The Tories should win this but they aren't the value and a couple of big price challengers have caught my eye. Ben Downton, who is standing for "common sense", a clever pitch for these times that most ordinary people find utterly incomprehensible, and Jason Pilley, who is actually from Southend and will be known and liked by many of those voting. No bet.
From what I know of Southend (which, to be fair is not that much and largely outdated - my sister-in-law grew up there, but not even in the W Southend constituency) I don't see Jason Pilley doing all that well. Quite a conservative lot, on the whole, I would say. Pilley has stood before and barely troubled the scorers - I accept of course that this time it is a bit different.
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
It strikes me how dependent the dynamics of the Tory leadership crisis are on Sir Graham Brady. I know the consensus is he's a man of the utmost integrity but what if he isn't? How can we be sure that Muscly hasn't got the fix in with him?
To update a matter we were discussing recently: Raith Rovers has backtracked on signing Mr Goodwillie which led to the withdrawal of sponsorship, "the resignation of directors, club officials and the women's captain" while "Raith TV also vowed to stop broadcasting the men’s team’s matches, while the women’s team has sought to distance itself entirely from the men’s outfit."
Chairman: “I can therefore confirm that, following a meeting of the Raith Rovers board, the player will not be selected by Raith Rovers and we will enter into discussions with the player regarding his contractual position."
The club must be run by idiots, make a horse's rear end of it and now compound by having to pay him a shedload to go away. Has Brown got Bozo involved with advising them.
They certainly will not "be dancing in the streets of Raith tonight" whatever happens.
SNP leadership still doubling down on assertion that you Brits will be paying for Scots' pensions after Indy.
Be interested if our resident PB SNPers are sold on this. Don't think they've commented so far?
Don't have a lot of time for Gorgeous George but enjoyed this tweet:
George Galloway @georgegalloway · 33m If #Scots think #England will pay their pension in the event of #independence then no greater testimony to the collapse of Scotland’s once famous education system could exist. Not to mention our once infamous reputation of a tight-grasp of monetary matters.
It is not surprising at all
(a) HMG has always said it's a contributory scheme - you pay in, you get (b) HMT said it would cover HMG obligations in the events of independence (c) in 2014 HMG, I think the DHSS or whatever dept dealt with pensions, was confirming the position when asked. (d) we're all familiar with former UK citizens being paid their OAP after they emigrate to another country
Of course,it's a Ponzi job, and in reality negotiations would quite possibly trump that. But HMG did make promises more generally.
Yep, this makes sense. Either rUK pays for the pension (theoretically) built up or a transfer of an appropriate amount of the wodge of (non-existent, but notional) cash happens to pay an identified group that will then receive their pensions from Scottish Government. The former is probably simpler, in many ways (otherwise, how do you do it - based on residence when tax was paid? current residence? future citizenship?).
But a bit of a non-issue, surely, in that it would all be part of the negotiations about divvying up reserves and debts. Take on the pension liability and Scotland gets more of the reserves. A negotiating tool depending on each side's expectation of the future liability weighed against immediate cash.
I'd both be sorry to see Scotland go and horrified at the time and opportuity cost of the negotiations at least from a rUK perspective (as I see no real upside for rUK from a break up of the Union) but the reality is that all this will be dealt with in the negotiations.
Hmm, unless I miss soemthing, the other option is to regard the Scot with a pension credit up to independence day as having personally emigrated to an independent Scotland just as to Australia or Spain and being paid individually. Not least cos what happens if the Scot then moves to Oz, or Spain? Anything after independence is SG's problem. BVut, as you say, negotiations.
Would upset the large amount of English people who live in Scotland as well no doubt.
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
First as the Tories will be tonight but only because Labour and the Lib Dems are way more honourable than others we could mention.
Nothing less honourable then depriving the electorate of democratic choice as an exercise in flouncy point making. This nonsense must now cease
I know its tragic that Ames was murdered, and this leads to some suggesting that no-one should contest the by-election. But if he had died in an accident there would be no such qualms. And if he had died during auto-erotic asphyxiation and been discovered thus, then again, there would be no such qualms.
Its awful for the murdered MP and his family and friends. But the by-election is about who represents the constituency, not how sorry we all are. It should be contested. By all means do it with civility (as always should be the case) but make your case.
I don't think it's just civility, it's also about incentives. If you let murdering politicians potentially change policy, you encourage people to murder politicians. Politicians prefer not to be murdered, so preserving the norm that you don't contest these races is in their rational self-interest.
Again, that ignores that intraparty policy differences are as big as interparty ones. I am unlikely to murder an MP in the foreseeable future, but if I did it would probably be a Tory Boris supporter in the hope of a successor being elected who would write to Brady. A no contest convention incentivises that course of action
SNP leadership still doubling down on assertion that you Brits will be paying for Scots' pensions after Indy.
Be interested if our resident PB SNPers are sold on this. Don't think they've commented so far?
