On 18/05/2013 12:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
Scotland is still being subsidised to the tune of more than £3,000 per
person. Even if Salmond got his claim to geographical oil revenues,
which he won't, it would be more than £2,000 a head. In addition much of
the 'UK' spending is in things like unemployment and healthcare, which,
as I pointed out, Scotland has a disproportionate need for. Huge's
statement is correct.

You can make up any figures you like. To get an accurate picture you'd
also have to take into account all state controlled spending and see just
where it goes. Just as an example, the recent spending on the Olympics.
How much of that went directly to Scotland? Employed Scottish workers or
companies? And things like the proposed HS2. Again, billions being spent.
Paid for by all in the country, but of no benefit to the Scots - or Welsh
or Irish.

I don't think many English benefited from the Olympics either, well not
in their opinion.


In other words, there's a great deal more to it than simple taxation and
direct government spending.


I don't think the Scots should have a referendum unless the English also
get one to see if we want to keep them.

And when we do vote for them to go they need to get their bit of the
debt as well and no more FITs for the wind farms.

The boundary should be drawn up as for any other countries which will
leave most of the oil/gas fields in English waters.

The Northern Isles should get their own choice as they aren't Scots and
they get most of the rest of the oil fields if they decide to go
independent of Scotland.


I wonder if the EU wants to admit another bankrupt country?

In article , Nightjar
wrote:
On 18/05/2013 12:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
Scotland is still being subsidised to the tune of more than £3,000 per
person. Even if Salmond got his claim to geographical oil revenues,
which he won't, it would be more than £2,000 a head. In addition much
of the 'UK' spending is in things like unemployment and healthcare,
which, as I pointed out, Scotland has a disproportionate need for.
Huge's statement is correct.

You can make up any figures you like. To get an accurate picture you'd
also have to take into account all state controlled spending and see
just where it goes. Just as an example, the recent spending on the
Olympics. How much of that went directly to Scotland? Employed Scottish
workers or companies?

117 Scottish companies won 158 contracts for the Olympics, the two
largest being worth £57 million in total.

This contrasts with the over £100 millon spent in Surrey!

Around £3 million was contributed to cultural events in Scotland in
connection with the Olympics.

And things like the proposed HS2. Again, billions being spent. Paid for
by all in the country, but of no benefit to the Scots - or Welsh or
Irish.

If the plans are followed through completely, Scotland will get HS2,
just not in the first stage.

but it should be promoted as such - so far no plans north of Manchester -
about half way.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
And things like the proposed HS2. Again, billions being spent. Paid
for by all in the country, but of no benefit to the Scots - or Welsh
or Irish.

If the plans are followed through completely, Scotland will get HS2,
just not in the first stage.

I'll not hold my breath - there's still vast chunks of Scotland with
totally inadequate roads, let alone high speed rail.

In other words, there's a great deal more to it than simple taxation
and direct government spending.

Indeed, but however you work it out, the net result is still that
Scotland receives more than it gives, which would be a problem for a
truly independent Scotland.

There are likely lots of things which the UK spends money on - still
considering itself a world power - that Scotland wouldn't.

--
*I believe five out of four people have trouble with fractions. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
They were broke having
spent lots of money on trying to establish a colony somewhere

Darien?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

On Saturday 18 May 2013 13:22 dennis@home wrote in uk.d-i-y:


I don't think many English benefited from the Olympics either, well not
in their opinion.


I only know one person - an sound engineer - but even he was not allowed to
mention the Olympics work in his portfolio - a f***ing stupid condition.

The rest of us mostly thought it was a PITA - especially having to work in
London. I stayed mostly working from home for the main bit.


In other words, there's a great deal more to it than simple taxation and
direct government spending.


I don't think the Scots should have a referendum unless the English also
get one to see if we want to keep them.

And when we do vote for them to go they need to get their bit of the
debt as well and no more FITs for the wind farms.

I agree. No half assed measures. I do not mind if Scotland wants to be
independant - personally I think it's more their business than mine - but it
has to be all or nothing. Any native scottish MPs in England will need to
become naturalised Englishmen or lose the right to stand (but not work of
course - that's freedon of work/travel/living that is embodied by the EU).

And the new English naturalisation ceremony will involve the applicants
demonstrating proficiency at Morris Dancing ;-

The boundary should be drawn up as for any other countries which will
leave most of the oil/gas fields in English waters.

