USDs manage to do that fine.

Do what?

Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

Borrow on the money markets?

That isnt the only place to borrow.

Of course they can,

So that claim of yours has blown up in your
face and covered you with black stuff, again.

but only to the extent that they can repay the loans in US
dollars, which is against strictly limited by their access to same.

And yet all those countrys that use the euro do that fine.

And your line can't fly with the obvious alternative, the euro.

Unlike sterling, the euro was designed to be a common currency,

Irrelevant to those silly claims of yours above.

with special mechanisms in place from the start
to give members a say in how it is managed

In theory, anyway. In practice the smaller countrys
have no more say that Scotland would and has
done in how things are done with the pound.

(and it has still run into trouble).

Corse nothing like that has ever happened to the pound, eh ?

Anyway, what's your point,

That those claims of yours above have been
proven to be not a problem with the euro.

that Scotland can join the euro instead?

Nope.

We shall see.

I doubt it. Looks very likely that the YES vote
won't get up this time and that they will in fact
end up with DevoMax instead, at least for now.

It'll cost them.

Bet it doesn't. They will in fact get what
makes a hell of a lot more sense instead.

Corse that does mean that England will continue
to steal the revenue from the oil and gas and ****
it against the wall, just like they have always done,
instead of ending up with a MUCH better result
like Norway did when they chose to **** off from
who they had previously been part of.

Adrian wrote
Big Les Wade wrote

Anyway, what's your point, that Scotland can join
the euro instead? We shall see. It'll cost them.

And, of course, they'd need to join the EU first

Nope, they are already in the EU.

(Spain's said they'll veto accession)

There is no accession for Spain to veto.

and meet the Euro conversion criteria,

That only appys to those joining the EU for the first time.

which requires successful management
of their own economy and currency.

Plenty of those who have joined lately have done
a hell of a lot worse than Scotland has done on that.

J.B.Treadstone wrote
Big Les Wade wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Big Les Wade wrote

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals will
be able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as Puerto
Rico does with US dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

Nothing trivial about it.

'Trivial' meaning 'obvious'.

But in such a set-up the Scottish government would not
be able to borrow money by issuing sterling-denominated
debt instruments (because London wouldn't back them)

The rest of Britain could well reject any concept to
bail out a failing Scottish pound. (The Economist.)

The rest of Britain gets no say on that.

You've mangled that utterly.

Well I tried to keep it simple for you.

I thought it was plain enough.

More fool you.

and therefore it couldn't manage its
own public finances independently.

Wrong.

To do that, it must issue its own
debt - i.e. launch its own currency.

Exactly.

Nope. All those that use the euro manage
that fine without their own currency.

Furthermore, it would need some kind of
currency in able to join the EU. (The Economist)

They are already in the EU.

How odd that all those places that use USDs manage to do that fine.

Do what? Manage their public finances independently? No they
don't. They manage them subject to their access to US dollars,
which is strictly limited by Washington's economic policy.

As the GBP would be strictly controlled, if
the Scots chose to use that as their currency.

That isnt even possible.

Tightly held Treasury apron strings would,

Just another silly little fantasy.

of course, defeat much of the point of Scottish independence.

Wrong with the oil and gas revenues alone.

And that is more problematic, because it requires Edinburgh
to persuade the markets that it can and will repay the debt.

How odd that all those places that use USDs manage to do that fine.

Do what? Borrow on the money markets? Of course they
can, but only to the extent that they can repay the loans in US
dollars, which is against strictly limited by their access to same.

And your line can't fly with the obvious alternative, the euro.

Unlike sterling, the euro was designed to be a common currency,
with special mechanisms in place from the start to give members
a say in how it is managed (and it has still run into trouble).

Anyway, what's your point, that Scotland can join
the euro instead? We shall see. It'll cost them.

Little doubt of that, IMO.

More fool you. It looks like the YES vote wont get up
and so it wont cost them at all. They will in fact end up
with DevoMax and that no only wont cost them, its what
makes a lot more sense than independence anyway.

Sure, there will inevitably be some tantrums when the YES
vote doesn’t get up, but that's just more **** and wind.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

But not in their power to say under what
terms they can use the pound, though.

Fraid so.

That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.

The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.

Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

And others like China loosely tie their currency
to the USD and that works fine for them too.

You really should do some research into using
a currency over which you have no control.

Don't need to do that. I've been watching
that with the euro ever since it was invented.

There's a big difference between watching and understanding.

You've proven to the world that you don't have a
****ing clue about the basics with currency unions.

All you've proved is you disagree with all the experts
in the UK who have been discussing it ad nauseam.

You're lying now.

Including Salmond who doesn't have
a real alternative to a currency union,

Corse he does. The obvious alternative is to just use
the pound whether the rump Britain likes that or not.

which he has been repeatedly told isn't going to happen.

