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.
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 ...
When ?
The idea that America is a reliable and guaranteed partner is fairly laughable. It may not even be a democracy by the time of Scottish independence. Even if it is, guarantees from the current administration mean zero to Trumpites. Indeed guarantees from Trumpites would also mean zero to future Trumpites.
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.
Feel the love, as Stuart D would say.
It would not be the most beneficial approach to take a 'they must be punished approach' but as seen with Brexit the political push to that being the approach cannot be discounted. Or the similar 'x is bigger so what they say goes or do you think y holds all the cards?' approach.
It didn't put off Brexit nor would it put off Sindy, but its bound to be vicious, emotional and probably lots of counter productive choices would be made even though cooperation would benefit both.
Not much point fooling ourselves it will be rationally decided, whether we are unionists or Indys.
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.
Unionists just lie about it , way it is going I would expect the UK to welch on any liability to anyone, given it is being run by a gang of shysters.
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.
So the person who did make the decision was reporting to Starmer at the time?
Hmm, reading other replies it looks like one of these he said / she said things from more than a decade ago, where few records were kept. Which does seem unusual given how well the police keep records, to the point that they just got told to destroy ‘non-crime’ reports by a judge, because they were appearing on vetting reports.
Obviously the government would like to remind people that, as DPP, his department screwed up and that he was responsible for the culture there - just as the LotO would like to remind us that the PM is responsible for the culture in No.10 etc.
Starmer may not have actually seen the Savile notes, but that may have been deliberate on his part. Or he may have known nothing about the case at the time, because the police screwed up and didn’t pass it along.
Sounds like a typical political debate, where there’s just about enough truth to it, but also enough missing detail to draw a firm conclusion.
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
There would certainly be a deal for RAF to operate out of Lossiemouth and protect Scottish/UK airspace, probably under the aegis of NATO. What might put a spanner in works is stupid demand to remove Trident forthwith. In practice Indy Scot would be put under huge pressure from US on this. It really isn't the killer bargaining chip our Yes friends are trying to persuade themselves it is.
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?"
Ah, well there you have it!
There seems to be a persistent meme that there is a pile of cash somewhere behind the pensions. There isn't.
Current pensions are paid from tax/government borrowing.
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.
Feel the love, as Stuart D would say.
It would not be the most beneficial approach to take a 'they must be punished approach' but as seen with Brexit the political push to that being the approach cannot be discounted. Or the similar 'x is bigger so what they say goes or do you think y holds all the cards?' approach.
This is exactly why the prospectus needs to be agreed before the referendum.
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.
Windfall taxes on energy companies will surely only lead to higher prices. Who would invest in getting new supplies when the profit motive is taken away?
Oil and Gas exploration is a pretty pricey business.
In the event of a yes vote there would be negotiations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, in line with the Edinburgh Agreement. One area these negotiations would need to focus on is who would take on the liabilities associated with paying the state pension. While there are to be no pre-negotiations, I would think the Scottish people would expect their Government to take on full responsibility for paying pensions to people in Scotland including where liabilities had arisen before independence. Similarly people in the rest of the UK would not be expecting to guarantee or underwrite the pensions of those living in what would then have become a separate country. The security and sustainability of pensions being paid to people in Scotland would, therefore, depend on the ability of Scottish tax payers to fund 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
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
As was demonstrated yesterday, with Lossie’s QRA Typhoons chasing bears away again. Presumably the Scots would like to defend their airspace?
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.
Just move the submarines to Kings Bay, SC until a base can be set up in Milford Haven. Besides, I thought the SNP were promising the nukes would be gone on day one of independence?
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.
Windfall taxes on energy companies will surely only lead to higher prices. Who would invest in getting new supplies when the profit motive is taken away?
Oil and Gas exploration is a pretty pricey business.
That didn't stop Shell making profits of £4.7bn in the last reported quarter. That's a phenomenal rate of return. Don't tell me that they couldn't afford to pay more tax without raising prices.
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.
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.
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?"
Ah, well there you have it!
There seems to be a persistent meme that there is a pile of cash somewhere behind the pensions. There isn't.
Current pensions are paid from tax/government borrowing.
For them with a particular interest in all this, I thought it telling that in one interview I saw Kate Forbes (Finance Secretary and heiress presumptive to Nicola) couldn't bring herself to explicitly agree with the new SNP line on pensions - just said she couldn't disagree with Blackford (the great pensions expert, apparently.) She may have come into line since.
Notably, the New Statesman's Scotland correspondent thinks she will find it difficult to reconcile her Christian faith with taking over from Sturgeon.
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.
Windfall taxes on energy companies will surely only lead to higher prices. Who would invest in getting new supplies when the profit motive is taken away?
Oil and Gas exploration is a pretty pricey business.
That didn't stop Shell making profits of £4.7bn in the last reported quarter. That's a phenomenal rate of return. Don't tell me that they couldn't afford to pay more tax without raising prices.
Did they not make a similar loss though in the previous quarters?
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.
Windfall taxes on energy companies will surely only lead to higher prices. Who would invest in getting new supplies when the profit motive is taken away?
Oil and Gas exploration is a pretty pricey business.
That didn't stop Shell making profits of £4.7bn in the last reported quarter. That's a phenomenal rate of return. Don't tell me that they couldn't afford to pay more tax without raising prices.
True, but oil prices also went below zero in 2020 and were very low for a long time, and as far as I am aware nobody stepped in to save jobs at Shell, and neither were they asked to.
