Last night at my direction, U.S. military forces successfully undertook a counterterrorism operation. Thanks to the bravery of our Armed Forces, we have removed from the battlefield Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi — the leader of ISIS.
Great to see some nitpicking from a few on my pensions comments. Pretty much every pension fund pays out todays pensioners from today's working people. You don't get your money back, you get someone else's money.
The principle is very simple though. If there are say a million people paying into their state pensions on the promise of a payout later its unreasonable to say their contributions were now zero and there was no liability.
I have several pension schemes where I have left the company, have stopped paying in, but will still receive a return on my investment. It is utterly disingenuous of Rob and others to suggest the same does not apply to the state pension.
They are not saying there is no moral liability or in some cases a legal liability, they are saying that the repeated talk of paying out or dividing pension assets is nonsense because there are no pension assets.
There are no pension assets or pots for the state retirement pension, today’s pensions are paid out from today’s income.
This is in contrast to private or workplace schemes, where the money is invested in a fund over time, and that fund pays out the pensioners in their retirements.
If Scotland were to secede, there would be a massive liability to pay Scotland’s current and future pensions, but definitely no assets to split. Scotland would need to start paying them out of their tax receipts.
In what legal system is "I am not going to pay you money I said I would pay you, because I have not set aside a dedicated fund for that purpose" an actual argument?
This energy loan is a frankly, terrible idea. A big blot on Rishi's book.
The people who need it can't afford to repay loans. Unless the government is guarantor for the energy companies this just creates a big expensive mess.
A slightly morbid special case occurs to me because of a friend's mother who is very unwell but hasn't yet sold her home, so it's still being heated. She will presumably get the £200. If she then passes on, and therefore doesn't need any fuel thereafter, will the £40/year be reclaimed or just written off?
In general the fuel thing feels a bit sleight of hand. But I expect the council tax rebate will go down well and restricting it to bands A-D is a good idea.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
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.
Since it's pay-as-we-go, it would seem that the past contributions from Scotland have been spent on past Scottish pensions.
Properly explained, Scottish pensions are just one of the items that sink the SNP case for independence.
However, it will not be properly explained. It will require the Unionists to make the case - and to get a hearing.
Great to see some nitpicking from a few on my pensions comments. Pretty much every pension fund pays out todays pensioners from today's working people. You don't get your money back, you get someone else's money.
The principle is very simple though. If there are say a million people paying into their state pensions on the promise of a payout later its unreasonable to say their contributions were now zero and there was no liability.
I have several pension schemes where I have left the company, have stopped paying in, but will still receive a return on my investment. It is utterly disingenuous of Rob and others to suggest the same does not apply to the state pension.
They are not saying there is no moral liability or in some cases a legal liability, they are saying that the repeated talk of paying out or dividing pension assets is nonsense because there are no pension assets.
There are no pension assets or pots for the state retirement pension, today’s pensions are paid out from today’s income.
This is in contrast to private or workplace schemes, where the money is invested in a fund over time, and that fund pays out the pensioners in their retirements.
If Scotland were to secede, there would be a massive liability to pay Scotland’s current and future pensions, but definitely no assets to split. Scotland would need to start paying them out of their tax receipts.
I don't even see it as very controversial, just a fact of life.
Bryant claims the average weekly shop is up by £340 in the Rhondda.
Weekly???
Surely that can't be right?
Perhaps he meant monthly.
340 quid buys a lot of underpants...
Big families in the Rhondda so lots required.
I was thinking more on these lines...
No, I knew where you were coming from. They do look like rather expensive pants, so perhaps you are right.
Speaking as a gay man myself I doubt there are many of us who wouldn't have to worry about similar pictures if we ever entered politics. Frankly I'd have expressed interest if that came up on Grindr.
Not that way inclined, nonetheless the picture didn't worry me.
I was just a little envious that my holiday snaps are more Party Seven than Six Pack.
I'd be a bit concerned if it were still his Grindr picture.
Mind bleach requirement alert.
Bryant is just a few weeks older than me. I can assure you a man of 60 wouldn't be inclined to pose in white underwear.
He is LITERALLY calling him an ACTUAL kiddy fiddler.
Not really, he's drawing a clumsy analogy about responsibility for organisations and how they conduct their business and decisions they take. Pretty flawed, but you can see the (twisted) logic.
This energy loan is a frankly, terrible idea. A big blot on Rishi's book.
The people who need it can't afford to repay loans. Unless the government is guarantor for the energy companies this just creates a big expensive mess.
A slightly morbid special case occurs to me because of a friend's mother who is very unwell but hasn't yet sold her home, so it's still being heated. She will presumably get the £200. If she then passes on, and therefore doesn't need any fuel thereafter, will the £40/year be reclaimed or just written off?
In general the fuel thing feels a bit sleight of hand. But I expect the council tax rebate will go down well and restricting it to bands A-D is a good idea.
This loan thing strikes me of trying to show they are in control and politics - never a good thing with actual financial things that affect people imo . The rates thing is a good idea and the bands should be more spread out anyway in terms of what they are charged (with extra bands at the top)
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Last night at my direction, U.S. military forces successfully undertook a counterterrorism operation. Thanks to the bravery of our Armed Forces, we have removed from the battlefield Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi — the leader of ISIS.
Having pointed out a bit of shitty BBC journalism, they also had an interesting comment on how few people will be affected by raised interest rates on mortgages.
The no of owner-occupied households with variable interest mortgages in England is less than 10% of people.
Three-quarters of mortages are at fixed rates.
For some reason in the panic-stories this is not being mentioned.
Thanks for the response - are you saying the BBC were not being shitty for once?
Hmmm.
On the broader question I think they have spread themselves too thinly, lost quite a lot of editorial values, and subsequently gone for far too much dependence on sourcing stuff cheaply from social media.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Having gone through our asset register, the best we can do is offer iScotland, a world leading force of nature, capable of generating enormous optimism, works very well with others to address population issues and indeed his muscularity may well enhance their Commonwealth Games medal tallies too.
He is LITERALLY calling him an ACTUAL kiddy fiddler.
Not really, he's drawing a clumsy analogy about responsibility for organisations and how they conduct their business and decisions they take. Pretty flawed, but you can see the (twisted) logic.
No. It's a clever, but cynical Crosbyesque strategy.