Don't have a lot of time for Gorgeous George but enjoyed this tweet:
George Galloway @georgegalloway · 33m If #Scots think #England will pay their pension in the event of #independence then no greater testimony to the collapse of Scotland’s once famous education system could exist. Not to mention our once infamous reputation of a tight-grasp of monetary matters.
It is not surprising at all
(a) HMG has always said it's a contributory scheme - you pay in, you get (b) HMT said it would cover HMG obligations in the events of independence (c) in 2014 HMG, I think the DHSS or whatever dept dealt with pensions, was confirming the position when asked. (d) we're all familiar with former UK citizens being paid their OAP after they emigrate to another country
Of course,it's a Ponzi job, and in reality negotiations would quite possibly trump that. But HMG did make promises more generally.
Yep, this makes sense. Either rUK pays for the pension (theoretically) built up or a transfer of an appropriate amount of the wodge of (non-existent, but notional) cash happens to pay an identified group that will then receive their pensions from Scottish Government. The former is probably simpler, in many ways (otherwise, how do you do it - based on residence when tax was paid? current residence? future citizenship?).
But a bit of a non-issue, surely, in that it would all be part of the negotiations about divvying up reserves and debts. Take on the pension liability and Scotland gets more of the reserves. A negotiating tool depending on each side's expectation of the future liability weighed against immediate cash.
I'd both be sorry to see Scotland go and horrified at the time and opportuity cost of the negotiations at least from a rUK perspective (as I see no real upside for rUK from a break up of the Union) but the reality is that all this will be dealt with in the negotiations.
Hmm, unless I miss soemthing, the other option is to regard the Scot with a pension credit up to independence day as having personally emigrated to an independent Scotland just as to Australia or Spain and being paid individually. Not least cos what happens if the Scot then moves to Oz, or Spain? Anything after independence is SG's problem. BVut, as you say, negotiations.
Isn’t the difference that the person emigrating to Australia etc is still a citizen of the U.K? That’s not the case for someone in an independent Scotland, so I don’t see how they are comparable situations.
How do we pay Irish people pensions then and how do you know we will not hav edual nationality or be able to chose UL nationality. just lots of people who think they are clever talking through the hole in their erchie.
SNP leadership still doubling down on assertion that you Brits will be paying for Scots' pensions after Indy.
Be interested if our resident PB SNPers are sold on this. Don't think they've commented so far?
Don't have a lot of time for Gorgeous George but enjoyed this tweet:
George Galloway @georgegalloway · 33m If #Scots think #England will pay their pension in the event of #independence then no greater testimony to the collapse of Scotland’s once famous education system could exist. Not to mention our once infamous reputation of a tight-grasp of monetary matters.
It is not surprising at all
(a) HMG has always said it's a contributory scheme - you pay in, you get (b) HMT said it would cover HMG obligations in the events of independence (c) in 2014 HMG, I think the DHSS or whatever dept dealt with pensions, was confirming the position when asked. (d) we're all familiar with former UK citizens being paid their OAP after they emigrate to another country
Of course,it's a Ponzi job, and in reality negotiations would quite possibly trump that. But HMG did make promises more generally.
Yep, this makes sense. Either rUK pays for the pension (theoretically) built up or a transfer of an appropriate amount of the wodge of (non-existent, but notional) cash happens to pay an identified group that will then receive their pensions from Scottish Government. The former is probably simpler, in many ways (otherwise, how do you do it - based on residence when tax was paid? current residence? future citizenship?).
But a bit of a non-issue, surely, in that it would all be part of the negotiations about divvying up reserves and debts. Take on the pension liability and Scotland gets more of the reserves. A negotiating tool depending on each side's expectation of the future liability weighed against immediate cash.
I'd both be sorry to see Scotland go and horrified at the time and opportuity cost of the negotiations at least from a rUK perspective (as I see no real upside for rUK from a break up of the Union) but the reality is that all this will be dealt with in the negotiations.
Hmm, unless I miss soemthing, the other option is to regard the Scot with a pension credit up to independence day as having personally emigrated to an independent Scotland just as to Australia or Spain and being paid individually. Not least cos what happens if the Scot then moves to Oz, or Spain? Anything after independence is SG's problem. BVut, as you say, negotiations.
Isn’t the difference that the person emigrating to Australia etc is still a citizen of the U.K? That’s not the case for someone in an independent Scotland, so I don’t see how they are comparable situations.
The Australian situation is in a sense irrelevant as we would be dealing with a new situation here (well not in the last 100 years). It depends how citizenship is dealt with - some people may want to become dual nationals, and quite a few people will be so by right anyway (e.g. residency and/or birth/marriage).
Yea, it’s completely irrelevant, so I’m wondering why it was even mentioned in the first place. If the people voted for independence the vast majority would cease to be UK citizens (maybe all, at first). The idea that Scotland would have absolutely zero pension liabilities when it becomes independent is absurd.
