Reply to: EU comes to Greece's rescue

[Tarquin Farquhar]

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/doc...p2.cfm?doc=307

Prior to the American Revolution, a surprisingly large number of Native Americans lived among whites. ...
Because of their interest in the fur trade and in avoiding costly Indian wars, the British had been eager to prevent rapid settlement of the backcountry and to guarantee Indians the integrity of their hunting grounds. ....
The end of the war brought a westward surge of backcountry settlers onto Indian lands.

Failure to pillage the Indian lands was one of the things that the colonists held against Great Britain:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

....
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
...
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

U.S. Declaration of Independence

[Tarquin Farquhar]

Except of course that they aren't. In the figures given corporation tax take is allocated to regions based on gross value added or population. If you look at the table on p.123 you will see that Scotland provides slightly more than 10% of the corporation tax take used in the calculations, which is consistent with your figures.

I'm just trying to point out that London and the SE make a disproportionate contribution to UK GDP and tax revenue, in much the same way that Germany makes a disproportionate contribution to the Eurozone. That's not to say the whole isn't greater than the sum of it's parts.

I'm not trying to be anti Scottish or pro London here, if anything I would say that it's in the interests of the stronger Eurozone countries to look out for the weaker ones because the end result benefits everyone, in much the same way that having Scotland remain part of the UK is a good thing.

I also think the UK would win by being in the Euro.

Yeah, good points. It is just that, as I get old and grumpy, I have decided no longer to let offhand mutters of "we subsidise Scotland" pass by without comment.

I'm not being pro-Scotland, and certainly not anti-London, in that. I'm just trying to improve the standard of debate and of facts behind the debate; and I see that you are too.

[AtW]

That's not what I said

This time next year Rodders, you know it makes sense...

[DodgyAgent]

Like USA?

Do you think they'd do as well if they remained part of the Empire?

That's not what I said

[Paddy]

You think Native Americans would not have the same fate if British Sovereigns remained in charge?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/doc...p2.cfm?doc=307

Prior to the American Revolution, a surprisingly large number of Native Americans lived among whites. There was a large population of people of mixed ancestry, and many lived in such colonial cities as Philadelphia and Charleston. At the start of the Revolution, Indians in Stockbridge, Massachusetts (Algonquins who originally came from western Long Island and eastern New Jersey), provided Minutemen to fight the British.

The Revolution marked an important watershed in the history of Native Americans east of the Mississippi River. Because of their interest in the fur trade and in avoiding costly Indian wars, the British had been eager to prevent rapid settlement of the backcountry and to guarantee Indians the integrity of their hunting grounds. Not surprisingly, Native Americans usually sided with the British during the Revolution.

The American patriots, in contrast, did not need Native Americans in the way either the French or the British had. They were much more interested in rapid western settlement, which resulted in campaigns to subdue and remove tribes on the borders of white settlement. Indeed, such campaigns of removal began during the war itself, as this letter from Thomas Jefferson, then serving as Virginia's governor, makes clear. Jefferson ultimately recommended the expulsion of all borderland Indians.

During the war, many traditional hunting grounds were devastated. British-Indian attacks in the borderlands brought retaliation from American patriots, who destroyed the crops and burnt down towns of Indians suspected of being loyal to the British. Many patriots regarded all Indians as disloyal and forced them to migrate westward. The Stockbridge Indians who had provided Minutemen were forced to move from Massachusetts to New York. The end of the war brought a westward surge of backcountry settlers onto Indian lands.

[DiscoStu]

[AtW]

You never know, we might have been outsourcing everything to Bob Sitting-Bull instead of Bob Shawadiwadi

[DiscoStu]

You think Native Americans would not have the same fate if British Sovereigns remained in charge?

You never know, we might have been outsourcing everything to Bob Sitting-Bull instead of Bob Shawadiwadi

[AtW]

The Native American Indians would be better off. Please read history regarding the same.

You think Native Americans would not have the same fate if British Sovereigns remained in charge?

[doodab]

OK then, I take back my assertion that the SE would have no resources. Obviously, it has everybody else's resources.

It has a proportionate share of the UK's resources. That seems fair don't you think?

[doodab]

As in my example, Scotch Whisky sales are London revenue? On paper, yes.

Except of course that they aren't. In the figures given corporation tax take is allocated to regions based on gross value added or population. If you look at the table on p.123 you will see that Scotland provides slightly more than 10% of the corporation tax take used in the calculations, which is consistent with your figures.

I'm just trying to point out that London and the SE make a disproportionate contribution to UK GDP and tax revenue, in much the same way that Germany makes a disproportionate contribution to the Eurozone. That's not to say the whole isn't greater than the sum of it's parts.

I'm not trying to be anti Scottish or pro London here, if anything I would say that it's in the interests of the stronger Eurozone countries to look out for the weaker ones because the end result benefits everyone, in much the same way that having Scotland remain part of the UK is a good thing.

I also think the UK would win by being in the Euro.

[Paddy]

Like USA?

Do you think they'd do as well if they remained part of the Empire?

The Native American Indians would be better off. Please read history regarding the same.

[AtW]

I think you will find that the countries who were part of the empire have also done rather well off the back of Britain.

Like USA?

Do you think they'd do as well if they remained part of the Empire?

[DodgyAgent]

No i don't, its a complex issue and Bob has to share some of the blame. However its clear that Britain got rich off the back of empire and has been in relative decline ever since.
What's that quote about " ...looking for a role ever since"?
The Germans on t'other hand, in modern times, have based their wealth on productivity.

I think you will find that the countries who were part of the empire have also done rather well off the back of Britain.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

No i don't, its a complex issue and Bob has to share some of the blame. However its clear that Britain got rich off the back of empire and has been in relative decline ever since.
What's that quote about " ...looking for a role ever since"?
The Germans on t'other hand, in modern times, have based their wealth on productivity.

It is clear that since Victorian times, Britain has been living off some outside source of wealth. I wish this were not true, but the conclusion is inescapable.

The Industrial Revolution, the development of Capitalism and the early Empire-building were real creation of wealth, even if the latter was without the co-operation of all those involved. We haven't done much of that since.

From mid-Victorian times we didn't build on the Empire any more, just exploited it. By the beginning of the 20th century, we were being overtaken by the US and Germany.

After WWI we failed to recognise how bad things really were (a pattern began to develop here) and failed to invest well, so the Great Depression hit us especially hard.

WWII brought a new low economically, and again we failed to recognise how serious it really was. The Marshall Plan aid, of which we received more than twice as much as Germany, was used by us to attempt to prop up the Empire and preserve our position of importance in the world. The Germans used theirs to build modern industry.

The Empire gone, our economy went downhill even more. The next big boost was North Sea oil. The Conservative government of the 1980s used it to cut taxes. The Norwegians invested theirs. Now they have a fund for their future, and we have instututionalised expectations of tax cuts that can no longer be funded without the oil. Nor can a government of either party find cash by privatising national interests, because they are all sold off already. Brown was forced to borrow from the future (PFI) and sell off half our gold to keep raking in cash.

I don't know where the next lot of spending money is going to come from, but I'm convinced that Britain has been disconnected from the idea of spending only what it earns, for a lot longer than there have been credit cards.