It's called globalisation, deal with it.

But, to argue some of your points:

 - The UK is a member of the UN Security Council, the G8, the G20, a big contributor to the Bretton-Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank, and (sort of) WTO). We also share a special relationship with the current only super power, the United States, are a leading member of the Commonwealth, and are part of the largest trading bloc in the world, the EU. We've also had massive influences over China in the past, with the handing over of Hong Kong to China, the negotiations leads to many aspects of the Chinese economy becoming more liberalised.

 - The "out-sourcing of industry" is referred to as the balance of trade. Yes, we have a balance of trade current account deficit (which basically means we import more goods and services than we export), however, this is regarded as an self-equalising market, and it's generally agreed amongst economists that it should be left alone. As the Chinese get richer, they WILL buy more imports, and some of those imports will come from the UK, also, as China gets richer, the opportunity cost of buying goods from China will increase, meaning that we, as consumers, will look elsewhere to get our goods, and part of that elsewhere will come from domestic goods.

 - Last time I checked, the UK was still the fourth/fifth largest producers of goods and services in the world, to say that we make nothing is simply wrong. We make a hell of a lot more per person than China, and roughly similar amounts to the other big economies, which matters a lot more. Also, whilst we may not manufacture much in the terms of goods that you and I will buy, if you look at the goods that other firms buy, we still make a lot: aircraft, pharmaceuticals, arms, engines, to name a few - and these obviously hold a lot more value than the trainers that we buy from India, or Vietnam. We are the 9th largest exporters in the world.

----------

As for education, I agree that our education system is up the shitter, but I also think that the whole education system of the world is wrong, and I believe that the "core" subjects are given too much value over humanities and the arts. Simply put, I believe the education model that we use is completely outdated and based on industrialist-Victorian principles.

I think the opposite. The uptake of 'soft' degrees that don't lead to graduate level jobs is huge and wasteful. The number of people taking A-level just because they get £30 a week (I don't) to end up in the same job they could have got with GCSEs is similar.

The way we teach the core subjects could be better, as only those with aptitude enjoy it and progress. But I think the main problem in schools is discipline, looking at the contrast between the two state high schools I've been in (one with a '4' from Ofsted and one that is very high in league tables) the difference was that in the latter the kids respected the teachers and did not disrupt the lessons by talking or messing about.

Serves us right, this country is so missmanaged. The government on;y care about lining their pockets.

Scandinavia's not a country, and I've never heard of Austria being one of the best countries to live in. Switzerland...maybe. Either way, I'm pretty content living in the United States.

That's not so much because of a focus on core courses so much as something called "credential inflation."

Having a Bachelors degree from college is practically worthless now a days because everyone has them, even advanced degrees are starting to be meaningless.

The generally argued Pro to this, is that more people get a chance to learn this stuff which gives "diamonds in the rough" a chance to break through even though they would of never gotten a chance in a smaller graduate pool.

The generally argued con to this, is that foresight is not perfect, not even hindsight it... and that by inflating these degrees... for every "Diamond in the rough" you add... you also add dozens of people who aren't any good.  If these people get jobs instead of the original qualfied candidiates it causes issues.

What i think SS is talking about is educating people in non-core education to make them better citizens.  Which doesn't nessisairly have to involve college.  In fact, i'd think if your teaching humanities at college for the first time, a lot of the lessons about how and why people are is lost by then.

Obviously I meant the Scandinavian countries, but you already knew that. Vienna, Zurich and Geneva are considered the best city to live in the world for quality of living. 

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/04/0428_best_places_to_live/2.htm 

I'm glad you're happy in the US. I'm happy in the UK. 

Subjects like Art, Music, Drama and PE are taught poorly in high school here. Every teacher of those subjects I've ever met favours 2 or 3 students who are talented in it and ignores the rest; doesn't even teach us to appreciate the subject (which is the point).

Those subjects, with History and Geography, should be taught to age 16 as appreciation subjects - no exam, just some exposure to culture and the key concepts. Same with English, if you're not taking it as a career then it shouldn't be 90% literary criticism but should be about reading things that are interesting and horizon-broadening. Not neccessarily the classics, as those alienate some people. Reading helps vocabulary ands helps you to express your ideas.

My view on humanities is not to teach ad hoc stuff. I don't want to just go through a chronological walkthrough of history, but make sure that the kids understand why something happened. Then go through similar events in other countries and other time periods to really drill it into their heads, the patterns of mankind and some common sense stuff (what happens when the people are unhappy? What happens when a country goes to war or over extends?).

I see so many people just learning stuff ad hoc, and doing stuff routinely without just stopping and saying WHY? If I ever get a kid, I'm going to teach him basic grammar and make sure he can communicate properly, and then every single fucking time ask him "Why did you do this? Why did this happen? Why is the world like this?".

Why did the artist draw the painting like that? Why did history occur as it did? Why, why, why.

That's what education should be in my opinion. Not how something happened, or what happened, but WHY it happens. You don't teach math by giving an answer, but a process. By giving a universal process (curiosity and trying to understand the situation), instead of ad hoc (remembering a set of rules, a system, and just blindly applying them), the kid would be well off.

That would be a most interesting way of doing it.

Though yeah, the favoring of the talented students tends to be the way it goes... mostly I think because of how education kinda is treated.

I mean when you think about it... those are treated as worthless pursuits more or less.  So unlike say, Math which will help pretty much everybody.  Even though an appreciation of that stuff would also help everybody... most people don't look at it that way, even most teachers.

So it almost feels like to validate their own success they need to create successes.

Of course, an interesting thing is that those skills often broaden peoples ways of thinking... which can be a huge indicator of success.  That's often why extra-cirruculars are seen as good.  It's supposed to be used as a measurement of "thinking outside of the box."

the problem with education is that its examined in such a retarded manner, a one off timed high pressure series of tests can determine so much of your future, its just wrong, they should do portfolio's and coursework to examine people not useless tests