Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

khraeigh · No Longer a Wean Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 69

I have compiled a number of posts within the TAMB to this one.

As someone with Economics, Sociology, History and Politics degrees I can find no fault with any of it.

Please note: Comparisons to other nations are for reference only, every state are different in terms of different demographic factors, socio-political and economic. However the countries in question have the same access to the same and in some cases lower amount of funds than Scotland, so the comparisons are apt. And I will remind you comparisons are often used when unionism uses or implies the population argument or the one about periphery. It's interesting that the three states who are further on the periphery of this European corner are now all wealther per head than the bigger UK.

If you think it is too factual, would you prefer fantasy?

So please read through and anser the questions.

This is made up from various sources, from newspapers to the TAMB, from the government to Independent sources. Special thanks goes to Jim Baxters Keepie uppies on the TAMB for providing a lot of good sources, and questions.

Recommended Reading

http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/biglie.html

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01159.pdf

http://www.forscotland.com/aou.html#qI

http://www.snp.org/

http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/history.htm

http://www.alba.org.uk/ and from this website - well worth reading the following article http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/biglie.html

Points worth addressing before the main body:

We are over-represented in the parliament.....

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01159.pdf

For 298 years we have been under-represented!

We don't want it

No one knows what the majority of Scots want, we have never been asked. Sure, we have the elections, however some people who want independence do not care for other policies.
No-one has voted on this subject, and this subject alone.

We would not receive enough in Taxes

We don't receive tax as it is at the moment. We receive a block grant - part of which is made up of tax. IF you argue that Scotland doesn't raise enough taxes to meet spending commitments then neither does the UK.

Gordon Brown declared a deficit of £31 billion. But he did not declare the PFI schemes which could add another £100 billion to that.
The UK then does not raise enough through taxation. So why is it still independent?

In conclusion - The argument of the anti-Independence parties - that Independence will automatically mean more taxes for less services - is actually an argument that Scots are too stupid to run their own economy. Independence, Scotland finally gets to choose for itself how much it pays in tax. The fact is - no-one knows if taxes will be reaised - just like no-one knows now.

Income/Revenue

Bear in mind as oil isn't added in and also revenue from duties on Whisky aren't added for some reason. These go through the Extra Regio.

Have you ever heard of the extra regio before?

If we were to count these extra-regio income then Scotland would be the richest country in the UK per head of the population.

Go here -----> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/gva0803.pdf

Not from the SNP, not from me but from the UK gov.

Regional GVA 2001

Area_____________Per head (£)
United Kingdom____£14,500
England__________£14,800
Wales____________£11,400
Scotland__________£13,700
Northern Ireland___£11,300

£13,700 (Scotland) of £14,800 (England) is 94%.
£13,700 (Scotland) of £14,500 (UK) is 93%.

But there's this small print.

"4. Excluding Extra-Regio and statistical discrepancy. The GVA for Extra-Regio comprises compensation of employees and gross operating surplus which cannot be assigned to regions. Including Extra-Regio and statistical discrepancy, UK total GVA was £874.2bn in 2001, an increase of 4.3 per cent on 2000."

Add that in and this happens.

Wealth (GVA) per head

90% of Extra Regio to Scotland; 10% to England
UK_______£14,888
England___£14,846
Scotland__£17,762

119.6% of England's wealth
119.3% of the UK's

80% to 20%
UK_______£14,888
England___£14,892
Scotland__£17,311

116.2% of England's wealth
116.3% of the UK's

70% to 30%
UK_______£14,888
England___£14,939
Scotland__£16,860

112.9% of England's wealth
113.2% of the UK's

60% to 40%
UK_______£14,888
England___£14,985
Scotland__£16,408

109.5% of England's wealth
110.2% of the UK's

50% to 50%
UK_______£14,888
England___£15,031
Scotland__£15,957

106.2% of England's wealth
107.2% of the UK's

40% to 60%
UK_______£14,888
England___£15,077
Scotland__£15,506

102.8% of England's wealth
104.2% of the UK's

30% to 70%
UK_______£14,888
England___£15,124
Scotland__£15,054

99.5% of England's wealth
101.1% of the UK's

20% to 80%
UK_______£14,888
England___£15,170
Scotland__£14,603

96.3% of England's wealth
98.1% of the UK's

So we do not need the 70-80%+ that we are entitled to be richer than England or Britain. Only with below 30-40% would that happen, and below 20-30% would we be poorer than the UK. Well within the comfort zone and well into the future with declining stocks.