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
There would certainly be a deal for RAF to operate out of Lossiemouth and protect Scottish/UK airspace, probably under the aegis of NATO. What might put a spanner in works is stupid demand to remove Trident forthwith. In practice Indy Scot would be put under huge pressure from US on this. It really isn't the killer bargaining chip our Yes friends are trying to persuade themselves it is.
Yeah, unless the SNP aren't planning on indy Scotland joining NATO now... but I've heard nothing to suggest otherwise.
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.
Windfall taxes on energy companies will surely only lead to higher prices. Who would invest in getting new supplies when the profit motive is taken away?
Oil and Gas exploration is a pretty pricey business.
That didn't stop Shell making profits of £4.7bn in the last reported quarter. That's a phenomenal rate of return. Don't tell me that they couldn't afford to pay more tax without raising prices.
Nearly anyone with a work pension (including NEST) will own a bit of Shell though. It literally has tens of millions of owners through pension schemes
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
There would certainly be a deal for RAF to operate out of Lossiemouth and protect Scottish/UK airspace, probably under the aegis of NATO. What might put a spanner in works is stupid demand to remove Trident forthwith. In practice Indy Scot would be put under huge pressure from US on this. It really isn't the killer bargaining chip our Yes friends are trying to persuade themselves it is.
Good old Toom Tabard joins the selective with reality mob
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
There would certainly be a deal for RAF to operate out of Lossiemouth and protect Scottish/UK airspace, probably under the aegis of NATO. What might put a spanner in works is stupid demand to remove Trident forthwith. In practice Indy Scot would be put under huge pressure from US on this. It really isn't the killer bargaining chip our Yes friends are trying to persuade themselves it is.
Good old Toom Tabard joins the selective with reality mob
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
As was demonstrated yesterday, with Lossie’s QRA Typhoons chasing bears away again. Presumably the Scots would like to defend their airspace?
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
There would certainly be a deal for RAF to operate out of Lossiemouth and protect Scottish/UK airspace, probably under the aegis of NATO. What might put a spanner in works is stupid demand to remove Trident forthwith. In practice Indy Scot would be put under huge pressure from US on this. It really isn't the killer bargaining chip our Yes friends are trying to persuade themselves it is.
Yeah, unless the SNP aren't planning on indy Scotland joining NATO now... but I've heard nothing to suggest otherwise.
They used to be anti-NATO until they realised it was voter-unfriendly. Angus Robertson presided over the volte-face some years ago.
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.
Tax energy producers when energy price rises are going to cause a social and political crisis? Suicide.
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
There would certainly be a deal for RAF to operate out of Lossiemouth and protect Scottish/UK airspace, probably under the aegis of NATO. What might put a spanner in works is stupid demand to remove Trident forthwith. In practice Indy Scot would be put under huge pressure from US on this. It really isn't the killer bargaining chip our Yes friends are trying to persuade themselves it is.
Good old Toom Tabard joins the selective with reality mob
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.
Feel the love, as Stuart D would say.
It would not be the most beneficial approach to take a 'they must be punished approach' but as seen with Brexit the political push to that being the approach cannot be discounted. Or the similar 'x is bigger so what they say goes or do you think y holds all the cards?' approach.
It didn't put off Brexit nor would it put off Sindy, but its bound to be vicious, emotional and probably lots of counter productive choices would be made even though cooperation would benefit both.
Not much point fooling ourselves it will be rationally decided, whether we are unionists or Indys.
I have no illusions now and had damn few in 2014. I think that's why so few people are now punting a rose tinted version of cooperation involving guff like a currency union.
If the current mob or their successors are still in charge, yes, it would be petulance and spiteful cutting off of noses all the way, but I think Starmer is capable of greater pragmatism. As long as Ian 'make natting illegal' Murray is kept away from negotiations..
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.
I'm only quoting the Scottish government.....
As if, pull the other one it plays bells
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.
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?"
Ah, well there you have it!
There seems to be a persistent meme that there is a pile of cash somewhere behind the pensions. There isn't.
Current pensions are paid from tax/government borrowing.
For them with a particular interest in all this, I thought it telling that in one interview I saw Kate Forbes (Finance Secretary and heiress presumptive to Nicola) couldn't bring herself to explicitly agree with the new SNP line on pensions - just said she couldn't disagree with Blackford (the great pensions expert, apparently.) She may have come into line since.
Notably, the New Statesman's Scotland correspondent thinks she will find it difficult to reconcile her Christian faith with taking over from Sturgeon.
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.
Windfall taxes on energy companies will surely only lead to higher prices. Who would invest in getting new supplies when the profit motive is taken away?
Oil and Gas exploration is a pretty pricey business.
That didn't stop Shell making profits of £4.7bn in the last reported quarter. That's a phenomenal rate of return. Don't tell me that they couldn't afford to pay more tax without raising prices.
The issue we've got is that we've made investing in oil and gas discovery uneconomic and we haven't mandated any regulated level of investment in other generation of electricity for market participation in the UK. So what we end up with is UK consumers getting creamed for huge profits and companies not bothering to invest and because "energy" companies are nothing more than brokers buying, selling and hedging futures on the market they have literally zero incentive to invest any capital in generation.
What we need to be asking ourselves is why Shell are making all this money and then only investing pennies into new electricity generation capacity. There's a lot of brute force ways of doing it too, mandating 10% of end user electricity bills should be reinvested in domestic generation capacity is simple and it would work. Bills might rise but at least we'd get some investment in new capacity.