The Northern Isles should get their own choice as they aren't Scots and
they get most of the rest of the oil fields if they decide to go
independent of Scotland.


I wonder if the EU wants to admit another bankrupt country?

Hasn't stopped them before...

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 18/05/13 13:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
There are likely lots of things which the UK spends money on - still
considering itself a world power - that Scotland wouldn't.

Like, er, Scotland?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Fri, 17 May 2013 02:12:04 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Farage and Salmond deserve each other - a right pair of ****s.

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Better off without arseholes like you, you trolling ****.

On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:57:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

They're fascists, in fact: people using threats, intimidation, and
violence to prevent free speech.

******s, you mean? Plenty of them on any political side.


There's people here like that.

Yes, Harold. When's the last time you were threatened with violence or
had your windows put in by a brick lobbed by a diy-er?

On 18/05/2013 13:29, charles wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
On 18/05/2013 12:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
....
And things like the proposed HS2. Again, billions being spent. Paid for
by all in the country, but of no benefit to the Scots - or Welsh or
Irish.

If the plans are followed through completely, Scotland will get HS2,
just not in the first stage.

but it should be promoted as such - so far no plans north of Manchester -
about half way.

There is enough resistance to it as there is.

Colin Bignell

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 02:12:04 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Farage and Salmond deserve each other - a right pair of ****s.


Clitoris allsorts?

--
Adam

On May 18, 3:33*pm, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 02:12:04 -0700 (PDT), harry

wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Farage and Salmond deserve each other - a right pair of ****s.

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Better off without arseholes like you, you trolling ****.

Well ****s are useful, unlike you.

On 18/05/13 15:41, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:57:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

They're fascists, in fact: people using threats, intimidation, and
violence to prevent free speech.
******s, you mean? Plenty of them on any political side.

There's people here like that.
Yes, Harold. When's the last time you were threatened with violence or
had your windows put in by a brick lobbed by a diy-er?
had tyres slashed and locks filled with CA by a green activist. Just for
driving a 4WD freelander :-(

So that would be a harry then.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:41:32 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 18, 1:50*am, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 21:48:50 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-05-17, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax.

Cite, please.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...ERScomment6313

Well if true that is something soon to stop happening as North Sea gas
and oil is depleted.

No one in the oil and gas sector thinks that's going to happen any
time soon, and they are putting their money where there mouths are
with record investment in the North Sea.

On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:33:51 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/05/2013 01:59, mcp wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:55:31 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 17/05/2013 19:47, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax. It's
more about Scotland keeping more of it's money than handing it over to
the English to spend it on whatever they like.

Only if you include oil revenue, which HM Treasury has been careful to
ensure will not happen. Scotland also has a higher than average per
capita expenditure, partly due to poor health and partly due to high
unemployment. Without oil, Scotland receives around £16bn more than it
inputs to the UK. Oil revenue would reduce that by around £6bn.

Scotland receives 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure
acording to GERS, but that includes large amounts of "UK" spending
that disproportionately benefits London & the south east.

Scotland is still being subsidised to the tune of more than £3,000 per
person. Even if Salmond got his claim to geographical oil revenues,
which he won't, it would be more than £2,000 a head. In addition much of
the 'UK' spending is in things like unemployment and healthcare, which,
as I pointed out, Scotland has a disproportionate need for. Huge's
statement is correct.

I don't know where you are getting your figures from but with 9.9% of
income and 9.3% of spending it is not Scotland who is subsidised.
Unemployment in Scotland is lower than in the rest of the UK and
health is a devolved power, already included in Scottish spending.

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:22:47 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The boundary should be drawn up as for any other countries which will
leave most of the oil/gas fields in English waters.

Most of the gas and over 90% of the oil are in Scottish waters if the
marine boundaries are drawn up according to international law.

The Northern Isles should get their own choice as they aren't Scots and
they get most of the rest of the oil fields if they decide to go
independent of Scotland.

8% of them agree with you according to a recent opinion poll.

On 18/05/2013 18:57, mcp wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:22:47 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The boundary should be drawn up as for any other countries which will
leave most of the oil/gas fields in English waters.

Most of the gas and over 90% of the oil are in Scottish waters if the
marine boundaries are drawn up according to international law.

Not on the maps I saw.
The boundary goes perpendicular to the coast at the border which is
about 50 degrees N on the east side, I don't recall the west side.