And that is just an ambit claim, you watch.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/09/14 13:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:
They were all capitalist countries anyway, first, creating successful
companies like Volvo, Saab, and others, which provided the financial
base for them to try their socialist experiments.

Socialism is compatible with capitalism surely? Most successful
countries have a mixture of both, and the large ones all do.

Of course. But like all mixtures, getting the proportions right is the
difficult part.

Of course, there are those who are essentially Marxists, because they see
society as comprised as an endless struggle between the proletariat and
capital.

Not realising that capital bought up all the socialist movements 20 years
ago.

Or that in any case, it is a 19th century visions of a society that has
long since ceased to exist.

What you need to understand is that the game of thrones that is Western
politics, consists in essentially saying you are on the side of X, whilst
being firmly on the other..

So called liberal and social democrats are hired by large corporate
interests to make more laws favouring large corporates, under the guise
of 'being on the people's side'. The end game is that no one is actually
employed except by state funded industries or large corporates.

That way they will all do as they are told, and there won't be any
entrepreneurs to rock the boat.

Then with education in the hands if the state, and the Law in the hands
of the state, and the media firmly regulated by the state, no off message
scripts can be uttered, nor will they be tolerated.

You will dutifully buy each shiny new thing the state allows you to, with
the money they took from you in taxes being divided in two and handed
back with a note attached 'and be grateful'

Traditional socialism depended on the fact that workers were in fact
needed to multiply capital. They had, collectively, power.

Today, they are not and have not. Robots do a better job. Robots dont
vote.

All those people sitting in social housing have only two political uses.
To vote for Labour, and to consume, with productive workers money, taken
in taxes, and 'redistributed' via benefits or make-work public sector
jobs, the shiny new products of capitalisms invention. They are
otherwise surplus to requirements politically and economically, and the
Labour party has completely failed to address this point. In fact it has
worsened it, making up more makework jobs as it goes along. In addition,
it has upped taxes, worsened immigration, thus driving up house prices,
and the need for more public sector jobs in e.g. the NHS and education,
whilst lowering effective wages for the corporate wage-slave force. IN
addition it has increase regulation to such an extent that - as in
Scandinavia - there is no point in setting up your own business, because
the overhead of complying with regulations on employment and health and
safety means that any one who employs half a dozen people is de facto
breaking half a dozen regulations before they even get on the payroll.

And so they can. if they represent a threat to anyone with the ear of
government, be closed down for being 'in breach'...

And whilst you can have robot factories and wage slave workers toiling
away doing either nothing at all, or making shiny new things, in the case
of shiny new things someone has to be in a position to buy them, and
thats where banks come in. They lend the money that will never be repaid,
so that the average citizen is in debt. Or beholden to the state or a big
corporate for his job. In essence they have free access to printed money
at almost zero rates of interest, to lend to people who they end up
owning lock stock and barrel.

So the final effect is that an elite, comprising political parties like
the Labour Party, Banks and Big Corporates,and Big Media, on paper own
everything, and the citizens of the country own nothing. Worse, they are
in debt to the above organisations one way or another. And they cant even
transfer anything they do have, because that will be taxed too. Even just
owning something - a car perhaps, or a house - is taxable.

It is a slow steady transfer of capital from individuals to the State,
the Banks and to those who own the robots.

Because we don't need no stinking people do we?

Economically, we are in a very very dark place. The machinery of p
production needs no people, and the people are having their power and
their wealth stripped from them. And it is ending up in a very few
hands - of top bankers, media people, politicians and corporate boards.
All the people who support such things as the EU.

A for the rest? let them eat lentils instead., toss a few billion at te
greens to let them promote the idea that we must all live on a cupful of
brown rice a day, and be powered by windmills as electricity prices
treble and quadruple. Heck the Greens will even tell you we need less
people, to 'save the planet' Which fits in nicely with the sort of
classist cleansing that the elite would like to see.

Which is why Diane Abbot absolutely considers state education is the
thing to be preserved, except for her own kids. Come on, she wants them
to be part of the new elite, not the scrapheap.

Cameron and Miliband are far closer to each other than either is to me.
Or any other ordinary decent sort of bloke I meet.

In China, the career of choice is as a communist party official, because
that's where you get paid money and do less work, and have power.

IT is however all falling apart. Largely because of one thing. Robots
need energy, and we are running out, and Robots need capital, which is
all about repaying the cost of them with what they produce, and if there
is no market because you have stripped the money from everybody, they
cant sell their products, and likewise bankers who confidently expect to
be paid all that interest on all that money they printed, won't get paid
if no one can afford to service their debt.