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
I wonder how many Tory MPs were waiting to send in letters for a sign that there really is someone they can turn to with confidence and so either were waiting for this speech or will listen to him and note the contrast and feel secure enough to now send in their letters.
Edit - saw Only Living Boy had already made the same point!
FPT Mr. B, not properly. I had a £1 free bet which I stuck on Ferrari at 8, but given the substantial rule changes I'm not inclined to bet so early.
Interesting note on the penalty points.
It is early. FWIW, I've laid Mercedes at 1.8 as a trading bet. Given the rules shakeup, the chance of at least one out of all the other teams coming up with a quick car at the start of the season seems to make odds-on for any one team, before a wheel has turned, a bit too short.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
The Tories should win this but they aren't the value and a couple of big price challengers have caught my eye. Ben Downton, who is standing for "common sense", a clever pitch for these times that most ordinary people find utterly incomprehensible, and Jason Pilley, who is actually from Southend and will be known and liked by many of those voting. No bet.
From what I know of Southend (which, to be fair is not that much and largely outdated - my sister-in-law grew up there, but not even in the W Southend constituency) I don't see Jason Pilley doing all that well. Quite a conservative lot, on the whole, I would say. Pilley has stood before and barely troubled the scorers - I accept of course that this time it is a bit different.
Can't comment on Downton.
Yes, Pilley looks to be about the only non-far-right fruitcake but possibly still a fruitcake. There's no betfair markets on this for me to chew on. The margin and turnout will be interesting. Quite hard to predict imo.
SNP leadership still doubling down on assertion that you Brits will be paying for Scots' pensions after Indy.
Be interested if our resident PB SNPers are sold on this. Don't think they've commented so far?
Don't have a lot of time for Gorgeous George but enjoyed this tweet:
George Galloway @georgegalloway · 33m If #Scots think #England will pay their pension in the event of #independence then no greater testimony to the collapse of Scotland’s once famous education system could exist. Not to mention our once infamous reputation of a tight-grasp of monetary matters.
It is not surprising at all
(a) HMG has always said it's a contributory scheme - you pay in, you get (b) HMT said it would cover HMG obligations in the events of independence (c) in 2014 HMG, I think the DHSS or whatever dept dealt with pensions, was confirming the position when asked. (d) we're all familiar with former UK citizens being paid their OAP after they emigrate to another country
Of course,it's a Ponzi job, and in reality negotiations would quite possibly trump that. But HMG did make promises more generally.
Yep, this makes sense. Either rUK pays for the pension (theoretically) built up or a transfer of an appropriate amount of the wodge of (non-existent, but notional) cash happens to pay an identified group that will then receive their pensions from Scottish Government. The former is probably simpler, in many ways (otherwise, how do you do it - based on residence when tax was paid? current residence? future citizenship?).
But a bit of a non-issue, surely, in that it would all be part of the negotiations about divvying up reserves and debts. Take on the pension liability and Scotland gets more of the reserves. A negotiating tool depending on each side's expectation of the future liability weighed against immediate cash.
I'd both be sorry to see Scotland go and horrified at the time and opportuity cost of the negotiations at least from a rUK perspective (as I see no real upside for rUK from a break up of the Union) but the reality is that all this will be dealt with in the negotiations.
Yes, clearly it would all be part of the divorce agreement. Either pensions paid* or part of a wider discussion of splitting assets and liabilities.
*wasn't this what happened when the Irish Free State got independence?
I find it very hard to believe that a future UK government would agree to anything like that. Would the Scots continue paying for English pensions?
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Rishi winning here - come on conservative mps and get your letters in now
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Rishi winning here - come on conservative mps and get your letters in now
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
But nothing has changed - all that has happened is someone in NI has decided to play games.
At the behest it seems of uber Johnson loyalist NI Secretary, Brandon Lewis, who is happy to sacrifice NI peace to placate the dissatisfied ERG and encourage them to reclaim their letters. Lewis has been Johnson's media shill this week, and he comes across as a dangerous fool.
First as the Tories will be tonight but only because Labour and the Lib Dems are way more honourable than others we could mention.
Nothing less honourable then depriving the electorate of democratic choice as an exercise in flouncy point making. This nonsense must now cease
I know its tragic that Ames was murdered, and this leads to some suggesting that no-one should contest the by-election. But if he had died in an accident there would be no such qualms. And if he had died during auto-erotic asphyxiation and been discovered thus, then again, there would be no such qualms.
Its awful for the murdered MP and his family and friends. But the by-election is about who represents the constituency, not how sorry we all are. It should be contested. By all means do it with civility (as always should be the case) but make your case.
I don't think it's just civility, it's also about incentives. If you let murdering politicians potentially change policy, you encourage people to murder politicians. Politicians prefer not to be murdered, so preserving the norm that you don't contest these races is in their rational self-interest.
And also a statement of societal values. (Which given the current administration is perhaps overgenerous, but still.)
