Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Looking at position in the table isn't really reflective of the actual financial position though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal). When you look at it this way we really are quite tidly and insignificant on the world stage. We make up only 3% of the global GDP. Compare this to the US (25%), the EU excluding UK (19%), China (15%), Japan (6%). We are a tiny island on this scale, the whole country could disappear and it would likely just mean the global economy just flatlined for a year. No one is going to take any more notice than of the UK than any other non-EU country that also has a GDP of a similar level. (e.g. India) and we are likely to be rapidly overtaken by some of these. As an individual country we are irrelevant, it was only as being as part of a larger group did it result in greater strength. The EU will still have this (they are the second strongest power still after all, which is why Trump has a vested interested in demolishing it) but the UK will be considered a petty minded introverted country and treated as such.

Sorry, but by your standard, every country right now bar the US and China is 'irrelevant'. Which makes it an utterly meaningless and pointless statement, given that there are over two hundred nations on this planet.

If we're going to go by actual relative/comparative metrics here, and rank Britain against the entire world and every nation instead of just the two at the top (who are effectively superpowers) and a conglomeration of over twenty five other countries (which isn't actually a nation), we're about as powerful and relevant on this planet as it's possible to be, economically, militarily, diplomatically, and culturally. We're not a superpower, but we are the next best thing in the pecking order.

If you deny that, you effectively label at least two hundred other countries as 'irrelevant', which then calls into question whether you're actually gauging what 'relevance' is particularly well.

Ya'll not a superpower?

O.o

I think I need to update the definition of 'superpower'....

 Sentinel1 wrote:


Personally the whole we need more houses is a flawed concept because it never comes with improved services. Unfortunately there is never enough money or consideration about schools, G.P services or roads when these mass schemes go ahead. In my area every village is to receive 400 homes, every town 2500 - 5000 homes yet no improvements to services. So far this is just a piece of paper, but already one program to double the size of a town has gone ahead. This originally came with a new purpose built school, but that was scrapped on cost.

The EU will be in denial all the way to the end, unfortunately there are more cases of sour grapes at home than abroad. Theres even one house I know of that has a EU flag on half-mast! Of course those places that saw the golden light of EU membership will suffer, but it will give many other parts of the country a chance to catch up and improve. I unfortunately live in an area that has been hit by the worst effects of the EU, so things can only get better

This is incredibly naïve thinking. The housing issue is not an EU issue. It has arisen because the UK government has allowed the larger scale builders to have to fund less and less over the last 7 years. There is something called Section 106 agreements, that to briefly summarise are what councils can request from the house builders when they submit planning applications so includes money to build new schools, libraries, waste facilities and social housing etc (note taxes pay for revenue/operational costs not capital costs). The issues is that since the Tories have been in power they have given greater and greater ability for builders to challenge the need for such money. So for example if an area has 100 school places left a council can only ask for funding for developments that would increase children numbers by this number. However the regulations/guidance was softened so that it applies to all developments the same. So if you have 7 developments each only requiring 99 school places, as long as those places were still available then the council can't ask for money from any of them (despite that combined they could generate nearly 700 places requirement). Hence the council gets no extra cash to build new schools and when 5 years down the road all these houses are completed there ends up being a massive shortage of school places. The builders being wise however stop building in the area and go and find somewhere else they can exploit whilst taking the profit and not worrying about the consequences for the local area. This isn't an EU issue, it's a UK government policy of helping builders to make massive profits at the expense of the public. This isn't about to change though apparently. The new buiding guidelines apparently are going to reduce the requirements on builders to provide certain amounts of space and light so they can cram even more houses into ever smaller spaces (making even worse slums of the future).

You've also completely got it wrong about who will benefit from leaving the EU. Those that support it are better educated in general and will be able to relocate and have more in-demand jobs. Those that are going to suffer are the poorest as they can afford less and less and their social conditions are degraded. There won't be any catching up, only slipping back even further. The ironic thing is that for a lot of people they voted for Brexit because they were angry they weren't get their slice of the pie, it irony being that they will get even less of that pie in the future as their jobs are farmed off to china, india and other countries because of free trade deals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


Sorry, but by your standard, every country right now bar the US and China is 'irrelevant'. Which makes it an utterly meaningless and pointless statement, given that there are over two hundred nations on this planet.

If we're going to go by actual relative/comparative metrics here, and rank Britain against the entire world and every nation instead of just the two at the top (who are effectively superpowers) and a conglomeration of over twenty five other countries (which isn't actually a nation), we're about as powerful and relevant on this planet as it's possible to be, economically, militarily, diplomatically, and culturally. We're not a superpower, but we are the next best thing in the pecking order.

If you deny that, you effectively label at least two hundred other countries as 'irrelevant', which then calls into question whether you're actually gauging what 'relevance' is particularly well.