The top 1% may, on paper, own the 99% of everything that they do, but
what good is it? If they dont have an army of lawyers and bailiffs to
take possession if the debtors default? And even if they do? what good is
it? they don't want assets, they want income. Wore an enormous amount of
debt was consumer debt (Labour 'investing in people'), lent to people to
buy stuff that they have dutifully consumed. You can take my shut, but
the money I used to buy a MacDeathburger, is gone, for good.

And all this wonderful plan has come to and end because there are, in the
end 'limits to growth'. Without exponential growth, none of the debt
models work. And throwing more debt at an economy that cannot expand for
other reasons than lack of capital, doesn't work. Without access to more
and more debt, governments cant employ the makeworkers, and their power
is diminished. Without more debt the consumers wont buy the shiny new
products from MCApple**** factories.

Now it so happens that everyine is waking up to this, and 'Scottish
independence' is just a ruse employed by a sharp bunch of conmen who call
themselves 'national socialists', to blame it on the brits, and get more
political power. It will never succeed - can never succeed - because what
is promised is impossible, and what will be possible will be worse than
what they have.


And so people will again realise, as they are all over Europe and the
West, that those who say they are your friend and call themselves
socialists, don't give a flying **** about you. They just want your vote,
so they can swan around Being Important whilst you play with your X box
and jerk off to Jennifer Lawrence in your state supplied social housing,
on your state supplied benefits, and take your state supplied
anti-depressants to stop feeling quite so miserable.


Whatever socialism means in theory, that is what it has come to mean in
Practice. A dreary little life of politically correct conformity,
according to whatever lifestyle your Glorious Leaders feel is the one you
are going to get, where you own nothing, are worth nothing, and any
initiative to make something - for sale, or of yourself - has been
carefully educated out in the comprehensive you were forced to attend,
and made illegal by countless Acts of social legislation designed
allegedly to protect you from yourself, but which actually protect the
status quo and the new elite, from you.
.

And you wonder how people could go and convert to Islam, join a bloody
Jihad and cheerfully slice off peoples' heads for You Tube? OR get a
bunch of automatic weapons and shoot up a young socialist camp? I dont. I
understand completely. There but for the grace of God and a good
education that I probably didn't deserve, go I.



Hmm, I actually agree with most of that.

More fool you.

Just another example of senile old farts howling about how
the entire world has gone to rack and ruin since they were
running things.

The ancient greeks used to sit around in their togas or whatever
they wore and howl in EXACTLY the same silly way.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 17/09/14 13:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:
They were all capitalist countries anyway, first, creating
successful
companies like Volvo, Saab, and others, which provided the financial
base for them to try their socialist experiments.

Socialism is compatible with capitalism surely? Most successful
countries have a mixture of both, and the large ones all do.

Of course. But like all mixtures, getting the proportions right is the
difficult part.


[interesting dystopian analysis snipped]

You've obviously been reading "The Space Merchants" by Frederik Pohl
and Cyril M. Kornbluth (published 1952). It's a novel encompassing
exactly the situation you describe.

I think we are on the edge of a precipice.

More fool you.

Fools like you have been howling like that for millennia now.

There is no way the public and personal debts of this country can be
repaid.

The public and personal debts were MUCH
higher just after WW2 had ended.

Hyper inflation

We're actually seeing DEFLATION in property prices.

or "renage on debt" (Calamity)

Even sillier than you usually manage.

And the Scots will be worse off still if it's Yes.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The Yes many trigger the collapse.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

All thanks to socialism and Nu Labour.

It wasn’t them that ran up that immense debt
that Britain ended up with after WW1 and WW2.

harryagain wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harryagain wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harryagain wrote

It was socialism ****ed up Scotland, not the English or the tories.

But socialists are too dull to see it.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you
understand what it means?

Scotland
Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

Norway
Sweden
Denmark

All conspicuous failures that will take decades to fix.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie with Norway which is in a remarkably
similar situation to what an independent Scotland would be
with respect to oil and gas and leaving what it was part of too.

Holding their begging bowls out to the EUSSR/other capitalist countries.

Norway doesn’t.

Looking for more of other peoples money to spend.

Norway doesn’t.

That they will never pay back.

Even sillier than you usually manage with Norway.

Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg

Just been there a few months, stupid.

Nothing whatever to do with why Norway is rolling in it.

harryagain wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harryagain wrote:
Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you
understand what it means?

Scotland

Right. So all of GB is a socialist country, since it has the same
government. You really are a fool.

Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

It's certainly not. And just goes to show you don't know what socialist
means. Claiming to be a socialist country isn't the same as being one.

Failed socialist states always say that the "wrong sort" of socialism was
to blame.

Same with the rabid right.

As with "Nu Labour"

And the rabid right.

They can't grasp that all socialism will fail.

How odd that it didn’t in Norway.

