OT Neighbours faces axe after being dropped by Channel 5. This is the real news.
The Australian soap Neighbours, which launched the international careers of countless local stars including Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan, Margot Robbie and Guy Pearce, has been axed in the UK in a move likely to sound the death knell for the iconic show.
I do like the fact that the BBC uses the same article (and words) and has a picture of Scott and Charlene! From about 1988 if I suspect rightly. It might explain the lack of popularity if you have to use a still from the show from nearly thirty five years ago.
Obviously HYFUD watches it, but does anyone else? I haven't even heard it mentioned by anyone as they watch it for well over a decade.
We visited Melbourne in 2011 and while there went on a neighbour's tour which was interesting
Since returning I have watched neighbour's largely because of this visit, but also my great affection for Melbourne and Victoria
It is rubbish but there we are, and I doubt I will be overcome with regrets once it is gone
I lived in Melbourne for most of the 90s and the attitude then was that Neighbours was "s**t only made for the POMEs".
They had the same attitude about Fosters too. I don't know any Aussies who drink that pisswater and I won't touch it either.
I'm amused anyone still watches it decades later and if its cancelled in the UK it's completely unsurprising that it would be cancelled down under too.
As I said Home and Away was always more popular in Australia but in the UK Neighbours has always been more popular than Home and Away
Soap operas in general seem to be in decline. Even staple ones like Eastenders and Coronation St don't seem to register in national conversation in the way they did 3 decades ago.
True, the rise of Netflix, social media and multiple channels has seen to that.
Coronation Street though is still always in the top 10 most watched programmes every week. Eastenders however is facing probably terminal decline
After the couple of years we’ve had, viewers want to be cheered up. Eastenders doesn’t do that.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
There are some interesting questions swirling around in this issue, not least the disconnect between the way that some people think pensions work and the way they do in reality. Some people have the impression of pensions being paid into a pot where, should you live to retirement age, you start to dip into. Of course, with state pensions that's far from the truth. But then it does wheel in the question of where and how value is stored in the economy. It's not just a cycle of tax - welfare - retail spend - tax... money also gets sunk into physical, geographically located assets. In the event of part of the UK becoming independent, the location of those assets becomes an important part of the equation. It would certainly be messy to sort out.
It would be very messy indeed, 100 times worse than the UK leaving the EU was.
There are tens of thousands of people in Scotland who work for the UK government, for a start.
10,000s of jobs available for rUK workers to apply for - a lovely upside for levelling up the midlands and the North.
Many more thousand's heading to Scotland so guaranteed net loss given the southern bias. You boy's are either not very bright or wear union jack specs.
So we are now at the point when a totally inept and dangerously incompetent Police Chief gets to decide whether our PM stays or goes? Give me strength.
No, because it doesn't matter what she says, he'll try and stay anyway. They move the goalposts. There are only five things that can remove him (Johnson) as Prime Minister:
1. A successful VONC by the Conservative Party against his leadership. 2. A successful VONC in the House of Commons against the Conservative government. 3. Defeat for the Conservative Party in a General Election. 4. A criminal sentence carrying a jail term of more than a year. 5. Death.
I've put them in order of likehood as I see it at the moment.
What Dick says is pretty much irrelevent.
All things being equal, someone of Boris's age has about 1% chance of dying within the next year. I reckon that's significantly higher chance of someone of his age being jailed for a year. Of course, I don't know of any specific health conditions or alleged criminal behaviour that could change these probabilities dramatically, but my instinct is still to put death ahead of jail in the order of likelihood.
Yes. I didn't want to go there, but death or serious incapacity ought to be higher. Not only is he carrying weight, but his lifestyle isn't ideal. Only part of it due to the nature of the job. What's more, a PM has a much greater risk of non peaceful offing than your average 59 year old bloke.
Yes, it's a dark place to go to, but if you're analysing possible political developments, it's part of the equation. A chronic but non-fatal illness is not just a possibility, but something that could be magnified by way of a face-saving excuse to resign. Such things have been talked about on here before today.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
I think the argument being made is that at the point of independence the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - which is the official state issuing your pension - would cease to exist. It is not just like you moving to another country or taking a new citizenship. The responsibility for issuing the pension would be split between the two new countries.
Of course this is a rather dangerous argument for the Unionists to propound because they have also previously said that England and Wales would be the successor state to the United Kingdom (rump UK if you like) and would therefore retain all the rights and obligations thereof - seat at the UN, membership of NATO, all the other positions on international bodies. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either they are the successor state (with Scotland splitting off) in which case they would have all the responsibilities as well as the rights of the UK, or the split resulted in two new states in which case both would seem to have equal claim to those rights as well as the responsibilities.
I don't know what the answer to that one is but both sides seem to be wanting to grab the rights (or at least deny them to the other) whilst avoiding the responsibilities.
So Scotland splits in 2030.
2032 General Election and a party comes along and says we aren't going to pay the pensions of Scottish Pensioners but will instead knock 2% of Income Tax. That party wins by a landslide, what does Scotland do?
I would assume that any meaningful Independence Treaty would cover the payment of pensions. And with the exception of the probable criminal currently residing in Number 10, all previous and hopefully future PMs have understood that you don't break treaties.
I think the argument being made is that at the point of independence the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - which is the official state issuing your pension - would cease to exist. It is not just like you moving to another country or taking a new citizenship. The responsibility for issuing the pension would be split between the two new countries.
Of course this is a rather dangerous argument for the Unionists to propound because they have also previously said that England and Wales would be the successor state to the United Kingdom (rump UK if you like) and would therefore retain all the rights and obligations thereof - seat at the UN, membership of NATO, all the other positions on international bodies. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either they are the successor state (with Scotland splitting off) in which case they would have all the responsibilities as well as the rights of the UK, or the split resulted in two new states in which case both would seem to have equal claim to those rights as well as the responsibilities.
I don't know what the answer to that one is but both sides seem to be wanting to grab the rights (or at least deny them to the other) whilst avoiding the responsibilities.
Whilst there is certainly that argument (that two new states come from one), when the Soviet Union simply stopped being, either the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic wrote to the UN and simply said that the RSFSR is to pick up the pieces.
The UN simply said 'fine' and everyone thinks the Russian Federation is the old Soviet Union rebadged (it seems it these days) but technically one country disappeared and fifteen came about.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
It's a fair question, though is a nation really independent if 80% of it's citizens are dual nationals? And then we get into double taxation treaties where the UK government would insist that any Scot/UK is liable for UK tax on their income, if that tax goes unpaid then the the benefit is withdrawn.
