₦airaland Forum

What does "certified ex convict" + "in our minds" mean?

What does this mean in plain English?

He was never convicted of anything in the US, so cannot be an ex-convict.

Good question.

Relax101:
Take care of him, we dont want anything to happen to him cos he must go ta jail and become a NIGERIAN CERTIFIED ex convict.
I know He's already CERTIFIED in the US.

Bolded is not true.

The religious homogeneity of the SE is certainly an advantage. Won't have to spend time, money and effort putting down religious zealots.

[quote author=alj_harem link=topic=767884.msg9219441#msg9219441 date=1317004120]why would u want Nigeria to divide [/quote]I don't think Nigeria is a well-run country and I think we could do achieve more apart than together.

[size=4pt]Like your signature[/size]  

Hehe. Fstranger and some other dude called me this mockingly, but they spoke the truth. Little do they I know that I am Sango reincarnated. . .  

Onlytruth:
Posted by: ekt_bear
Of course we agree that Nigeria should be divided; but the meat in the sandwich is the "how".
I am only telling the practical hows, bearing in mind Nigerian historical realities.

Right, but the point is that your different beliefs (those things I quoted) don't affect anything. We can agree on "how" w/o agreeing on those guesses of yours.

Fair enough. If you believe:

Onlytruth:
That is wrong, because Lagos for one would lost billions of dollars in economic and financial activity to the East (Biafra) and other nations. The same would apply to most of SW.

and

Minus SE and parts of SS; SW would not be economically better than the North believe me.

Then we are just working with a different set of facts/beliefs.

Anyway, fortunately for the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter. So long as we all agree that Nigeria should be divided.

For a practical man, you don't seem to pay much attention to money.

History of "fighting for your land" isn't going to do you much good when the SW can devote 3% of it's GDP to military spending and even you as the North spending 5% on military defense cannot match their cash.

Naval bases cost money. Building an army costs money. If you have a small GDP, you'll have a small army (unless you devote an unsustainable amount of it to military spending.)

Your analogy is poor, because GDP-wise the SW is Russia to the North's Ukraine. GDP of Lagos State is ~$43 billion according to the economist. GDP of Nigeria as a whole is ~$200 billion. I don't have the #s, but all 19 states combined GDP-wise may be smaller than Lagos, for all I know.

It is somewhat obvious that they'll have no ability to enforce any such agreements even in as few as 3 years post-partition. Certainly 15 years, not a chance in hell.

Math and #s simply are not in their favor.

Anyway, I don't care. I'll sign whatever to have Nigeria split apart. Just keep in mind that 10 years, 15 years from now, what was signed may very well be worthless.

So if you ask someone at gunpoint to sign something that is unreasonable, just know that in 10-15 years once they've built up their economy (and thus ability to spend money on an army, navy, and air force), you'll have no power to enforce that agreement 

I don't want this discussion to get too long.

Here is what I know:
1) I don't see why only offshore oil revenue should be shared. If Nigeria splits into different countries, then the territorial water rights have the same status as any resources on land. There is no "offshore/onshore" dichotomy from the perspective of international law. Oil drilled from the North Sea (or at least England's part of it) has the same status as if they struck oil in downtown London somewhere.
2) I'd be willing to maintain the status quo as far as oil-revenue sharing goes for 20 years or whatever. But this doesn't mean I've given up my territorial rights. And in year 21, everyone goes their separate ways. . . you relate with the SW in the same way as you relate with Switzerland or Germany. No special favors, no special relationship. No encroaching on the SW's territorial waters. Just as I wouldn't take kindly to Liberia or Ghana doing so, I wouldn't like you to do so. In year 21, connection finally completely severed.
3) Anyone who opposes #2 above in a post-Nigeria setting. . . well, they will get a rude awakening, heh.

You are usually on point @jensinmi, but in this you are wrong.

Onlytruth:
And I also don't believe that anyone up North would buy the idea of sharing offshore oil revenue on a temporary basis.
It must be shared in perpetuity, else forget it.

Hehe. Then the coastal peoples of Nigeria will sign the agreement, then renege in 5 years once they've built up a navy and army. Simple.

Or which navy is Arewa republic planning on enforcing this agreement with? 

They'll be able to get 20 or 30 years, but not forever. And if you cannot stand on your own two feet after 20 or 30 years, then you never will.

Btw, why is offshore oil alone what is being shared with the north?

On the topic of kicking people out. . .

There is some really cool woman, Ngozi Edozien. Harvard grad, HBS grad who is head of some PE company with offices in Lagos.

Anybody trying to kick talent like her out of the SW will have to fight me first, heh.