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.
Windfall taxes on energy companies will surely only lead to higher prices. Who would invest in getting new supplies when the profit motive is taken away?
Oil and Gas exploration is a pretty pricey business.
That didn't stop Shell making profits of £4.7bn in the last reported quarter. That's a phenomenal rate of return. Don't tell me that they couldn't afford to pay more tax without raising prices.
Nearly anyone with a work pension (including NEST) will own a bit of Shell though. It literally has tens of millions of owners through pension schemes
Just a guess - the better off will tend to own a lot bigger bits of Shell than the poorest.
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
There would certainly be a deal for RAF to operate out of Lossiemouth and protect Scottish/UK airspace, probably under the aegis of NATO. What might put a spanner in works is stupid demand to remove Trident forthwith. In practice Indy Scot would be put under huge pressure from US on this. It really isn't the killer bargaining chip our Yes friends are trying to persuade themselves it is.
Good old Toom Tabard joins the selective with reality mob
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.
I'm only quoting the Scottish government.....
As if, pull the other one it plays bells
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.
Don't let things like documentation and actual facts get in the way of the Independence dream.
Equally what was said in 2014 may not be valid next time round (but it's hard to see how an independent Scotland can get rUK to pay anything on a long term basis).
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
There would certainly be a deal for RAF to operate out of Lossiemouth and protect Scottish/UK airspace, probably under the aegis of NATO. What might put a spanner in works is stupid demand to remove Trident forthwith. In practice Indy Scot would be put under huge pressure from US on this. It really isn't the killer bargaining chip our Yes friends are trying to persuade themselves it is.
Good old Toom Tabard joins the selective with reality mob
And what's your reality, old chap?
"England bad".
Don't give up the day job in the event anyone has been stupid enough to employ you.
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.
I'm only quoting the Scottish government.....
As if, pull the other one it plays bells
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.
Don't let things like documentation and actual facts get in the way of the Independence dream.
Equally what was said in 2014 may not be valid next time round (but it's hard to see how an independent Scotland can get rUK to pay anything on a long term basis).
The arguments will all be the same as in 2014, with the exception of the physical border issue which wasn’t really discussed at the time, but has become an issue due to subsequent events.
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.
So the person who did make the decision was reporting to Starmer at the time?
Hmm, reading other replies it looks like one of these he said / she said things from more than a decade ago, where few records were kept. Which does seem unusual given how well the police keep records, to the point that they just got told to destroy ‘non-crime’ reports by a judge, because they were appearing on vetting reports.
Obviously the government would like to remind people that, as DPP, his department screwed up and that he was responsible for the culture there - just as the LotO would like to remind us that the PM is responsible for the culture in No.10 etc.
Starmer may not have actually seen the Savile notes, but that may have been deliberate on his part. Or he may have known nothing about the case at the time, because the police screwed up and didn’t pass it along.
Sounds like a typical political debate, where there’s just about enough truth to it, but also enough missing detail to draw a firm conclusion.
As I said yesterday I would be very surprised if it wasn't someone very senior within the CPS that agreed the Saville decision. Saville was incredibly will known, he was still in many ways a national treasure due to his charity work and he was accused of terrible crimes. It was not a decision that would have been taken lightly due to the potential repercussions
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
There would certainly be a deal for RAF to operate out of Lossiemouth and protect Scottish/UK airspace, probably under the aegis of NATO. What might put a spanner in works is stupid demand to remove Trident forthwith. In practice Indy Scot would be put under huge pressure from US on this. It really isn't the killer bargaining chip our Yes friends are trying to persuade themselves it is.
Good old Toom Tabard joins the selective with reality mob
You pretend we are poor David but in fact we even have swimming pools in our cemetaries, think how good it would be if we had all our own money and not just a fraction of it.
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.
I'm only quoting the Scottish government.....
As if, pull the other one it plays bells
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.
Don't let things like documentation and actual facts get in the way of the Independence dream.
Equally what was said in 2014 may not be valid next time round (but it's hard to see how an independent Scotland can get rUK to pay anything on a long term basis).
The arguments will all be the same as in 2014, with the exception of the physical border issue which wasn’t really discussed at the time, but has become an issue due to subsequent events.
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.
I'm only quoting the Scottish government.....
As if, pull the other one it plays bells
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.
Don't let things like documentation and actual facts get in the way of the Independence dream.
Equally what was said in 2014 may not be valid next time round (but it's hard to see how an independent Scotland can get rUK to pay anything on a long term basis).
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
There would certainly be a deal for RAF to operate out of Lossiemouth and protect Scottish/UK airspace, probably under the aegis of NATO. What might put a spanner in works is stupid demand to remove Trident forthwith. In practice Indy Scot would be put under huge pressure from US on this. It really isn't the killer bargaining chip our Yes friends are trying to persuade themselves it is.
Good old Toom Tabard joins the selective with reality mob
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.
I'm only quoting the Scottish government.....
As if, pull the other one it plays bells
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.
Don't let things like documentation and actual facts get in the way of the Independence dream.
Equally what was said in 2014 may not be valid next time round (but it's hard to see how an independent Scotland can get rUK to pay anything on a long term basis).