This would give us a great standing for the future, would let us save for when stocks decline. Yes, it will run out, but as it is, we only get 10% of it (rough figure), so why are you content to let another country benefit from your countries natural resources? Why are you content for this money to be used towards another countries future? To give a better standard of living in another country?

Note: figures are from 2001..........
And that’s FOUR years ago when there were downward pressures on prices with oil at $20 per barrel and no increasing demands from China. It’s now OVER $60 a barrel.

http://www.parliament.the-station...hansrd/vo980219/text/80219w19.htm

"Mr. Swinney: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts of a value greater than £10,000 his Department has with companies in (a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30073]

"Mr. Spellar [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The information requested is not available in precisely the format requested. The number and value of current prime contracts valued in excess of £10,000 in Financial Year 1996-97 in the following locations is listed below:

____________Contracts___Value(£)_______%
London______4,122______3,010,656,875___3.17%
SE England__13,337_____24,966,057,325__26.27%
England_____44,340_____62,777,373,141__66.07%
Scotland_____3,036______3,191,535,617___3.36%
Wales_______1,142______511,535,442____0.54%
N Ireland_____342_______564,437,755____0.59%

"This information should be regarded as indicative as it relates only to current defence prime contracts valued in excess of £10,000 in Financial Year 1996-97. It does not include defence sub-contracts or contracts placed by Trading Fund Defence Agencies as this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost."

Note it’s only “indicative” and “does not include defence sub-contracts or contracts”.

Then there’s also the matter of Export Credit Guarantees where the Government underwrites contracts abroad and pays the company the cash before it’s paid.

Have you worked out yet how some take-home pay down south is just another form of public spending but off the books? And how that works its way out into the greater economy of those areas.

We would have to negotiate with England over the Oil rights

How could they negotiate for anything not off the coast of the Remainder of the UK. The UK does abide by International Law and as such they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on if the fields are off the coast of Scotland.

Where there is a clearly designated Scottish jurisdiction which has been placed with the UN:

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGIS...ES/PDFFILES/GBR_1968_Order892.pdf

Everything north of the latitude line of 55.5 degrees is Scottish waters.
There would probably be negotiations over the above - more than likely - but the change will be nothing that drastic. It will just be a line of the areas of EEZ (Economic Exclusion Zone) where the principle of equidistance from the coast is internationally accepted.

Some unionist arguments suggest it would go in some wild diagonal line which would have waters 50 miles off Peterhead as English whilst being about nearly a couple of hundred miles from the nearest English coast.

A worst case scenario would be 70% and since most of the oil fields are opening up in the Atlantic then the arguments over claims academic since it would take a kid scribbling with a crayon to put them in an English sector.

What can a we do if there is not a strong English economy? Economies don't always remain strong.

The economic area we are part of does not just include England these days. Empires over and it had to find a new larger market. We are in Europe. So why should we continue to be part of a UK that has failed to protect our fishing, steel and shipbuilding in Europe. Why don't we take up a position as a member state?

Again back to how we are at the moment. If we have a weak economy that is a result of the present system. The present system is the union. So why continue with that?

And why do people assume England's is the stronger economy. It's only 25 years since Thatcher used the tax windfall from North Sea oil to pay for her restructuring.

When you take into consideration that we as a country pay for the nuclear based programmes in Scotland then after Independence we wouldn't have this outgoing.

In conclusion - The oft-quoted argument that Scotland will be unable to survive economically without England is patently untrue. Scotland has 70% of Europe’s energy reserves, primarily in the form of oil that is found in the North Sea. Profits from the extraction of such oil, for e.g., are channelled to England. As a matter of fact, it is submitted that Scotland may actually enjoy more robust economic growth than at present, were it not for the policies of the UK government which are usually biased towards London and the South-East of England.

The UK is a major player in the EU, Why change from that?