Yes economically speaking there are only three relevant nations (US, China, EU and perhaps Japan depending on where you draw the line). Any one of the rest could disappear beneath the waves (just like the UK) and the world economy would hardly blink. That's why the EU was important for us...they allowed all of the individual nations to have more say in global economic affairs. The UK will now have to deal with the fallout out of now being relatively insignificant in an increasing globalised market (and heaven help us if the South America or Africa joined into a similar bodies).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I always laugh at the idea that the SNP want to be out of Westminister but will happily crawl into Bed with the EU.

That's because the EU cares about all it's nations. Westminster Tories only care about their own bank balance.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I always laugh at the idea that the SNP want to be out of Westminister but will happily crawl into Bed with the EU.

There is no comparison between the two. Since when did the EU prevent a nation having a foreign policy or interfere with social welfare?

Brussels and Westminster are both overarching political entities but Brussels has virtually no impact on internal policies (and those that it does impact would generally be supported in Scotland anyway, i.e. workers rights)

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Diane Abbot chickened out of the parliamentary Brexit vote didn't she?

I can now say that she's a coward as well as a rascist and hypocrite.

Won't stop her complaining about Brexit though.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I always laugh at the idea that the SNP want to be out of Westminister but will happily crawl into Bed with the EU.

It's why I like DINLT. He is consistent in his xenophobia.

I'm getting sick of seeing Sturgeon in the news every other day bashing on about another independence vote because a small majority of people in Scotland voted remain. The way her logic seems to work is that the whole UK can't carry out the result of a referendum unless Scotland is in accordance. I mean just how many people in Scotland total voted remain as a percentage of the whole UK? Why do we bother holding a UK wide referendum when we should all do what Scotland will agree to anyway? Further, if Scotland didn't want to be part of the UK, which it's no secret occasionally carries out referenda as a whole, they should have voted to leave in the referendum held not even three years ago!

I may be wrong, but I believe Scotland is a net recipient of funding in the UK. Nicola Sturgeon's grand plan for independence stops at the referendum. There's no vision for striding out as an independent Scotland, they want to immediately go cap in hand to the EU for membership to cling to their coattails instead. Because who else will cover the costs of their NHS, no university fees, etc. The UK is a net contributor to the EU, they'll feel our loss, but why will they want Scotland? If I sound disparaging, it's because I come from Wales, and you'd have to be barking mad to think they could go it alone.

 Whirlwind wrote:


You've also completely got it wrong about who will benefit from leaving the EU. Those that support it are better educated in general and will be able to relocate and have more in-demand jobs. Those that are going to suffer are the poorest as they can afford less and less and their social conditions are degraded. There won't be any catching up, only slipping back even further. The ironic thing is that for a lot of people they voted for Brexit because they were angry they weren't get their slice of the pie, it irony being that they will get even less of that pie in the future as their jobs are farmed off to china, india and other countries because of free trade deals.

Why did I vote Leave? Well yes of course it was to get a slice of pie, it was also to ram through the issue of immigration, but perhaps the best part of it was, it was the best chance we all got of slapping smug-I'm-from-Notting-Hill-Utopia-David Cameron.- Also a poke in the eye for slimeball Osbourne!

The whole question of is the UK better off in or out is Null and Void, so your statement is unfortunately irrelevant post Brexit. No matter what the pre-facts were, we have and will make Brexit a success for everyone, of that I am sure. Its evolve or die and I think some Inners don't get that.

I would be interested to know where you are from and how your area will change with Brexit.

Where would I like to see us in the future? Hopefully with a strong globalised economy, we will have out grown the loss of the EU. It would not surprise me to see the EU in its current form split further down the line of history if it too does not adapt and change. I and many people across the UK get the impression the EU is more or less Germany and to a latter extent France with all fingers in the pie. The problem with the UK is its individuality, we have never accepted being fully European, over time yes we have conformed from imperial to metric and with universal laws but we still hold on to what makes us -us. I think we are in a strong position to keep this, if we stayed in the EU, I foresee what Churchill prophesized of a 'united states of Europe'. The difference being we would be a tiny state controlled by central Federal Europe. With Brexit we at least guarantee sovereignty and freedom to be different.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Yes economically speaking there are only three relevant nations (US, China, EU and perhaps Japan depending on where you draw the line). Any one of the rest could disappear beneath the waves (just like the UK) and the world economy would hardly blink. That's why the EU was important for us...they allowed all of the individual nations to have more say in global economic affairs. The UK will now have to deal with the fallout out of now being relatively insignificant in an increasing globalised market (and heaven help us if the South America or Africa joined into a similar bodies).

Economics is only part of measuring 'relevance' globally, and has several aspects at that. It's a bit naive, I think, to say nobody would notice us slipping beneath the waves. For example, we are currently the world's largest financial exporter, home to Lloyd's of London, the London Stock Exchange, and so on. Us disappearing overnight would create a level of economic turbulence that again, virtually no other nations bar the two superpowers and a very small handful of other first world countries would.