🚨NEW 🚨 Bank of England says UK households must brace themselves for the biggest annual fall in their standard of living since comparable records began three decades ago, as it: - Raises interest rates to 0.5% - Says inflation will surpass 7% - Slashes GDP forecast - https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1489208574962249738
🚨NEW 🚨 Bank of England says UK households must brace themselves for the biggest annual fall in their standard of living since comparable records began three decades ago, as it: - Raises interest rates to 0.5% - Says inflation will surpass 7% - Slashes GDP forecast - https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1489208574962249738
Best to take over as PM now and blame the next CoE for the coming ****storm.
The whole UK is screwed, demographically, but at least RUK has some future taxpayers (children) by 2045.
Migration is the massive unknown in all that though... the bane of demographers. I would guess that an independent Scotland would have a much more migrant-friendly set of policies than the UK.
This energy loan is a frankly, terrible idea. A big blot on Rishi's book.
The people who need it can't afford to repay loans. Unless the government is guarantor for the energy companies this just creates a big expensive mess.
A slightly morbid special case occurs to me because of a friend's mother who is very unwell but hasn't yet sold her home, so it's still being heated. She will presumably get the £200. If she then passes on, and therefore doesn't need any fuel thereafter, will the £40/year be reclaimed or just written off?
In general the fuel thing feels a bit sleight of hand. But I expect the council tax rebate will go down well and restricting it to bands A-D is a good idea.
If it's from an Estate, it seems quite reasonable to recover it. Though I trust that someone has switched the heating to "frost" setting, rather than 22 C.
My mum's estate has been stuck with paying Council Tax on an empty house because probate has taken such a long time, due partly to it taking 6 months to get through the HMRC.
It has also been stuck with a 2 year delay to sell a shop which has been empty throughout for a similar because she passed away 3 days before the auction sale was due.
And therefore been stuck with insurance, partial heating bills etc.
🚨NEW 🚨 Bank of England says UK households must brace themselves for the biggest annual fall in their standard of living since comparable records began three decades ago, as it: - Raises interest rates to 0.5% - Says inflation will surpass 7% - Slashes GDP forecast - https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1489208574962249738
A similar stagflation nightmare is absolutely crushing the Biden presidency in the US, if the polls are to be believed .
Do the tories really think they can avoid the same fate here?
Lobby shd get reading all Simon Walters' hits cos we're shortly returning to illegal donations to secretly buy the PM/Tory leader + the Cabinet Office/Geidt coverups, deserving of a separate police investigation #RegimeChange https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1489164062885826560
He is LITERALLY calling him an ACTUAL kiddy fiddler.
Rather dangerous precedent to argue that the head honcho is responsible for his staff, knowing what Downing St staff were doing.
I rather suspect they are, so to speak, getting their excuses in early: if you're going to say Boris is responsible for civil servants in Number Ten, then surely SKS is responsible for what his staff did when he was DPP.
NEW: Johnson backs down on his Starmer Savile comments:
"I'm talking not about the leader of the opposition's personal record when he was when he was DPP and I totally understand that he had nothing to do personally with those decisions." https://twitter.com/WJames_Reuters/status/1489226095526301697
The whole UK is screwed, demographically, but at least RUK has some future taxpayers (children) by 2045.
Migration is the massive unknown in all that though... the bane of demographers. I would guess that an independent Scotland would have a much more migrant-friendly set of policies than the UK.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
iScotland is entitled to a fair share of UK assets (as well as liabilities). It is just that there are no UK assets that cover pensions. I suppose if people want to pretend that some of the assets iScotland receives are for pensions that is a matter for them. But there can be no additional transfer of UK assets specifically for pensions.
NEW: Johnson backs down on his Starmer Savile comments:
"I'm talking not about the leader of the opposition's personal record when he was when he was DPP and I totally understand that he had nothing to do personally with those decisions." https://twitter.com/WJames_Reuters/status/1489226095526301697
Damage done, can't be unsaid. What a f*****' weasel.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
🚨NEW 🚨 Bank of England says UK households must brace themselves for the biggest annual fall in their standard of living since comparable records began three decades ago, as it: - Raises interest rates to 0.5% - Says inflation will surpass 7% - Slashes GDP forecast - https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1489208574962249738
A similar stagflation nightmare is absolutely crushing the Biden presidency in the US, if the polls are to be believed .
Do the tories really think they can avoid the same fate here?
At some point soon, the costs of the extraordinary government pandemic spending will need to start being paid back. It’s the same problem everywhere.
Not to mention that, in many parts of the world, the pandemic is still far from over, and there will be knock-on effects in industries like manufacturing and logistics until at least the end of 2023.
Seat belts on people, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Putting aside that it's written by economists affiliated to the AEIR (who were behind the GBD) and non-peer-reviewed, there are some HUGE issues: - It claims to be a meta-analysis, but fails to follow meta-analysis requirements (no objective Risk of Bias measurement, no heterogeneity value) - They claim to be doing difference-in-difference estimation, and that they have therefore checks whether each study they select uses diff-in-diff but the studies they cite at absurdly high weightings don't use this or even mention it. - They go through studies and end up claiming that this one or that one have conclusions that are non-intuitive. Their own conclusions are that neither border closures nor lockdowns have any discernible effect. Which implies therefore that Australia and New Zealand were just lucky and their border closures and lockdowns didn't help in any way, which I would see as quite non-intuitive - It uses as criteria for quality of studies whether they are written by social studies (including economics) or others (including epidemiologists). This means that they weight an obscure study by economists in a journal flagged as a predatory one with a weight of 7,390 (so it swamps all of the other ones in its table, which were weighted at 119, 248, n/a, 26, 11, and 256. As it happens, they've interpreted that article as saying there are no effects. - The one weighted at 11 finds large effects, but it is seen as low quality because it is a study on epidemiology written by epidemiologists (and therefore low quality) rather than economists (which would be high quality)! - The study that overwhelms the others actually concludes: "... The findings suggest that the implementation of less strict intervention measures is not effective in reducing the number of deaths, whereas interventions at higher levels of severity reduce deaths.
In addition, the authors of [18] found that the greater the strength of government interventions is at an early stage, the more effective the interventions are in decreasing or reversing the mortality rate. Findings from [19] also suggest that higher government stringency is a key predictor for the cumulative number of cases. Therefore, quick and early action by the government in imposing strict measures is important in slowing down the spread of the virus."
... and ...
"... 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"
Oh, God, it gets better. Someone pointed out something I missed: "Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)."
According to this paper, Sweden went into lockdown.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
There is an asset in the (not invalid) sense I'm framing it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible the UKG will simply say piss off to this argument, refuse to assign any value at all, make a zero adjustment for it in the separation settlement, but I just sense that people are maybe being a bit too simplistic on this issue and therefore a bit too certain about how it would be resolved.
