Why those two nations specifically?
Because they're examples of small nations that didn't sustain such shocks.
Why those two nations specifically?
Because they're examples of small nations that didn't sustain such shocks.
So why do you include Scotland in such regard?
I asked the question as to why you thought they would be immune from suffering from shocks.
I don't see how anyone is immune, not just Scotland ...
So, what is the referendum about then Fox?
with a vast array of resources.
And I answered it.
Scotland is an economically and socially developed country, with a vast array of resources.
The irony of you proding at the misfortune of others while the UK limps along in relative decline isn't lost on me anyway. Heaven forbid anyone looks at the larger picture that includes nations that can successfully manage their affairs irrespective of geographic or population size.
[TW]Fox;24319221 said:I'm starting to wonder, really. It's held up as the answer to every problem anyone can think of. The default answer to every question is 'blame Westminster, it will be better with independence'.
What is it about? Whats the point?
[TW]Fox;24319221 said:What happens if you get independance and realise that actually not much changes for the better because fancy that, it wasn't all some sort of nasty Westminster conspiracy that was causing everything you felt was wrong after all.
[TW]Fox;24319221 said:No it's not (and thats not anti Scot (Though I'd hope that despite us completely disagreeing you know my opinion is not based on a dislike for Scotland, quite the contrary infact), neither is England). Australia is a country with a 'vast array of resources'. The United Kingdom is not.
Ok, I must have missed that bit. Was it just the 'vast amount of resources' piece?
So if the UK continues to limp along, and Scotland begins to boom is that a sign for or against a monetary union with the BoE Pound either Informal or Formal?
Scotland will Boom, just like Ireland and Cyprus did and that pattern will repeat. There is no evidence to say otherwise. The oil wealth will not be put back into the nation aka like Norway but taken up via shareholders and the co-operate hand bagging that will offer members of the scotish elite sweet deals so they can sell out there own again. The writing is already on the wall for this as the lobbying of SNP politicions has ramped up significantly.
(you can read this in the press)
Its about time it was kicked in the touch anyway and had a slap for being gobby again.
Scotsman said:Scottish independence: UK underplayed value of oil
FORMER chancellor Lord Healey has admitted the UK government underplayed the value of Scottish oil in the 1970s to combat support for independence.
The former Labour deputy leader said the government downplayed figures on Scotland’s oil wealth to counter nationalism ahead of the 1979 devolution referendum.
Lord Healey told Holyrood magazine the unionist parties were now “worried stiff” about losing UK oil revenues if Scots vote for independence next year. The Labour peer said the UK would “suffer enormously” without the billions of pounds in tax the Treasury receives from oil.
He went on to claim that an independent Scotland would “survive perfectly well” due to North Sea reserves and that the rest of the UK would “just need to adjust”.
Lord Healey said: “I think they [Westminster politicians]are concerned about Scotland taking the oil. I think they are worried stiff about it.
“I think we would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil stopped, but if the Scots want it [independence], they should have it and we would just need to adjust.
“But I would think Scotland would survive perfectly well, economically, if it was independent Yes, I would think so … with the oil.”
Lord Healey said: “We did underplay the value of oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism, but that was mainly down to Thatcher.
“We didn’t actually see the rewards from oil in my period in office, because we were investing in the infrastructure rather than getting the returns and really, Thatcher wouldn’t have been able to carry out her policies without that additional 5 per cent on GDP from oil. Incredible good luck she had from that.
“It’s true we should have invested the money in things we needed in Britain and I had thought about an oil fund, but it wasn’t really my responsibility by then.”
The very week news broke about more acknowledgement of Westminster deceit and lies;
Scotland has a huge abundance of demographic and natural resource.
I'm not going to be convinced by someone at the other end of the UK that Scotland is in fact energy poor, fishing poor, financial services and export poor, and that it's people are actually poor people in rich clothing..
It's amazing really isn't it.
[TW]Fox;24319767 said:Presumably deceit and lies are a purely Westminster thing? I mean, it wouldn't happen anywhere else would it?
[TW]Fox;24319783 said:Thats not what I said really, is it? I was referring to natural resources. We don't have a vast array of natural resources in the UK when compared to some other countries in the world with whom we compete on the world stage.
To be fair, if he used the multi quote function his post count would be 4-5x lower (not a stab at you Bio, just pointing out its not as bad as he's portraying it).