When you start throwing in the various other factors, it becomes pretty apparent that trying to dub our nation as 'irrelevant' or equate us to one of the Nordic group is far more of a statement rooted in politics and personal belief than any sort of serious comparative metric.

 Sentinel1 wrote:


Why did I vote Leave? Well yes of course it was to get a slice of pie, it was also to ram through the issue of immigration, but perhaps the best part of it was, it was the best chance we all got of slapping smug-I'm-from-Notting-Hill-Utopia-David Cameron.- Also a poke in the eye for slimeball Osbourne!

So basically you are saying you'd ruin the country because you don't like a couple of people and because of bigotry against immigrants? This is exactly the reason a lot of people are angry with what happened, it's nothing to do with what is good for country just their own blind rage and prejudices.

The whole question of is the UK better off in or out is Null and Void, so your statement is unfortunately irrelevant post Brexit. No matter what the pre-facts were, we have and will make Brexit a success for everyone, of that I am sure. Its evolve or die and I think some Inners don't get that.

I think the thing 'outers' forgets is that in 10 years enough old farts will have pegged it and the majority will have swung back to pro-EU. All the 'inners' have to highlight is just how much bigotry won the vote and then demand a new referendum in a few years, then we can at least avery some of the coming madness.

I would be interested to know where you are from and how your area will change with Brexit.

Leicester (one of more inspired areas that voted to remain). As for how the area will change, it will get poorer just like the rest of the UK apart from Tories and their stooges.

Where would I like to see us in the future? Hopefully with a strong globalised economy, we will have out grown the loss of the EU. It would not surprise me to see the EU in its current form split further down the line of history if it too does not adapt and change. I and many people across the UK get the impression the EU is more or less Germany and to a latter extent France with all fingers in the pie. The problem with the UK is its individuality, we have never accepted being fully European, over time yes we have conformed from imperial to metric and with universal laws but we still hold on to what makes us -us. I think we are in a strong position to keep this, if we stayed in the EU, I foresee what Churchill prophesized of a 'united states of Europe'. The difference being we would be a tiny state controlled by central Federal Europe. With Brexit we at least guarantee sovereignty and freedom to be different.

You are sadly misled. The UK will grow but social values will wane as the government tries to chase more business. Whilst we grow a few percent the EU and the rest of the world will probably double the growth we achieve. When there is a recession the larger economies will have the finances and resources to survive the pain better. Scotland will split from the UK and then it will just be poor old little England, a foot note in history books of about how not to screw over your own children's future.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've outlined my views on this many a time on this forum, but as a new user, you probably are unaware of them, so I don't mind repeating them.

Out of the EU, out of the UK, has been my position for a good while, now. Brussels is corrupt and good riddance to it, but Westminster is another cesspit I'd be glad to see the back of.

I'm curious, is there any possible hypothetical scenario in which you'd favour remaining in the (British) union? If you could name your price, and assuming that Westminster agreed, what would it be? And I don't mean financially, but in terms of political reform, electoral reform, legal reform, even more devolution, etc.

Like you, I want out of the EU. But unlike you, I want the UK to remain united. We've had a long history together, the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish*, and I don't want to throw that away. It might make sense for continental Europe to unite, but we've always been apart from Europe and IMO we have so much more in common with each other than we do or ever will have with continental Europe. I would rather Westminster bend over backwards and humble themselves if need be, to preserve the Union.

*Ireland is a separate issue. Ideally I think one day there should one day be a united Ireland, provided it can be done peacefully and democratically with a clear democratic mandate in the form of a referendum. A united Britain, and a united Ireland is my ideal. You could call it the "Two Island Policy" I guess.

 Ketara wrote:


Economics is only part of measuring 'relevance' globally, and has several aspects at that. It's a bit naive, I think, to say nobody would notice us slipping beneath the waves. For example, we are currently the world's largest financial exporter, home to Lloyd's of London, the London Stock Exchange, and so on. Us disappearing overnight would create a level of economic turbulence that again, virtually no other nations bar the two superpowers and a very small handful of other first world countries would.

When you start throwing in the various other factors, it becomes pretty apparent that trying to dub our nation as 'irrelevant' or equate us to one of the Nordic group is far more of a statement rooted in politics and personal belief than any sort of serious comparative metric.

Except all the major banks are looking at moving anyway, there's no great financial turmoil or wailing or gnashing of teeth. They are just steadily preparing to leave. Just because we have the London stock exchange or Lloyds doesn't mean that it all ups sticks and moves somewhere else. Global economic growth is what about 2% (so that's all we are if we disappeared, just sprinklings on the piece of cake people want to have and eat). Realistically unless part of the north sea gives way we won't disappear immediately, but in 20 years when all the major companies have moved on, we will be even more irrelevant than we are now. We are deluded to think we are a major player in terms of total economic output. We simply are not.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To nobody's surprise, Farage has been accused of misusing EU funds

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/01/nigel-farage-among-ukip-meps-accused-of-misusing-eu-funds

I thought the EU were going to run Farage out of Brussels?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
...As I've said before I will also make it a mission to buy everything from the EU...

