Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#321
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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. |
#322
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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. |
#323
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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. |
#324
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#325
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#326
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#327
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#328
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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. |
#329
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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. |
#330
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#331
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#332
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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 |
#333
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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 |
#334
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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? |
#335
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#336
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#337
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#338
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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 |
#339
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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. |
#340
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#341
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#342
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#343
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#344
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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 |
#345
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#346
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#347
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#348
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#349
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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 |
#350
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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 |
#351
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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 |
#352
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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 |
#353
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#354
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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 |
#355
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#356
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#357
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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. |
#358
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
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. |
#359
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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 |
#360
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
BBC post Scottish Independence
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT How much do you know about Independence Day? | Home Repair | |||
Declaration of Independence | Home Repair | |||
Declaration of Independence | Home Repair | |||
Declaration of Independence | Home Repair | |||
Independence day cartoon........ | Home Repair |