In the end it's such a ridiculous discussion because there's no real controversy. The newly independent nation takes on the pension liabilities for its citizens and pays them out of its newly created treasury and tax receipts. Where there are pension assets (such as DC government pensions) they can be split with a fairly simple formula based on population and proportion of eligible employees living north/south of the new border.
Of all the things that will need to change after potential independence, pensions are probably the least controversial. The border and CTA accession will prove the most difficult discussions, pensions will be a single line "liabilities will be transferred and any assets that exist will be split according to where the contributions were made". If they don't agree then there will simply be millions of pensioners in Scotland that don't get paid while the new Scottish government collects the same tax they've collected.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
There are some interesting questions swirling around in this issue, not least the disconnect between the way that some people think pensions work and the way they do in reality. Some people have the impression of pensions being paid into a pot where, should you live to retirement age, you start to dip into. Of course, with state pensions that's far from the truth. But then it does wheel in the question of where and how value is stored in the economy. It's not just a cycle of tax - welfare - retail spend - tax... money also gets sunk into physical, geographically located assets. In the event of part of the UK becoming independent, the location of those assets becomes an important part of the equation. It would certainly be messy to sort out.
It would be very messy indeed, 100 times worse than the UK leaving the EU was.
There are tens of thousands of people in Scotland who work for the UK government, for a start.
There are many more tens of thousands doing Scottish work for the government working in England. It would be a big net bonus by 10's of thousands.
Um, where? The customer facing Civil Service work for Scotland is I believe all in Scotland.
What you would lose is a few Government Departments / Quangos. For instance, Student Loans would move back to England (and should anyway given that it's a devolved item but that's by the by).
Now there is a valid argument that often the only work that was sent to Scotland is relatively low paid admin work but that's a completely different issue.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
There are some interesting questions swirling around in this issue, not least the disconnect between the way that some people think pensions work and the way they do in reality. Some people have the impression of pensions being paid into a pot where, should you live to retirement age, you start to dip into. Of course, with state pensions that's far from the truth. But then it does wheel in the question of where and how value is stored in the economy. It's not just a cycle of tax - welfare - retail spend - tax... money also gets sunk into physical, geographically located assets. In the event of part of the UK becoming independent, the location of those assets becomes an important part of the equation. It would certainly be messy to sort out.
I think that the assets are generally quite easy to sort out. Those in Scotland would go to Scotland, those in rUk would go to them. There may be some minor adjustments on things like embassies overseas etc. Liabilities are much more difficult. What share of the national debt will Scotland accept? Unfunded pensions are another one.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of immovable assets as a share of geographical area, and of population. It seems likely to me that fixed assets in Scotland are probably less valuable per capita than in the rest of the UK, but that's only a gut feeling. Politically, much of this detail would be of little interest to the average person, but I can imagine such figures would be red meat to the nationalist side, and fuel the story that England has enriched itself at a much faster pace than it's allowed Scotland to accumulate wealth. Of course, such a narrative also risks people in poorer parts of England making a legitimate point: "well we don't see the money either". This is a dangerous conversation to start for those who aren't interested in fixing such problems.
I can see nationalists seeking to make the point that the absurd bias in capital spending on London in particular should be reflected in the proportion of the national debt Scotland should take on but the counterargument is that Scotland has for some time now been getting significantly more than its share of current spending.
David, you get more like Toom tabard every day. Short memory , look at over the last 50 years and lo and behold for almopst that complete period we have shored up England and would not hav eborrowed a penny. You chisellers pretending England's debt is in fact Scottish is pretty pathetic.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
That may well be the case.
However, we are talking about what happens in a referendum vote and which way people will vote. You don't have to disagree with the line the English are sh1tting their pants to also thinking that worries about pensions are likely to influence people's votes.
Mr. Roberts, I especially like the Grand Canyon scale of cognitive dissonance from the SNP to believe these two things: 1) the English take too much from Scotland, we contribute far too much, they give us far too little 2) if we leave the UK the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) will voluntarily become the most generous neighbours in the world by funding the pensions of another country
Amazing the Little Englanders panic on here at the thought that their last colony is going to dump them, same sad group every time, pretty pathetic. Get a life.
As opposed to the most angry and pathetic of pathetic Little Scotlanders who is ignorant of what a colony is. You really do need to look up the history of your own country. It went into the union with England partly because it was bankrupt and also it's own attempt at colonialism failed and it wanted to jump on England's colonial coat tails, which it did most enthusiastically. Scottish universities provided a huge number of administrators for the colonies and the Scottish regiments the muscle. Scotland was disproportionately involved with the oppression of places like Ireland and the less enthusiastic colonies around the world.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
I think the argument being made is that at the point of independence the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - which is the official state issuing your pension - would cease to exist. It is not just like you moving to another country or taking a new citizenship. The responsibility for issuing the pension would be split between the two new countries.
Of course this is a rather dangerous argument for the Unionists to propound because they have also previously said that England and Wales would be the successor state to the United Kingdom (rump UK if you like) and would therefore retain all the rights and obligations thereof - seat at the UN, membership of NATO, all the other positions on international bodies. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either they are the successor state (with Scotland splitting off) in which case they would have all the responsibilities as well as the rights of the UK, or the split resulted in two new states in which case both would seem to have equal claim to those rights as well as the responsibilities.
I don't know what the answer to that one is but both sides seem to be wanting to grab the rights (or at least deny them to the other) whilst avoiding the responsibilities.
So Scotland splits in 2030.
2032 General Election and a party comes along and says we aren't going to pay the pensions of Scottish Pensioners but will instead knock 2% of Income Tax. That party wins by a landslide, what does Scotland do?
I would assume that any meaningful Independence Treaty would cover the payment of pensions. And with the exception of the probable criminal currently residing in Number 10, all previous and hopefully future PMs have understood that you don't break treaties.
But there is no way any Government is going to pay the State Pensions of those in a country who have left the UK and that is what the Scottish Government is claiming will happen.
Any Government agreeing to such a thing (which is a 30-70 year commitment to continually send a significant amount of rUK tax revenue into another economy) wouldn't last 5 minutes.
Has Rishi ever told the House of Commons he never attended a party in Downing Street during the lockdown period? Because that is why Boris will have to resign.
Don't think Rishi's every spoken in the House about it. He's mentioned it in interviews, IIRC, saying something anodyne.