I'm sure the sour grape growers of Europe will be most pleased at your continued custom.

On the other hand, if you expect these shysters in the Tory party to launch a glorious post-Brexit mass house building program, then I think you'll be disappointed

The EU's bureaucracy has made it too hard for them to shift Farage or any Euro-sceptics out.

Personally the whole we need more houses is a flawed concept because it never comes with improved services. Unfortunately there is never enough money or consideration about schools, G.P services or roads when these mass schemes go ahead. In my area every village is to receive 400 homes, every town 2500 - 5000 homes yet no improvements to services. So far this is just a piece of paper, but already one program to double the size of a town has gone ahead. This originally came with a new purpose built school, but that was scrapped on cost.

The EU will be in denial all the way to the end, unfortunately there are more cases of sour grapes at home than abroad. Theres even one house I know of that has a EU flag on half-mast! Of course those places that saw the golden light of EU membership will suffer, but it will give many other parts of the country a chance to catch up and improve. I unfortunately live in an area that has been hit by the worst effects of the EU, so things can only get better

There's actually something I agree with you there, no point in trying to build in more housing into Georgian market towns and villages that simply do not have the transport infrastructure to support the increased population.

This is nothing to do with the EU of course.

 Ketara wrote:
It's a bit naive, I think, to say nobody would notice us slipping beneath the waves..

To be fair you'd probably be right on this one. Most countries would probably point and laugh as we drowned ourselves. We wouldn't get forgotten, just turned into a nursery rhyme to scare naughty kids.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To nobody's surprise, Farage has been accused of misusing EU funds

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/01/nigel-farage-among-ukip-meps-accused-of-misusing-eu-funds

I thought the EU were going to run Farage out of Brussels?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
...As I've said before I will also make it a mission to buy everything from the EU...

I'm sure the sour grape growers of Europe will be most pleased at your continued custom.

On the other hand, if you expect these shysters in the Tory party to launch a glorious post-Brexit mass house building program, then I think you'll be disappointed

The EU's bureaucracy has made it too hard for them to shift Farage or any Euro-sceptics out.

...

It's worth bearing in mind that Farago was elected by popular vote.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:
There is now a petition that Trump should be given entry to the UK. Personally pro-Brexit the UK needs trade deals and international friends. The USA is one of the biggest trade links, ... ...

The fething EU is the biggest fething trade deal and we have fething decided to piss it down the fething drain.

No...thats the fething single market, which is not the same as the fething EU. We originally joined a fething free trade zone, not a fething political union, but it fething morphed into the fething EU without our fething consent.

On a fething side note, what's with all the fething fething?

Was the UK not signatory to the EU's creation? Did the UK not have voting representatives in the EU? Did the UK not negotiate various special deals within the EU framework multiple times? Did the other nations of Europe hoodwink the UK into something it clearly didnt want to do in a back alley one night?

I mean...the EU was always presented as a political union, at least on certain levels. It isnt perfect, nothing is, but the UK had as much or more voice in its modern evolution and creation as most other states did and it was never portrayed as just an economic cooperative.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


Economics is only part of measuring 'relevance' globally, and has several aspects at that. It's a bit naive, I think, to say nobody would notice us slipping beneath the waves. For example, we are currently the world's largest financial exporter, home to Lloyd's of London, the London Stock Exchange, and so on. Us disappearing overnight would create a level of economic turbulence that again, virtually no other nations bar the two superpowers and a very small handful of other first world countries would.

When you start throwing in the various other factors, it becomes pretty apparent that trying to dub our nation as 'irrelevant' or equate us to one of the Nordic group is far more of a statement rooted in politics and personal belief than any sort of serious comparative metric.

Except all the major banks are looking at moving anyway, there's no great financial turmoil or wailing or gnashing of teeth. They are just steadily preparing to leave. Just because we have the London stock exchange or Lloyds doesn't mean that it all ups sticks and moves somewhere else. Global economic growth is what about 2% (so that's all we are if we disappeared, just sprinklings on the piece of cake people want to have and eat). Realistically unless part of the north sea gives way we won't disappear immediately, but in 20 years when all the major companies have moved on, we will be even more irrelevant than we are now. We are deluded to think we are a major player in terms of total economic output. We simply are not.

You are now anticipating the future. You are making predictions which cannot be verified, cheques which cannot be cashed. In short, you are making an argument from the heart about Brexit, and not a rational statement about Britain's current/present/contemporary relevance in the world (which must by necessity be measured and compared against over two hundred other separate nations).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


I may be wrong, but I believe Scotland is a net recipient of funding in the UK.

Yes, you are. http://www.businessforscotland.com/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/

Scotland has historically paid more in tax than it receives, not that you will often hear that from certain media sources.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


Further, if Scotland didn't want to be part of the UK, which it's no secret occasionally carries out referenda as a whole, they should have voted to leave in the referendum held not even three years ago!

