Printable View
As ilw points out, a main consideration is Nepal's concern for the potential loss of a large portion of it's more capable citizenry as well as the financial consideration.
It would be a terribly magnanimous gesture on the part of the U.K. government to send these men home with proper compensation-such would effectively remove the inappropriate consideration being given immigration issues.
It's impossible to gauge the average income of a Nepali, millions of them live outside of money, they are self sufficient, and barter and exchange. Many more are not even counted in the first place, another estimate of the population of Nepal is put at over 30 million.
Deforestation is the major problem, the trees are used for cooking, then landslides wash away their land.
:)
All the more reason for a "correct" outcome.... ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 October 2003 - 11:05
It's impossible to gauge the average income of a Nepali, millions of them live outside of money, they are self sufficient, and barter and exchange. Many more are not even counted in the first place, another estimate of the population of Nepal is put at over 30 million.
Deforestation is the major problem, the trees are used for cooking, then landslides wash away their land.
:)
35,000 is past and present soldiers still alive.
These guys are amazing people, really....maybe some of the old timers that have been in the forces of various countries have met them. If so, you would never forget 'em.
They should be given every right of British citizenship and allowed to live here...they have earned it.
While here, they should be given full pension rights, as every other ex soldier is.
However, i do not believe that they should be given full pension in Napal.
The ex-soldiers are already some of the richest people in the country, giving them more will only impoverish the rest, possibly causing massive inflationary pressures.
I do believe, however, that the rest of the money should be paid into the Nepalese economy in someway (backdated, of course)....maybe via Trust funds to help the infrastructure or create employment.
The Gurkhas have EARNED this money....if giving it directly to them may destroy the economics of the country, giving it indirectly may help the country.
Either way, it does NOT belong in the British Governments pocket....
I don't think anyone should spend their money for them, I certainly wouldn't pump it into the Nepali economy, as I said before, corruption is endemic in Nepal, it would disappear and no-one would benefit, except the ones who stole it, of course. I also believe no-one has the right to tell these men they have to stay in Nepal to help the economy. If Britain doesn't take them, other countries will, and it will be your loss, in Australia we have a growing community of ex-gurkhas, and they are model citizens.
When you are part of the middle class in Nepal, 90 pounds a month is peanuts, sending a man back with that is condemming him to a life of survival, not a comfortable life for the rest of his years. 90 pounds is only a lot when you are poor.
I want to see equality, and that has only one value, 100%.
This is only one aspect of the stinginess of the British government. Aged pensioners in Australia, who spent their working lives paying into the UK pension scheme, and then retire here, have their pensions frozen at the rate is was when they retired. It is only the generosity of the Australian government that keeps them from the poor house. But .. that's another thread methinks.
:)
I did say that they should have every right to British Citizenship, and paid the full pension if they do take this up.
I also said that any investment should be via Trust Funds..........not given to the Napalese government.
The beauty of Trust Funds is that there are Trustees (Gurkhas perhaps?) that can direct the money into their local infrastructure and helping their communities in a non-inflationary manner.
You yourself have pointed out that the average wage in Napal is £120pa and they get already £90 per month (£1080pa).......to put this in terms that we can understand, its the equivalent of every retiring private of the British Army getting over £250,000pa in the UK. This is a LOT of money in that country....
You are proposing that, in effect, giving retiring soldiers in the UK £1,500,000pa will not effect the local economy.
British private currently gets:
Hardly a "Comfortable, Middle Class" income in the UK.Quote:
£623 a month given to British soldiers who retire after 22 years.
Remember this pension does not stop with their death....the pension goes on until their Wives die and all children are over 18....their children also get automatic rights to try for the Gurkhas, an opportunity that many in Napal would kill for.
Making the lives of millions of people worse in order to give a few what they, I agree, have earned...is not a very responsible act.
I think you miss my point here RF. The reason the average wage is so low, is a reflection of the poverty in Nepal, it is not an indicator of the true wealth of it's citizens. Giving them 90 pounds a month is like giving you enough money to live in a slum, and telling you that's the "average". I've spent a couple of years in Nepal, on and off, and 90 quid is peanuts, believe me.
As for making millions "worse", end the corruption, that's where the money goes, Gurkhas are a very tiny minority in Nepal.
:)
Simple answer yes. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by bigboab+20 October 2003 - 14:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab @ 20 October 2003 - 14:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@20 October 2003 - 13:08
Should Gurkha soldiers, who give 17 years to the British Army, and hence the British people, be allowed to apply for British citizenship?
Prior to even reading the thread, I wholeheartedly concur with this sentiment.
and £650 per month in the UK is.....enough money to live in a slum.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 October 2003 - 20:08
I think you miss my point here RF. The reason the average wage is so low, is a reflection of the poverty in Nepal, it is not an indicator of the true wealth of it's citizens. Giving them 90 pounds a month is like giving you enough money to live in a slum, and telling you that's the "average". I've spent a couple of years in Nepal, on and off, and 90 quid is peanuts, believe me.
As for making millions "worse", end the corruption, that's where the money goes, Gurkhas are a very tiny minority in Nepal.
:)
Its all relative.