Having UK representation has seen steel workers become unemployed when they could have been protected if we were a member state. It's seen and still is seeing Scottish fishermen lose their jobs and livlihoods whilst Ireland and Denmark (presumably weak players in your view) have protected their fishermen. It is is currently seeing more shipbuilders facing closure because the "big UK player" fails to meet the subsidies other states give their shipbuilders. The UK also failed to keep Objective 1 money for the Highlands and Islands despite the GDP per head actually qualifying.

So please tell me how the UK has helped people with their jobs and livelihoods in comparison to smaller states who have better standards of living.
In the case of fishermen they have been protected by their governments. The UK has a bad habit of sacrificing parts of its workforce if they don’t vote for it in return for a stage. In the other European countries they fight for their sectors – French socialists fight for conservative peasants; the CDU would fight for SPD voting miners; Spanish statists even fight for Basque separatist fishermen.
For the UK, fish is just a small bargaining chip to be used in negotiations with other EU members. It's more important to countries like Spain and Denmark than it is to the UK, so UK don't place to much weight on it. That's why it appears that the Spanish have got a better deal - they have.

For Scotland on the other hand fish is really important and would be a major issue. There's nothing in European politics to make me believe that Scotland wouldn't get a better deal out of the CFP as an independent member.
Did you actually know that the word "expendable" was used by the UK Government when it was discussing this? It was revealed in the 30 year rule papers.

Ask yourself how Ireland, with a population of 3.5 million, managed to negotiate a box for the exclusive use of Irish fishermen whilst the UK gave up their entire fishing areas lock, stock and barrell?

How did Denmark, about the same size of population as Scotland, manage to increase it's industrial fishing for eels when there was little to no scientific evidence on what it's impact would be on the eels and other fish species? At the same time Scottish quotas for white fish were being slashed because of scientific data?

The only difference is that they had Governments standing up for them whilst Scottish fishermen had a Government in London who saw them as "expendable".

The same went for steel and is currently going on with ship building.

Oil.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4238744.stm

Yep, if we were independent all those years ago then we would be a rich nation, as it is we are poor........lied to keep the status quo.

Reading the whole report is absolutely shocking. It's more or less what the SNP have been rubbished for saying for years. At one point McCrone says "the only thing the SNP got wrong was underestimating the benefits so far" (in 1974!!)

it was written at direction of Tories then passed to Labour, which proves that there is a unionist movement whcih crosses party lines

I would say the really the interesting bit is one which hasn't had any coverage as far as I can see. It talks about the problems in West Central Scotland and how they could provide the conditions for nationalism.

To give MCCrone his due, he says that these problems should be given "the attention and expenditure they deserve", as a matter of urgency (within 5 years, at which time Labour were in power. They still have a power base in the midst of the people they shafted.)

Not only has the area not received the attention suggested by McCrone, but successive governments have taken a contrary, negative approach.

The more you think about it, the cleverer it is. There's probably another paper out there which comes up with the genius idea of creating a dependency culture rather than trying to do anything positive.

The numbers of "unemployed in Glasgow" hide the huge numbers who are "economically inactive" and living on benefits. This does two things, firstly it removes the potential for nationalism to take hold by buying temporary inertia (which risks becoming permanent) at minmum cost. But, it also helps create the impression that the only way for large parts of Scotland to survive is on handouts, and so justifies claims that Scotland is a taker rather than a giver.

It creates its own subsidy culture which it then uses to justify why we can't survive on our own. Genius!

Labour are basically continuing to buy votes at the expense of their voters' long term future.

They do not want facts or positivity to get in the way, and this paper proves that in the overall scheme of things a few million in benefits to buy acquiescence is much cheaper than the two alternatives:

1) To take positive action on the back of benefits to UK from Oil (As recommended and justifiable for unionists, not my choice), or 2) Do nothing and risk breakaway.

Even MCcrone didn't suggest 3) Buy them off as cheap as you can and let their potential be wasted for generations.

And that's just a microcosm of their entire Scottish policy.

If anyone wants the whole McCrone paper, PM me. Not if you have high blood pressure though...

McCrone, conclusion:

"Perhaps the most important conclusion is that time is extremely limited...There is little prospect that (British Regional Policy) will solve the problems of West Central Scotland in the foreseeable future...