Brexit happened and a second referendum is such an event occurred was in the SNP manifesto. Perhaps you would prefer the SNP to be like to Tories and treat their manifesto as a mere suggestion?

 Ketara wrote:

You are now anticipating the future. You are making predictions which cannot be verified, cheques which cannot be cashed. In short, you are making an argument from the heart about Brexit, and not a rational statement about Britain's current/present/contemporary relevance in the world (which must by necessity be measured and compared against over two hundred other separate nations).

No, there's been reports already of banks moving already. The UKs place economically is irrelevant from a percentage perspective. Those that think otherwise are the ones talking from the heart and failing to grasp just how insignificant we are!

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


Yes, you are. http://www.businessforscotland.com/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/

Scotland has historically paid more in tax than it receives, not that you will often hear that from certain media sources.

Sadly, that article is quite out of date. To reiterate from quite some time ago, including oil, up until the point of the last referendum, Scotland contributed a surplus to the British taxpayer. Without it, it was a deficit. Since the price of oil has not so much crashed as completely imploded, Scotland is now in deficit whether you take it into account or not.

Whether that will remain the case in the future is an unknown quantity. If Scotland was to go independent now, it would by necessity have to either make cuts or seriously raise borrowing.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

You are now anticipating the future. You are making predictions which cannot be verified, cheques which cannot be cashed. In short, you are making an argument from the heart about Brexit, and not a rational statement about Britain's current/present/contemporary relevance in the world (which must by necessity be measured and compared against over two hundred other separate nations).

No, there's been reports already of banks moving already. The UKs place economically is irrelevant from a percentage perspective. Those that think otherwise are the ones talking from the heart and failing to grasp just how insignificant we are!

Many of your statements were quite literally in the future tense and in anticipation of events. In other words, you are making projections about the future, ones which neither you nor I are qualified (frankly, very few are) to make and expect to hold any form of accuracy. For example, if the US declared a nuclear war on China tomorrow, the future would look exceedingly different to your current projection, and it would do so again if Marine Le Pen wins the French election and withdraws France from the EU causing it to crumble.

Meanwhile. your single metric for declaring economic irrelevancy is overly simplistic, and fails to even begin to account for the sheer complexity of international economics regardless of the future.

 Whirlwind wrote:
So basically you are saying you'd ruin the country because you don't like a couple of people and because of bigotry against immigrants? This is exactly the reason a lot of people are angry with what happened, it's nothing to do with what is good for country just their own blind rage and prejudices.

First of all I am not a Bigot, I believe we should be ashamed that we can't talk about immigration without being branded as hate crime. I can tell you why Brexit happened. The majority of society was disillusioned from Brussels and the stalemate politicians have had with it for years. People voted for change and that is what we are receiving. Cameron thought it wouldn't happen, that afterwards no one could win an argument against him after success. Too bad he never considered it would cost his job. Also the Inners were Apocalyptic with their B.S and negativity which back fired. The British economy is stronger than we take credit for and we will bounce back.

 Whirlwind wrote:
I think the thing 'outers' forgets is that in 10 years enough old farts will have pegged it and the majority will have swung back to pro-EU. All the 'inners' have to highlight is just how much bigotry won the vote and then demand a new referendum in a few years, then we can at least avery some of the coming madness.

A new referendum would be madness, it may be 15 years or 50 years before it is debated again, but I have faith we will make Brexit a success and won't need to go back to the EU. I and many others would never accept the Euro to get back in for a start. Also I am against preference to EU nationals over everyone for entry to the UK. I also believe their no border policy is stupid and am glad we have a channel between us.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Leicester (one of more inspired areas that voted to remain). As for how the area will change, it will get poorer just like the rest of the UK apart from Tories and their stooges.

Leicester is a nice place, have relatives there. Trouble is I have to go through Melton Mowbray which is an awful place to drive through. Anyway, I was surprised they voted so overwhelmingly to remain. It is perhaps an idealic location that hasn't seen much reason to complain. Either way I doubt it will suddenly implode as you suggest.

 Whirlwind wrote:
You are sadly misled. The UK will grow but social values will wane as the government tries to chase more business. Whilst we grow a few percent the EU and the rest of the world will probably double the growth we achieve. When there is a recession the larger economies will have the finances and resources to survive the pain better. Scotland will split from the UK and then it will just be poor old little England, a foot note in history books of about how not to screw over your own children's future.

Scotland will only split if the SNP want it to. Yes the had one before, but a second one is entirely different, as things would be less certain for them to stay in the EU. They may have to take up the Euro, and I am not convinced Scotland has an economy capable to survive on its own. Without UK subsidy and investment it will rely heavily on the EU for grants. It will be a parasite to the rest of the EU as I doubt Scotland's economy could make it a contributor rather than a receiver. I do not want to see a split Kingdom, but if the Scotts will it, so be it. I don't want to see the UK nanny it with funds and appeasement if they do decide to go alone. I am positive the UK can survive a recession outside of Europe. Remember we bailed out all those countries? When did we need them to bail us?