Welchers ahoy
Um in 2014 the Scottish Government said they would have responsibility for paying pensions going forward - I find it strange that you think rUK is welching on something that the SNP accepted responsibility for
Mr. Divvie, the ultimate irony is that if Scots had voted yes then Scotland would be out of the EU and England, Wales, and Northern Ireland would still be in it.
I am just contemplating the tragedy of changing your name to "Corbyn Anti", then polling 241 votes for the English Independence party in the Batley and Spen by-election.
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
As was demonstrated yesterday, with Lossie’s QRA Typhoons chasing bears away again. Presumably the Scots would like to defend their airspace?
Pass the sick bucket
So will Scotland be maintaining an air force, or are they content to let the bears play in their back yard?
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?"
Ah, well there you have it!
There seems to be a persistent meme that there is a pile of cash somewhere behind the pensions. There isn't.
Current pensions are paid from tax/government borrowing.
For them with a particular interest in all this, I thought it telling that in one interview I saw Kate Forbes (Finance Secretary and heiress presumptive to Nicola) couldn't bring herself to explicitly agree with the new SNP line on pensions - just said she couldn't disagree with Blackford (the great pensions expert, apparently.) She may have come into line since.
Notably, the New Statesman's Scotland correspondent thinks she will find it difficult to reconcile her Christian faith with taking over from Sturgeon.
Just because her experience is Sturgeon and Boris doesn't necessarily mean that the lying is a mandatory part of the job.
Well, actually, I think it is. And I'll tell you why.
The only way IndyRef can be won is by persuading Scots they will be financially better off. You know, I know, and they know that cannot be so.
Therefore they have to be prepared to mislead and pretend black is white. And they can't have anyone in the front ranks of the SNP not prepared to do that.
I think this is why they have chosen to bring up pensions. It's obviously a complete nonsense to suggest RUK will have any responsibility to pay Scottish state pensions after Indy, but Indy doesn't work financially without it. So here's the test for SNP pols. Are they prepared to pretend to believe this publicly, or not? If not, they're out. It's a big test for Kate Forbes.
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
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.
So the person who did make the decision was reporting to Starmer at the time?
Hmm, reading other replies it looks like one of these he said / she said things from more than a decade ago, where few records were kept. Which does seem unusual given how well the police keep records, to the point that they just got told to destroy ‘non-crime’ reports by a judge, because they were appearing on vetting reports.
Obviously the government would like to remind people that, as DPP, his department screwed up and that he was responsible for the culture there - just as the LotO would like to remind us that the PM is responsible for the culture in No.10 etc.
Starmer may not have actually seen the Savile notes, but that may have been deliberate on his part. Or he may have known nothing about the case at the time, because the police screwed up and didn’t pass it along.
Sounds like a typical political debate, where there’s just about enough truth to it, but also enough missing detail to draw a firm conclusion.
As I said yesterday I would be very surprised if it wasn't someone very senior within the CPS that agreed the Saville decision. Saville was incredibly will known, he was still in many ways a national treasure due to his charity work and he was accused of terrible crimes. It was not a decision that would have been taken lightly due to the potential repercussions
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 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?"
Ah, well there you have it!
There seems to be a persistent meme that there is a pile of cash somewhere behind the pensions. There isn't.
Current pensions are paid from tax/government borrowing.
For them with a particular interest in all this, I thought it telling that in one interview I saw Kate Forbes (Finance Secretary and heiress presumptive to Nicola) couldn't bring herself to explicitly agree with the new SNP line on pensions - just said she couldn't disagree with Blackford (the great pensions expert, apparently.) She may have come into line since.
Notably, the New Statesman's Scotland correspondent thinks she will find it difficult to reconcile her Christian faith with taking over from Sturgeon.
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?"
Ah, well there you have it!
There seems to be a persistent meme that there is a pile of cash somewhere behind the pensions. There isn't.
Current pensions are paid from tax/government borrowing.
For them with a particular interest in all this, I thought it telling that in one interview I saw Kate Forbes (Finance Secretary and heiress presumptive to Nicola) couldn't bring herself to explicitly agree with the new SNP line on pensions - just said she couldn't disagree with Blackford (the great pensions expert, apparently.) She may have come into line since.
Notably, the New Statesman's Scotland correspondent thinks she will find it difficult to reconcile her Christian faith with taking over from Sturgeon.
Just because her experience is Sturgeon and Boris doesn't necessarily mean that the lying is a mandatory part of the job.
Well, actually, I think it is. And I'll tell you why.
The only way IndyRef can be won is by persuading Scots they will be financially better off. You know, I know, and they know that cannot be so.
Therefore they have to be prepared to mislead and pretend black is white. And they can't have anyone in the front ranks of the SNP not prepared to do that.
I think this is why they have chosen to bring up pensions. It's obviously a complete nonsense to suggest RUK will have any responsibility to pay Scottish state pensions after Indy, but Indy doesn't work financially without it. So here's the test for SNP pols. Are they prepared to pretend to believe this publicly, or not? If not, they're out. It's a big test for Kate Forbes.
How many more Malcolm’s are lurking in Scotland? Presumably quite a few
2) a) England/Wales/Northern Ireland tax + UK borrowing -> England/Wales/Northern Ireland pensions spending b) Scotland tax + Scotland borrowing -> Scotland pensions spending
It’s only wrong if you’re trying to sell the idea that Scotland borrowing isn’t required, because that leads to further questions about currency and the existing £2trn debt pile.
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.