Incidentally, we sometimes see pictures of him with a glass of beer in his hand, when we know he's teetotal; I realise it's 'publicity', but surely that's dishonest. Personally, while I do, I have no problem with people who choose not to drink alcoholic drinks. It's a respectable lifestyle choice which is different to mine, that's all.
I understand alcohol-free beer is a thing.
Admittedly, never met anyone who drinks it.....
I have done occasionally, when wanting to meet with friends and the only option was to drive. A couple of them now taste reasonably. I just don't really like soft drinks.
I think the alcohol free Heinekin is perfectly drinkable when socialising and driving. Certainly better than most of th soft drinks the pub offers.
Er no. It tastes sweet, like flavoured lemonade. It’s one of the worst frees IMO.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
It's a fair question, though is a nation really independent if 80% of it's citizens are dual nationals? And then we get into double taxation treaties where the UK government would insist that any Scot/UK is liable for UK tax on their income, if that tax goes unpaid then the the benefit is withdrawn.
In the end it's such a ridiculous discussion because there's no real controversy. The newly independent nation takes on the pension liabilities for its citizens and pays them out of its newly created treasury and tax receipts. Where there are pension assets (such as DC government pensions) they can be split with a fairly simple formula based on population and proportion of eligible employees living north/south of the new border.
Of all the things that will need to change after potential independence, pensions are probably the least controversial. The border and CTA accession will prove the most difficult discussions, pensions will be a single line "liabilities will be transferred and any assets that exist will be split according to where the contributions were made". If they don't agree then there will simply be millions of pensioners in Scotland that don't get paid while the new Scottish government collects the same tax they've collected.
That's obviously the answer, but it is politically bonkers that the SNP are setting up the issue in such a way that the UK government can rebutt it by saying "no pensions for Scotland". Why the hell would anyone serious about independence want to worry pensioners like this?
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
This was a question I was pondering last night. As an advocate of a harmonious and good will split between Scotland and England this is one of those issues that I think could cause more serious problems. How can a new country of 5 million people operate if, for example 1 or 2 million of its population choose to retain citizenship of another country? Can a country effectively operate with up to 40% of its population made up of non-nationals? I know that is probably at the extreme end of the likely number but it was something that got me thinking last night.
Yes, these are going to be be the very big issues to be decided. It’s entirely possible that we see migration of a million people across the border one way or the other, in the aftermath of a referendum.
If division of assets and debts are being based on population figures, the date of those statistics could be very important.
I think the argument being made is that at the point of independence the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - which is the official state issuing your pension - would cease to exist. It is not just like you moving to another country or taking a new citizenship. The responsibility for issuing the pension would be split between the two new countries.
Of course this is a rather dangerous argument for the Unionists to propound because they have also previously said that England and Wales would be the successor state to the United Kingdom (rump UK if you like) and would therefore retain all the rights and obligations thereof - seat at the UN, membership of NATO, all the other positions on international bodies. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either they are the successor state (with Scotland splitting off) in which case they would have all the responsibilities as well as the rights of the UK, or the split resulted in two new states in which case both would seem to have equal claim to those rights as well as the responsibilities.
I don't know what the answer to that one is but both sides seem to be wanting to grab the rights (or at least deny them to the other) whilst avoiding the responsibilities.
Whilst there is certainly that argument (that two new states come from one), when the Soviet Union simply stopped being, either the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic wrote to the UN and simply said that the RSFSR is to pick up the pieces.
The UN simply said 'fine' and everyone thinks the Russian Federation is the old Soviet Union rebadged (it seems it these days) but technically one country disappeared and fifteen came about.
Would it not be fair to say though that the size and political weight of the Russian Federation (in the world rather than just within the USSR) made that a rather obvious choice. Who would feel brave enough to say no?
I don' believe the UK carries that same amount of weight internationally.
And if what you say is correct then again England and Wales would have to pick up the responsibilities as well as the rights of the previous state.
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
I'm no longer a British citizen but the British government is going to pay my state pension if I live to 67 and continues to pay my AFPS75 RN pension.
You will give them a headache posting real information , they prefer their fevered imaginations.
Mr. Roberts, I especially like the Grand Canyon scale of cognitive dissonance from the SNP to believe these two things: 1) the English take too much from Scotland, we contribute far too much, they give us far too little 2) if we leave the UK the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) will voluntarily become the most generous neighbours in the world by funding the pensions of another country
Amazing the Little Englanders panic on here at the thought that their last colony is going to dump them, same sad group every time, pretty pathetic. Get a life.
I suspect a lot of people will be happy to let Scotland leave, but we won't be paying your bills for you after you've left.
You idiot you have never paid them and we will not need you to start either.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
There are some interesting questions swirling around in this issue, not least the disconnect between the way that some people think pensions work and the way they do in reality. Some people have the impression of pensions being paid into a pot where, should you live to retirement age, you start to dip into. Of course, with state pensions that's far from the truth. But then it does wheel in the question of where and how value is stored in the economy. It's not just a cycle of tax - welfare - retail spend - tax... money also gets sunk into physical, geographically located assets. In the event of part of the UK becoming independent, the location of those assets becomes an important part of the equation. It would certainly be messy to sort out.
I think that the assets are generally quite easy to sort out. Those in Scotland would go to Scotland, those in rUk would go to them. There may be some minor adjustments on things like embassies overseas etc. Liabilities are much more difficult. What share of the national debt will Scotland accept? Unfunded pensions are another one.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of immovable assets as a share of geographical area, and of population. It seems likely to me that fixed assets in Scotland are probably less valuable per capita than in the rest of the UK, but that's only a gut feeling. Politically, much of this detail would be of little interest to the average person, but I can imagine such figures would be red meat to the nationalist side, and fuel the story that England has enriched itself at a much faster pace than it's allowed Scotland to accumulate wealth. Of course, such a narrative also risks people in poorer parts of England making a legitimate point: "well we don't see the money either". This is a dangerous conversation to start for those who aren't interested in fixing such problems.
Wait until they transfer Uk government functions and employment from Scotland to England.
Google tells me there are 47,500 Uk civil servants in Scotland (10%).
That’s a lot of jobs for deprived areas of England - and while Scotland would need some they probably would need that many (my guess is a little more than half based on scaling to population and adding a bit for diseconomies of scale) - they would need to fund unemployment benefits for the remainder
Yes there were bad things done by Britain and the other colonial powers, but plenty of good too, including the spread of the rule of law and the growth of the British Empire, paradoxically led the way to liberally minded parliamentarians banning the slave trade.