I usually use the one just after passing Carter Bar.

Oh sorry, *F*arage in Scotland.

JGH

On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:27:57 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 18/05/2013 18:57, mcp wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:22:47 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The boundary should be drawn up as for any other countries which will
leave most of the oil/gas fields in English waters.

Most of the gas and over 90% of the oil are in Scottish waters if the
marine boundaries are drawn up according to international law.

Not on the maps I saw.
The boundary goes perpendicular to the coast at the border which is
about 50 degrees N on the east side, I don't recall the west side.

The straight line sea border between Scotland and England was
abandoned in 1999 and replaced by an equidistant border which is how
the interntional ones were drawn up. This which included more of the
North Sea in the English sector but most of the oil is well north of
that boundary. A random google produced this map
http://www.dukeswoodoilmuseum.co.uk/pictures/fields.gif

dennis wrote:
Most of the gas and over 90% of the oil are in Scottish waters if the
marine boundaries are drawn up according to international law.

Not on the maps I saw.
The boundary goes perpendicular to the coast at the border which is
about 50 degrees N on the east side, I don't recall the west side.

Perpendicular to the coast *is* international law. And, naturally, the
further out to sea you get the more coast there is to be perpendicular
to, so in the case of the North Sea England/Scotland border that
results in the border running approximately north-east from the coast
and gradually turning more and more straight eastwards and the
landmass of Aberdeenshire starts to effect the median line distances.

Anyway, this is all moot, there are established procedures on how to
do all this, 1922 and the partition of Ireland. All the "problems" are
already dealt with - splitting the national debt, cross-border
control, maritime borders, common geographical mapping grid, right to
stand and vote in elections.

JGH

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT), jgharston
wrote:

Anyway, this is all moot, there are established procedures on how to
do all this, 1922 and the partition of Ireland. All the "problems" are
already dealt with - splitting the national debt, cross-border
control, maritime borders, common geographical mapping grid, right to
stand and vote in elections.

If you listen to the no side you would think that it was completelty
unprecedented and no country had ever become independant from another.
In fact 55 countries have become independant from the UK since the end
of the second world war.

harry writes:

On May 18, 1:50=A0am, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 21:48:50 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-05-17, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give =
them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax.

Cite, please.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...ERScomment6313

Well if true that is something soon to stop happening as North Sea gas
and oil is depleted.

In that case, it will soon become expedient to give the exhausted
reserves back to Scotland

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On May 18, 6:42*pm, mcp wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:41:32 -0700 (PDT), harry









wrote:
On May 18, 1:50 am, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 21:48:50 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-05-17, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax.

Cite, please.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...ERScomment6313

Well if true that is something soon to stop happening as North Sea gas
and oil is depleted.

No one in the oil and gas sector thinks that's going to happen any
time soon, and they are putting their money where there mouths are
with record investment in the North Sea.

They can only do that because the price of gas is high.
The amount they recover is low, they are just going round mopping up
tiny amounts that were worth arsing with previously and will be
quickly depleted.

The big easy fields are gone

On May 18, 9:23*pm, mcp wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT), jgharston
wrote:

Anyway, this is all moot, there are established procedures on how to
do all this, 1922 and the partition of Ireland. All the "problems" are
already dealt with - splitting the national debt, cross-border
control, maritime borders, common geographical mapping grid, right to
stand and vote in elections.

If you listen to the no side you would think that it was completelty
unprecedented and no country had ever become independant from another.
In fact 55 countries have become independant from the UK since the end
of the second world war.

The problem is the Scots don't know what they are voting for and what
they'll be getting on many topics. They'll only find out when it's too
late.
The fat smirking git up there is only after his own aggrandisment/
status.

In article ,
mcp wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT), jgharston
wrote:

Anyway, this is all moot, there are established procedures on how to
do all this, 1922 and the partition of Ireland. All the "problems" are
already dealt with - splitting the national debt, cross-border
control, maritime borders, common geographical mapping grid, right to
stand and vote in elections.