If, in five years'time North Sea Oli is contributing massively to the UK budget, while the economic and social condition of West Central Scotland continues in the poor state it is in today, it owuld be hard to imagine conditions more favourable to the growth of support for the nationalist movement. Very detremined steps to urgently transform economic conditions in Scotland will therefore be necessary and the Scottish people will have to be persuaded that their problems really have received the attention and expenditure they deserve if this outcome is to be avoided."

Did he even suspect that in 30 years time, never mind 5, that the poor economic and social conditions would provide the bedrock of a Labour Government. I doubt it.

And look how Norways Oil has benefited them

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1569253,00.html

The Oil will run out in a few years

Read the full report? It said the oil wealth could be used to make Scotland like Switzerland – a non-oil economy. An economy based on investing in people’s skills and making those the basis of wealth in the country

How did the Swiss generate money when wars run out for their mercenaries? They made chocolate and cuckoo clocks and sold them abroad.

How has Luxembourg become the richest country per head in the world with no oil?

How has Ireland become richer per head than the UK without oil?

How is Iceland richer per head than the UK with a population the size of Dundee?

Why has wealth per head in the UK declined compared to them over the past 50 years?

Do you think they just relied on their present income 50 years ago? Or like most people they invest money and look for new markets?

WHY do you keep coming out with this old chestnut that somehow YOUR country is somehow stupid and will just blow it all?

Small Business

Scottish business is at a disadvantage by having to pay the highest business rates in the UK

Scottish business, with the farthest to go to their markets, have to pay the highest petrol prices in Europe.

Scottish people have the worst health, the poorest prospects, the lowest life expectancy in Europe.

Taxes disproportionately discriminate against Scottish business, for example whisky strip stamp tax, aggregates tax, landfill tax.

At the same time Scotland has by far the greatest resources available to any country within the EU, possibly with the exception of Norway.

Population

DR Congo, Ukraine has similar poulation sizes to England...point being that economic success does not hinder on population, it is based on ambition and drive. Look at Norway, Luxembourg, Ireland all have succesful economies and all have either lower or on the same level of populations. Anyway, it looks like it's not just Norway which can handle being independent. Iceland has a population about that of Dundee yet can achieve wealth by buying up other country's businesses.

Yet somehow us Jocks need the UK for...what exactly?

There are more countries in the world with a smaller population than us than there are larger countries.
We are not big enough?

In conclusion - Scotland will not be hindered by its relatively small size in order to exist as an independent nation. There are many other countries in Europe and the rest of the world that manage to sustain impressive rates of economic growth besides defending itself from potential and actual threats to its territory (e.g. Luxembourg, Singapore etc.). It is also inconceivable that an independent Scotland will not be a member of NATO and/or form a military alliance with England.

Case closed.

So why are we prepared to put up with the following:

- Low birth weight in Glasgow rivals the third world Poverty and poor eating habits back in spotlight as figures show scary levels of underweight babies;
Judith Duffy Health Correspondent. Sunday Herald. Glasgow (UK): May 8, 2005. pg. 5

- One in four children impoverished. One in four children in Scotland live in impoverished households. A quarter of Scotland's children live below the breadline, according to new figures from the Scottish Executive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4394731.stm

- 'Poorest' UK city is in Scotland. Glasgow has been ranked as the poorest city in the UK by researchers who have mapped out a "census atlas". The experts at Sheffield University said their findings were proof that the north-south divide was getting worse. They found that 41% of Glasgow households were living in poverty, the city was suffering population decline and unskilled worker numbers were up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3852499.stm

- GLASGOW has the worst rate of tooth decay in Europe with thousands of children suffering major dental treatment before they start primary school.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/lo/features/7014336.html

- THE GREAT DIVIDE Glaswegian men have lowest life expectancy in Britain . . . and gap between them and those with the longest lifespan is biggest since Victorian times;
DAVID LEASK Chief Reporter. Evening Times. Glasgow (UK): Apr 29, 2005. pg. 15

- the lost voices from Britain's poorest urban hell In the first of two reports, Billy Briggs explores a film from the UK's most deprived city: Glasgow;
Billy Briggs. The Herald. Glasgow (UK): Mar 28, 2005. pg.

- Shocking rise in patient waiting times
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=265872005

- MRSA on the increase in Scotland
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=387702005

- More people in Scotlans suffer from stroke/heart disease and cancer in the rest of the UK, in fact, mopre than any western industrialzed country.