Simply because there is no incentve to work,be productive or innovative.

How odd that Norway has ended
up MUCH better off that Britain has.

On 18/09/14 09:55, Big Les Wade wrote:
Rod Speed posted
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Just been listening to an SNP person stating that a
common currency would be to the benefit of both an
independant Scotland and what remains of the UK. Again.

Since she obviously doesn't have the best interests
of the UK at heart, should anyone believe her?

Doesn't matter given that only Scotland gets to vote.

But not in their power to say under what terms they can use the
pound, though.

Fraid so.
That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.
The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.
Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals will
be able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as Puerto Rico
does with US dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

But in such a set-up the Scottish government would not be able to borrow
money by issuing sterling-denominated debt instruments (because London
wouldn't back them) and therefore it couldn't manage its own public
finances independently. To do that, it must issue its own debt - i.e.
launch its own currency. And that is more problematic, because it
requires Edinburgh to persuade the markets that it can and will repay
the debt.

essentially about 4x the assets that it currently has in total


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 18/09/14 10:10, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:55:44 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.
The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.
Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals will
be able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as Puerto Rico
does with US dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

Montenegro is a European example, using the Euro.

Scotland can use the USD, the Euro, the GBP, the Yen, the
whateverthe****theywant, without having to ask permission from the
currency's "owners". They just need to have a serious amount in cash on
deposit - and you're right, they'd have no fiscal independence. At least
in the Euro they'd have a seat at the ECB.


But would it be big enough for Salmond's gargantuan arse?


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 17/09/2014 22:57, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:20:12 -0500, David P
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 03:59:59 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

If I remember correctly, the oil is owned currently by the "UK
Continental Shelf". There is lots of ways it could be divided. The thing
I wonder is - which court or jurisdiction would get to decide and
enforce the split ? Simon.

and no doubt once the Orkney and Shetland isles decide they want nothing
to do with the 'new Scotland' it will then transfer, with their
allegiance, to south of the border.

As an enclave they would only get the oil within 12 miles of their
coast and all the major fields are outwith that.


Like Britain and Ireland only get 12 miles?

On 17/09/2014 23:02, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:09:11 +0100, "J.B.Treadstone"
wrote:

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across the world.
It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to try & establish
even a tenth of this representation. As they would no longer be part of
the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a foreign land would have to seek
help from their own embassy or HC.

The 191 embassies & high commissions of the UK are part its assets and
Scotland is entitled to its share however if there isn't a Scottish
embassy in a country any EU embassy will do.


For EU citizens maybe, but Scotland won't be for years.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:54:56 +0000, Adrian wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:33:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well as Scotland would be a completely independent country

And /because/ they are separate country, I would also think they would
have to have their /own/ offices & staff, diplomats & Euro MPs in
Brussels.

They already do, since the EU doesn't recognise 'countries' only
'regions'

Scotland is an EU region with its own MEPS as is Wales, Northern
Ireland, Anglia, London, South East England, south West England, West
Midlands, East Midlands the North West, the North east and Yorkshire and
the Humber.

ITYM "constituency". Most member states are a single constituency, others
- including the UK - are split into regional constituencies.

The joke is they are already as independent as the EU will let them be
if they join the EU, already!

Umm, hardly.

Unless, of course, you'd like to name the Scottish commissioner? Or tell
us when Scotland's next presidency of the Council of the EU starts? Or
tell us where Scotland's permanent representative office (embassy, in
effect) is based? Or... or... or...

Exactly.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:45:53 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

On 17/09/2014 23:02, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:09:11 +0100, "J.B.Treadstone"
wrote:

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across the
world. It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to try &
establish even a tenth of this representation. As they would no longer
be part of the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a foreign land
would have to seek help from their own embassy or HC.

The 191 embassies & high commissions of the UK are part its assets and
Scotland is entitled to its share however if there isn't a Scottish
embassy in a country any EU embassy will do.


For EU citizens maybe, but Scotland won't be for years.

Exactly. It won't be an EU member until it has negotiated an entry, thus
would not have any embassies etc.

And in a similar vein, it may have to apply to join the UN if it so wishes.
It would also need to apply to join NATO, according to the
secretary-general.

In message . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 17/09/2014 23:02, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:09:11 +0100, "J.B.Treadstone"
wrote:

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across the world.
It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to try & establish
even a tenth of this representation. As they would no longer be part of
the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a foreign land would have to seek
help from their own embassy or HC.

The 191 embassies & high commissions of the UK are part its assets and
Scotland is entitled to its share however if there isn't a Scottish
embassy in a country any EU embassy will do.


For EU citizens maybe, but Scotland won't be for years.

I imagine that Scotland would negotiate for existing UK embassies etc.
to provide the service to start with at least.