(I know I keep coming back to this, but the entire denialist method involves fire-and-forget on claims, as refuting bullshit takes longer than referencing it, but there's more)
He also reached out to the author of the obscure study weighted at over 90% of the meta-analysis (and thus essentially the meta-analysis simplified down to re-presenting it, but claiming the opposite of what the study authors concluded)
"I spoke to the author of the paper on whose research this entire meta-analysis was based, but who reached a diff conclusion.
She said: "They already had their hypothesis. They think that lockdown had no effect on mortality, and that’s what they set out to show in their paper.""
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
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.
(I know I keep coming back to this, but the entire denialist method involves fire-and-forget on claims, as refuting bullshit takes longer than referencing it, but there's more)
He also reached out to the author of the obscure study weighted at over 90% of the meta-analysis (and thus essentially the meta-analysis simplified down to re-presenting it, but claiming the opposite of what the study authors concluded)
"I spoke to the author of the paper on whose research this entire meta-analysis was based, but who reached a diff conclusion.
She said: "They already had their hypothesis. They think that lockdown had no effect on mortality, and that’s what they set out to show in their paper.""
Ha. Trouble is the science illiterate hacks out there will buy this as real science.
To me it sounds like a virus which targets killer elephants, which sounds like a good thing.
Or one spread by killer elephants, which would at least be self-defeating due to the elephants simultaneously killing the newly-infected and preventing further transmission. Quite an NPI.
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Trump certainly decided a permanent move from NYC to Florida was worthwhile
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
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
Outside the UK though they could only guarantee that support if in NATO, which Ireland is not in and the SNP has in the past opposed
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find trouble there if you are looking for it.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
No big American city is safe. Certainly not compared to Europe
But Miami doesn’t have the homeless problem nor the mad Democrat/BLM defund-the-cops politics
New York could implode 1970s style if the rich all up sticks. Who pays the city taxes then?
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Here’s a good, if a few months out of date, graphical representation of Americans moving around during the pandemic.
The biggest losers - San Francisco and New York
The biggest winners - more rural areas generally, Miami FL and Austin TX.
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find trouble there if you are looking for it.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
No big American city is safe. Certainly not compared to Europe
But Miami doesn’t have the homeless problem nor the mad Democrat/BLM defund-the-cops politics
New York could implode 1970s style if the rich all up sticks. Who pays the city taxes then?
I can't find the link, but there is a business owner in NYC who is an expert electronics repair guy and has lived in NYC all his life. He has recently moved out the city because of the cost + decline, but because he still have his business there has taken to walking around filming the streets. Its not a pretty sight.
He repeatedly makes the point the taxes too high, the rent too high, but owners of these properties are happy to sit on them because of the inherent value, even in the meantime it goes to shit. They think eventually it will all come back and so they don't need personally to be taking a hit on lowering rent now, as worried they won't be able to jack them up again afterward.
He did some calculations about how much business a food place needed and was basically saying you just aren't getting anywhere near, especially as soon as any sort of uptick in COVID. Basically said if you don't already have an established takeaway / restaurant, you are a moron to risk trying it now.
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.
As a general point it'll be challenging for the Cons to Level Up and at the same time protect all their vested interests. I'm not convinced they're up to it so probably one or the other has to go.
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.
(I know I keep coming back to this, but the entire denialist method involves fire-and-forget on claims, as refuting bullshit takes longer than referencing it, but there's more)
He also reached out to the author of the obscure study weighted at over 90% of the meta-analysis (and thus essentially the meta-analysis simplified down to re-presenting it, but claiming the opposite of what the study authors concluded)
"I spoke to the author of the paper on whose research this entire meta-analysis was based, but who reached a diff conclusion.
She said: "They already had their hypothesis. They think that lockdown had no effect on mortality, and that’s what they set out to show in their paper.""
Ha. Trouble is the science illiterate hacks out there will buy this as real science.
Oh, yes. I held my breath and went over the Toby Young's Daily Sceptic site. Yup. Top article, and it apparently proves that Toby was right all along.
And all his obedient disciples will believe it wholeheartedly.
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Here’s a good, if a few months out of date, graphical representation of Americans moving around during the pandemic.
The biggest losers - San Francisco and New York
The biggest winners - more rural areas generally, Miami FL and Austin TX.
Yeah if I was opening up a US based business today it would definitely be in Austin or Miami. California and NY state wouldn't even come into the equation. Very high cost of workers, very high cost of land and commercial space, very high taxes and the same or worse crime than Austin or Miami.
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
We are from the UK though, used to rain and piss poor weather :-) For that reason, I really like Pacific northwest and before COVID regularly visited.
NYC vs Florida....before COVID lots of rich business people already had homes in Florida anyway and all the snowbirds from the North for many a moon have gone to Florida for at least the winter months, often then moving their full time.
California gets plenty hot, especially in the summer. Also, I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it. I am sure it is the same for Mr Sandpit, he lives there full time, I am sure its still stupidly hot in the summer, but is well used to it all now.
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
We are from the UK though, used to rain and piss poor weather :-) For that reason, I really like Pacific coast and before COVID regularly visited.
I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it.
Yes. That is true. I lived in Taipei for seven years after all, and got used to it. It would be a better place without the climate though, of that there is no doubt. Almost everywhere I've been, the locals complain about the weather. Seems to be a common human condition.
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
Seattle and San Fran are also much better if you like homeless people on Fentanyl defecating on your pavement as they scream at illusory monsters
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
We are from the UK though, used to rain and piss poor weather :-) For that reason, I really like Pacific coast and before COVID regularly visited.