🚨NEW 🚨 Bank of England says UK households must brace themselves for the biggest annual fall in their standard of living since comparable records began three decades ago, as it: - Raises interest rates to 0.5% - Says inflation will surpass 7% - Slashes GDP forecast - https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1489208574962249738
A similar stagflation nightmare is absolutely crushing the Biden presidency in the US, if the polls are to be believed .
Do the tories really think they can avoid the same fate here?
A smarter smear merchant would have phrased attack on Starmer as something along the lines of "in the wake of failure to prosecute Savile, the CPS under Starmer leadership showed incredible ineptitude when then investigating wider issue of historic child sex abuse.....Rolf Harris showed a poorly prepared case lacking key available evidence and case such as the William Roche, where in a cursory glance at the evidence would have told you there was no case to answer...however in the former they did not proper investigate to find the available evidence and the later decided to prosecute a clearly innocent man."
You are getting your Savile attack in without directly saying Starmer was responsible for that particular case, but he did oversee an organisation who were absolutely f##king useless after that in regard to this issue.
So far as I'm aware current state pensions are paid out of current tax receipts the world over.
If every other nation is capable of funding it's state pension this way, surely an independent Scotland would be able to as well? Or don't the Scot Nats agree? Leaving aside any moral or technical points there is zero chance of a UK government agreeing to cover the liability.
One of the silliest discussions on pb for quite a while.
A smarter smear merchant would have phrased attack on Starmer as something along the lines of "in the wake of failure to prosecute Savile, the CPS under Starmer leadership showed incredible ineptitude in investigating cases of historic child sex abuse.....Rolf Harris showed a properly prepared case and case such as the William Roche, where in a cursory glance at the evidence would have told you there was no case to answer...however in the former they did not proper investigate to find the available evidence and the later decided to prosecute a clearly innocent man."
BoZo said those investigations were "spaffing money up the wall"
A smarter smear merchant would have phrased attack on Starmer as something along the lines of "in the wake of failure to prosecute Savile, the CPS under Starmer leadership showed incredible ineptitude in investigating cases of historic child sex abuse.....Rolf Harris showed a properly prepared case and case such as the William Roche, where in a cursory glance at the evidence would have told you there was no case to answer...however in the former they did not proper investigate to find the available evidence and the later decided to prosecute a clearly innocent man."
BoZo said those investigations were "spaffing money up the wall"
Well they were, given the CPS were making a total hash of them....
The William Roche case was absolutely "spaffing money up the wall", it should have taken 10 mins to work out it was nonsense. So you said he drove which car, checks records no he didn't, you said he lived where, checks records no he didn't, you said he abused you on what date, checks records he was on set all that day...
🚨NEW 🚨 Bank of England says UK households must brace themselves for the biggest annual fall in their standard of living since comparable records began three decades ago, as it: - Raises interest rates to 0.5% - Says inflation will surpass 7% - Slashes GDP forecast - https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1489208574962249738
A similar stagflation nightmare is absolutely crushing the Biden presidency in the US, if the polls are to be believed .
Do the tories really think they can avoid the same fate here?
70s redux, even down to the energy price shock.
Even if the tories ever did rediscover Thatcherism in a future in opposition, nobody would ever believe them.
A smarter smear merchant would have phrased attack on Starmer as something along the lines of "in the wake of failure to prosecute Savile, the CPS under Starmer leadership showed incredible ineptitude when then investigating wider issue of historic child sex abuse.....Rolf Harris showed a poorly prepared case and case such as the William Roche, where in a cursory glance at the evidence would have told you there was no case to answer...however in the former they did not proper investigate to find the available evidence and the later decided to prosecute a clearly innocent man."
You are getting your Savile attack in without directly saying Starmer was responsible for that particular case, but he did oversee an organisation who were absolutely f##king useless after that in regard to this issue.
I’ve been away for a few days, where did this story come from?
Presumably it’s correct, that Starmer was DPP when the decision not to charge Jimmy Savile was made?
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.
In the words of Blackadder: Seen it, pinched it, spent it! And the same goes for the two farthings Baldrick thinks he's got hidden inside that mouldy potato."
Our state pensions do not have any fund. There are some in local government and education and they would be split but paying pensions is done out of current expenditure and that will be Scotland's expenditure for those living here.
A smarter smear merchant would have phrased attack on Starmer as something along the lines of "in the wake of failure to prosecute Savile, the CPS under Starmer leadership showed incredible ineptitude when then investigating wider issue of historic child sex abuse.....Rolf Harris showed a poorly prepared case and case such as the William Roche, where in a cursory glance at the evidence would have told you there was no case to answer...however in the former they did not proper investigate to find the available evidence and the later decided to prosecute a clearly innocent man."
You are getting your Savile attack in without directly saying Starmer was responsible for that particular case, but he did oversee an organisation who were absolutely f##king useless after that in regard to this issue.
I’ve been away for a few days, where did this story come from?
Presumably it’s correct, that Starmer was DPP when the decision not to charge Jimmy Savile was made?
This is the smear that Boris clumsily deployed. Starmer wasn't responsible for Savile, somebody else reviewed a number of cases and decided not enough evidence to move forward. Starmer then became DPP, ordered an investigation and then apologised for the organisations failures.
As I say, there are actual total f##k ups when Starmer was responsible based on outcry after Savile, where high profile individuals who were innocent were investigated / charged and others who weren't they nearly got away with it.
Which then snowballed in to Nonce Finder General Watson smearing the Tories in parliament over the Carl Beech lies.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
I think an eg 10 year lease on Faslane while HMG decides where they want to relocate Nukesville and in what form will be a massive counter in negotiations, since both Cons and Lab give the impression of being extremely attached to that particular status symbol.
I look forward to the chaps who insisted that Brexit UK held all the cards quashing that suggestion.
It is about reasonable expectations of financially unsophisticated tax payers. You cannot shake people down all their working lives for National INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS and then explain that they aren't actually contributions *to* anything nor insurance *against* anything, that's just marketing spin, because of some irrelevant bollocks about pots. There's a Bonzo song with some dialogue in it "your shirts will be ready in 3 weeks" "your sign says 24 hour laundry" "Oh no, that's just the name of the shop, dear."
If you want a government in Westminster to keep political promises to you then keep the power to vote for MPs at Westminster.