If you listen to the no side you would think that it was completelty
unprecedented and no country had ever become independant from another.
In fact 55 countries have become independant from the UK since the end
of the second world war.

but I don't think that any of these countries had been part of the UK,

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 19/05/13 07:51, charles wrote:
In article ,
mcp wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT), jgharston
wrote:
Anyway, this is all moot, there are established procedures on how to
do all this, 1922 and the partition of Ireland. All the "problems" are
already dealt with - splitting the national debt, cross-border
control, maritime borders, common geographical mapping grid, right to
stand and vote in elections.
If you listen to the no side you would think that it was completelty
unprecedented and no country had ever become independant from another.
In fact 55 countries have become independant from the UK since the end
of the second world war.
but I don't think that any of these countries had been part of the UK,

well they were part of Empire, and we learnt the real problems of trying
to munge a vast assortment of nations into one economic unit and give
all its members free access to each others countries a long time before
the EU came along.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 9:23 pm, mcp wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT), jgharston
wrote:

Anyway, this is all moot, there are established procedures on how to
do all this, 1922 and the partition of Ireland. All the "problems" are
already dealt with - splitting the national debt, cross-border
control, maritime borders, common geographical mapping grid, right to
stand and vote in elections.

If you listen to the no side you would think that it was completelty
unprecedented and no country had ever become independant from another.
In fact 55 countries have become independant from the UK since the end
of the second world war.

The problem is the Scots don't know what they are voting for and what
they'll be getting on many topics. They'll only find out when it's too
late.
The fat smirking git up there is only after his own aggrandisment/
status.

Yep, mr salmond is very dangerous imho.

On 19/05/2013 07:06, harry wrote:

The problem is the Scots don't know what they are voting for and what
they'll be getting on many topics. They'll only find out when it's too
late.

Well they probably want to be in the EU and the council of Europe and
the European economic area.


If they want into the EU they will have to have the Euro.
Britain is the only country with a separate currency and the Scotts
can't keep the pound as they will have different economic activity and
we don't want an independent country to be able to interfere with us.
The EU will want them to have the Euro.

They will almost certainly need to join the council of Europe so they
get the court of human rights as we won't trade with them if they don't
have the court of human rights and EU probably won't admit them.

If they don't join the European economic area they lose the rights to
work or live in the EU. We may have to expel the Scots as would the
other members of the CoE.



I think I got the three different Europes correct there but I am willing
for others to correct it if its wrong.

BTW if we vote on the EU membership who is going to tell the voters
which we are voting on and what will be left if we vote to leave the EU?

On 19/05/2013 04:25, Windmill wrote:
harry writes:

On May 18, 1:50=A0am, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 21:48:50 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-05-17, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give =
them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax.

Cite, please.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...ERScomment6313

Well if true that is something soon to stop happening as North Sea gas
and oil is depleted.

In that case, it will soon become expedient to give the exhausted
reserves back to Scotland


They aren't exhausted, they just cost more to work.
If oil becomes expensive enough they will extract more from them.

dennis@home wrote:
On 19/05/2013 04:25, Windmill wrote:
harry writes:

On May 18, 1:50=A0am, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 21:48:50 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-05-17, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English
give =
them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax.

Cite, please.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...ERScomment6313

Well if true that is something soon to stop happening as North Sea gas
and oil is depleted.

In that case, it will soon become expedient to give the exhausted
reserves back to Scotland


They aren't exhausted, they just cost more to work.
If oil becomes expensive enough they will extract more from them.

They've been saying since I was young that there were 30 years of oil
reserves left.Sooner or later they're going to be right. The hint that
all the established fields are giving reduced yields and the really
inaccessible ones are now being exploited might be a clue.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 18/05/2013 18:52, mcp wrote:
....
I don't know where you are getting your figures from but with 9.9% of
income and 9.3% of spending it is not Scotland who is subsidised.
Unemployment in Scotland is lower than in the rest of the UK and
health is a devolved power, already included in Scottish spending.


As I said, you can only claim 9.9% if you include all tax income from
North Sea oil. which Salmond does, but HM Treasury does not. The non-oil
tax revenue from Scotland is 8.3%.

Colin Bignell

"dennis@home" writes:

On 19/05/2013 07:06, harry wrote:

The problem is the Scots don't know what they are voting for and what
they'll be getting on many topics. They'll only find out when it's too
late.

Well they probably want to be in the EU and the council of Europe and
the European economic area.


If they want into the EU they will have to have the Euro.
Britain is the only country with a separate currency and the Scotts
can't keep the pound as they will have different economic activity and
we don't want an independent country to be able to interfere with us.
The EU will want them to have the Euro.