I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it.
Yes. That is true. I lived in Taipei for seven years after all, and got used to it. It would be a better place without the climate though, of that there is no doubt. Almost everywhere I've been, the locals complain about the weather. Seems to be a common human condition.
NYC though is particularly brutal, especially in the city itself. Again Mrs U lived there too. F##king ice cold all sodding winter, and then summer melt your tits off, where the heat never escapes because of the massive buildings trapping it all in.
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.
As a general point it'll be challenging for the Cons to Level Up and at the same time protect all their vested interests. I'm not convinced they're up to it so probably one or the other has to go.
The reality is that both Levelling up and protecting their vested interests have gone.
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
Seattle and San Fran are also much better if you like homeless people on Fentanyl defecating on your pavement as they scream at illusory monsters
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
We are from the UK though, used to rain and piss poor weather :-) For that reason, I really like Pacific coast and before COVID regularly visited.
I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it.
Yes. That is true. I lived in Taipei for seven years after all, and got used to it. It would be a better place without the climate though, of that there is no doubt. Almost everywhere I've been, the locals complain about the weather. Seems to be a common human condition.
NYC though is particular brutal, especially in the city. Again Mrs U lived there too. F##king ice cold all sodding winter, and then summer melt your tits off.
Beautiful in spring and Fall tho. So much sunnier than London
I miss the old confident New York City. I fear it will be gone for some time. Ditto all of the USA, really
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
We are from the UK though, used to rain and piss poor weather :-) For that reason, I really like Pacific coast and before COVID regularly visited.
I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it.
Yes. That is true. I lived in Taipei for seven years after all, and got used to it. It would be a better place without the climate though, of that there is no doubt. Almost everywhere I've been, the locals complain about the weather. Seems to be a common human condition.
NYC though is particular brutal, especially in the city. Again Mrs U lived there too. F##king ice cold all sodding winter, and then summer melt your tits off.
Beautiful in spring and Fall tho. So much sunnier than London
I miss the old confident New York City. I fear it will be gone for some time. Ditto all of the USA, really
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
We are from the UK though, used to rain and piss poor weather :-) For that reason, I really like Pacific coast and before COVID regularly visited.
I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it.
Yes. That is true. I lived in Taipei for seven years after all, and got used to it. It would be a better place without the climate though, of that there is no doubt. Almost everywhere I've been, the locals complain about the weather. Seems to be a common human condition.
NYC though is particularly brutal, especially in the city itself. Again Mrs U lived there too. F##king ice cold all sodding winter, and then summer melt your tits off, where the heat never escapes because of the massive buildings trapping it all in.
Spend your winter in Florida, your spring and autumn in New York City and your summer in New England on the coast, problem solved!
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
We are from the UK though, used to rain and piss poor weather :-) For that reason, I really like Pacific coast and before COVID regularly visited.
I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it.
Yes. That is true. I lived in Taipei for seven years after all, and got used to it. It would be a better place without the climate though, of that there is no doubt. Almost everywhere I've been, the locals complain about the weather. Seems to be a common human condition.
NYC though is particularly brutal, especially in the city itself. Again Mrs U lived there too. F##king ice cold all sodding winter, and then summer melt your tits off, where the heat never escapes because of the massive buildings trapping it all in.
Yeah. Must say I've little experience of that, but much of the middle and NE of US seems to have the worst of both.
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
We are from the UK though, used to rain and piss poor weather :-) For that reason, I really like Pacific coast and before COVID regularly visited.
I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it.
Yes. That is true. I lived in Taipei for seven years after all, and got used to it. It would be a better place without the climate though, of that there is no doubt. Almost everywhere I've been, the locals complain about the weather. Seems to be a common human condition.
NYC though is particularly brutal, especially in the city itself. Again Mrs U lived there too. F##king ice cold all sodding winter, and then summer melt your tits off, where the heat never escapes because of the massive buildings trapping it all in.
Even I thought New York in the middle of summer was stiflingly hot and humid, and I’d arrived from the Middle East!
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
We are from the UK though, used to rain and piss poor weather :-) For that reason, I really like Pacific coast and before COVID regularly visited.
I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it.
Yes. That is true. I lived in Taipei for seven years after all, and got used to it. It would be a better place without the climate though, of that there is no doubt. Almost everywhere I've been, the locals complain about the weather. Seems to be a common human condition.
NYC though is particular brutal, especially in the city. Again Mrs U lived there too. F##king ice cold all sodding winter, and then summer melt your tits off.
Arguably, the British Isles have the best - or at least the least bad - weather in the world. When was the last time the weather was genuinely uncomfortable? It got a bit nippy in the winter, but nothing a woolly hat can't keep out. It sweltered for a couple of weeks in the summer, but come on, it was a couple of weeks at most. It's very seldom longer. We have a relatively low proportion of hooray-isn't-the-weather-wonderful days. But we have very few my-god-when-will-this-weather-be-over days too.
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
Mrs U lived in Miami for a while, I wouldn't immediately say its a super safe place in terms of crime. You can find serious trouble there if you are looking for it, e.g. a lot of drug importation.
But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
I also think the weather is pushing it. If you enjoy baking in sweat all day and sleeping with Aircon on. And little variety except when there's a hurricane. Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
We are from the UK though, used to rain and piss poor weather :-) For that reason, I really like Pacific coast and before COVID regularly visited.