People like her are worth more than their weight in gold, and any sensible country would seek to retain and add more of them, not kick 'em out.

Onlytruth:
Well, I'll simply assume that those of you who think that oil won't be shared with the North, are actually die hard One Nigerianists. That is what you are saying indirectly: some out of wicked cleverness, while others out of naivety.

If you don't share with the North, forget about Nigeria ever breaking up.
If you doubt me, spare sometime and read about Nigeria's history, from 1950 to 2011.
You will learn a few things.

Do you think I want to share anything with anybody? NO
I have no choice; and it is already happening anyway. So, you continue to have the same system, or if you are serious about having your own nation you would be reasonable and make the necessary concessions to get that.
Oil must finish one day. That is certain.

Sharing oil revenues for some fixed period of time is fine. But signing away territorial water rights is stupid. Nobody will agree to that. And if they agree, they'll renege the first chance they get.

Evil Brain:
The SW would likely end as the richest of all the nations. They already have a diverse economy, excellent man-power and fairly good governance. The removal of oil revenue will lead to less rent-seeking, less corruption and ultimately more wealth for everybody. Plus they are likely to serve as the economic hub of the entire region, the same way London serves most of western Europe. This is less likely to happen though if the Yorubas kick out those from other tribes. If the SW can keep its best people, then they'll be the big winners.

+1

Singapore and the Asian tigers are my model.

Regarding bolded, I don't anyone economically productive kicked out. Poaching the talent of other nations is in part why America is so strong a country. SW should (continue to) do the same to the rest of Africa.

Not only are Yoruba indigenous to Kogi, it may be the first place "Yoruba" even existed, if any of these Igala stories are to believed.

I don't understand what the dude is saying.

Too scared of BH to properly celebrate independence.

Lmao, pathetic

kasiem:
their region is bereft of innovative and workaholic minds, which will deal a great blow to their fortune in absence of oil. U can see d way they lay all their survival eggs in one basket of oil revenues

The focus on oil is very unhealthy. If you have $2 and another man has only $1, if he achieves 10% growth on his dollar and you only 5%, he'll eventually have more money than you. For me, more important than oil is electricity, good infrastructure, and good POLICY+leadership.

Anyway, who knows, the SS might end up with good, wise leaders who wouldn't place emphasis purely on oil.

Onlytruth:
And offshore oil will remain the property of ALL countries carved out of Nigeria.
That is the only way.

No chance in hell of this happening. A 20 year agreement in which oil revenues are still shared out (with the amount shared out diminishing), that I can see. But year 21, everyone finally completely has gone their separate ways.

No nation is going to sign away its territorial rights. . . ain't gonna happen. And if they do sign it, the coastal nations will renege.

@billante: you are correct.

Nigeria simply is not rich enough a country to fundamentally change the price of fuel for its citizens, even if it were possible to do so w/o large-scale corruption.

Asking to pay less than the market price for fuel makes about as much sense as asking to pay 1/2 the market price for rice, amala, pounded yam, or groundnut.

arsenefc:
There are two parts: Multiple choice ( scantron part, which is graded by machines) and Theory/essay part, which has to be graded by humans.

Got ya. How much is the multiple choice part worth versus the hand-graded part?

Yoruba are not migrants to Kogi.

Relax101:
What crime are you talking about? The crime in Lagos state alone cancels out the crime in all SE states and some states in the SS region.

Evidence for this?

Post crime rates and let's see.

With that said, if Fstranger types (socialists who don't understand how to design a good country or create incentives for growth/excellence) end up prominent, then yes, the SW would suck and be poor.

Oil and gas is fine, but doesn't at all suggest high GDP growth rates. For example, they'd likely retain an oil subsidy (and see 95% of it stolen, as is done in Nigeria), hurting their overall growth (and helping mine.)

So long as we can create an environment where our best talent in the SW rises to the top, I feel confident we can match or exceed the growth rates of any of the post-Nigeria countries.

SS would be the richest in the short term, but not necessarily in the long term. At least not if folks like me are in charge in the SW.

Everyone would be better off apart, assuming the negative impact of losing oil income is cushioned.

So WAEC isn't just graded by computers/machines?

Why don't they just switch to Scantron or the equivalent?

It sucks how they dunno how to eliminate polio in the north.

interesting

The swapping approach you suggested is the cheapest, O(N). The one I suggested is NlogN, so isn't as cheap.

Basically what you can do is something like:

for element i in (1,2,3, . . ., N) of the list
    Generate a random integer j in (i, i+1, i+2, . . . , N)
    Take this random integer j and swap A_j with A_i

If you do this, then your new list is randomly permuted. A_1 is a random element from your original list, A_2 is a random element of the remaining elements of the original list, etc.