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Putting aside that it's written by economists affiliated to the AEIR (who were behind the GBD) and non-peer-reviewed, there are some HUGE issues: - It claims to be a meta-analysis, but fails to follow meta-analysis requirements (no objective Risk of Bias measurement, no heterogeneity value) - They claim to be doing difference-in-difference estimation, and that they have therefore checks whether each study they select uses diff-in-diff but the studies they cite at absurdly high weightings don't use this or even mention it. - They go through studies and end up claiming that this one or that one have conclusions that are non-intuitive. Their own conclusions are that neither border closures nor lockdowns have any discernible effect. Which implies therefore that Australia and New Zealand were just lucky and their border closures and lockdowns didn't help in any way, which I would see as quite non-intuitive - It uses as criteria for quality of studies whether they are written by social studies (including economics) or others (including epidemiologists). This means that they weight an obscure study by economists in a journal flagged as a predatory one with a weight of 7,390 (so it swamps all of the other ones in its table, which were weighted at 119, 248, n/a, 26, 11, and 256. As it happens, they've interpreted that article as saying there are no effects. - The one weighted at 11 finds large effects, but it is seen as low quality because it is a study on epidemiology written by epidemiologists (and therefore low quality) rather than economists (which would be high quality)! - The study that overwhelms the others actually concludes: "... The findings suggest that the implementation of less strict intervention measures is not effective in reducing the number of deaths, whereas interventions at higher levels of severity reduce deaths.
In addition, the authors of [18] found that the greater the strength of government interventions is at an early stage, the more effective the interventions are in decreasing or reversing the mortality rate. Findings from [19] also suggest that higher government stringency is a key predictor for the cumulative number of cases. Therefore, quick and early action by the government in imposing strict measures is important in slowing down the spread of the virus."
... and ...
"... 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"
Oh, God, it gets better. Someone pointed out something I missed: "Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)."
According to this paper, Sweden went into lockdown.
Takes us nicely back to the arguments that have raged on pb. "Its only a lockdown if you are welded into your house and allowed out once a year to shop" vs "wearing a mask in shops IS lockdown". Seems to me they need to reconsider just what is the best accepted definition of 'lockdown' before doing anything else. Reject!
Last night at my direction, U.S. military forces successfully undertook a counterterrorism operation. Thanks to the bravery of our Armed Forces, we have removed from the battlefield Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi — the leader of ISIS.
A smarter smear merchant would have phrased attack on Starmer as something along the lines of "in the wake of failure to prosecute Savile, the CPS under Starmer leadership showed incredible ineptitude when then investigating wider issue of historic child sex abuse.....Rolf Harris showed a poorly prepared case and case such as the William Roche, where in a cursory glance at the evidence would have told you there was no case to answer...however in the former they did not proper investigate to find the available evidence and the later decided to prosecute a clearly innocent man."
You are getting your Savile attack in without directly saying Starmer was responsible for that particular case, but he did oversee an organisation who were absolutely f##king useless after that in regard to this issue.
I’ve been away for a few days, where did this story come from?
Presumably it’s correct, that Starmer was DPP when the decision not to charge Jimmy Savile was made?
The story is that Boris is trying to link the names Starmer and Saville in rather clumsy and transparent fashion as a distraction. Whatever the situation at the DPP the clear intent as a political attack is just to have us mention the two names together as much as possible.
A smarter smear merchant would have phrased attack on Starmer as something along the lines of "in the wake of failure to prosecute Savile, the CPS under Starmer leadership showed incredible ineptitude in investigating cases of historic child sex abuse.....Rolf Harris showed a properly prepared case and case such as the William Roche, where in a cursory glance at the evidence would have told you there was no case to answer...however in the former they did not proper investigate to find the available evidence and the later decided to prosecute a clearly innocent man."
BoZo said those investigations were "spaffing money up the wall"
I hope that is not how he spaffs, No.10 is a government building not his personal property, and we already know he hates paying for tidying up the walls.
The whole UK is screwed, demographically, but at least RUK has some future taxpayers (children) by 2045.
Migration is the massive unknown in all that though... the bane of demographers. I would guess that an independent Scotland would have a much more migrant-friendly set of policies than the UK.
But even when we had Open Borders in the EU, almost no one wanted to move to Scotland. Because the weather is intolerably shit. That’s all there is to it
“I’d rather risk beheading by Taliban than live in Wick”
This man would literally rather have his head removed from his body, causing instant death in a geyser of bloody gore, than be forced to spend one more day in “Wick”, which is actually one of Scotland’s most attractive towns. So imagine the rest..
Scotland could open its borders to the entire world, no one would come.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
I think an eg 10 year lease on Faslane while HMG decides where they want to relocate Nukesville and in what form will be a massive counter in negotiations, since both Cons and Lab give the impression of being extremely attached to that particular status symbol.
I look forward to the chaps who insisted that Brexit UK held all the cards quashing that suggestion.
I think it quite likely a lot of people will reverse position on the ease/difficulty of various discussions and decisions that would need to happen.
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Putting aside that it's written by economists affiliated to the AEIR (who were behind the GBD) and non-peer-reviewed, there are some HUGE issues: - It claims to be a meta-analysis, but fails to follow meta-analysis requirements (no objective Risk of Bias measurement, no heterogeneity value) - They claim to be doing difference-in-difference estimation, and that they have therefore checks whether each study they select uses diff-in-diff but the studies they cite at absurdly high weightings don't use this or even mention it. - They go through studies and end up claiming that this one or that one have conclusions that are non-intuitive. Their own conclusions are that neither border closures nor lockdowns have any discernible effect. Which implies therefore that Australia and New Zealand were just lucky and their border closures and lockdowns didn't help in any way, which I would see as quite non-intuitive - It uses as criteria for quality of studies whether they are written by social studies (including economics) or others (including epidemiologists). This means that they weight an obscure study by economists in a journal flagged as a predatory one with a weight of 7,390 (so it swamps all of the other ones in its table, which were weighted at 119, 248, n/a, 26, 11, and 256. As it happens, they've interpreted that article as saying there are no effects. - The one weighted at 11 finds large effects, but it is seen as low quality because it is a study on epidemiology written by epidemiologists (and therefore low quality) rather than economists (which would be high quality)! - The study that overwhelms the others actually concludes: "... The findings suggest that the implementation of less strict intervention measures is not effective in reducing the number of deaths, whereas interventions at higher levels of severity reduce deaths.
In addition, the authors of [18] found that the greater the strength of government interventions is at an early stage, the more effective the interventions are in decreasing or reversing the mortality rate. Findings from [19] also suggest that higher government stringency is a key predictor for the cumulative number of cases. Therefore, quick and early action by the government in imposing strict measures is important in slowing down the spread of the virus."
... and ...
"... 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"
Oh, God, it gets better. Someone pointed out something I missed: "Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)."