I keep seeing all sorts of 'oh, there is this to do, and what about
that' type things related to the independence vote. Sure some of this
are of real substance and will be difficult to sort out (e.g. things
like currency, pensions etc. etc.)

But loads of things are like this, and the one someone mentioned about
car registrations, which are basically administrative things, and just
require a bit of negotiation. Yeah sure there would be costs involved,
but it's not going to be a quick process to separate all this up, it
will be a more gradual process, and I imagine that it would be some
years after independence before everything was sorted out, and new
systems in place
--
Chris French

"J.B.Treadstone" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:45:53 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

On 17/09/2014 23:02, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:09:11 +0100, "J.B.Treadstone"
wrote:

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across the
world. It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to try &
establish even a tenth of this representation. As they would no longer
be part of the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a foreign land
would have to seek help from their own embassy or HC.

The 191 embassies & high commissions of the UK are part its assets and
Scotland is entitled to its share however if there isn't a Scottish
embassy in a country any EU embassy will do.

For EU citizens maybe, but Scotland won't be for years.

Exactly. It won't be an EU member until it has negotiated an entry,

That would just be a rubber stamp exercise that wouldn’t take years.

thus would not have any embassies etc.

But would be free to use British ones, just like other commonwealth countrys
do.

And in a similar vein, it may have to apply to join the UN if it so
wishes.
It would also need to apply to join NATO, according to the
secretary-general.

And that would just be another rubber stamp exercise too.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 07:55:45 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:



"J.B.Treadstone" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:45:53 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

On 17/09/2014 23:02, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:09:11 +0100, "J.B.Treadstone"
wrote:

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across the
world. It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to try &
establish even a tenth of this representation. As they would no
longer be part of the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a foreign
land would have to seek help from their own embassy or HC.

The 191 embassies & high commissions of the UK are part its assets and
Scotland is entitled to its share however if there isn't a Scottish
embassy in a country any EU embassy will do.

For EU citizens maybe, but Scotland won't be for years.

Exactly. It won't be an EU member until it has negotiated an entry,

That would just be a rubber stamp exercise that wouldn’t take years.

Tell that to the EU President, who quoted EU law on the subject.

thus would not have any embassies etc.

But would be free to use British ones, just like other commonwealth
countrys do.

Are you /really/ that ignorant?
Other Commonwealth countries have their *own* embassies & high commissions
throughout the world.

And in a similar vein, it may have to apply to join the UN if it so
wishes.
It would also need to apply to join NATO, according to the
secretary-general.

And that would just be another rubber stamp exercise too.

Better tell that the UN & NATO secretary-generals.

On 18/09/2014 22:55, Rod Speed wrote:


But would be free to use British ones, just like other commonwealth
countrys do.

If it joins the common wealth.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:35:52 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

On 18/09/2014 22:55, Rod Speed wrote:


But would be free to use British ones, just like other commonwealth
countrys do.

If it joins the common wealth.

But Commonwealth countries have their /own/ embassies, they don't use
British ones!
All fifty-three Commonwealth countries have their /own/ diplomatic
services, consulates & embassies: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India,
South Africa, Jamaica, Trinidad, Botswana, Maldives, Nigeria, Uganda, Sri
Lanka, Pakistan, Ghana, Lesotho, Tanzania, Rwanda, Singapore, Samoa etc,
etc. An independent Scotland would also have to establish /their/ own
embassies or consulates.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:45:01 +0100, "Dennis@home"
wrote:

On 17/09/2014 22:57, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:20:12 -0500, David P
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 03:59:59 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

If I remember correctly, the oil is owned currently by the "UK
Continental Shelf". There is lots of ways it could be divided. The thing
I wonder is - which court or jurisdiction would get to decide and
enforce the split ? Simon.

and no doubt once the Orkney and Shetland isles decide they want nothing
to do with the 'new Scotland' it will then transfer, with their
allegiance, to south of the border.

As an enclave they would only get the oil within 12 miles of their
coast and all the major fields are outwith that.

Like Britain and Ireland only get 12 miles?

Britain and Ireland get an exclusive economic zone of up to 200
nautical miles as they are not enclaves.

In message , J.B.Treadstone
writes
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 07:55:45 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:



"J.B.Treadstone" wrote in message
news
And in a similar vein, it may have to apply to join the UN if it so
wishes.
It would also need to apply to join NATO, according to the
secretary-general.

And that would just be another rubber stamp exercise too.

Better tell that the UN & NATO secretary-generals.


NATO might be more complicated, but I can't see any reason why the UN
wouldn't admit an independent Scotland. South Sudan joined in 2011 a few
months after their referendum
--
Chris French

J.B.Treadstone wrote
Rod Speed wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote
Dennis@home wrote
mcp wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across
the world. It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to try
& establish even a tenth of this representation. As they would no
longer be part of the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a foreign
land would have to seek help from their own embassy or HC.