 Ketara wrote:

Sadly, that article is quite out of date. To reiterate from quite some time ago, including oil, up until the point of the last referendum, Scotland contributed a surplus to the British taxpayer. Without it, it was a deficit.

Yes, although it does mean that the gak about "Scottish handouts" are exactly that, gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sentinel1 wrote:
. It will be a parasite to the rest of the EU as I doubt Scotland's economy could make it a contributor rather than a receiver.

Read the article I linked above, seriously. It was the rUK that was the parasite for most of the last 50 years.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Sadly, that article is quite out of date. To reiterate from quite some time ago, including oil, up until the point of the last referendum, Scotland contributed a surplus to the British taxpayer. Without it, it was a deficit.

Yes, although it does mean that the gak about "Scottish handouts" are exactly that, gak.

I'd be inclined to agree. Scotland's finances go up and down in relation to the UK, but then again, so do everybody's. Sometimes the government has to borrow, sometimes it has to trim its attire to match its wallet. Scotland could succeed as an independent country, of that I have little doubt. Would it be able to maintain its current public expenditure? Not right now. Perhaps at some point in the future. Probably not at other points in the future. Like most countries, really.

It irritates me the level of false figures that get thrown about regarding the issue though. It's so highly politicised now, and both the UK government and the SNP are so misleading. Most people don't have the time or inclination to do what I did, and look at/calculate from the raw data. If there's one thing that convinces me life under Holyrood would probably be no better than that of Westminster, it's the fact that their politics are just as dishonest.

I despair at all of the political parties of this nation these days, I really do. I've considered going into it myself, but frankly I wouldn't know which party to join. They're all such a shambles!

 welshhoppo wrote:
I always laugh at the idea that the SNP want to be out of Westminister but will happily crawl into Bed with the EU.

It's why I like DINLT. He is consistent in his xenophobia.

I like Wales.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:
There is now a petition that Trump should be given entry to the UK. Personally pro-Brexit the UK needs trade deals and international friends. The USA is one of the biggest trade links, ... ...

The fething EU is the biggest fething trade deal and we have fething decided to piss it down the fething drain.

No...thats the fething single market, which is not the same as the fething EU. We originally joined a fething free trade zone, not a fething political union, but it fething morphed into the fething EU without our fething consent.

On a fething side note, what's with all the fething fething?

Was the UK not signatory to the EU's creation? Did the UK not have voting representatives in the EU? Did the UK not negotiate various special deals within the EU framework multiple times? Did the other nations of Europe hoodwink the UK into something it clearly didnt want to do in a back alley one night?

I mean...the EU was always presented as a political union, at least on certain levels. It isnt perfect, nothing is, but the UK had as much or more voice in its modern evolution and creation as most other states did and it was never portrayed as just an economic cooperative.

You're absolutely right, unfortunately none of that matters now.

Unfortunately, we've entered a stage of politics in the UK where logic and facts are alternative, and are pretty much vote losers. You may recognise the phenomena.

I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to tout the EEC argument about it being all about trade, whilst ignoring the fact that we're now leaving the very single market we enthusiastically begged to join in the 70s, and has been a massive engine for prosperity for the UK ever since, and were promised we wouldn't be leaving before the vote.

This entire enterprise, and the path we are now on, has actually nothing to do with any argument on leave or remain, it is all about the sanctity and unity of the Tory party. That has been put before the welfare and economic vitality of the country.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've outlined my views on this many a time on this forum, but as a new user, you probably are unaware of them, so I don't mind repeating them.

Out of the EU, out of the UK, has been my position for a good while, now. Brussels is corrupt and good riddance to it, but Westminster is another cesspit I'd be glad to see the back of.

I'm curious, is there any possible hypothetical scenario in which you'd favour remaining in the (British) union? If you could name your price, and assuming that Westminster agreed, what would it be? And I don't mean financially, but in terms of political reform, electoral reform, legal reform, even more devolution, etc.

Like you, I want out of the EU. But unlike you, I want the UK to remain united. We've had a long history together, the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish*, and I don't want to throw that away. It might make sense for continental Europe to unite, but we've always been apart from Europe and IMO we have so much more in common with each other than we do or ever will have with continental Europe. I would rather Westminster bend over backwards and humble themselves if need be, to preserve the Union.

*Ireland is a separate issue. Ideally I think one day there should one day be a united Ireland, provided it can be done peacefully and democratically with a clear democratic mandate in the form of a referendum. A united Britain, and a united Ireland is my ideal. You could call it the "Two Island Policy" I guess.

In order to keep me in the UK, I would demand the following:

1) House of Lords to be abolished and replaced with a proper elected second chamber. The Lords is an affront to democracy and should have been swept away decades ago.

2) A written constitution. None of this horsegak of an unwritten constitution.

