textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
From: Phillip Atcliffe atcliffe@ntlworld.com
Surely staying in the EU has a lot to do with what kind of financial pain it
will cause the economy. If the UK needs to start bailing out Greece and other
EU basket case economies on the back of the UK recession I don't imagine that
would be very popular.
It will be interesting to see what the Scottish independance movement does to
the UK. If Scotland goes independant would Wales follow and would losing
Scotland be good for the English economy or not? For the Royal Navy to give up
it's scotish ports and relocate them to Newcastle would be a major economic
switch of funding and employment. I don't see the RN giving up parts of it's
fleet to Scotland to all the Scots to have a navy to protect their economic
resources.
I am sure that Australia and NZ would like the chance to supply UK without EU
import duties and subsidies clipping their ticket. Other commonwealth
countries would likely enjoy the opportunity to supply UK again, it might not
be at the discounted prices of old but would be good for both sides.
Especially the UK if the alternative is expensive EU products. it could also
develop some markets for UK goods
Then the UK needs to develop an economy that is more than a financial market
in London. Engineering and services have always been what the UK provided to
it's trading partners they just need a market for their goods.
> On 19/01/2012 6:52 AM, John Tailby wrote:
This requires that the UK have an industrial base large enough to be an
attractive market for NZ and Aus resources. China is a huge market, India will
be a huge market and the UK will be a nice little side earner. Scale equals
money and the UK just doesn't have the scale, and is very unlikely too, to be
a real alternative to markets in India and China.
Also bear in mind that much of the recent development in Aus has been funded,
at l;east in part, by the Chinese. This development has not just
been in mining but also agriculture, an investment that is rapidly growing in
size. As I think someone has said before, China is starting to "own" a lot of
resources down here and they are most unliklely to sell to an alternative
market. China is not truly a free market economy.
Many big corporations are state owned, in part or in total, and thus will
place other considerations ahead of profit at times. In short if China needs
iron ore, China will get iron ore, even if prices in London might be better.
The UK is a service economy not a goods economy. That is the result of
80+ years of economic develoment and political change. To reverse that
will probably take just as long but will need a firm comitment from Government
and business, a condusive world environment, devaluing the pound (which the
British have always been very reluctant to so), massive
cuts in wages to be competitive and massive social changes that will go with
that which I just can't see happening in such an old democracy.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I agree that the Chinese want to own all their supply chain. They are trying
to buy diary farms in NZ that will secure them the supply of milk powder.
UK doesn't need an industrial base to buy milk products and meat from Aus & NZ
it just needs people and cash. I don't think that the UK will supplant China
or India as a market focus but it's pretty hard to do business in China
(witness the recent Fonterra contaminated milk powder scandal) as there are
often ongoing quality issues with local partners.
The UK used to be a very large manufacturing country and as recently as the
70s had quite a large domestic aircraft production industry. The UK could
develop and industrial economy again if they went with a buy british campaign.
this would be very popular amongst both business owners and workers as it
would mean more local jobs. Making Britain more competitive would also need to
be tackled for exports but that's something that all of Europe needs to tackle
as years of massive subsidies come home to roost.
NZ went through a similar process at the end of the 80s and survived. other
countries can too.
> From: Phillip Atcliffe atcliffe@ntlworld.com
The (Scottish) science fiction writer Charlie Stross has written a couple of
near future books (Halting State, Rule 34) where Scotland is independent. In
the book the Scots can make their own laws, have their own parliament, etc;
but like England they're tightly integrated into the EU so there are lots of
transnational policies on travel,
business, etc that apply. There's a throw-away line about
Scotland relying on, and contributing to, the UK military for defence (it's a
peaceful future).
End result for Scottish independence looks more like a
US/Australian state or Canadian province, less like
Braveheart.
In the Pacific there are some small islands which have basically outsourced
defence and foreign policy to New
Zealand. You could say that Australia is the de-facto
protector of East Timor. This could be how the Oceanic Union grows in the GZG
timeline.
cheers,
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Tony <twilko@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 19/01/2012 6:52 AM, John Tailby wrote:
What about GZG? I'm sure Jon would be more than willing to step up the
minis production for King and Country. :-)
Mk
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I'm not so sure that the pacific nations have outsourced defence and foreign
policy to NZ, could more like the highest bidder. There has been accusations
of Japan paying pacific nations for their vote on whaling and China has been
looking to expand it's influence in the pacific as the US withdraws to either
exploit resources or gain a power projection base.
For nations to benefit from a union there has to be mutual advantage. Most of
the small pacific nations have no economy and are often prickly to deal with.