As I said previously, had I a vote, I'd write in David Amess.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Only problem for those Tory MPs thinking that is that it is not them who get the final say on electing any new Tory leader, it is Tory party members.
The Tories should win this but they aren't the value and a couple of big price challengers have caught my eye. Ben Downton, who is standing for "common sense", a clever pitch for these times that most ordinary people find utterly incomprehensible, and Jason Pilley, who is actually from Southend and will be known and liked by many of those voting. No bet.
I cannot find a market for second place. Is anyone running one?
My punt is on a turnout at over 30% on Smarkets at 6.6.
Brabin got 25.8% in Batley, but there the opposition candidates had polled better in the last election, so presumably stayed away. Cons got 60% of the vote in 2019 in Southend. Allow for the demographics of the Tory voters being older, and therefore more likely to turnout, more likely to be postal voters etc, I think a turnout in the low 30s.
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
"... This finding implies that a combination of interventions related to a strict lockdown environment and public awareness (such as closures of schools and workplaces, cancellations of public events, travel restrictions, keeping the public informed, testing and contact tracing) was most likely a more effective measure of slowing down the spread of the virus and the related number of deaths."
I doubt that those clinging to what it says have read it or care about these issues. It's just useful for people to have an outwardly credible response for the "research" method of typing into Google "what I want to be true"
I don't think anyone doubts that putting in place 'lockdown' measures reduces the spread of the virus. The issue is whether you are simply slowing the spread of a virus that people will eventually get anyway. Now we have vaccines and a milder variant so Denmark may come out of this better than Sweden but the key point of the GBD was that the harms of lockdown were greater than the virus. Questionable but that is a different point.
The John Hopkins study being cited states that neither lockdowns nor border closures reduce deaths. And the longest time scales they look at is still measured in weeks.
Not to get onto the GBD claims, which have their own issues; this was a look at this study that claims to prove that lockdowns do not reduce the deaths from the virus in that time scale (so if you don't think anyone doubts that, these people do, and those who cite it seem to believe it as well)
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
The Tories should win this but they aren't the value and a couple of big price challengers have caught my eye. Ben Downton, who is standing for "common sense", a clever pitch for these times that most ordinary people find utterly incomprehensible, and Jason Pilley, who is actually from Southend and will be known and liked by many of those voting. No bet.
I cannot find a market for second place. Is anyone running one?
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
But nothing has changed - all that has happened is someone in NI has decided to play games.
At the behest it seems of uber Johnson loyalist NI Secretary, Brandon Lewis, who is happy to sacrifice NI peace to placate the dissatisfied ERG and encourage them to return their letters. Lewis has been Johnson's media shill this week, and he comes across as a dangerous fool.
Yep but I don't see it being enough to get the ERG to return their letters unless Brexit trumps Bozo being a crook (which isn't true for all the ERG see Steve Baker).
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Rishi winning here - come on conservative mps and get your letters in now
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
What money? There is no pot of money, all that exists is a liability paid for out of revenue. The UK central and local government has about £6 trillion in pensions liabilities.
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Only problem for those Tory MPs thinking that is that it is not them who get the final say on electing any new Tory leader, it is Tory party members.
Yes, that will give them pause. I expect Sunak will run an effective campaign though and his opponents will face a difficult time. He is clearly the candidate of the donors/Tory establishment.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
There's a confusion between state pension entitlements and earmarked state pension funds in this debate more generally (not suggesting you do, quite the reverse). At present most UK subjects most certainly have pension entitlements.
Edit: I see RobD is perhaps missing this point when he claims rUK exemption on the grounds of lack of a separate pension pot.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
But that money has already been spent on paying Scottish pensions.
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Only problem for those Tory MPs thinking that is that it is not them who get the final say on electing any new Tory leader, it is Tory party members.
That supposed that party members will not take into consideration how Tory MPs vote in any run-off.
Firstly the members’ dog has to be in the fight for the last two so if not then which way does their vote break?
Secondly whilst members might for example personally prefer Truss, if their MP says “I’m voting Sunak for x y z reasons” it’s possible that a member changes their vote on the basis that they trust their MP’s view as they will know the contenders better and if the MP thinks they will be better for tue party and country that’s a big consideration.
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
It strikes me how dependent the dynamics of the Tory leadership crisis are on Sir Graham Brady. I know the consensus is he's a man of the utmost integrity but what if he isn't? How can we be sure that Muscly hasn't got the fix in with him?
Brady strikes me as a practical man. Yes he wants rock-hard Brexit and his friends in the DUP looked after, but he also wants to remain a NW MP after the next election I suspect.
Rachel Reeves is over-reaching in her rhetoric imo. She'll get herself skewered if we get a competent operation in the Government.
Apparently we have become "more and more dependent on Russia for our gas supply".
In 2020 it was .. er .. 3%.
Indeed! And in any case it wasn't that long ago she was supporting Comrade Corbyn who would have had us hooked up to 100% of Bad Vlad's gas if he'd had his way...