The 191 embassies & high commissions of the UK are part
its assets and Scotland is entitled to its share however if there
isn't a Scottish embassy in a country any EU embassy will do.

For EU citizens maybe, but Scotland won't be for years.

Exactly. It won't be an EU member until it has negotiated an entry,

That would just be a rubber stamp exercise that wouldn’t take years.

Tell that to the EU President,

No point, he is completely irrelevant and
will be around for less than a month anyway.

who quoted EU law on the subject.

No he did not. There is no EU law on the subject.

He was just attempting to monster those who want independence.

thus would not have any embassies etc.

But would be free to use British ones, just
like other commonwealth countrys do.

Are you /really/ that ignorant?

We'll see...

Other Commonwealth countries have their *own*
embassies & high commissions throughout the world.

Yes, but they don’t all have one of either in every single
country in the entire world, for what should be rather
obvious reasons, and when they don’t, and there is a
british one in that country where it is needed, they are
free to use the british one if they choose to do that.

And in a similar vein, it may have to
apply to join the UN if it so wishes.

And joining the UN would be just rubber stamped.

It would also need to apply to join NATO,
according to the secretary-general.

And that would just be another rubber stamp exercise too.

Better tell that the UN & NATO secretary-generals.

Don’t need to, they know that.

Dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

But would be free to use British ones, just like other commonwealth
countrys do.

If it joins the common wealth.

Unlikely that they wouldn’t given
that they have said they will keep Liz.

J.B.Treadstone wrote
Dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

But would be free to use British ones, just
like other commonwealth countrys do.

If it joins the common wealth.

But Commonwealth countries have their /own/ embassies,

Not in every single country in the entire world they don’t.

they don't use British ones!

They do when there is a British one in a particular
country that does not have one of their own.

All fifty-three Commonwealth countries have their /own/ diplomatic
services, consulates & embassies: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India,
South Africa, Jamaica, Trinidad, Botswana, Maldives, Nigeria, Uganda, Sri
Lanka, Pakistan, Ghana, Lesotho, Tanzania, Rwanda, Singapore, Samoa etc,
etc.

Not in every single country in the entire world, for
what should be obvious reasons, particularly with
the smaller members of the commonwealth.

Even Australia doesn’t have as many as Britain
and Australians are free to use the British one if
there in no Australian one in a particular country.

An independent Scotland would also have to
establish /their/ own embassies or consulates.

Not in every single country in the
entire world they wouldn’t have to.

Even Britain doesn’t do that.

Chris French wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote
Rod Speed wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote

And in a similar vein, it may have to apply to join the UN if it so
wishes.

It would also need to apply to join NATO, according to the
secretary-general.

And that would just be another rubber stamp exercise too.

Better tell that the UN & NATO secretary-generals.

NATO might be more complicated,

Not a chance.

but I can't see any reason why the UN wouldn't admit an independent
Scotland.

In fact no one has ever been prevented
from joining, that's how the UN works.

South Sudan joined in 2011 a few months after their referendum

And Gaza isnt even technically independent.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harryagain wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harryagain wrote

It was socialism ****ed up Scotland, not the English or the tories.

But socialists are too dull to see it.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you
understand what it means?

Scotland
Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

Norway
Sweden
Denmark

All conspicuous failures that will take decades to fix.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie with Norway which is in a remarkably
similar situation to what an independent Scotland would be
with respect to oil and gas and leaving what it was part of too.

Holding their begging bowls out to the EUSSR/other capitalist
countries.

Norway doesn’t.

Looking for more of other peoples money to spend.

Norway doesn’t.

That they will never pay back.

Even sillier than you usually manage with Norway.

Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg

Just been there a few months, stupid.

Nothing whatever to do with why Norway is rolling in it.
They are not socialist ****-fer-brains

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harryagain wrote:
Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you
understand what it means?

Scotland

Right. So all of GB is a socialist country, since it has the same
government. You really are a fool.

Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

It's certainly not. And just goes to show you don't know what socialist
means. Claiming to be a socialist country isn't the same as being one.

Failed socialist states always say that the "wrong sort" of socialism was
to blame.

Same with the rabid right.

As with "Nu Labour"

And the rabid right.

They can't grasp that all socialism will fail.

How odd that it didn’t in Norway.

Simply because there is no incentve to work,be productive or innovative.

How odd that Norway has ended
up MUCH better off that Britain has.

Norway is not on my list ****-fer-brains

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harryagain wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harryagain wrote

It was socialism ****ed up Scotland, not the English or the tories.

But socialists are too dull to see it.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you
understand what it means?