There have been several stories about serious graft and corruption.
I am not sure why Australlia and NZ would want to take responsibility for
pacific islands. I can see lots of quid but little pro quo coming back.
I thought the main reason the Scots wanted independance from England was that
they could the spend their oil revenues on pensions and prop up their economy.
Places like East Timor, Solomons and Papua New Guniea could form part of an
oceanic union but they need to be contributing members not just a cash drain
for otherwise struggling economies.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Scotland:
I'm 15/16th Scottish descent and my cousins are Scots. I heard a UK MP
talking about devolution of power to the Scottish parliament and so on and he
said Scotland was better off economically being on the inside of the British
parliament than on the outside. I can see a logic for saying that.
On the other hand, Scotland and England and Wales share a land mass. That'll
still keep trade, defence, tourism, etc. areas of common cooperation. There's
something deep in the psyche of people that drives towards independence (even
when the economics aren't better). Scotland, Quebec, to an extent Australia
wanting to get away from the Monarch, etc.
The one thing I've seen talking to my cousin is how Scotland has been used as
a testing ground for British law, especially where new taxes are concerned,
with them being introduced in Scotland 6 months to 24 months ahead of in
England. That's led to some lasting bad feelings. My cousin didn't used to be
a SNP supporter nor much in favour of independence, but he's now leaning that
way.
Me, I don't care much as long as I can go visit my kinfolk. I hope it works
out for them and for Britain whatever happens. I guess I can't be too married
to old grudges since I took an Oath of Loyalty to Her Majesty, the Queen. I
know some Irish folks and some Acadians who revile the Monarch, but I'm okay
with the Monarchy. Canada has achieved a great standard in the overall world
and we did that with the Monarchy. As a systems guy, I'm not big in favour of
futzing with what has a proven track record.
But from a gaming perspective, I can see Scotland staying inside the UK with
some sort of greater local autonomy (how I expect Quebec to stay in
Canada) or I could see it a seperate country, but like Canada/US, maybe
sharing a defense entity like NORAD. If Scotland separates, I think Wales
would as well. Those guys also want independence, which I find funny since you
can't spell 'independence' without having some vowels! Ndpndnc! (Doesn't look
Welsh, does it? Need some extra 'w's and 'y's and 'r's.
More interesting questions to me are will the USA endure or will it
fragment and if so along what fault lines. North/South? Coasts versus
interior? Will it one day decide to annex its northern neighbor for resources?
I don't see the USA easily being destroyed by external invasion, except
insofar as that is accompanied by some large fissure within the US putting the
invader into alliance with some major US subfaction. The only real enemy for
US coherence that I see is the great polarization in the US body politic and
the number of 'true believers' whose outlook denies science or rationality in
favour of some alternate decision making process...
> John Tailby wrote:
> I am not sure why Australlia and NZ would want to take
[munch]
> Places like East Timor, Solomons and Papua New Guniea could form
Well, it could be for the same reason that the US is in Afghanistan, or
Ethopia and Kenya in Somalia, to stop such places becoming 'failed states'
that various evil types can use as a base of operations. Expensive, but
neglect could be more so.
Or perhaps it is the best chance of such small places becoming contributing
members. There are economies of scale in setting up a government, justice and
police, defensive military, etc. (Even if you regard government
as wholly non-productive, less resources are wasted on
one prime minister than a dozen.)
cheers,
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
If you could get the smaller pacific islands to accept rule from Canberra or
Wellington you could reduce the overall cost of government. But I don't see
those pacific islands wanting to give up their self determination.
Also taking over administrative responibility for the other countries would
mean that Australlian and NZ would take over responibilites for their debts.
It would mean a tenfold increase in welfare costs for those countries to
provide those citizens the same standard of living.
Australia could achieve a much better cost reduction by scrapping the double
house state governments and having a central government that meant something.
G'day,
> If you could get the smaller pacific islands to accept rule from
To a point, many are already very heavily directed in joint "initiatives"
> Also taking over administrative responibility for the other countries
They have had to pick the debts up already a few times - for instance
when the treasurer of one nation bet his entire budget on the Melbourne Cup.
> It would mean a tenfold increase in welfare
They have so few citizens (barring PNG) that the cost would be minimal,
actually less than the aid they currently receive.
> Australia could achieve a much better cost reduction by scrapping the
There are two strong school of thought on this. One is dump the state
governments and just have local and national (given the small total
population). The other is to dump local and state and move to 25 regional
governments (supported by a very large decentralisation of governance
infrastructure). Who supports what doesn't fall along party lines, which means
its not an easy pathway to either coming to be.
Cheers