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
Half the bloody posts on this topic are based on assumptions that are entirely wrong.
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Rishi winning here - come on conservative mps and get your letters in now
He might not win the leadership election
Well, he certainly won't if there isn't one
Interesting that his odds for next leader, and next PM are currently identical on Betfair.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
Loan? "Fuck right off" will be the response on the doors when red wall Tories try and sell that...
Everyone in the red wall lives in Band A - D houses, and most in higher bands / bigger houses are voting Tory (Normally, perhaps not for Boris) anyway.
It's cheesed me right off that I won't be getting a Rishi rebate but politically this is good from the Chancellor.
SNP leadership still doubling down on assertion that you Brits will be paying for Scots' pensions after Indy.
Be interested if our resident PB SNPers are sold on this. Don't think they've commented so far?
Don't have a lot of time for Gorgeous George but enjoyed this tweet:
George Galloway @georgegalloway · 33m If #Scots think #England will pay their pension in the event of #independence then no greater testimony to the collapse of Scotland’s once famous education system could exist. Not to mention our once infamous reputation of a tight-grasp of monetary matters.
It is not surprising at all
(a) HMG has always said it's a contributory scheme - you pay in, you get (b) HMT said it would cover HMG obligations in the events of independence (c) in 2014 HMG, I think the DHSS or whatever dept dealt with pensions, was confirming the position when asked. (d) we're all familiar with former UK citizens being paid their OAP after they emigrate to another country
Of course,it's a Ponzi job, and in reality negotiations would quite possibly trump that. But HMG did make promises more generally.
Yep, this makes sense. Either rUK pays for the pension (theoretically) built up or a transfer of an appropriate amount of the wodge of (non-existent, but notional) cash happens to pay an identified group that will then receive their pensions from Scottish Government. The former is probably simpler, in many ways (otherwise, how do you do it - based on residence when tax was paid? current residence? future citizenship?).
But a bit of a non-issue, surely, in that it would all be part of the negotiations about divvying up reserves and debts. Take on the pension liability and Scotland gets more of the reserves. A negotiating tool depending on each side's expectation of the future liability weighed against immediate cash.
I'd both be sorry to see Scotland go and horrified at the time and opportuity cost of the negotiations at least from a rUK perspective (as I see no real upside for rUK from a break up of the Union) but the reality is that all this will be dealt with in the negotiations.
Yes, clearly it would all be part of the divorce agreement. Either pensions paid* or part of a wider discussion of splitting assets and liabilities.
*wasn't this what happened when the Irish Free State got independence?
I find it very hard to believe that a future UK government would agree to anything like that. Would the Scots continue paying for English pensions?
Any rUK govt agreeing to pay indy Scottish pensions will immediately become an rUK opposition. File under not going to happen, but nationalists will use as an idea to gain support.
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
"... This finding implies that a combination of interventions related to a strict lockdown environment and public awareness (such as closures of schools and workplaces, cancellations of public events, travel restrictions, keeping the public informed, testing and contact tracing) was most likely a more effective measure of slowing down the spread of the virus and the related number of deaths."
I doubt that those clinging to what it says have read it or care about these issues. It's just useful for people to have an outwardly credible response for the "research" method of typing into Google "what I want to be true"
I don't think anyone doubts that putting in place 'lockdown' measures reduces the spread of the virus. The issue is whether you are simply slowing the spread of a virus that people will eventually get anyway. Now we have vaccines and a milder variant so Denmark may come out of this better than Sweden but the key point of the GBD was that the harms of lockdown were greater than the virus. Questionable but that is a different point.
The John Hopkins study being cited states that neither lockdowns nor border closures reduce deaths. And the longest time scales they look at is still measured in weeks.
Not to get onto the GBD claims, which have their own issues; this was a look at this study that claims to prove that lockdowns do not reduce the deaths from the virus in that time scale (so if you don't think anyone doubts that, these people do, and those who cite it seem to believe it as well)
I think before vaccines you could make the case that lockdowns probably only delayed deaths by keeping vulnerable people from being exposed to the virus that would carry them away given the chance. After vaccines everything changed. The biggest criticism I have of the UK government was the failure to lockdown in Dec 2020 on the basis that we would vaccinate as fast as possible but keep people safe until we had. It would have been a lockdown with a purpose other than just delay. Holding out to try to keep Christmas, and then failing, and then locking down may well have killed 30K more than needed.
With this study, it will be interesting to see if it makes it through peer review anywhere.
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
"... This finding implies that a combination of interventions related to a strict lockdown environment and public awareness (such as closures of schools and workplaces, cancellations of public events, travel restrictions, keeping the public informed, testing and contact tracing) was most likely a more effective measure of slowing down the spread of the virus and the related number of deaths."
