Tweet
They're obviously the Quebec of Great Britain.
-
-
Now he gets it...You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.Comment
-
Scotland entered the union as a samller but still substantial partner, ovet the lat 300 years they have decined relative to england and are not happy about it.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They're obviously the Quebec of Great Britain.
wheras quebec are French and just can't satnd anglosSpace is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)Comment
-
They have the North Sea OilScotland doesn't have many key resources in the same way.Last edited by Talkie_Toaster; January 22, 2007, 05:05.Comment
-
And gas. But in very small quantities, compared to the world market.Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - KuciwalkerComment
-
Why not move to a cheaper city? All those departments must cost a fortune in London weighting.Originally posted by Lazerus
Should scrap all devolution full stop and rule the entire UK from westminister.
In population yes, although in terms of economy Scotland was (IIRC) one fortieth as wealthy as England in 1707.Scotland entered the union as a samller but still substantial partner, ovet the lat 300 years they have decined relative to england and are not happy about it.
Soldiers?Scotland doesn't have many key resources in the same way.Comment
-
Much of the civil service is already out of town, AIUI, but the actual seat of government itself is always in the capital city. For London to not be the capital would be unthinkable.Originally posted by Sandman
Why not move to a cheaper city? All those departments must cost a fortune in London weighting.Comment
-
So it's the capital because it's the capital? It's not as if it would lose anything, any more than New York or Toronto or Sydney have lost out by not being capitals.Comment
-
I suspect moving the seat of government somewhere else would just raise the prices there, not save the government any money. They'd probably lose money overall from the migration. There'd be even larger hidden costs from the necessary relocation of all the government contractors.Comment
-
Excuse me for being a conservative old fuddy-duddy on this matter, but those cities have no history. Places like London, Paris and Rome can't just step aside and cede power to some provincial second-stringer like Lyon or Liverpool just because the price is right. :wavesstick:Originally posted by Sandman
So it's the capital because it's the capital? It's not as if it would lose anything, any more than New York or Toronto or Sydney have lost out by not being capitals.Comment
-
The UK should move its capital to Brussels.DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
Wouldn't it have to acquire sovereignty over Brussels first?Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
The UK should move its capital to Brussels.Comment
-
Originally posted by Sandman
So it's the capital because it's the capital? It's not as if it would lose anything, any more than New York or Toronto or Sydney have lost out by not being capitals.Maybe he's anti-Norman and wants it moved back to WinchesterExcuse me for being a conservative old fuddy-duddy on this matter, but those cities have no history. Places like London, Paris and Rome can't just step aside and cede power to some provincial second-stringer like Lyon or Liverpool just because the price is right. :wavesstick:
Yes and no. Moving the US capital would do that, because there's nothing else in Washington. Moving the UK's capital would only move government, not the major financial centre. Prices are so high becuase it's like New York and Washington, DC in one city. Now, I agree that moving the capital would be largely pointless though.I suspect moving the seat of government somewhere else would just raise the prices there, not save the government any money. They'd probably lose money overall from the migration. There'd be even larger hidden costs from the necessary relocation of all the government contractors."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan RobinsonComment
-
Don't you see, it's all part of an incredibly subtle and devious plan:Originally posted by Geronimo
Wouldn't it have to acquire sovereignty over Brussels first?
By pursuing devolution, they are providing an example for the Belgians. Once the Flemish and Waloons split though, they will argue over who gets to keep Brussels. At this point, English "peacekeepers" will be deployed there to... er... ensure there is no trouble."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan RobinsonComment
-
Yes and no. Moving the US capital would do that, because there's nothing else in Washington. Moving the UK's capital would only move government, not the major financial centre. Prices are so high becuase it's like New York and Washington, DC in one city. Now, I agree that moving the capital would be largely pointless though.
I'm not talking about what the influence on London would be, but the influence on the new city. The new city would be just as congested with the bureaucrats and contractors.Comment
Comment