According to this paper, Sweden went into lockdown.
Takes us nicely back to the arguments that have raged on pb. "Its only a lockdown if you are welded into your house and allowed out once a year to shop" vs "wearing a mask in shops IS lockdown". Seems to me they need to reconsider just what is the best accepted definition of 'lockdown' before doing anything else. Reject!
For one month, I had to take advance permission from the police to leave my house, and then only to go to the supermarket or pharmacy, once every three days. Speed cameras on all the roads were set to zero, and the police were handing out fines to anyone out. That was followed by two months of a 10pm-5am curfew, with the same enforcement.
I’d describe that as a lockdown, and not much less. There was no lockdown in the UK.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
I think an eg 10 year lease on Faslane while HMG decides where they want to relocate Nukesville and in what form will be a massive counter in negotiations, since both Cons and Lab give the impression of being extremely attached to that particular status symbol.
I look forward to the chaps who insisted that Brexit UK held all the cards quashing that suggestion.
"status symbol"
I doubt Ukraine would be having its current problems if it had not given up its nukes. At the urging of many nations, many of whom have now abandoned it to Russian aggression.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
I think an eg 10 year lease on Faslane while HMG decides where they want to relocate Nukesville and in what form will be a massive counter in negotiations, since both Cons and Lab give the impression of being extremely attached to that particular status symbol.
I look forward to the chaps who insisted that Brexit UK held all the cards quashing that suggestion.
The Americans have already offered to host it, in oven-ready facilities on the East Coast, as rUK builds up Furness or Devonport or wherever
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
I think an eg 10 year lease on Faslane while HMG decides where they want to relocate Nukesville and in what form will be a massive counter in negotiations, since both Cons and Lab give the impression of being extremely attached to that particular status symbol.
50 years if you want to keep the CTA.
It's the Scots exiting the Treaty of Union - what survives from that is not within their gift.
A smarter smear merchant would have phrased attack on Starmer as something along the lines of "in the wake of failure to prosecute Savile, the CPS under Starmer leadership showed incredible ineptitude when then investigating wider issue of historic child sex abuse.....Rolf Harris showed a poorly prepared case and case such as the William Roche, where in a cursory glance at the evidence would have told you there was no case to answer...however in the former they did not proper investigate to find the available evidence and the later decided to prosecute a clearly innocent man."
You are getting your Savile attack in without directly saying Starmer was responsible for that particular case, but he did oversee an organisation who were absolutely f##king useless after that in regard to this issue.
I’ve been away for a few days, where did this story come from?
Presumably it’s correct, that Starmer was DPP when the decision not to charge Jimmy Savile was made?
This is the smear that Boris clumsily deployed. Starmer wasn't responsible for Savile, somebody else reviewed a number of cases and decided not enough evidence to move forward. Starmer then became DPP, ordered an investigation and then apologised for the organisations failures.
As I say, there are actual total f##k ups when Starmer was responsible based on outcry after Savile, where high profile individuals who were innocent were investigated / charged and others who weren't they nearly got away with it.
Which then snowballed in to Nonce Finder General Watson smearing the Tories in parliament over the Carl Beech lies.
Starmer became DPP in 2008. The decision not to charge Savile was taken in 2009. That decision was not made by Starmer, but he was DPP at the time.
NEW: Johnson backs down on his Starmer Savile comments:
"I'm talking not about the leader of the opposition's personal record when he was when he was DPP and I totally understand that he had nothing to do personally with those decisions." https://twitter.com/WJames_Reuters/status/1489226095526301697
I guess he believed those reports about his comments there being a tipping point for some MPs more than I believed them.
A smarter smear merchant would have phrased attack on Starmer as something along the lines of "in the wake of failure to prosecute Savile, the CPS under Starmer leadership showed incredible ineptitude when then investigating wider issue of historic child sex abuse.....Rolf Harris showed a poorly prepared case and case such as the William Roche, where in a cursory glance at the evidence would have told you there was no case to answer...however in the former they did not proper investigate to find the available evidence and the later decided to prosecute a clearly innocent man."
You are getting your Savile attack in without directly saying Starmer was responsible for that particular case, but he did oversee an organisation who were absolutely f##king useless after that in regard to this issue.
I’ve been away for a few days, where did this story come from?
Presumably it’s correct, that Starmer was DPP when the decision not to charge Jimmy Savile was made?
SKS became DPP in November 2008. Given that the original investigation was in 2007-8 its very unlikely SKS was in charge at that time.
After the 2009 interview no prosecution was brought but that could be for multiple reasons including the fact the police didn't even bother sending a report to the CPS but it's impossible to know because
A spokesperson for the CPS said that, “in line with the established data retention policy”, none of the records for the decision not to charge Savile in 2009 were kept.
And for multiple reasons that data retention policy isn't keep everything for ever just on the off chance it was useful.
So far as I'm aware current state pensions are paid out of current tax receipts the world over.
If every other nation is capable of funding it's state pension this way, surely an independent Scotland would be able to as well? Or don't the Scot Nats agree? Leaving aside any moral or technical points there is zero chance of a UK government agreeing to cover the liability.
One of the silliest discussions on pb for quite a while.
"If every other nation is capable of funding it's state pension this way, surely an independent Scotland would be able to as well? Or don't the Scot Nats agree?"
Environment Secretary George Eustice says there have been 'no operational changes on the ground as yet' in terms of NI Protocol checks. He adds officials are still carrying them out while they seek "further advice" on whether to follow the DUP order to stop them.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
I think an eg 10 year lease on Faslane while HMG decides where they want to relocate Nukesville and in what form will be a massive counter in negotiations, since both Cons and Lab give the impression of being extremely attached to that particular status symbol.
I look forward to the chaps who insisted that Brexit UK held all the cards quashing that suggestion.
"status symbol"
I doubt Ukraine would be having its current problems if it had not given up its nukes. At the urging of many nations, many of whom have now abandoned it to Russian aggression.
Like independent Ireland quietly relying on the RAF, Indy Scotland would no doubt be quietly relying on the British army and Royal Navy, and ultimately nukes, to defend them. The virtue signaling hypocrisy is pungent
Monday: Boris Johnson makes Jimmy Saville claim Tuesday: No10 says PM stands by what he said Wednesday: Johnson doubles down in Commons Thursday: PM completely backs down
A smarter smear merchant would have phrased attack on Starmer as something along the lines of "in the wake of failure to prosecute Savile, the CPS under Starmer leadership showed incredible ineptitude in investigating cases of historic child sex abuse.....Rolf Harris showed a properly prepared case and case such as the William Roche, where in a cursory glance at the evidence would have told you there was no case to answer...however in the former they did not proper investigate to find the available evidence and the later decided to prosecute a clearly innocent man."