I doubt that those clinging to what it says have read it or care about these issues. It's just useful for people to have an outwardly credible response for the "research" method of typing into Google "what I want to be true"
I don't think anyone doubts that putting in place 'lockdown' measures reduces the spread of the virus. The issue is whether you are simply slowing the spread of a virus that people will eventually get anyway. Now we have vaccines and a milder variant so Denmark may come out of this better than Sweden but the key point of the GBD was that the harms of lockdown were greater than the virus. Questionable but that is a different point.
The John Hopkins study being cited states that neither lockdowns nor border closures reduce deaths. And the longest time scales they look at is still measured in weeks.
Not to get onto the GBD claims, which have their own issues; this was a look at this study that claims to prove that lockdowns do not reduce the deaths from the virus in that time scale (so if you don't think anyone doubts that, these people do, and those who cite it seem to believe it as well)
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
But nothing has changed - all that has happened is someone in NI has decided to play games.
At the behest it seems of uber Johnson loyalist NI Secretary, Brandon Lewis, who is happy to sacrifice NI peace to placate the dissatisfied ERG and encourage them to return their letters. Lewis has been Johnson's media shill this week, and he comes across as a dangerous fool.
Yep but I don't see it being enough to get the ERG to return their letters unless Brexit trumps Bozo being a crook (which isn't true for all the ERG see Steve Baker).
I hope it doesn't sway them. However, the fact that Lewis and Johnson are quite so comfortable to play fast and loose with the GFA in case it might, is rather alarming. What other **** might they try.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
But that money has already been spent on paying Scottish pensions.
Why should they get it twice?
First payment by pensioner to UKG.
Second payment goes the other way. So, yes, the money goes twice, but not in the same direction.
Rachel Reeves is over-reaching in her rhetoric imo. She'll get herself skewered if we get a competent operation in the Government.
Apparently we have become "more and more dependent on Russia for our gas supply".
In 2020 it was .. er .. 3%.
Indeed! And in any case it wasn't that long ago she was supporting Comrade Corbyn who would have had us hooked up to 100% of Bad Vlad's gas if he'd had his way...
Rather unfair. Reeves never supported Corbyn - that's why she sat on the backbenches throughout his tenure.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
Obviously we are more dependent on Russian gas than as direct imports suggest, given we import 40% of our gas from Norway as a price dependent on the market. However it's not clear to me that that position has changed substantially over time except as a result of reduced UK production.
Loan? "Fuck right off" will be the response on the doors when red wall Tories try and sell that...
Everyone in the red wall lives in Band A - D houses, and most in higher bands / bigger houses are voting Tory (Normally, perhaps not for Boris) anyway.
It's cheesed me right off that I won't be getting a Rishi rebate but politically this is good from the Chancellor.
The "loan" only starts in Autumn is my understanding of what he said.
The cap will rise by another £200 in Autumn analysts are saying. So will the "loan" rebate amount rise again then? Or running to stand still?
Times predicting energy refund of £200 per household and additional help via council tax refunds for those in Bands A to C of up to £300
Do we have numbers relating to the average energy bill of most in need of help?
The BBC have been out this morning trolling the public telling them that their bills will be £1971, and asking people if they can afford this.
Haven't even been finding out whether the people they are scaring have average bills or not. Presumably people in smaller houses tend to have lower bills, than people in equivalent larger houses.
Rachel Reeves is over-reaching in her rhetoric imo. She'll get herself skewered if we get a competent operation in the Government.
Apparently we have become "more and more dependent on Russia for our gas supply".
In 2020 it was .. er .. 3%.
Indeed! And in any case it wasn't that long ago she was supporting Comrade Corbyn who would have had us hooked up to 100% of Bad Vlad's gas if he'd had his way...
Maybe by "we" she meant europe in general?
The fact that others especially Germany are hooked on Vald's gas is pushing up the world wholesale price even if we buy elsewhere.
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Only problem for those Tory MPs thinking that is that it is not them who get the final say on electing any new Tory leader, it is Tory party members.
Yes, that will give them pause. I expect Sunak will run an effective campaign though and his opponents will face a difficult time. He is clearly the candidate of the donors/Tory establishment.
I find it hard to see any other winner if the contest happens. I'm on him as Next PM as a (kind of) hedge against my main Starmer position. Plus a big price saver on Mordaunt.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
It strikes me how dependent the dynamics of the Tory leadership crisis are on Sir Graham Brady. I know the consensus is he's a man of the utmost integrity but what if he isn't? How can we be sure that Muscly hasn't got the fix in with him?
If here were not, how high could it go? Surely to 70 without anyone noticing. But probably not 80.
Way, way behind the curve now. Too little, too late.
Long overdue, I reckon but I think prices are being driven up by shortages rather than excess money in the system. Gas being the obvious one, but shipping costs etc too.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
Be interested if our resident PB SNPers are sold on this. Don't think they've commented so far?