- Class sizes are up in the school system, not the best start for the future of our kids.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/education.cfm?id=387802005 and that within these schools bad behaviour is rife, with crakdowns a failure http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=496002005

- Road system is pathetic
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/...ridlock%2dscotland-name_page.html

I would think even the unionists would agree that these areas of our nation need urgent attention.

Questions to Unionists

So in conclusion, if you support Unionism, and want to shut me up, please provide answers for the following, note see the body of this post before rebuttals as most likely the will be covered:
(1) Can you give any evidence backing claims that without England our economy would be nothing?

(2) Can you provide figures?

(3) And if Scotland's economy is such a nothing (or dependent) does the present system not play a part in that?

(4) So why do you support the Union if it has made Scotland's economy a "nothing"?

(5) And how long do you want Scotland's economy to be a nothing (or in a dependent state)?

(6) Shouldn't the goal be an economy which could sustain an independent Scotland even if we weren't?

(7) So why vote for parties who want to keep that situation? Why vote for parties that want Scotland's economy to be a nothing?

( Cool

Provide evidence that the SNP projections/economic policies are wrong

(9) What can a dependent Scotland do if there is not a strong English economy?

(10) So why should we continue to be part of a UK that has failed to protect our fishing, steel and shipbuilding in Europe. Why don't we take up a position as a member state?

(11) If we have a weak economy that is a result of the present system. The present system is the union. So why continue with that?

(12) And why do you assume England's is the stronger economy?

(13) So the UK doesn't raise enough tax to pay its way. Now if you think that Scotland can't be independent for that reason why is the UK still independent?

(14) And if you were lead to believe that a tax deficit means dependency ask yourself who put that idea in your head and why they put that idea in your head? It's not for your benefit. Its not broadcast that England has a tax deficit is it?
(bearing in mind that above, gives the reply that we do not receive tax, rather a block grant, AND not all of our income is taken into account)

(15) Since tax deficits are a main argument for no independence why is the UK still an Independent state within the EU, would it not be logical for the UK to become dependent on the EU, and be run from here?

(16) Why do you so support an 18th century constitutional system over the needs of business taxation to suit your own country in the here and now

(17) How are some of the new taxes disproportionately discriminate against Scottish business - whisky strip stamp tax, aggregates tax, landfill tax?

(1 Cool

What has population size got to do with standard of living and wealth?

(19) Have you considered that the dire economic growth in Scotland may be linked to a lack of drive and ambition arising from the political propaganda of unionist dependency?

(20) In regard to the taxpayers money why not let Scotland raise its own(which would include the revenues from the oil and whisky) and England to do the same?

(21) Why implicitly trust the UK authorities and the unionist political parties.

To all of those proud to be Scottish, as well as British, (and in some cases it is stated as being more proud to be Scottish than British) Scotland isn't seen on that global stage. It's the UK of GB etc - which the rest of the world sees as England.

(1) Why are you proud to be seen as another country?
(take a look at these before you say that it does not happen)
http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/2003/0606/epf508.htm
“But there should be no doubt whatsoever this was a war undertaken because our President and the Prime Minister of England and the other countries that joined with us” – Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy US Defense Secretary, June 2003

http://nixon.archives.gov/find/av/motion_film/super_8_finding_aid.html
The Nixon Archives don’t see a difference:
“Winter 69-70 … Head of state visit by the prime minister of England”

http://www.tamworth.nsw.gov.au/as...d=9281&cid=48883&id=71862
This is from an official (.gov) Australian website.
“AA Co Commissioner Colonel Dumaresq decided to call the settlement on the Peel Tamworth because the Prime Minister of England, Sir Robert Peel after whom Oxley had named the Peel River, was the MP for Tamworth (in England).”

http://www.mercyworld.org/projects/mgc/2002/educate_all.asp
Mercy Int Assoc
“Mercy Global Concern - 2002...
Send an outline appeal to the leader of your country. Here are some useful addresses:...
...Tony Blair, Prime Minister of England: 10 Downing Street. London, England.”

http://www.yale.edu/amstud/formac/amst191b/1940s.html
Even Yale University in the States has difficulty:
“Neville Chamberlain resigns as prime minister of England”

More academic errors
http://www.whoi.edu/mr/pr.do?id=999
“Deputy Prime Minister of England to Visit WHOI April 23 to Discuss Deep-Sea Research, International Collaboration”

And another academic site.
http://trends.masie.com/archives/1997/12/
“The Prime Minister of England Speaks Out Clearly About Technology & Learning"

Go on, search google for "Prime Minister of England," see what turns up.