Interesting that this is the portion of her letter that Royal Family Twitter chose to highlight:
In her message, she references the broadcast she made on her 21st birthday in which she pledged her life’s work to the people of the Commonwealth with the words:
“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
There are some interesting questions swirling around in this issue, not least the disconnect between the way that some people think pensions work and the way they do in reality. Some people have the impression of pensions being paid into a pot where, should you live to retirement age, you start to dip into. Of course, with state pensions that's far from the truth. But then it does wheel in the question of where and how value is stored in the economy. It's not just a cycle of tax - welfare - retail spend - tax... money also gets sunk into physical, geographically located assets. In the event of part of the UK becoming independent, the location of those assets becomes an important part of the equation. It would certainly be messy to sort out.
I think that the assets are generally quite easy to sort out. Those in Scotland would go to Scotland, those in rUk would go to them. There may be some minor adjustments on things like embassies overseas etc. Liabilities are much more difficult. What share of the national debt will Scotland accept? Unfunded pensions are another one.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of immovable assets as a share of geographical area, and of population. It seems likely to me that fixed assets in Scotland are probably less valuable per capita than in the rest of the UK, but that's only a gut feeling. Politically, much of this detail would be of little interest to the average person, but I can imagine such figures would be red meat to the nationalist side, and fuel the story that England has enriched itself at a much faster pace than it's allowed Scotland to accumulate wealth. Of course, such a narrative also risks people in poorer parts of England making a legitimate point: "well we don't see the money either". This is a dangerous conversation to start for those who aren't interested in fixing such problems.
Wait until they transfer Uk government functions and employment from Scotland to England.
Google tells me there are 47,500 Uk civil servants in Scotland (10%).
That’s a lot of jobs for deprived areas of England - and while Scotland would need some they probably would need that many (my guess is a little more than half based on scaling to population and adding a bit for diseconomies of scale) - they would need to fund unemployment benefits for the remainder
One imagines a lot of those 47,500 are administrating the business of Scotland and would be retained by the new Scottish government, again paid for out of taxes collected by the Scottish government. The UK government won't need to rehire most of those positions so unlikely to be any bonanza of jobs for Carlisle.
Has Rishi ever told the House of Commons he never attended a party in Downing Street during the lockdown period? Because that is why Boris will have to resign.
Don't think Rishi's every spoken in the House about it. He's mentioned it in interviews, IIRC, saying something anodyne.
Incidentally, we sometimes see pictures of him with a glass of beer in his hand, when we know he's teetotal; I realise it's 'publicity', but surely that's dishonest. Personally, while I do, I have no problem with people who choose not to drink alcoholic drinks. It's a respectable lifestyle choice which is different to mine, that's all.
I understand alcohol-free beer is a thing.
Admittedly, never met anyone who drinks it.....
I drink low and alcohol free beer. It’s fine. A nice option to have on a night out if you’re driving or just don’t want booze.
Low alcohol and alcohol free beer has come a long way from the 1990’s when I worked in pubs and only had Kaliber as an option. As others have said there are a few decent ones now, nicely filling the gap between booze and soft drinks. You do have to find what you like. Some taste like watered down beer. Some are plain weird. Ghost ship and nanny state are decent.
Punk AF is good too, and of the lagers Heiniken. Thornbridge do an AF Stout that is quite drinkable too.
Most contain some residual alcohol, so not truly alcohol free, and it is one of the fastest growing sectors of the market, Alcohol free wine is undrinkable though.
These are fine if you are going through a period of not drinking. You can actually adapt to them and give up alcohol completely, as I did for a year. The beers at 0.5% have a more authentic bitterness in my experience than the 0.0% beers, which just taste sweet.
I had an idea yesterday: Mix Punk AF with Punk IPA (or similar). You get a drinkable IPA at about 2.5% alcohol.
There used to be a beer round here called SPA, made I think by Gibbs. It may have been Salisbury Poor Ale but that’s a guess. It packed a hefty 3.0% abv, and my dad used to drink it as a safer option when driving (three pints equivalent to two at 4.5%). There probably is a market for similar beers. Not 0.5% etc, but in the 2 to 3 %.
Tougher in Scotland where limit is lower, dangerous even with one pint nowadays.
Yes, and I understand the reason being to leave no ambiguity about whether a pint or two is ok. Im generally happy with the England position as I like to have a beer after cricket, but if I have more than one it moves to shandy.
Old limit suited me , you could have a pint and not have to worry. Not up fpr drink driving but one pint would be no harm to anyone, meanwhile they can drive about stoned off their heads.
Interesting that this is the portion of her letter that Royal Family Twitter chose to highlight:
In her message, she references the broadcast she made on her 21st birthday in which she pledged her life’s work to the people of the Commonwealth with the words:
“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
Yes there were bad things done by Britain and the other colonial powers, but plenty of good too, including the spread of the rule of law and the growth of the British Empire, paradoxically led the way to liberally minded parliamentarians banning the slave trade.
Yes there were bad things done by Britain and the other colonial powers, but plenty of good too, including the spread of the rule of law and the growth of the British Empire, paradoxically led the way to liberally minded parliamentarians banning the slave trade.
Scotland was disproportionately involved with the oppression of places like Ireland and the less enthusiastic colonies around the world.
Nice that you take such an interest in my posts. These are not contradictory. One was illustrating that those who wish to wear hair shirts about our past may be looking at things too simplistically, the second was illustrating that the idea that Scotland is a "colony" (the chippy inferiority complex of some more ignorant Nationalists) is utter nonsense
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
There are some interesting questions swirling around in this issue, not least the disconnect between the way that some people think pensions work and the way they do in reality. Some people have the impression of pensions being paid into a pot where, should you live to retirement age, you start to dip into. Of course, with state pensions that's far from the truth. But then it does wheel in the question of where and how value is stored in the economy. It's not just a cycle of tax - welfare - retail spend - tax... money also gets sunk into physical, geographically located assets. In the event of part of the UK becoming independent, the location of those assets becomes an important part of the equation. It would certainly be messy to sort out.
I think that the assets are generally quite easy to sort out. Those in Scotland would go to Scotland, those in rUk would go to them. There may be some minor adjustments on things like embassies overseas etc. Liabilities are much more difficult. What share of the national debt will Scotland accept? Unfunded pensions are another one.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of immovable assets as a share of geographical area, and of population. It seems likely to me that fixed assets in Scotland are probably less valuable per capita than in the rest of the UK, but that's only a gut feeling. Politically, much of this detail would be of little interest to the average person, but I can imagine such figures would be red meat to the nationalist side, and fuel the story that England has enriched itself at a much faster pace than it's allowed Scotland to accumulate wealth. Of course, such a narrative also risks people in poorer parts of England making a legitimate point: "well we don't see the money either". This is a dangerous conversation to start for those who aren't interested in fixing such problems.