I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it.
Yes. That is true. I lived in Taipei for seven years after all, and got used to it. It would be a better place without the climate though, of that there is no doubt. Almost everywhere I've been, the locals complain about the weather. Seems to be a common human condition.
NYC though is particular brutal, especially in the city. Again Mrs U lived there too. F##king ice cold all sodding winter, and then summer melt your tits off.
Arguably, the British Isles have the best - or at least the least bad - weather in the world. When was the last time the weather was genuinely uncomfortable? It got a bit nippy in the winter, but nothing a woolly hat can't keep out. It sweltered for a couple of weeks in the summer, but come on, it was a couple of weeks at most. It's very seldom longer. We have a relatively low proportion of hooray-isn't-the-weather-wonderful days. But we have very few my-god-when-will-this-weather-be-over days too.
Right. I don't think unless you go to places that have the really extremes you necessarily realise this.
The first time I went to Latin America, I got off the plane at midnight and the humidity, man the humidity, it was just horrid and it never let up. I was going through like 3 t-shirts a day because I was just so stifled from the humid climate.
Or you go to say the more wild part of Canada in the winter, where its proper proper cold, every day.
I have never been to the sandpit, so I can't quite imagine what 40-50 degrees every day for months is like.
The £200 loan against energy bills is completely unworkable and will unravel. What happens when people move home? You get a final bill, move to a different property and often have a different supplier - how will the debt follow you, or will the loan be payable in full on your 'final' bill. Shambles ahead.
I assume it’ll be billed as 11p/day extra on everyone’s standing charge for the next 5 years.
So that would mean new households who never received the loan will also have to pay it back?
Yep. I made exactly that point upthread.
Also, oldies who get the loan and die before it’s paid back benefit.
It’s not a huge injustice in the scheme of things, but pretty shitty policy making, nonetheless.
I’d disagree. If it is repaid through the standing charge then there are going to be some anomalies but fundamentally all the government is doing is smoothing bills which they can do given size of their balance sheet
Comments
It didn't put off Brexit nor would it put off Sindy, but its bound to be vicious, emotional and probably lots of counter productive choices would be made even though cooperation would benefit both.
Not much point fooling ourselves it will be rationally decided, whether we are unionists or Indys.
But what do you think of the bet ?
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1489224674991091717?s=20&t=eGUeRvVYIzcHj2P1uJ1aQA
Hmm, reading other replies it looks like one of these he said / she said things from more than a decade ago, where few records were kept. Which does seem unusual given how well the police keep records, to the point that they just got told to destroy ‘non-crime’ reports by a judge, because they were appearing on vetting reports.
Obviously the government would like to remind people that, as DPP, his department screwed up and that he was responsible for the culture there - just as the LotO would like to remind us that the PM is responsible for the culture in No.10 etc.
Starmer may not have actually seen the Savile notes, but that may have been deliberate on his part. Or he may have known nothing about the case at the time, because the police screwed up and didn’t pass it along.
Sounds like a typical political debate, where there’s just about enough truth to it, but also enough missing detail to draw a firm conclusion.
Current pensions are paid from tax/government borrowing.
Oil and Gas exploration is a pretty pricey business.
In the event of a yes vote there would be negotiations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, in line with the Edinburgh Agreement. One area these negotiations would need to focus on is who would take on the liabilities associated with paying the state pension. While there are to be no pre-negotiations, I would think the Scottish people would expect their Government to take on full responsibility for paying pensions to people in Scotland including where liabilities had arisen before independence. Similarly people in the rest of the UK would not be expecting to guarantee or underwrite the pensions of those living in what would then have become a separate country. The security and sustainability of pensions being paid to people in Scotland would, therefore, depend on the ability of Scottish tax payers to fund them.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/scottish-affairs-committee/the-referendum-on-separation-for-scotland/written/10449.html
Besides, I thought the SNP were promising the nukes would be gone on day one of independence?
https://twitter.com/2351onthelist/status/1489235027686825992?s=20&t=eGUeRvVYIzcHj2P1uJ1aQA
Notably, the New Statesman's Scotland correspondent thinks she will find it difficult to reconcile her Christian faith with taking over from Sturgeon.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/scotland/2022/02/will-kate-forbes-be-scotlands-next-leader
If the current mob or their successors are still in charge, yes, it would be petulance and spiteful cutting off of noses all the way, but I think Starmer is capable of greater pragmatism. As long as Ian 'make natting illegal' Murray is kept away from negotiations..
https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20150221031257/http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/09/3492/7
What we need to be asking ourselves is why Shell are making all this money and then only investing pennies into new electricity generation capacity. There's a lot of brute force ways of doing it too, mandating 10% of end user electricity bills should be reinvested in domestic generation capacity is simple and it would work. Bills might rise but at least we'd get some investment in new capacity.
Equally what was said in 2014 may not be valid next time round (but it's hard to see how an independent Scotland can get rUK to pay anything on a long term basis).
Nicola Sturgeon wants to change the hanging of doors to improve airflow… that’s a posh way of saying chop the bottom of the doors off!
They are fire doors!!!