Scotland
Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

Norway
Sweden
Denmark

All conspicuous failures that will take decades to fix.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie with Norway which is in a remarkably
similar situation to what an independent Scotland would be
with respect to oil and gas and leaving what it was part of too.

Holding their begging bowls out to the EUSSR/other capitalist
countries.

Norway doesn’t.

Looking for more of other peoples money to spend.

Norway doesn’t.

That they will never pay back.

Even sillier than you usually manage with Norway.

Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg

Just been there a few months, stupid.

Nothing whatever to do with why Norway is rolling in it.

They are not socialist

Wrong, as always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...7)#Early_years

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harryagain wrote:
Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you
understand what it means?

Scotland

Right. So all of GB is a socialist country, since it has the same
government. You really are a fool.

Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

It's certainly not. And just goes to show you don't know what socialist
means. Claiming to be a socialist country isn't the same as being one.

Failed socialist states always say that the "wrong sort" of socialism
was to blame.

Same with the rabid right.

As with "Nu Labour"

And the rabid right.

They can't grasp that all socialism will fail.

How odd that it didn’t in Norway.

Simply because there is no incentve to work,be productive or innovative.

How odd that Norway has ended
up MUCH better off that Britain has.

Norway is not on my list

Because you are so ****ing stupid that you never
could work out the basics on which countrys are socialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...7)#Early_years

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:57:54 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

J.B.Treadstone wrote
Rod Speed wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote
Dennis@home wrote
mcp wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across the
world. It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to try &
establish even a tenth of this representation. As they would no
longer be part of the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a
foreign land would have to seek help from their own embassy or HC.

The 191 embassies & high commissions of the UK are part its assets
and Scotland is entitled to its share however if there isn't a
Scottish embassy in a country any EU embassy will do.

For EU citizens maybe, but Scotland won't be for years.

Exactly. It won't be an EU member until it has negotiated an entry,

That would just be a rubber stamp exercise that wouldn’t take years.

Tell that to the EU President,

No point, he is completely irrelevant and will be around for less than a
month anyway.

who quoted EU law on the subject.

No he did not. There is no EU law on the subject.

He was just attempting to monster those who want independence.

thus would not have any embassies etc.

But would be free to use British ones, just like other commonwealth
countrys do.

Are you /really/ that ignorant?

We'll see...

Other Commonwealth countries have their *own* embassies & high
commissions throughout the world.

Yes, but they don’t all have one of either in every single country in
the entire world, for what should be rather obvious reasons, and when they
don’t, and there is a british one in that country where it is needed,
they are free to use the british one if they choose to do that.

Show where this applies. Show web pages where it actually says that a
Commonwealth country can use a British embassy where they have none.

J.B.Treadstone wrote
Rod Speed wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote
Rod Speed wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote
Dennis@home wrote
mcp wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across
the world. It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to
try
& establish even a tenth of this representation. As they would no
longer be part of the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a
foreign
land would have to seek help from their own embassy or HC.

The 191 embassies & high commissions of the UK are part
its assets and Scotland is entitled to its share however if there
isn't a Scottish embassy in a country any EU embassy will do.

For EU citizens maybe, but Scotland won't be for years.

Exactly. It won't be an EU member until it has negotiated an entry,

That would just be a rubber stamp exercise that wouldn’t take years.

Tell that to the EU President,

No point, he is completely irrelevant and
will be around for less than a month anyway.

who quoted EU law on the subject.

No he did not. There is no EU law on the subject.

He was just attempting to monster those who want independence.

thus would not have any embassies etc.

But would be free to use British ones, just
like other commonwealth countrys do.

Are you /really/ that ignorant?

We'll see...

Other Commonwealth countries have their *own*
embassies & high commissions throughout the world.

Yes, but they don’t all have one of either in every single country in
the entire world, for what should be rather obvious reasons, and
when they don’t, and there is a british one in that country where it is
needed, they are free to use the british one if they choose to do that.

Show where this applies.

Any place where the commonwealth country
doesn’t have anything and Britain does.

Show web pages where it actually says that a Commonwealth
country can use a British embassy where they have none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonw...lar_assistance

On 18/09/2014 23:52, mcp wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:45:01 +0100, "Dennis@home"
wrote:

On 17/09/2014 22:57, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:20:12 -0500, David P
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 03:59:59 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

If I remember correctly, the oil is owned currently by the "UK
Continental Shelf". There is lots of ways it could be divided. The thing
I wonder is - which court or jurisdiction would get to decide and
enforce the split ? Simon.

and no doubt once the Orkney and Shetland isles decide they want nothing
to do with the 'new Scotland' it will then transfer, with their
allegiance, to south of the border.

As an enclave they would only get the oil within 12 miles of their
coast and all the major fields are outwith that.