Wait until they transfer Uk government functions and employment from Scotland to England.
Google tells me there are 47,500 Uk civil servants in Scotland (10%).
That’s a lot of jobs for deprived areas of England - and while Scotland would need some they probably would need that many (my guess is a little more than half based on scaling to population and adding a bit for diseconomies of scale) - they would need to fund unemployment benefits for the remainder
Of course, transferring jobs from one end of the country to another would be a pretty poor idea given the fact that you'd need to train up a whole swathe of people in the new place, or simply hope that the existing staff are happy to just pack up and more a few hundred miles. A more sensible idea (and looking at the state of government right now, this is by no means guaranteed) would be to preserve the jobs where they are in the medium term and transfer the functions gradually. That would go in both directions.
It would require two countries to be comfortable with aspects of their civil service being done "abroad" but it's the kind of factor that I think ought to -- ought to! -- lead negotiators to realise that it's best to get a deal done and not grandstand.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Based on whatever the law says. There is no hypothecated pot of money or right to a pension
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
It's where we put the Whisky Export Duty....
No, you just don't sign a double taxation treaty with Scotland so Scottish citizens are liable for tax in the UK if they maintain UK citizenship. The whole discussion is ridiculous.
I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"
Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?
And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?
Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.
Yes there were bad things done by Britain and the other colonial powers, but plenty of good too, including the spread of the rule of law and the growth of the British Empire, paradoxically led the way to liberally minded parliamentarians banning the slave trade.
Scotland was disproportionately involved with the oppression of places like Ireland and the less enthusiastic colonies around the world.
Nice that you take such an interest in my posts. These are not contradictory. One was illustrating that those who wish to wear hair shirts about our past may be looking at things too simplistically, the second was illustrating that the idea that Scotland is a "colony" (the chippy inferiority complex of some more ignorant Nationalists) is utter nonsense
I agree with you that the use of the term "colony" for Scotland is absurd to the point of being offensive. I disagree with the very different tone you strike in those two posts. You're clearly trying to have your cake and eat it in terms of absolving and retaining blame.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
Now you are doing a Boris, where have I ever said there was a British Investment Fund. Take your Lies elsewhere sunshine or perhaps read and understand what people post. Hint "Liability" does not equal "Great British Investment Fund".
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
I wanted to retain my EU passport after Brexit, but I'm told I can't!
Well you can. Go live in the EU.....
Or find an Irish relative.
That reads very much like "suck it up losers".
Your first statement is also factually incorrect. More fake news from the Leave side.
Yes there were bad things done by Britain and the other colonial powers, but plenty of good too, including the spread of the rule of law and the growth of the British Empire, paradoxically led the way to liberally minded parliamentarians banning the slave trade.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
This was a question I was pondering last night. As an advocate of a harmonious and good will split between Scotland and England this is one of those issues that I think could cause more serious problems. How can a new country of 5 million people operate if, for example 1 or 2 million of its population choose to retain citizenship of another country? Can a country effectively operate with up to 40% of its population made up of non-nationals? I know that is probably at the extreme end of the likely number but it was something that got me thinking last night.
I think that at least this generation would have to have dual citizenship. My sister was born in Germany whilst my dad was stationed there. She had the option of German citizenship until she reached the age of 18 but then she had to choose. She chose by default and remains wholly British. If I had to choose between British and Scottish citizenship I would want to choose the former but it would obviously depend on what residency rights etc I retained. if I made that choice.
Good morning one and all. Although 'all' isn't many of us yet!
I see the 70th anniversary of the the Queen's accession, and consequent run up to the 69th anniversary of the coronation is beginning to stir leader and feature writers. Probably to the advantage of the PM. Something else to talk about.
Perhaps more instructive though that her mind seems to be dwelling more on death and the succession.
There is clearly something we are not being told.
Also rather instructive the way she seems to have taken to Camilla. Which I gather is typical of people who know her personally. One regiment she was honorary Colonel of thought the world of her because any time a soldier was injured she took the trouble to hand write them a note wishing them a speedy recovery, along with a bottle of good whisky.
Whether the Queen’s recent very public endorsements will be enough to overcome the lingering public hostility of Diana’s many admirers is a different question. The last thread suggests the answer is ‘no.’
Indeed, but the question is how many people that comprises. I'd guess fewer than there used to be, but still a fair number. It still surprises me - adultery is shameful behaviour but there is the matter of proportion.
As for her thoughts on death and succession and something we're not being told, she's 95 and her 99 year old husband died, the thought is bound to come up. Especially as she has fewer engagements.
I think her health is not great, and we are kept in the dark about this. Tbh we don’t have a right to know anyway, it should be personal. It does seem clear that wheels are turning though. I still think the jubilee is a gamble, although the well documented phenomenon of people staying alive just long enough for the big event (e.g Christmas, anniversary etc) only to pass quickly after may well happen. I had a disagreement with my m in l yesterday about the concept of the royal family. I abhor the fact that they are given special status, arising simply through chance of who they were born to. I would abolish the royal concept in a heart beat. And yet I have huge respect for the queen who has always shown the right way to lead and behave. And yet next we face the moron. He was unfairly treated over marriage, as clearly he should have been allowed to marry a divorcee. Ultimately that caused all the issues with Diana. But he still remains an arrogant, moron.
But, thanks to Camilla, he is now a humanised arrogant moron. She has been really good for him and I think the Queen is grateful.
If you want to skip Charles, just take him on a walk up Calton hill and point him in the direction of the new turd hotel.
I was vaguely tempted to have a night there just to see if its interior could match the ugliness of the exterior but searching for the Turd on booking.com didn't throw up any availability.
I’m sure the Turd will be available for mucho bookings when he leaves no 10.
I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"
Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?
And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?
Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.
In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
This was a question I was pondering last night. As an advocate of a harmonious and good will split between Scotland and England this is one of those issues that I think could cause more serious problems. How can a new country of 5 million people operate if, for example 1 or 2 million of its population choose to retain citizenship of another country? Can a country effectively operate with up to 40% of its population made up of non-nationals? I know that is probably at the extreme end of the likely number but it was something that got me thinking last night.