Well done @Douglas4Moray for showing up her ridiculous strategy.
https://twitter.com/Sandeshgulhane/status/1489210784722870278?s=20&t=eGUeRvVYIzcHj2P1uJ1aQA
1) England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland tax + UK borrowing -> England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland pensions spending
2)
a) England/Wales/Northern Ireland tax + UK borrowing -> England/Wales/Northern Ireland pensions spending
b) Scotland tax + Scotland borrowing -> Scotland pensions spending
The only way IndyRef can be won is by persuading Scots they will be financially better off. You know, I know, and they know that cannot be so.
Therefore they have to be prepared to mislead and pretend black is white. And they can't have anyone in the front ranks of the SNP not prepared to do that.
I think this is why they have chosen to bring up pensions. It's obviously a complete nonsense to suggest RUK will have any responsibility to pay Scottish state pensions after Indy, but Indy doesn't work financially without it. So here's the test for SNP pols. Are they prepared to pretend to believe this publicly, or not? If not, they're out. It's a big test for Kate Forbes.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/disclosure_83.pdf
She's talking in the last 40s of this vid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-22992986
How many gunshots outside your front door would it take for you to move? We just had 10 which might be over my limit.
https://twitter.com/b6nbrown/status/1489073378061213699?s=20&t=EJ7dYQeGkYe1onJpfi4FNw
Tom Whipple, The Times science journalist had been looking into it (quite rightly, as it would be a big story if corroborated) and not only had serious issues here:
https://twitter.com/whippletom/status/1489197128916389894
He also reached out to the author of the obscure study weighted at over 90% of the meta-analysis (and thus essentially the meta-analysis simplified down to re-presenting it, but claiming the opposite of what the study authors concluded)
"I spoke to the author of the paper on whose research this entire meta-analysis was based, but who reached a diff conclusion.
She said: "They already had their hypothesis. They think that lockdown had no effect on mortality, and that’s what they set out to show in their paper.""
Fascinating article in the FT about this today. Miami is booming as everyone moves there from NYC and California
“How Miami became the most important city in America”
Paywall, I’m afraid
NYC and San Fran are in particular trouble. Run by Democrat lunatics keen on more and more crime. Why stay in NYC and the cold if you can do everything from Miami? AND be safer? And pay much less tax? In the end a good opera house and nice art galleries only get you so far
dogselephants, just badly trained ones...But Texas and Florida are absolutely pitching themselves as being business friendly, nice weather, cheaper housing and doesn't have the skid row inhabiting "main street" of cities like SF, Portland, LA, and Seattle.
NYC is really suffering post COVID with mass amounts of empty store fronts. Businesses have gone bust, but rents too high for new ones to chance it. And that leads to lots of urban decay, which is a vicious cycle.
But Miami doesn’t have the homeless problem nor the mad Democrat/BLM defund-the-cops politics
New York could implode 1970s style if the rich all up sticks. Who pays the city taxes then?
The biggest losers - San Francisco and New York
The biggest winners - more rural areas generally, Miami FL and Austin TX.
Those moving - generally above average incomes.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-citylab-how-americans-moved/
He repeatedly makes the point the taxes too high, the rent too high, but owners of these properties are happy to sit on them because of the inherent value, even in the meantime it goes to shit. They think eventually it will all come back and so they don't need personally to be taking a hit on lowering rent now, as worried they won't be able to jack them up again afterward.
He did some calculations about how much business a food place needed and was basically saying you just aren't getting anywhere near, especially as soon as any sort of uptick in COVID. Basically said if you don't already have an established takeaway / restaurant, you are a moron to risk trying it now.
I held my breath and went over the Toby Young's Daily Sceptic site.
Yup. Top article, and it apparently proves that Toby was right all along.
And all his obedient disciples will believe it wholeheartedly.
Seattle and SF have much more palatable climates for me.
NYC vs Florida....before COVID lots of rich business people already had homes in Florida anyway and all the snowbirds from the North for many a moon have gone to Florida for at least the winter months, often then moving their full time.
California gets plenty hot, especially in the summer. Also, I think people get used to it. I know when Mrs U lived in Florida, I went over and melted, after a a year she was just used to it. I am sure it is the same for Mr Sandpit, he lives there full time, I am sure its still stupidly hot in the summer, but is well used to it all now.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1489247755834781699?t=wwWDwc-rNBmHQN1Mawlk4g&s=19
Almost everywhere I've been, the locals complain about the weather. Seems to be a common human condition.
I miss the old confident New York City. I fear it will be gone for some time. Ditto all of the USA, really
When was the last time the weather was genuinely uncomfortable? It got a bit nippy in the winter, but nothing a woolly hat can't keep out. It sweltered for a couple of weeks in the summer, but come on, it was a couple of weeks at most. It's very seldom longer.
We have a relatively low proportion of hooray-isn't-the-weather-wonderful days. But we have very few my-god-when-will-this-weather-be-over days too.
The first time I went to Latin America, I got off the plane at midnight and the humidity, man the humidity, it was just horrid and it never let up. I was going through like 3 t-shirts a day because I was just so stifled from the humid climate.
Or you go to say the more wild part of Canada in the winter, where its proper proper cold, every day.
I have never been to the sandpit, so I can't quite imagine what 40-50 degrees every day for months is like.
Nuvaxovid is now the fifth COVID-19 vaccine authorised for use within the UK.
Read more: https://gov.uk/government/news/novavax-covid-19-vaccine-nuvaxovid-approved-by-mhra…
#Novavax #Nuvaxovid #COVD19
https://twitter.com/MHRAgovuk/status/1489252791033815049?s=20&t=OoxHxT__z1uvzlbnJin5aw