BoZo said those investigations were "spaffing money up the wall"
I hope that is not how he spaffs, No.10 is a government building not his personal property, and we already know he hates paying for tidying up the walls.
Waahey, I see we have a world class rUK negotiation team in the making on PB. Fair takes me back to the intemperate ranting and 'Scotland will be punished' vibe leading up to 2014.
🚨NEW 🚨 Bank of England says UK households must brace themselves for the biggest annual fall in their standard of living since comparable records began three decades ago, as it: - Raises interest rates to 0.5% - Says inflation will surpass 7% - Slashes GDP forecast - https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1489208574962249738
A similar stagflation nightmare is absolutely crushing the Biden presidency in the US, if the polls are to be believed .
Do the tories really think they can avoid the same fate here?
70s redux, even down to the energy price shock.
Now we have returned to pre-1973 Britain everything will be fine.
Johnson is claiming a key sovereignty benefit of Brexit is the ability to cut VAT on domestic energy. Johnson's EU-free Government is yet to cut VAT on domestic energy, meanwhile EU member Spain has already cut VAT on domestic energy.
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Putting aside that it's written by economists affiliated to the AEIR (who were behind the GBD) and non-peer-reviewed, there are some HUGE issues: - It claims to be a meta-analysis, but fails to follow meta-analysis requirements (no objective Risk of Bias measurement, no heterogeneity value) - They claim to be doing difference-in-difference estimation, and that they have therefore checks whether each study they select uses diff-in-diff but the studies they cite at absurdly high weightings don't use this or even mention it. - They go through studies and end up claiming that this one or that one have conclusions that are non-intuitive. Their own conclusions are that neither border closures nor lockdowns have any discernible effect. Which implies therefore that Australia and New Zealand were just lucky and their border closures and lockdowns didn't help in any way, which I would see as quite non-intuitive - It uses as criteria for quality of studies whether they are written by social studies (including economics) or others (including epidemiologists). This means that they weight an obscure study by economists in a journal flagged as a predatory one with a weight of 7,390 (so it swamps all of the other ones in its table, which were weighted at 119, 248, n/a, 26, 11, and 256. As it happens, they've interpreted that article as saying there are no effects. - The one weighted at 11 finds large effects, but it is seen as low quality because it is a study on epidemiology written by epidemiologists (and therefore low quality) rather than economists (which would be high quality)! - The study that overwhelms the others actually concludes: "... The findings suggest that the implementation of less strict intervention measures is not effective in reducing the number of deaths, whereas interventions at higher levels of severity reduce deaths.
In addition, the authors of [18] found that the greater the strength of government interventions is at an early stage, the more effective the interventions are in decreasing or reversing the mortality rate. Findings from [19] also suggest that higher government stringency is a key predictor for the cumulative number of cases. Therefore, quick and early action by the government in imposing strict measures is important in slowing down the spread of the virus."
... and ...
"... 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"
Oh, God, it gets better. Someone pointed out something I missed: "Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)."
According to this paper, Sweden went into lockdown.
Takes us nicely back to the arguments that have raged on pb. "Its only a lockdown if you are welded into your house and allowed out once a year to shop" vs "wearing a mask in shops IS lockdown". Seems to me they need to reconsider just what is the best accepted definition of 'lockdown' before doing anything else. Reject!
For one month, I had to take advance permission from the police to leave my house, and then only to go to the supermarket or pharmacy, once every three days. Speed cameras on all the roads were set to zero, and the police were handing out fines to anyone out. That was followed by two months of a 10pm-5am curfew, with the same enforcement.
I’d describe that as a lockdown, and not much less. There was no lockdown in the UK.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
I think an eg 10 year lease on Faslane while HMG decides where they want to relocate Nukesville and in what form will be a massive counter in negotiations, since both Cons and Lab give the impression of being extremely attached to that particular status symbol.
I look forward to the chaps who insisted that Brexit UK held all the cards quashing that suggestion.
The Americans have already offered to host it, in oven-ready facilities on the East Coast, as rUK builds up Furness or Devonport or wherever ...
So, today Sunak generously announced a 'buy now, pay later' scheme for people's energy bills. Yesterday, the Tories voted through a considerable cut in taxation on bankers' profits. Meanwhile, Sunak is outraged at a suggestion that the huge profits on Shell and the other energy conglomerates could usefully be taxed to contribute towards reduction in energy bills.
I wonder whether people will soon cotton on to the observation that the billionaire Sunak is only interested in levelling-up as long as it doesn't adversely affect the wealth and interests of himself and the rest of the rich.
🚨NEW 🚨 Bank of England says UK households must brace themselves for the biggest annual fall in their standard of living since comparable records began three decades ago, as it: - Raises interest rates to 0.5% - Says inflation will surpass 7% - Slashes GDP forecast - https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1489208574962249738
A similar stagflation nightmare is absolutely crushing the Biden presidency in the US, if the polls are to be believed .
Do the tories really think they can avoid the same fate here?
70s redux, even down to the energy price shock.
May I be the first to respond with the famous "first as tragedy, second as farce" quote from Marx?
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Putting aside that it's written by economists affiliated to the AEIR (who were behind the GBD) and non-peer-reviewed, there are some HUGE issues: - It claims to be a meta-analysis, but fails to follow meta-analysis requirements (no objective Risk of Bias measurement, no heterogeneity value) - They claim to be doing difference-in-difference estimation, and that they have therefore checks whether each study they select uses diff-in-diff but the studies they cite at absurdly high weightings don't use this or even mention it. - They go through studies and end up claiming that this one or that one have conclusions that are non-intuitive. Their own conclusions are that neither border closures nor lockdowns have any discernible effect. Which implies therefore that Australia and New Zealand were just lucky and their border closures and lockdowns didn't help in any way, which I would see as quite non-intuitive - It uses as criteria for quality of studies whether they are written by social studies (including economics) or others (including epidemiologists). This means that they weight an obscure study by economists in a journal flagged as a predatory one with a weight of 7,390 (so it swamps all of the other ones in its table, which were weighted at 119, 248, n/a, 26, 11, and 256. As it happens, they've interpreted that article as saying there are no effects. - The one weighted at 11 finds large effects, but it is seen as low quality because it is a study on epidemiology written by epidemiologists (and therefore low quality) rather than economists (which would be high quality)! - The study that overwhelms the others actually concludes: "... The findings suggest that the implementation of less strict intervention measures is not effective in reducing the number of deaths, whereas interventions at higher levels of severity reduce deaths.