3) A proper federal settlement for the UK, including an English Parliament, with the UK parliament being for defence, foreign affairs etc etc

4) Full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. They can't use the EU excuse anymore.

5) Liam Fox to be put in the Tower of London for 50 years, Boris Johnson to be exiled to British Antarctic territory, Paul Dacre to be exiled to Bulgaria, Richard Littlejohn to be exiled to Romania, George Osborne to be permanent ambassador to North Korea, and Nigel Farage to have the images of Merkel, Juncker, Tusk, and Alex Salmond tattooed to his chest, and chained to the front door of the EU parliament building.

That is my price for staying in the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:
There is now a petition that Trump should be given entry to the UK. Personally pro-Brexit the UK needs trade deals and international friends. The USA is one of the biggest trade links, ... ...

The fething EU is the biggest fething trade deal and we have fething decided to piss it down the fething drain.

No...thats the fething single market, which is not the same as the fething EU. We originally joined a fething free trade zone, not a fething political union, but it fething morphed into the fething EU without our fething consent.

On a fething side note, what's with all the fething fething?

Was the UK not signatory to the EU's creation? Did the UK not have voting representatives in the EU? Did the UK not negotiate various special deals within the EU framework multiple times? Did the other nations of Europe hoodwink the UK into something it clearly didnt want to do in a back alley one night?

I mean...the EU was always presented as a political union, at least on certain levels. It isnt perfect, nothing is, but the UK had as much or more voice in its modern evolution and creation as most other states did and it was never portrayed as just an economic cooperative.

Britain wasn't one of the founding members of the old EEC - the forerunner to the EU. The founding members were West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, etc etc

We didn't join until 1973. We tried to join before then, but De Gaulle kept saying Non!

De Gaulle saw us as a Trojan horse for the USA and to be honest, I think he was spot on. Our heart was never really in the EEC/EU.

 Sentinel1 wrote:


First of all I am not a Bigot, I believe we should be ashamed that we can't talk about immigration without being branded as hate crime. I can tell you why Brexit happened. The majority of society was disillusioned from Brussels and the stalemate politicians have had with it for years. People voted for change and that is what we are receiving. Cameron thought it wouldn't happen, that afterwards no one could win an argument against him after success. Too bad he never considered it would cost his job. Also the Inners were Apocalyptic with their B.S and negativity which back fired. The British economy is stronger than we take credit for and we will bounce back.

You are confusing hate crimes with bigotry which are two different things. Bigotry is a prejudice, it doesn't mean you are abusive towards such people. But you can still be prejudiced. Stating that you voted because of immigration is bigotry because you are prejudiced against a certain group of people that are 'different' (that being they are not from the UK). Saying that the we could do with more builders is not bigotry (because it is not prejudiced against a group of people). Saying we need English builders is bigotry because it is prejudiced. Bigotry is when you start making decisions simply on the basis of where someone comes from and takes no consideration of who those individual people are and what there skills are. The UK economy will however become weaker relative to the other economies, you can still have growth but be preforming poorly compared to your neighbours. It's all relative.

 Whirlwind wrote:
A new referendum would be madness, it may be 15 years or 50 years before it is debated again, but I have faith we will make Brexit a success and won't need to go back to the EU. I and many others would never accept the Euro to get back in for a start. Also I am against preference to EU nationals over everyone for entry to the UK. I also believe their no border policy is stupid and am glad we have a channel between us.

Why is it madness - if the populations view changes, then why shouldn't there be. This is just an argument to say "we got our way, so stuff the rest of you!" One of the arguments for the referendum was that it was direct democracy. If you now say well, not any more than that is just hypocrisy of the greatest order (and again points to lack of empathy and care for any body that has a different view!).

 Whirlwind wrote:
Leicester is a nice place, have relatives there. Trouble is I have to go through Melton Mowbray which is an awful place to drive through. Anyway, I was surprised they voted so overwhelmingly to remain. It is perhaps an idealic location that hasn't seen much reason to complain. Either way I doubt it will suddenly implode as you suggest.

Perhaps Leicester, being one of the most racially diverse areas of the country has realised that immigration is actually good for the country and the by having an integrated community it is less liable to bigotry and expressions of random 'patriotism' (which is nothing of the sort)

 Whirlwind wrote:
Scotland will only split if the SNP want it to. Yes the had one before, but a second one is entirely different, as things would be less certain for them to stay in the EU. They may have to take up the Euro, and I am not convinced Scotland has an economy capable to survive on its own. Without UK subsidy and investment it will rely heavily on the EU for grants. It will be a parasite to the rest of the EU as I doubt Scotland's economy could make it a contributor rather than a receiver. I do not want to see a split Kingdom, but if the Scotts will it, so be it. I don't want to see the UK nanny it with funds and appeasement if they do decide to go alone.

Really? Scotland can survive just happily without the UK. England tends to be arrogant that no other nations could survive without us, whereas in reality they would likely do far better. If Malta can go it alone, so can Scotland.

