How would the UK fare without Scotland?

Generali

Yes is still slipping backwards in the betting. 6.13 now for a Yes win.

CLAPTON

worth reading from 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-15492270

UK ministers are writing to counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to seek a UK-wide consensus on a three-year trial.

Whitehall sources have suggested that Scotland - which has long opposed a change - will get an "absolute veto" on the proposals.

beecher2

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28192293

Original article's changed - now GDP would increase without Scotland. Someone, somewhere's not been happy with yesterday's article.


Also, pretty sure this originally said 'island' not country

So an already busy country would suddenly become much more crowded,
statistically at least.

antrobus

beecher2 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28192293

Original article's changed - now GDP would increase without Scotland. Someone, somewhere's not been happy with yesterday's article.

It's now quite clear;

The effect of Scotland - and its population - leaving the UK would be a small increase in GDP per head of some £117.

Good to know.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Yes is still slipping backwards in the betting. 6.13 now for a Yes win.

Seeing as you are a betting man .
You may find this interesting.

California Chrome: From 300-1 Longshot to a Derby Winner

If your more interested in odds: -

What are the odds of Tottenham winning the Premier League?
if they are too long, you could have a bet on Tottenham keeping their manager for the duration of the season / contract

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Seeing as you are a betting man .
You may find this interesting.

California Chrome: From 300-1 Longshot to a Derby Winner

If your more interested in odds: -

What are the odds of Tottenham winning the Premier League?
if they are too long, you could have a bet on Tottenham keeping their manager for the duration of the season / contract

You're confusing the chances of something happening in advance (e.g. a 0.003 chance) eith the chance of it happening afterwards (1).

Easily done.

purch

Or confusing the odds on a horse that wasn't even entered in the 20 horse Race at the time, and that was still 8 months away, with the odds on a 2 horse Race that has been ongoing for quite some time and is entering the final furlong.

P.S. It might be a good idea to put your money on Germany winning the 2014 World Cup, if you still can :eek:

chucknorris

purch wrote: »

Or confusing the odds on a horse that wasn't even entered in the 20 horse Race at the time, and that was still 8 months away, with the odds on a 2 horse Race that has been ongoing for quite some time and is entering the final furlong.

P.S. It might be a good idea to put your money on Germany winning the 2014 World Cup, if you still can :eek:

On that subject Singapore ran an anti gambling tv campaign which started just before the world cup, it featured a small child crying and someone asking what was wrong, he replied 'my daddy has bet all our life's savings on Germany winning the world cup' (whoops!).


http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/09/singapore-anti-gambling-ad-germany-world-cup

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

You're confusing the chances of something happening in advance (e.g. a 0.003 chance) eith the chance of it happening afterwards (1).

Easily done.

So your not prepared to comment on the odds of Tottenham winning the Premier League or how long Pochettino will be there are the manager.

Incidentally, Tottenham have never won (1) the Premier League , so we cannot confuse about the odds after the event

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So your not prepared to comment on the odds of Tottenham winning the Premier League or how long Pochettino will be there are the manager.

Incidentally, Tottenham have never won (1) the Premier League , so we cannot confuse about the odds after the event

Too off topic even for me!