Don't have a lot of time for Gorgeous George but enjoyed this tweet:
George Galloway @georgegalloway · 33m If #Scots think #England will pay their pension in the event of #independence then no greater testimony to the collapse of Scotland’s once famous education system could exist. Not to mention our once infamous reputation of a tight-grasp of monetary matters.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out - my standard position is that the absolutism from both extremes will not be what happens.
If we assume a divorce rather than a secession then it seems reasonable to assume that the division of assets would include a pension provision. Whether that is a legacy pension payment from rUK to Scottish pensioners or a value transfer of their pension contributions, it would be something.
If there was a state pension fund then, sure, Scotland would receive its share of that and pay its pensions from it. And in a way, it will, only there's no fund, so its share is zero.
I believe with Ireland there's a reciprocal deal where you can convert NI credits in the UK to equivalent contributions in the Irish system to receive the Irish state pension, and vice versa, if you move between the countries. I'd expect a similar arrangement between Scotland and the UK, where anyone resident in Scotland at the time of independence is considered to have made Scottish contributions in the years beforehand.
There's no way that there will be a free lunch for Scotland of a massive subsidy from the UK to pay all existing Scottish state pensions, and pension entitlements accrued up to that date. Not happening.
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
But nothing has changed - all that has happened is someone in NI has decided to play games.
At the behest it seems of uber Johnson loyalist NI Secretary, Brandon Lewis, who is happy to sacrifice NI peace to placate the dissatisfied ERG and encourage them to return their letters. Lewis has been Johnson's media shill this week, and he comes across as a dangerous fool.
Yep but I don't see it being enough to get the ERG to return their letters unless Brexit trumps Bozo being a crook (which isn't true for all the ERG see Steve Baker).
I hope it doesn't sway them. However, the fact that Lewis and Johnson are quite so comfortable to play fast and loose with the GFA in case it might, is rather alarming. What other **** might they try.
Little would surprise me. Behind all the facades Johnson is a thug.
Way, way behind the curve now. Too little, too late.
Long overdue, I reckon but I think prices are being driven up by shortages rather than excess money in the system. Gas being the obvious one, but shipping costs etc too.
There is also excess money according to the monetarists. Absolute tons of QE sloshing around the system as we have printed like nobody's business during pandemic and post-finance crash.
Now the Scot Nats can confidently assure of us about Scottish pensions in the event of Scottish independence, can they tell me
1) Who will be the lender of last resort?
2) What currency will they use?
3) And if I accept their premise on pensions, will they be paid on a 1:1 exchange rate, because if Scotland's plan to walk away without paying any share of their debts, their currency will tank if their first act is to default.
4) What happens if RUK doesn't pay the pensions?
I have other questions that need asking but I'll stick to the easy ones, I have many others that need answering in my day job
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
No it isn't, any more than it affects the repayability of a loan whether the borrower has spent the original money or kept it in a savings account
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Only problem for those Tory MPs thinking that is that it is not them who get the final say on electing any new Tory leader, it is Tory party members.
That supposed that party members will not take into consideration how Tory MPs vote in any run-off.
Firstly the members’ dog has to be in the fight for the last two so if not then which way does their vote break?
Secondly whilst members might for example personally prefer Truss, if their MP says “I’m voting Sunak for x y z reasons” it’s possible that a member changes their vote on the basis that they trust their MP’s view as they will know the contenders better and if the MP thinks they will be better for tue party and country that’s a big consideration.
Maybe, maybe not.
The winner of the MPs vote does not always win the party membership vote.
Remember Ken Clarke topped the poll in the 2001 Tory leadership contest amongst Tory MPs but Tory members still voted for IDS over Clarke 60% to 40%.
Labour members of course ignored Labour MPs voting against Corbyn in 2015 and 2016 and voted for him twice. Burnham won most nominations amongst Labour MPs in 2015.
Way, way behind the curve now. Too little, too late.
Long overdue, I reckon but I think prices are being driven up by shortages rather than excess money in the system. Gas being the obvious one, but shipping costs etc too.
There is also excess money according to the monetarists. Absolute tons of QE sloshing around the system as we have printed like nobody's business during pandemic and post-finance crash.
They will no longer reinvest maturing debt under QE so the total size of QE will now gradually shrink.
Way, way behind the curve now. Too little, too late.
Long overdue, I reckon but I think prices are being driven up by shortages rather than excess money in the system. Gas being the obvious one, but shipping costs etc too.
There is also excess money according to the monetarists. Absolute tons of QE sloshing around the system as we have printed like nobody's business during pandemic and post-finance crash.
Isn't that money in the financial markets. How related is QE to the price of food?
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
No it isn't, any more than it affects the repayability of a loan whether the borrower has spent the original money or kept it in a savings account
But the money has already been spent, servicing current pensions. None of it is saved for future payments, which is what is being claimed.
Comments
Can't comment on Downton.
[innocent face] I though Sweden had had no restrictions throughout the pandemic and allowed normal activity to go on...
https://twitter.com/AvaSantina/status/1488911998934994962
Edit - saw Only Living Boy had already made the same point!