They will almost certainly need to join the council of Europe so they
get the court of human rights as we won't trade with them if they don't
have the court of human rights and EU probably won't admit them.

If they don't join the European economic area they lose the rights to
work or live in the EU. We may have to expel the Scots as would the
other members of the CoE.



I think I got the three different Europes correct there but I am willing
for others to correct it if its wrong.

BTW if we vote on the EU membership who is going to tell the voters
which we are voting on and what will be left if we vote to leave the EU?

Surely you don't expect them to tell us that!




--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On May 19, 11:04*am, John Williamson
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/05/2013 04:25, Windmill wrote:
harry writes:

On May 18, 1:50=A0am, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 21:48:50 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-05-17, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English
give =
them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax.

Cite, please.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...ERScomment6313

Well if true that is something soon to stop happening as North Sea gas
and oil is depleted.

In that case, it will soon become expedient to give the exhausted
reserves back to Scotland

They aren't exhausted, they just cost more to work.
If oil becomes expensive enough they will extract more from them.

They've been saying since I was young that there were 30 years of oil
reserves left.Sooner or later they're going to be right. The hint that
all the established fields are giving reduced yields and the really
inaccessible ones are now being exploited might be a clue.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Another hint is that Saudi Arabia is buying lots of nuclear reactors.
Also, the price of energy has not fallen even though we are in a
recession.
When/if the recession ends we will see the true price of energy.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:05:57 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/05/2013 18:52, mcp wrote:
...
I don't know where you are getting your figures from but with 9.9% of
income and 9.3% of spending it is not Scotland who is subsidised.
Unemployment in Scotland is lower than in the rest of the UK and
health is a devolved power, already included in Scottish spending.


As I said, you can only claim 9.9% if you include all tax income from
North Sea oil. which Salmond does, but HM Treasury does not. The non-oil
tax revenue from Scotland is 8.3%.

A geographic share of North Sea oil adds up to 9.9% of income, not all
oil.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:27:10 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If they want into the EU they will have to have the Euro.
Britain is the only country with a separate currency and the Scotts
can't keep the pound as they will have different economic activity and
we don't want an independent country to be able to interfere with us.
The EU will want them to have the Euro.

The Euro is only used by 17 of the current 27 EU members. Countries
that wish to join the Euro must successfully participate in the ERM
for at least 2 years beforehand. There is no requirement for EU
countries to join the ERM so Scotland can't be forced to have the
Euro. The Pound and the Bank of England are the property of the UK so
they are partly Scottish. As the pound is a freely convertible
currency there is very little the rest of the former UK could do to
stop an independant Scotland (or anyone else) using it.

On 19/05/2013 18:15, mcp wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:27:10 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If they want into the EU they will have to have the Euro.
Britain is the only country with a separate currency and the Scotts
can't keep the pound as they will have different economic activity and
we don't want an independent country to be able to interfere with us.
The EU will want them to have the Euro.

The Euro is only used by 17 of the current 27 EU members. Countries
that wish to join the Euro must successfully participate in the ERM
for at least 2 years beforehand. There is no requirement for EU
countries to join the ERM so Scotland can't be forced to have the
Euro. The Pound and the Bank of England are the property of the UK so
they are partly Scottish. As the pound is a freely convertible
currency there is very little the rest of the former UK could do to
stop an independant Scotland (or anyone else) using it.


So we could start printing and using US dollars?

On 19/05/2013 19:30, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/05/2013 18:15, mcp wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:27:10 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If they want into the EU they will have to have the Euro.
Britain is the only country with a separate currency and the Scotts
can't keep the pound as they will have different economic activity and
we don't want an independent country to be able to interfere with us.
The EU will want them to have the Euro.

The Euro is only used by 17 of the current 27 EU members. Countries
that wish to join the Euro must successfully participate in the ERM
for at least 2 years beforehand. There is no requirement for EU
countries to join the ERM so Scotland can't be forced to have the
Euro. The Pound and the Bank of England are the property of the UK so
they are partly Scottish. As the pound is a freely convertible
currency there is very little the rest of the former UK could do to
stop an independant Scotland (or anyone else) using it.


So we could start printing and using US dollars?

Is it so very difficult to read "using" rather than "printing" (rather
than both linked by "and")?