Yes, these are going to be be the very big issues to be decided. It’s entirely possible that we see migration of a million people across the border one way or the other, in the aftermath of a referendum.
If division of assets and debts are being based on population figures, the date of those statistics could be very important.
Deluded as ever , too much sun to be generous. What utter bollox.
Kwasi Kwarteng on Marr extolling the increase in the narional living wage from £8.90 to £9.40
Business Secretary and he cannot even get the rise correct. It rises to £9.50
Sorry but it just annoys me he could not quote the correct figure
Just another duffer.
Lol, please share with us your education oh wise one. We won't necessarily be that impressed that you think you got a First In Incoherent and Irrational Abuse from "The University of Life"
Interesting that this is the portion of her letter that Royal Family Twitter chose to highlight:
In her message, she references the broadcast she made on her 21st birthday in which she pledged her life’s work to the people of the Commonwealth with the words:
“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”
What an astonishing life, and service, it has been.
She hasn't been on the tills in Iceland for decades so let's not get carried away. The 'service' mainly consisted of getting taken to the races in a Rolls-Royce or grinning inanely at foreign children somewhere hot and dusty.
I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"
Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?
And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?
Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.
In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
Mr. Roberts, I especially like the Grand Canyon scale of cognitive dissonance from the SNP to believe these two things: 1) the English take too much from Scotland, we contribute far too much, they give us far too little 2) if we leave the UK the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) will voluntarily become the most generous neighbours in the world by funding the pensions of another country
Amazing the Little Englanders panic on here at the thought that their last colony is going to dump them, same sad group every time, pretty pathetic. Get a life.
As opposed to the most angry and pathetic of pathetic Little Scotlanders who is ignorant of what a colony is. You really do need to look up the history of your own country. It went into the union with England partly because it was bankrupt and also it's own attempt at colonialism failed and it wanted to jump on England's colonial coat tails, which it did most enthusiastically. Scottish universities provided a huge number of administrators for the colonies and the Scottish regiments the muscle. Scotland was disproportionately involved with the oppression of places like Ireland and the less enthusiastic colonies around the world.
Oh the cockroach has had his medication administered and is getting nurse to post some mince for him. Roll on lights out.
Yes there were bad things done by Britain and the other colonial powers, but plenty of good too, including the spread of the rule of law and the growth of the British Empire, paradoxically led the way to liberally minded parliamentarians banning the slave trade.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
This was a question I was pondering last night. As an advocate of a harmonious and good will split between Scotland and England this is one of those issues that I think could cause more serious problems. How can a new country of 5 million people operate if, for example 1 or 2 million of its population choose to retain citizenship of another country? Can a country effectively operate with up to 40% of its population made up of non-nationals? I know that is probably at the extreme end of the likely number but it was something that got me thinking last night.
I see that some fairly sensible countries have quite large foreign-born populations, including Singapore, Australia, Luxembourg, and Switzerland.
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
For defined benefit pensions like Civil Servants I expect a similar outcome to the one with the EU - for continuing State Pensions, why should English workers pay the pensions of Scottish pensioners?
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
Why?
Existing as in already reached pension age and are claiming. And because it’s the right thing to do - the contract with the state was fulfilled.
So what does the Scottish government do in this situation? Part of the independence process is transfer of current and future liabilities to the new state. If people don't want that to happen then they need to vote accordingly, not vote for independence then demand that the nation they voted to leave keeps their liabilities because the new one might not be able to meet them.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
There are some interesting questions swirling around in this issue, not least the disconnect between the way that some people think pensions work and the way they do in reality. Some people have the impression of pensions being paid into a pot where, should you live to retirement age, you start to dip into. Of course, with state pensions that's far from the truth. But then it does wheel in the question of where and how value is stored in the economy. It's not just a cycle of tax - welfare - retail spend - tax... money also gets sunk into physical, geographically located assets. In the event of part of the UK becoming independent, the location of those assets becomes an important part of the equation. It would certainly be messy to sort out.
It would be very messy indeed, 100 times worse than the UK leaving the EU was.
There are tens of thousands of people in Scotland who work for the UK government, for a start.
There are many more tens of thousands doing Scottish work for the government working in England. It would be a big net bonus by 10's of thousands.
Um, where? The customer facing Civil Service work for Scotland is I believe all in Scotland.
What you would lose is a few Government Departments / Quangos. For instance, Student Loans would move back to England (and should anyway given that it's a devolved item but that's by the by).
Now there is a valid argument that often the only work that was sent to Scotland is relatively low paid admin work but that's a completely different issue.
DVLC , HMRC to name but a few, pretty sure there are shedloads, and we would only lose the lickspittles at the Scottish Office which would be a huge bonus
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
Why?
Existing as in already reached pension age and are claiming. And because it’s the right thing to do - the contract with the state was fulfilled.
So what does the Scottish government do in this situation? Part of the independence process is transfer of current and future liabilities to the new state. If people don't want that to happen then they need to vote accordingly, not vote for independence then demand that the nation they voted to leave keeps their liabilities because the new one might not be able to meet them.
They can demand all they want, doesn’t mean we will. I however think we should.
Anyway, that's enough of my Sunday wasted on a something that will never happen. Football beckons, scored one and setup another last week and we still lost.
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
Why?
Existing as in already reached pension age and are claiming. And because it’s the right thing to do - the contract with the state was fulfilled.
Yes but the bit you are missing is that the Nats want to split the assets, but don't want to split the liabilities. They are essentially saying that they will leave the liabilites with the UK.
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
For defined benefit pensions like Civil Servants I expect a similar outcome to the one with the EU - for continuing State Pensions, why should English workers pay the pensions of Scottish pensioners?
To be fair, why should English workers pay the pensions of English pensioners either
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
This was a question I was pondering last night. As an advocate of a harmonious and good will split between Scotland and England this is one of those issues that I think could cause more serious problems. How can a new country of 5 million people operate if, for example 1 or 2 million of its population choose to retain citizenship of another country? Can a country effectively operate with up to 40% of its population made up of non-nationals? I know that is probably at the extreme end of the likely number but it was something that got me thinking last night.
Yes, these are going to be be the very big issues to be decided. It’s entirely possible that we see migration of a million people across the border one way or the other, in the aftermath of a referendum.
If division of assets and debts are being based on population figures, the date of those statistics could be very important.
Deluded as ever , too much sun to be generous. What utter bollox.