In addition, the authors of [18] found that the greater the strength of government interventions is at an early stage, the more effective the interventions are in decreasing or reversing the mortality rate. Findings from [19] also suggest that higher government stringency is a key predictor for the cumulative number of cases. Therefore, quick and early action by the government in imposing strict measures is important in slowing down the spread of the virus."
... and ...
"... 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"
Oh, God, it gets better. Someone pointed out something I missed: "Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)."
According to this paper, Sweden went into lockdown.
Takes us nicely back to the arguments that have raged on pb. "Its only a lockdown if you are welded into your house and allowed out once a year to shop" vs "wearing a mask in shops IS lockdown". Seems to me they need to reconsider just what is the best accepted definition of 'lockdown' before doing anything else. Reject!
For one month, I had to take advance permission from the police to leave my house, and then only to go to the supermarket or pharmacy, once every three days. Speed cameras on all the roads were set to zero, and the police were handing out fines to anyone out. That was followed by two months of a 10pm-5am curfew, with the same enforcement.
I’d describe that as a lockdown, and not much less. There was no lockdown in the UK.
Sounds harsh. I really didn't intend to restart the "lockdown wars" but yes, there was a lockdown in the UK. The first one, from March 2020 on. It wasn't as draconian as some for sure, but there were no cars on the roads, most people stayed at home and only went out for exercise or to go to the supermarket/pharmacy etc. By any stretch that was a lockdown. Its just willy waving about how hard yours was to say otherwise.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
I think an eg 10 year lease on Faslane while HMG decides where they want to relocate Nukesville and in what form will be a massive counter in negotiations, since both Cons and Lab give the impression of being extremely attached to that particular status symbol.
I look forward to the chaps who insisted that Brexit UK held all the cards quashing that suggestion.
"status symbol"
I doubt Ukraine would be having its current problems if it had not given up its nukes. At the urging of many nations, many of whom have now abandoned it to Russian aggression.
Like independent Ireland quietly relying on the RAF, Indy Scotland would no doubt be quietly relying on the British army and Royal Navy, and ultimately nukes, to defend them. The virtue signaling hypocrisy is pungent
I wasn't actually making a point about Scotland, more that nuclear weapons capability may be a little more than a 'status symbol'.
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
I think an eg 10 year lease on Faslane while HMG decides where they want to relocate Nukesville and in what form will be a massive counter in negotiations, since both Cons and Lab give the impression of being extremely attached to that particular status symbol.
I look forward to the chaps who insisted that Brexit UK held all the cards quashing that suggestion.
The Americans have already offered to host it, in oven-ready facilities on the East Coast, as rUK builds up Furness or Devonport or wherever ...
Environment Secretary George Eustice says there have been 'no operational changes on the ground as yet' in terms of NI Protocol checks. He adds officials are still carrying them out while they seek "further advice" on whether to follow the DUP order to stop them.
DUP ask for something and resign. Meanwhile the checks continue as before...
It's a fudge but it's better for the DUP than what they actually want as blocking those checks will merely add another single point (and bring forward) the inevitable triggering of a border poll
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.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
Yes, I know what you mean. No ring fencing of contributions. All fungible. The state pension is an input to the annual spend side of the government's fiscal equation.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
Not really, there are no assets. Conceptually or otherwise. No one gets an annual statement of their lifetime to date NI savings pot because it doesn't exist.
Nonetheless, were independence to happen, this would more or less be the discussion about all kinds of claims on assets and responsibilities for future liabilities. It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
I think an eg 10 year lease on Faslane while HMG decides where they want to relocate Nukesville and in what form will be a massive counter in negotiations, since both Cons and Lab give the impression of being extremely attached to that particular status symbol.
I look forward to the chaps who insisted that Brexit UK held all the cards quashing that suggestion.
The Americans have already offered to host it, in oven-ready facilities on the East Coast, as rUK builds up Furness or Devonport or wherever ...
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.
Blinkered unionist will not be interested in reality, Carlotta is only capable of Scotland bad.
Russia on Thursday said it was closing the Moscow bureau of German broadcaster Deutsche Welle and revoking its employees' accreditations in Russia.
The Russian foreign ministry also said in a statement that it would "terminate the satellite and other broadcasting (output) of Deutsche Welle" on Russian territory.
Russia had earlier criticized a German broadcasting regulator's ban on German-language programming by Russia's state broadcaster RT as an attack on freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
I'm off to do that too - nice little place in Belsize beckons where they do a good selection of gins.
But just a final thought on the pensions question before I go - all other things being equal the UKG's net asset position would be lower if all the previous NI contributions had not been made by all the individuals who made them.
I think "no asset" and "it's all gone" whilst not untrue is not a full, fair and accurate summary of the situation.
Comments
Maybe Cressida can launch an inquiry.
Last night at my direction, U.S. military forces successfully undertook a counterterrorism operation. Thanks to the bravery of our Armed Forces, we have removed from the battlefield Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi — the leader of ISIS.
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1489219116732928004
In general the fuel thing feels a bit sleight of hand. But I expect the council tax rebate will go down well and restricting it to bands A-D is a good idea.
However those contributions have been received. Not ring fenced, kind of in the main spent (although you can't precisely say since it's all fungible), but conceptually you can make a case that there is some sort of asset there. Not one you can point to, or that covers a liability, but that some sort of asset is *inherently* there.
This argument - and any calc that flows from it - is what I can see playing a part in the separation negotiations. Therefore both of the extremes, nothing from UKG and UKG covering all Scottish pensions accrued to the date of separation, are imo unlikely to be what is agreed.
Gross Liability minus UKG settlement* = Scottish Liability picked up by SG.
* Where this is the calc/negotiation I'm talking about.
However, it will not be properly explained. It will require the Unionists to make the case - and to get a hearing.
Bryant is just a few weeks older than me. I can assure you a man of 60 wouldn't be inclined to pose in white underwear.
On the broader question I think they have spread themselves too thinly, lost quite a lot of editorial values, and subsequently gone for far too much dependence on sourcing stuff cheaply from social media.
Deal?
🚨NEW 🚨
Bank of England says UK households must brace themselves for the biggest annual fall in their standard of living since comparable records began three decades ago, as it:
- Raises interest rates to 0.5%
- Says inflation will surpass 7%
- Slashes GDP forecast
- https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1489208574962249738
Spender Sunak and NI Chaos Truss are now surely completely busted flushes for the Tory leadership. Who does that leave?