Given the rules shakeup, the chance of at least one out of all the other teams coming up with a quick car at the start of the season seems to make odds-on for any one team, before a wheel has turned, a bit too short.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20150221031257/http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/09/3492/7
(Which given the current administration is perhaps overgenerous, but still.)
As I said previously, had I a vote, I'd write in David Amess.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Latest ConHome survey this week has Truss still just ahead of Sunak on 20% to Sunak's 19%
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2022/02/what-our-next-tory-leader-survey-tells-us-about-support-for-the-prime-minister.html
Brabin got 25.8% in Batley, but there the opposition candidates had polled better in the last election, so presumably stayed away. Cons got 60% of the vote in 2019 in Southend. Allow for the demographics of the Tory voters being older, and therefore more likely to turnout, more likely to be postal voters etc, I think a turnout in the low 30s.
Current price is value.
Rachel Reeves is over-reaching in her rhetoric imo. She'll get herself skewered if we get a competent operation in the Government.
Apparently we have become "more and more dependent on Russia for our gas supply".
In 2020 it was .. er .. 3%.
Not to get onto the GBD claims, which have their own issues; this was a look at this study that claims to prove that lockdowns do not reduce the deaths from the virus in that time scale (so if you don't think anyone doubts that, these people do, and those who cite it seem to believe it as well)
Edit: I see RobD is perhaps missing this point when he claims rUK exemption on the grounds of lack of a separate pension pot.
Why should they get it twice?
Firstly the members’ dog has to be in the fight for the last two so if not then which way does their vote break?
Secondly whilst members might for example personally prefer Truss, if their MP says “I’m voting Sunak for x y z reasons” it’s possible that a member changes their vote on the basis that they trust their MP’s view as they will know the contenders better and if the MP thinks they will be better for tue party and country that’s a big consideration.
Lab wants a pathetic VAT scrappage scheme benefiting the wealthy most.
SKS and Reeves are useless.
Once again as with Corporation Tax rise and NHS Pay outflanked to the left by Boris
God knows how those with three or four little 'uns manage, especially if they're not at the age or inclination where they can do independent study.
It's cheesed me right off that I won't be getting a Rishi rebate but politically this is good from the Chancellor.
With this study, it will be interesting to see if it makes it through peer review anywhere.
Second payment goes the other way. So, yes, the money goes twice, but not in the same direction.
The cap will rise by another £200 in Autumn analysts are saying. So will the "loan" rebate amount rise again then? Or running to stand still?
Up 0.5%, that's above the expectation of a 0.25% rise to 0.5%.
Edit: You're talking shite, they're up 0.25%.
up 0.25 to 0.5
The BBC have been out this morning trolling the public telling them that their bills will be £1971, and asking people if they can afford this.
Haven't even been finding out whether the people they are scaring have average bills or not. Presumably people in smaller houses tend to have lower bills, than people in equivalent larger houses.
Shocker.
The fact that others especially Germany are hooked on Vald's gas is pushing up the world wholesale price even if we buy elsewhere.
Way, way behind the curve now. Too little, too late.
Too little too late
Weekly???
Surely that can't be right?
But we are now behind the curve and they need to rapidly get to 1%.
Is the market still expecting another increase in March as I would have thought it was inevitable.
I believe with Ireland there's a reciprocal deal where you can convert NI credits in the UK to equivalent contributions in the Irish system to receive the Irish state pension, and vice versa, if you move between the countries. I'd expect a similar arrangement between Scotland and the UK, where anyone resident in Scotland at the time of independence is considered to have made Scottish contributions in the years beforehand.
There's no way that there will be a free lunch for Scotland of a massive subsidy from the UK to pay all existing Scottish state pensions, and pension entitlements accrued up to that date. Not happening.
You could have interest rates of 12% and we'd still have surging gas prices because gas prices are surging globally.
1) Who will be the lender of last resort?
2) What currency will they use?
3) And if I accept their premise on pensions, will they be paid on a 1:1 exchange rate, because if Scotland's plan to walk away without paying any share of their debts, their currency will tank if their first act is to default.
4) What happens if RUK doesn't pay the pensions?
I have other questions that need asking but I'll stick to the easy ones, I have many others that need answering in my day job
The £150 rebate on council tax bills for homes in Bands A-D will benefit 80% of households and may help ease the pain of surging energy bills.
But the savings may be overshadowed by the increase in National Insurance contributions due the same month.
That will strip more than £200 out of the annual pay packet of a worker on £30,000.
Markets now expecting another 0.25% in both March and May to bring us to 1%.
😂
The winner of the MPs vote does not always win the party membership vote.
Remember Ken Clarke topped the poll in the 2001 Tory leadership contest amongst Tory MPs but Tory members still voted for IDS over Clarke 60% to 40%.
Labour members of course ignored Labour MPs voting against Corbyn in 2015 and 2016 and voted for him twice. Burnham won most nominations amongst Labour MPs in 2015.