The Scottish answer to whether they think the population is higher or lower after a referendum, will tell us whether they believe they are arguing primarily about assets or about liabilities.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
Now you are doing a Boris, where have I ever said there was a British Investment Fund. Take your Lies elsewhere sunshine or perhaps read and understand what people post. Hint "Liability" does not equal "Great British Investment Fund".
So where will the money to pay for the Scottish State Pensions come from?
And why do you think any rUK Government would agree to continually send rUK tax payers money north of the border when those State pensions should be coming from Scottish tax payers money...
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
That may well be the case.
However, we are talking about what happens in a referendum vote and which way people will vote. You don't have to disagree with the line the English are sh1tting their pants to also thinking that worries about pensions are likely to influence people's votes.
Only for the ill educated MrEd. If they have enough braincells to take part then they will see that our pathetic UK pension is among the worst in the developed world and a banana republic could afford to continue to pay it.
I'm on the verge of betting on Boris Johnson staying until 2024. 4/1 on Ladbrokes.
I think he's an out-and-out turd but I'm unconvinced about this legend of the ruthless tory party. He's only had half a term in office and that was covid-ridden.
Are the tory MPs ready to see the writing on the wall? I'm not convinced.
Note the election may be 2023 rather than 2024.
It could also be 2025 once DACOP becomes law (see section 4).
Interesting that this is the portion of her letter that Royal Family Twitter chose to highlight:
In her message, she references the broadcast she made on her 21st birthday in which she pledged her life’s work to the people of the Commonwealth with the words:
“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”
What an astonishing life, and service, it has been.
She hasn't been on the tills in Iceland for decades so let's not get carried away. The 'service' mainly consisted of getting taken to the races in a Rolls-Royce or grinning inanely at foreign children somewhere hot and dusty.
I am not a Monarchist, but I quite like the Queen. Your statement is however factually correct.
Yes there were bad things done by Britain and the other colonial powers, but plenty of good too, including the spread of the rule of law and the growth of the British Empire, paradoxically led the way to liberally minded parliamentarians banning the slave trade.
Scotland was disproportionately involved with the oppression of places like Ireland and the less enthusiastic colonies around the world.
Nice that you take such an interest in my posts. These are not contradictory. One was illustrating that those who wish to wear hair shirts about our past may be looking at things too simplistically, the second was illustrating that the idea that Scotland is a "colony" (the chippy inferiority complex of some more ignorant Nationalists) is utter nonsense
I agree with you that the use of the term "colony" for Scotland is absurd to the point of being offensive. I disagree with the very different tone you strike in those two posts. You're clearly trying to have your cake and eat it in terms of absolving and retaining blame.
I have a strong interest in history, and being of part Irish ancestry, Ireland in particular, so when Nationalist Scots start pretending they are the oppressed rather than participants in other's repression I think it needs correction.
That said, many people look at historical matters far too simplistically, i.e. this good; this bad. There are somethings that you can say are categorically the latter, but such a judgement too often leads to bad analysis. It is generally as dumb as Malcolm's view that anyone that doesn't agree with his tunnel vision is a "moron", which is either highly ironic or more likely a simple case of psychological projection.
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
For defined benefit pensions like Civil Servants I expect a similar outcome to the one with the EU - for continuing State Pensions, why should English workers pay the pensions of Scottish pensioners?
To be fair, why should English workers pay the pensions of English pensioners either
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
For defined benefit pensions like Civil Servants I expect a similar outcome to the one with the EU - for continuing State Pensions, why should English workers pay the pensions of Scottish pensioners?
To be fair, why should English workers pay the pensions of English pensioners either
That’s what happens now. What changes would you make to the pension system, that doesn’t involve paying both today’s pensions and investing in tomorrow’s pensions at the same time?
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Probably not. We're talking about established democracy/ies over here, and over there a nascent democracy being threatened by a sub-fascist kleptocracy. England and Scotland are mature, stable countries with strong institutions.
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union in 1707, Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Mr. Roberts, I especially like the Grand Canyon scale of cognitive dissonance from the SNP to believe these two things: 1) the English take too much from Scotland, we contribute far too much, they give us far too little 2) if we leave the UK the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) will voluntarily become the most generous neighbours in the world by funding the pensions of another country
Amazing the Little Englanders panic on here at the thought that their last colony is going to dump them, same sad group every time, pretty pathetic. Get a life.
I suspect a lot of people will be happy to let Scotland leave, but we won't be paying your bills for you after you've left.
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
Why?
Existing as in already reached pension age and are claiming. And because it’s the right thing to do - the contract with the state was fulfilled.
There are no accrued liabilities. So that will be quite easy to cover. Remember that the state pension could be cancelled tomorrow, and no one would have a claim to any pot of money.
I'm on the verge of betting on Boris Johnson staying until 2024. 4/1 on Ladbrokes.
I think he's an out-and-out turd but I'm unconvinced about this legend of the ruthless tory party. He's only had half a term in office and that was covid-ridden.
Are the tory MPs ready to see the writing on the wall? I'm not convinced.
Note the election may be 2023 rather than 2024.
It could also be 2025 once DACOP becomes law (see section 4).
January 2025 - it would be a very foolish Government who wanted an election then.
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
For defined benefit pensions like Civil Servants I expect a similar outcome to the one with the EU - for continuing State Pensions, why should English workers pay the pensions of Scottish pensioners?
To be fair, why should English workers pay the pensions of English pensioners either
That’s what happens now. What changes would you make to the pension system, that doesn’t involve paying both today’s pensions and investing in tomorrow’s pensions at the same time?
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
For defined benefit pensions like Civil Servants I expect a similar outcome to the one with the EU - for continuing State Pensions, why should English workers pay the pensions of Scottish pensioners?
To be fair, why should English workers pay the pensions of English pensioners either
Because British voters, voting for their representatives in their Parliament have decided that they want to. It's a collective political decision that was taken. It caused quite a ruckus at the time, and they even had to have a special general election to decide the matter when the Lords tried to block the People's Budget of 1910 (If I remember correctly).
But if Scotland becomes an independent country, then it is no longer part of the same political unit, and its voters will elect their own representatives, to their own Parliament, and they will have to make their own decisions about what pensions their independent country wants to pay to its pensioners out of the tax revenues that they can raise.
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
Why?
Existing as in already reached pension age and are claiming. And because it’s the right thing to do - the contract with the state was fulfilled.
There are no accrued liabilities. So that will be quite easy to cover. Remember that the state pension could be cancelled tomorrow, and no one would have a claim to any pot of money.
Well quite. My views on the state pension ponzi scheme are well known.
