On 17/05/2015 16:54, The Real Doctor wrote:

On 17/05/15 12:35, d wrote:
Lets face it , Scotland has to suck from the teet of somewhere, be it
Westminster or Brussels because it doesn't have much of an economy to
speak
of. Its half that of yourshire FFS.

The per capita GVA of Scotland is greater than any part of England
(including Yorkshire) except for London and the South-East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countri...GVA_per_capita

Never an entirely good idea to base ones country's future on oil wealth
though - its pretty toxic around most of the world, Norway being an
exception though they only got it right third time round.

On 17/05/2015 12:29, d wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2015 19:24:49 +0100
Mizter T wrote:

On 16/05/2015 17:16, d wrote:
[...]
Actually I vote Tory, but I sympathise with UKIPs main message and
it seems 15 million other people did too.

I've no idea why I'm reading this, but where do you get 15 million
people from?

11 million Tory voters + 4 million UKIP.

And while you might say that perhaps some of those Tory voters don't give
a monkeys about a EU referendum I would suggest most do and the difference
will be made up by the large amount of Labour voters who also do.

Unsurprisingly yes I do disagree with you. Saying that 11 million people
who voted Tory seemingly all agreed with UKIP's main message is daft.

"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...

The per capita GVA of Scotland is greater than any part of England
(including Yorkshire) except for London and the South-East.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So how would you apportion the national debt if Scotland became independent?
On a per capita basis, on a per head basis or based on a geographical % of
the UK?

Ian

International law states that if a country splits, then in the absence of any other mutual agreement the national debt is split according to population size.

On 2015-05-18, Robin9 wrote:
On 2015-05-17, Eric wrote:
On 2015-05-17, Robin9 wrote:
On 2015-05-15, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 15/05/15 20:13, d wrote:
There are some good well meaning people in the party who have genuine
concerns about control by Brussels.

Yeah, right, and the Socialist Workers' Party is full of people with a
genuine concern for the poor.

But unfortunately they're outnumbered by the idiots
and you can see what happens when idiots get voted into power - towit the
SNP.

The SNP were almost voted into power in 2007 and formed a minority
government. That was sufficiently popular that they were properly voted
into power as a majority government in 2011. That was sufficiently
popular that they were voted in to represent Scotland in 56 out of 59
Scottish constituencies this month. It's therefore a little hard to see
what disasters you think happened.

Mind you, it's always amusing to here UKIP supporters such as yourself
use precisely opposing arguments to explain why (a) Scotland MUST stay
in the UK and (b) why the UK MUST leave Europe. It sounds like a pretty
good example of cognitive dissonance which is easily resolved by
recognizing that UKIP are a bunch of loony little Englanders who loathe
all foreigners and classify Scots as foreign.

It's never amusing to hear UKIP detractors such as yourself use ill
thought-out generalisations to denigrate people who hold an alternative
opinion.

I voted UKIP ten days ago so I qualify as a UKIP supporter.

a) I do not say Scotland MUST stay in the UK;
b) I do not say UK MUST leave the European Union although I recognise
that it may be eventually become advantageous to do so;

It will never be advantageous for me personally for the UK to leave the
EU. I am sure I am a very, very long way from being the only one.

c) I am not a little Englander and I do not hate all foreigners;
d) I do not classify Scots as foreign.

I live in Leyton, one of the most cosmopolitan areas of London. I could
easily afford to move to an all-white part of the country but I choose
to
stay in Leyton.

I suggest you refrain from glib and specious generalisations and instead
try to understand why around 4 million people voted UKIP in the recent
election.

But your list above doesn't really help in understanding that. So why
did you vote UKIP?


My "list" was a response, not an attempt to educate.

OK.

I voted UKIP because I refuse on principle to vote Tory, Labour or
Liberal- Democrat, all three of whom have no real concern either for the
practicality of running this country properly or for the well-being of
the British people.

I regard the three main parties as akin to the war lords in Afghanistan:
interested in power for its own sake.

That's not totally unreasonable, but I couldn't ever vote UKIP, partly
for the reason (sort-of) given above, and partly because I do not
consider Mr Farage to be a suitable leader for anything anywhere. I
voted for my least unfavourite major party rather than some other minor
party as that seemed to provide a much better chance of keeping UKIP
out.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On Mon, 18 May 2015 19:19:00 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

Never an entirely good idea to base ones country's future on oil wealth
though - its pretty toxic around most of the world, Norway being an
exception though they only got it right third time round.

Almost every country (he UK & Iraq are exceptions) with significant
oil income invests it in an oil fund. The return from the investments
is more stable than the oil income. Norway's oil fund is worth 800
billion, the UK is 1500 in debt.

mcp wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2015 19:19:00 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

Never an entirely good idea to base ones country's future on oil wealth
though - its pretty toxic around most of the world, Norway being an
exception though they only got it right third time round.

Almost every country (he UK & Iraq are exceptions) with significant
oil income invests it in an oil fund. The return from the investments
is more stable than the oil income. Norway's oil fund is worth 800
billion, the UK is 1500 in debt.

I really doubt that most oil producers invest in a sovereign wealth
investment fund. Norway certainly does, and so do some Gulf states, but I
can't think of many others. Do the US, Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia?

On Tue, 19 May 2015 01:18:51 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

mcp wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2015 19:19:00 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

Never an entirely good idea to base ones country's future on oil wealth
though - its pretty toxic around most of the world, Norway being an
exception though they only got it right third time round.

Almost every country (he UK & Iraq are exceptions) with significant
oil income invests it in an oil fund. The return from the investments
is more stable than the oil income. Norway's oil fund is worth 800
billion, the UK is 1500 in debt.

I really doubt that most oil producers invest in a sovereign wealth
investment fund. Norway certainly does, and so do some Gulf states, but I
can't think of many others. Do the US, Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia?

Nigeria, Venezuela and Russia have oil based sovereign wealth funds as
do several US states.

Steve Lewis wrote:
International law states that if a country splits, then in the
absence of any other mutual agreement the national debt is split
according to population size.

I have to ask what international law states this? A sure and simple
answer stands in stark contrast to much of the legal opinion before the
referendum last year which boiled down to "it'd all be for negotiation".
See eg
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...-uk-debt/13362

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Mon, 18 May 2015 22:24:55 +0100
Eric wrote:
That's not totally unreasonable, but I couldn't ever vote UKIP, partly
for the reason (sort-of) given above, and partly because I do not
consider Mr Farage to be a suitable leader for anything anywhere. I

So who do you think was a suitable leader? Milliband who'd stab his own
brother in the back for power? Salmond and Sturgeon who deliberatly stir
resentment between the scots and english and don't denounce public haranging
of rival party candidates by thugs?

--
Spud