Like Britain and Ireland only get 12 miles?

Britain and Ireland get an exclusive economic zone of up to 200
nautical miles as they are not enclaves.


So why would the islands be enclaves, if they have the 200 mile limit
they aren't.

On 19/09/2014 00:59, Rod Speed wrote:
Dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

But would be free to use British ones, just like other commonwealth
countrys do.

If it joins the common wealth.

Unlikely that they wouldn’t given
that they have said they will keep Liz.

Its not up to them, someone else decides.

Not that it matters how wrong you are now.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harryagain wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harryagain wrote

It was socialism ****ed up Scotland, not the English or the tories.

But socialists are too dull to see it.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you
understand what it means?

Scotland
Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

Norway
Sweden
Denmark

All conspicuous failures that will take decades to fix.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie with Norway which is in a remarkably
similar situation to what an independent Scotland would be
with respect to oil and gas and leaving what it was part of too.

Holding their begging bowls out to the EUSSR/other capitalist
countries.

Norway doesn’t.

Looking for more of other peoples money to spend.

Norway doesn’t.

That they will never pay back.

Even sillier than you usually manage with Norway.

Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg

Just been there a few months, stupid.

Nothing whatever to do with why Norway is rolling in it.

They are not socialist

Wrong, as always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...7)#Early_years
They have a conservative government.

harryagain wrote:
"Rod wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...

"Rod wrote in message
...
wrote
Rod wrote
wrote
Dave Plowman wrote
wrote

It was socialism ****ed up Scotland, not the English or the tories.

But socialists are too dull to see it.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you
understand what it means?

Scotland
Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

Norway
Sweden
Denmark

All conspicuous failures that will take decades to fix.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie with Norway which is in a remarkably
similar situation to what an independent Scotland would be
with respect to oil and gas and leaving what it was part of too.

Holding their begging bowls out to the EUSSR/other capitalist
countries.

Norway doesn’t.

Looking for more of other peoples money to spend.

Norway doesn’t.

That they will never pay back.

Even sillier than you usually manage with Norway.

Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg

Just been there a few months, stupid.

Nothing whatever to do with why Norway is rolling in it.

They are not socialist

Wrong, as always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...7)#Early_years
They have a conservative government.



They are pretend conservatives, a bit like Bliar.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harryagain wrote:
Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you
understand what it means?

Scotland

Right. So all of GB is a socialist country, since it has the same
government. You really are a fool.

Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

It's certainly not. And just goes to show you don't know what
socialist
means. Claiming to be a socialist country isn't the same as being one.

Failed socialist states always say that the "wrong sort" of socialism
was to blame.

Same with the rabid right.

As with "Nu Labour"

And the rabid right.

They can't grasp that all socialism will fail.

How odd that it didn’t in Norway.

Simply because there is no incentve to work,be productive or
innovative.

How odd that Norway has ended
up MUCH better off that Britain has.

Norway is not on my list

Because you are so ****ing stupid that you never
could work out the basics on which countrys are socialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...7)#Early_years


Never even read it did you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rivatizati on

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
J.B.Treadstone wrote
Rod Speed wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote
Rod Speed wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote
Dennis@home wrote
mcp wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across
the world. It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to
try
& establish even a tenth of this representation. As they would no
longer be part of the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a
foreign
land would have to seek help from their own embassy or HC.

The 191 embassies & high commissions of the UK are part
its assets and Scotland is entitled to its share however if there
isn't a Scottish embassy in a country any EU embassy will do.

For EU citizens maybe, but Scotland won't be for years.

Exactly. It won't be an EU member until it has negotiated an entry,

That would just be a rubber stamp exercise that wouldn’t take years.

Tell that to the EU President,

No point, he is completely irrelevant and
will be around for less than a month anyway.

who quoted EU law on the subject.

No he did not. There is no EU law on the subject.

He was just attempting to monster those who want independence.

thus would not have any embassies etc.

But would be free to use British ones, just
like other commonwealth countrys do.

Are you /really/ that ignorant?

We'll see...

Other Commonwealth countries have their *own*
embassies & high commissions throughout the world.

Yes, but they don’t all have one of either in every single country in
the entire world, for what should be rather obvious reasons, and
when they don’t, and there is a british one in that country where it is
needed, they are free to use the british one if they choose to do that.

Show where this applies.

Any place where the commonwealth country
doesn’t have anything and Britain does.

Show web pages where it actually says that a Commonwealth
country can use a British embassy where they have none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonw...lar_assistance

Quote from above.
In other Commonwealth countries, British High Commissions accept no
responsibility for unrepresented Commonwealth citizens, who should look to
the host Commonwealth government for quasi-consular assistance. Canadian and
Australian citizens are still able to seek consular assistance from each
other's high commissions.