The remainers won't accept a Baker figure and the Spartans will never accept Hunt.
Cameron apologised for Bloody Sunday. At some point BoZo et al will be asked if he was responsible
I would guess that an independent Scotland would have a much more migrant-friendly set of policies than the UK.
My mum's estate has been stuck with paying Council Tax on an empty house because probate has taken such a long time, due partly to it taking 6 months to get through the HMRC.
It has also been stuck with a 2 year delay to sell a shop which has been empty throughout for a similar because she passed away 3 days before the auction sale was due.
And therefore been stuck with insurance, partial heating bills etc.
Swings and roundabouts.
From people I have met around the country for @itvnews it is clear an alarming number are already rationing heat and food due to rising cost of living
https://twitter.com/Chrisitv/status/1489218694383296522
Good work team Tory/DUP.
A similar stagflation nightmare is absolutely crushing the Biden presidency in the US, if the polls are to be believed .
Do the tories really think they can avoid the same fate here?
Lobby shd get reading all Simon Walters' hits cos we're shortly returning to illegal donations to secretly buy the PM/Tory leader + the Cabinet Office/Geidt coverups, deserving of a separate police investigation #RegimeChange
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1489164062885826560
"I'm talking not about the leader of the opposition's personal record when he was when he was DPP and I totally understand that he had nothing to do personally with those decisions."
https://twitter.com/WJames_Reuters/status/1489226095526301697
Long overdue.
It would be a hard negotiation on both sides, but it's fruitless to pretend it wouldn't happen.
Next door neighbours duking it out!
https://smarkets.com/event/42587852/politics/uk/by-elections/campden-vale-by-election
Not to mention that, in many parts of the world, the pandemic is still far from over, and there will be knock-on effects in industries like manufacturing and logistics until at least the end of 2023.
Seat belts on people, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!
"Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)."
According to this paper, Sweden went into lockdown.
The UK has one of the most youth-centric age profiles in Western countries.
Our median age is 41, compared to 47 in Italy, 48 in Germany, 42 in France, 39 in the USA and 38 in China.
What if it isn't?
You are getting your Savile attack in without directly saying Starmer was responsible for that particular case, but he did oversee an organisation who were absolutely f##king useless after that in regard to this issue.
If every other nation is capable of funding it's state pension this way, surely an independent Scotland would be able to as well? Or don't the Scot Nats agree? Leaving aside any moral or technical points there is zero chance of a UK government agreeing to cover the liability.
One of the silliest discussions on pb for quite a while.
The William Roche case was absolutely "spaffing money up the wall", it should have taken 10 mins to work out it was nonsense. So you said he drove which car, checks records no he didn't, you said he lived where, checks records no he didn't, you said he abused you on what date, checks records he was on set all that day...
Presumably it’s correct, that Starmer was DPP when the decision not to charge Jimmy Savile was made?
Seen it, pinched it, spent it! And the same goes for the two farthings Baldrick thinks he's got hidden inside that mouldy potato."
Our state pensions do not have any fund. There are some in local government and education and they would be split but paying pensions is done out of current expenditure and that will be Scotland's expenditure for those living here.
As I say, there are actual total f##k ups when Starmer was responsible based on outcry after Savile, where high profile individuals who were innocent were investigated / charged and others who weren't they nearly got away with it.
Which then snowballed in to Nonce Finder General Watson smearing the Tories in parliament over the Carl Beech lies.
I look forward to the chaps who insisted that Brexit UK held all the cards quashing that suggestion.
Reject!
Pizza-over shaped parcel turns out to be 10 box files.
Gah !
“I’d rather risk beheading by Taliban than live in Wick”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/8113251/afghanistan-refugee-taliban-scotland/
This man would literally rather have his head removed from his body, causing instant death in a geyser of bloody gore, than be forced to spend one more day in “Wick”, which is actually one of Scotland’s most attractive towns. So imagine the rest..
Scotland could open its borders to the entire world, no one would come.
I’d describe that as a lockdown, and not much less. There was no lockdown in the UK.
I doubt Ukraine would be having its current problems if it had not given up its nukes. At the urging of many nations, many of whom have now abandoned it to Russian aggression.
So that’s one lever gone
Anything else?
It's the Scots exiting the Treaty of Union - what survives from that is not within their gift.
I've put a bet on Belfast for Best Picture. Any views ?
https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/
After the 2009 interview no prosecution was brought but that could be for multiple reasons including the fact the police didn't even bother sending a report to the CPS but it's impossible to know because
A spokesperson for the CPS said that, “in line with the established data retention policy”, none of the records for the decision not to charge Savile in 2009 were kept.
And for multiple reasons that data retention policy isn't keep everything for ever just on the off chance it was useful.
Ah, well there you have it!
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1489229610357248002?s=20&t=eGUeRvVYIzcHj2P1uJ1aQA
Tuesday: No10 says PM stands by what he said
Wednesday: Johnson doubles down in Commons
Thursday: PM completely backs down
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-attempt-to-link-keir-starmer-to-jimmy-savile_uk_61fbd61de4b0c7df9747988a
I think I'll take a break - laters PBers
Feel the love, as Stuart D would say.
Johnson is claiming a key sovereignty benefit of Brexit is the ability to cut VAT on domestic energy. Johnson's EU-free Government is yet to cut VAT on domestic energy, meanwhile EU member Spain has already cut VAT on domestic energy.
Yesterday, the Tories voted through a considerable cut in taxation on bankers' profits.
Meanwhile, Sunak is outraged at a suggestion that the huge profits on Shell and the other energy conglomerates could usefully be taxed to contribute towards reduction in energy bills.
I wonder whether people will soon cotton on to the observation that the billionaire Sunak is only interested in levelling-up as long as it doesn't adversely affect the wealth and interests of himself and the rest of the rich.
Sadly.
DUP ask for something and resign. Meanwhile the checks continue as before...
It's a fudge but it's better for the DUP than what they actually want as blocking those checks will merely add another single point (and bring forward) the inevitable triggering of a border poll
The Russian foreign ministry also said in a statement that it would "terminate the satellite and other broadcasting (output) of Deutsche Welle" on Russian territory.
Russia had earlier criticized a German broadcasting regulator's ban on German-language programming by Russia's state broadcaster RT as an attack on freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-shuts-dws-moscow-office-withdraws-staff-credentials/a-60646973
But just a final thought on the pensions question before I go - all other things being equal the UKG's net asset position would be lower if all the previous NI contributions had not been made by all the individuals who made them.
I think "no asset" and "it's all gone" whilst not untrue is not a full, fair and accurate summary of the situation.