What about British embassies?
http://www.britischebotschaft.de/en/
Search on “English Embassy” and it is one of the expressions used to guide people to the British Embassy in Berlin.

You will find this hidden at the bottom of the page if you shade it: “englische Botschaft, englisches Konsulat, britische Botschaft, britisches Konsulat, english embassy, english consulate”

You and I paid for that.

I’ve also read that throughout the Far East the word used for “British” in describing embassies is exactly the same as the world for “English” because there is no word for “British”.

In languages such as Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysian etc the name hanging outside the door is "English Embassy".

In Japanese it’s apparently Igirisu; in Chinese it’s Ying-Kwok; in Bahasa Indonesian it’s Inggris.

That’s us in the Far East as long as we are part of the UK. British doesn’t come up on their radar.

Expected replies

1. It's all facts.

Well, when the SNP lay out all the facts like that they get this accusation. But when they do the passionate stuff they get accused of being dreamers. Seems to me that they've won both arguments - head and heart - and the unionists just try to flip between the two to suggest otherwise.

2. You know more than me but I'm still right.

Nothing like a bit of ill-informed prejudice to keep your beliefs intact, is there?

3. OK, now do it without the oil.

First of all, why? The oil's there, why pretend otherwise? And second of all, after I have done that will you say "OK, now do it without the banking". Same difference

4. People don't like change.

Good can come of change?

5. Some people like the union.

That's absolutely their right. All we want to know is why. If anyone can answer satisfactorily the questions above I'll pack up my flag and go home
6. We achieved so much together ie both world wars (just using this as an example)

If you going to go for being British because your "granparents" fought and died - thats history......

What about all our ancestors that died for freedom?

Same argument.

7. Very insular attitude
It is not being insular, I just want us to stand on our own two feet, not saying "close our borders" to everyone who isn't Scottish, im welcoming immigration, free trade etc but in an independent scotland.

And yes , we are all human and we have to respect each other, which is more important than any country but a sense of nationhood is being lost

I for one will be sad when the whole world is just one culture, its what makes the human race unique
________________________________________________________

An article on the McCrone report.

Dave78 · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 45

Good stuff.... I've borrowed loads of JBKU's arguments...thanks for collating them all khraeigh!

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

pretty comprehensive and makes a lot of good points. the one area in it that i would question though is when it says that ireland is richer than the uk per head. Were these figures obtained by dividing the nations total wealth by the population or were they taken as an average of individual wealth. the reason i ask this is the fact that in ireland yes they have generated a massive economy to that which they previously had but this all too often has resulted in poor conditions for workers and widespread poverty, i wouldnt like to see scotland see this as a great model to be followed. i would much rather scotland looked towards sweden as an example of what we could have.
_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3771

parkhead makes a good point.

although overall ireland's economy seems to have flourished in the last 20 or so years, poverty has actually went up in % terms in the last decade or so, and the % of the population who earn less than the 'average' wage has went up also.

An average is very unreliable when looking to Eire as an example. The median is a far better measurement of distributed wealth. Unfortunately too many corrupt politicians like Charles Haughey who is thought to have funnelled around £100million out of the Irish economy by rubber stamping corrupt business deals have lead to a huge distrust of individual politicians in Eire. They then managed to pass some sort of law which meant surprisingly that politicians financial dealings could not be scrutinised, handy!
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

i shall treasure that moment when myself and rs agreed Laughing

_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3771

shut yer face Smile

_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

SLG · Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:13 am Post subject:

That's great Khraeigh. Need to go over it again in a bit more detail. That post could be the basis of a basic pamphlet or website (you mentioned this before rs).

khraeigh · No Longer a Wean Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 69

Dave78 · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 45

Figures from July: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

SLG · Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:44 pm Post subject:

Anyone have any idea where Scotland would be expected to feature in those rankings?

Dave78 · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 45

Aventinian

khraeigh · No Longer a Wean Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 69