I am positive the UK can survive a recession outside of Europe. Remember we bailed out all those countries? When did we need them to bail us?

Evidence please. The UK did not bail any EU country out, we bailed out our own banks and didn't contribute to helping out the EU (because like you pointed out we like to be selfish).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:
There is now a petition that Trump should be given entry to the UK. Personally pro-Brexit the UK needs trade deals and international friends. The USA is one of the biggest trade links, ... ...

The fething EU is the biggest fething trade deal and we have fething decided to piss it down the fething drain.

No...thats the fething single market, which is not the same as the fething EU. We originally joined a fething free trade zone, not a fething political union, but it fething morphed into the fething EU without our fething consent.

On a fething side note, what's with all the fething fething?

Was the UK not signatory to the EU's creation? Did the UK not have voting representatives in the EU? Did the UK not negotiate various special deals within the EU framework multiple times? Did the other nations of Europe hoodwink the UK into something it clearly didnt want to do in a back alley one night?

I mean...the EU was always presented as a political union, at least on certain levels. It isnt perfect, nothing is, but the UK had as much or more voice in its modern evolution and creation as most other states did and it was never portrayed as just an economic cooperative.

No, I'm saying our Government(s) at the time had no democratic mandate from the British Electorate to sign those treaties that created the EU. It didn't come up in general elections, they didn't tell the British public "We want to create a supra-national political union with the rest of Europe, vote for us and we'll make it happen!" They didn't ask the public its view on this specific issue via a Referendum.

Imagine that David Cameron never made a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the EU, and simply decided to arbitrarily invoke Article 50 without consulting the British people. Thats what our Governments did when they helped found the EU. They didn't consult us. They just went ahead and did it, and only consulted us several decades later, expecting that we would rubber-stamp our membership.

The British political Establishment consented to the creation of the EU, the British public did not, because we weren't asked.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I always laugh at the idea that the SNP want to be out of Westminister but will happily crawl into Bed with the EU.

It's why I like DINLT. He is consistent in his xenophobia.

I like Wales.

Then you are a fool, no one likes Wales, not even the Welsh.

(Not related)
Also, I've run the numbers myself for Scotland. You don't make any money, like you're several billion pounds a year in deficit without the rUK propping you up. Yeah. You might contribute more per person in taxes, but per person you receive about five grand more back than you pay in.

You'd have to lose either the free healthcare or your free universities, probably both or you'd go bankrupt in less than a decade.

 r_squared wrote:
I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to tout the EEC argument about it being all about trade, whilst ignoring the fact that we're now leaving the very single market we enthusiastically begged to join in the 70s, and has been a massive engine for prosperity for the UK ever since, and were promised we wouldn't be leaving before the vote.

It wasn't a political union when we joined, theres been several decades of mission creep since then. And its not mandatory to be a member of the EU to be a member of the Single Market. Non-EU countries like Norway are members of the market, so why not us?

The Single Market =/= the EU.

 Ketara wrote:


Many of your statements were quite literally in the future tense and in anticipation of events. In other words, you are making projections about the future, ones which neither you nor I are qualified (frankly, very few are) to make and expect to hold any form of accuracy. For example, if the US declared a nuclear war on China tomorrow, the future would look exceedingly different to your current projection, and it would do so again if Marine Le Pen wins the French election and withdraws France from the EU causing it to crumble.

Meanwhile. your single metric for declaring economic irrelevancy is overly simplistic, and fails to even begin to account for the sheer complexity of international economics regardless of the future.

Well yes of course they are future tense. We haven't left the EU yet. Government might have a change of heart tomorrow and might not leave. Trump might get confused reading a world map (highly likely) and nuke the UK and put us all out of our misery, alternatively maybe we'll all become energy beings tomorrow. The whole point of the debate is that it is subject to us leaving the EU which is also in the future. If you don't want to argue anything in the future then we shouldn't even discuss what might happen with A50. Instead we discuss the points that people have said will (or likely to) happen given certain circumstances (so banks packing their bags, except Barclays) given the balance of probabilties. If we just wanted to talk about historical issues then things would be very boring.

It may be simplistic but it is a useful basic metric simply from it shows how much economic clout any individual country has (for example no one argues that the US is not the largest economic nation and that is also simplistic). I think it's more folks don't want to realise just how insignificant we actually are globally (and the government are afraid to actually tell people this).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to tout the EEC argument about it being all about trade, whilst ignoring the fact that we're now leaving the very single market we enthusiastically begged to join in the 70s, and has been a massive engine for prosperity for the UK ever since, and were promised we wouldn't be leaving before the vote.

It wasn't a political union when we joined, theres been several decades of mission creep since then. And its not mandatory to be a member of the EU to be a member of the Single Market. Non-EU countries like Norway are members of the market, so why not us?

The Single Market =/= the EU.

Because Norway has free movement of people and May wants to restrict it at the cost of jobs and economic prosperity and her desire to spy on us all, all the time.