The fact that Scotland could not print Bank of England currency is a
problem in that it precludes some of the controls over currency that
sovereign states have. Like printing more! And setting interest rates.
If an independent Scotland didn't like what BoE did, they might not have
much beyond words to get a policy changed.

--
Rod

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/05/2013 07:06, harry wrote:

The problem is the Scots don't know what they are voting for and what
they'll be getting on many topics. They'll only find out when it's too
late.

Well they probably want to be in the EU and the council of Europe and
the European economic area.


If they want into the EU they will have to have the Euro.
Britain is the only country with a separate currency

not so. A number of the newer members do not use the Euro. We were in The
Czech Republic 2 weeks ago. 2018 is the tentative date for their use of
the Euro.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

dennis@home wrote
harry wrote

The problem is the Scots don't know what they are
voting for and what they'll be getting on many topics.

No one ever does in that situation.

They'll only find out when it's too late.

That mangles the real story too. Bet Britain would
have them back if they changed their mind on that.

Well they probably want to be in the EU

Likely.

and the council of Europe

Maybe.

and the European economic area.

They get no choice on that, there is no alternative on that.

If they want into the EU they will have to have the Euro.

Bull****.

Britain is the only country with a separate currency

So far.

and the Scotts can't keep the pound

They can do anything they like on that.

as they will have different economic activity and we don't
want an independent country to be able to interfere with us.

Doesn't matter what you want on that, you get no say on that.

The EU will want them to have the Euro.

Yes, but that does not mean that they get any say on that.

They will almost certainly need to join the council of Europe

They may choose to do that. It doesn't actually
impose much tho, so they may just prefer that.

so they get the court of human rights as we won't trade
with them if they don't have the court of human rights

Mindlessly silly. Trade with them will continue regardless of that.

and EU probably won't admit them.

Even sillier when they are currently part of the EU.

If they don't join the European economic area

Corse they will.

they lose the rights to work or live in the EU.

It remains to be seen how many of them care about
that given that everywhere else is mostly happy to
have them and have been for centurys now.

We may have to expel the Scots as
would the other members of the CoE.

Even sillier. Whats a right under EU law is entirely separate
matter to what has to be done to those who arent from a
country that is part of the EU. Britain does not have to
expel anyone who isnt from an EU country right now.

That won't change.

I think I got the three different Europes correct there
but I am willing for others to correct it if its wrong.

You're utterly mangled the real story.

BTW if we vote on the EU membership who is going to tell the voters
which we are voting on and what will be left if we vote to leave the EU?

No one even knows, so there is no one to tell.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 19, 11:04 am, John Williamson
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/05/2013 04:25, Windmill wrote:
harry writes:

On May 18, 1:50=A0am, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 21:48:50 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-05-17, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge
wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English
give =
them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax.

Cite, please.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...ERScomment6313

Well if true that is something soon to stop happening as North Sea
gas
and oil is depleted.

In that case, it will soon become expedient to give the exhausted
reserves back to Scotland

They aren't exhausted, they just cost more to work.
If oil becomes expensive enough they will extract more from them.

They've been saying since I was young that there were 30 years of oil
reserves left.Sooner or later they're going to be right. The hint that
all the established fields are giving reduced yields and the really
inaccessible ones are now being exploited might be a clue.

Another hint is that Saudi Arabia is buying lots of nuclear reactors.

Hardly any, actually. They have to do something with their money.

Also, the price of energy has not fallen even though we are in a
recession.

Yes, because its been increasing at a faster rate than that effect reduces
it.

When/if the recession ends we will see the true price of energy.

No, we never do. And recessions ALWAYS end too.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 19/05/2013 18:15, mcp wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:27:10 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If they want into the EU they will have to have the Euro.
Britain is the only country with a separate currency and the Scotts
can't keep the pound as they will have different economic activity and
we don't want an independent country to be able to interfere with us.
The EU will want them to have the Euro.

The Euro is only used by 17 of the current 27 EU members. Countries
that wish to join the Euro must successfully participate in the ERM
for at least 2 years beforehand. There is no requirement for EU
countries to join the ERM so Scotland can't be forced to have the
Euro. The Pound and the Bank of England are the property of the UK so
they are partly Scottish. As the pound is a freely convertible
currency there is very little the rest of the former UK could do to
stop an independant Scotland (or anyone else) using it.


So we could start printing and using US dollars?

Just using, not printing. Some have chosen to do that.