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
For defined benefit pensions like Civil Servants I expect a similar outcome to the one with the EU - for continuing State Pensions, why should English workers pay the pensions of Scottish pensioners?
To be fair, why should English workers pay the pensions of English pensioners either
Because British voters, voting for their representatives in their Parliament have decided that they want to. It's a collective political decision that was taken. It caused quite a ruckus at the time, and they even had to have a special general election to decide the matter when the Lords tried to block the People's Budget of 1910 (If I remember correctly).
But if Scotland becomes an independent country, then it is no longer part of the same political unit, and its voters will elect their own representatives, to their own Parliament, and they will have to make their own decisions about what pensions their independent country wants to pay to its pensioners out of the tax revenues that they can raise.
If rUK remains, may we presume that all Scots born before iDay will remain British citizens?
Mr. Roberts, I especially like the Grand Canyon scale of cognitive dissonance from the SNP to believe these two things: 1) the English take too much from Scotland, we contribute far too much, they give us far too little 2) if we leave the UK the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) will voluntarily become the most generous neighbours in the world by funding the pensions of another country
Amazing the Little Englanders panic on here at the thought that their last colony is going to dump them, same sad group every time, pretty pathetic. Get a life.
I suspect a lot of people will be happy to let Scotland leave, but we won't be paying your bills for you after you've left.
‘Let’
By their verbs shall ye know them.
I don't see Spain letting Catalonia leave -
And what other verb shows a willingness to allow part of a country to choice a different path?
Mr. Roberts, I especially like the Grand Canyon scale of cognitive dissonance from the SNP to believe these two things: 1) the English take too much from Scotland, we contribute far too much, they give us far too little 2) if we leave the UK the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) will voluntarily become the most generous neighbours in the world by funding the pensions of another country
Amazing the Little Englanders panic on here at the thought that their last colony is going to dump them, same sad group every time, pretty pathetic. Get a life.
As opposed to the most angry and pathetic of pathetic Little Scotlanders who is ignorant of what a colony is. You really do need to look up the history of your own country. It went into the union with England partly because it was bankrupt and also it's own attempt at colonialism failed and it wanted to jump on England's colonial coat tails, which it did most enthusiastically. Scottish universities provided a huge number of administrators for the colonies and the Scottish regiments the muscle. Scotland was disproportionately involved with the oppression of places like Ireland and the less enthusiastic colonies around the world.
Oh the cockroach has had his medication administered and is getting nurse to post some mince for him. Roll on lights out.
Listen Malc., I know your life must be tough, and it is really difficult formulating arguments around being an apologist for Alex Salmond, but could you not at least try for once. When you just respond with insult all the time no one thinks it clever, they just think you are in need of anger management therapy.
Take a deep breath and see if you can respond to something with an actual argument and no insults.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
Now you are doing a Boris, where have I ever said there was a British Investment Fund. Take your Lies elsewhere sunshine or perhaps read and understand what people post. Hint "Liability" does not equal "Great British Investment Fund".
So where will the money to pay for the state Scottish Pensions come from.
And why do you think any rUK Government would agree to continually send rUK tax payers money north of the border when those State pensions should be coming from Scottish tax payers money...
Doh from the Scottish budget and whatever settlement of assets and liabilities is agreed as part of the dissolution of the union. It is very simple. I have never ever said they will continue to send money to Scotland ( though the ymay settle as an annual payment over a period ), I have always stated the simple fact that there will be a settlement of the UK liabilities , which include pension liabilities alongside many other liabilities, and assets. For example, we will own a share of the Bank of England and all that is in it, just as rUK will own a share of faslane.
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
That may well be the case.
However, we are talking about what happens in a referendum vote and which way people will vote. You don't have to disagree with the line the English are sh1tting their pants to also thinking that worries about pensions are likely to influence people's votes.
Only for the ill educated MrEd. If they have enough braincells to take part then they will see that our pathetic UK pension is among the worst in the developed world and a banana republic could afford to continue to pay it.
Maybe, but what about an independent Scotland Malcolm?
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
Now you are doing a Boris, where have I ever said there was a British Investment Fund. Take your Lies elsewhere sunshine or perhaps read and understand what people post. Hint "Liability" does not equal "Great British Investment Fund".
So where will the money to pay for the state Scottish Pensions come from.
And why do you think any rUK Government would agree to continually send rUK tax payers money north of the border when those State pensions should be coming from Scottish tax payers money...
Doh from the Scottish budget and whatever settlement of assets and liabilities is agreed as part of the dissolution of the union. It is very simple. I have never ever said they will continue to send money to Scotland ( though the ymay settle as an annual payment over a period ), I have always stated the simple fact that there will be a settlement of the UK liabilities , which include pension liabilities alongside many other liabilities, and assets. For example, we will own a share of the Bank of England and all that is in it, just as rUK will own a share of faslane.
But there are no explicit liabilities for, say, a 25-year old in Scotland. The only liability is the money that is being drawn today.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
Now you are doing a Boris, where have I ever said there was a British Investment Fund. Take your Lies elsewhere sunshine or perhaps read and understand what people post. Hint "Liability" does not equal "Great British Investment Fund".
So where will the money to pay for the state Scottish Pensions come from.
And why do you think any rUK Government would agree to continually send rUK tax payers money north of the border when those State pensions should be coming from Scottish tax payers money...
Doh from the Scottish budget and whatever settlement of assets and liabilities is agreed as part of the dissolution of the union. It is very simple. I have never ever said they will continue to send money to Scotland ( though the ymay settle as an annual payment over a period ), I have always stated the simple fact that there will be a settlement of the UK liabilities , which include pension liabilities alongside many other liabilities, and assets. For example, we will own a share of the Bank of England and all that is in it, just as rUK will own a share of faslane.
But there are no explicit liabilities for, say, a 25-year old in Scotland. The only liability is the money that is being drawn today.
Equally is there actually any liability at all? A Government could cancel the State Pension tomorrow (it won't but there is nothing that says it has to pay it).
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
If the grown ups are at the table i’d expect us to cover existing pension liabilities.
For defined benefit pensions like Civil Servants I expect a similar outcome to the one with the EU - for continuing State Pensions, why should English workers pay the pensions of Scottish pensioners?
To be fair, why should English workers pay the pensions of English pensioners either
That’s what happens now. What changes would you make to the pension system, that doesn’t involve paying both today’s pensions and investing in tomorrow’s pensions at the same time?
We don’t invest in tomorrow’s pensions
That's because we vote for politicians who favour the Ponzi scheme. It is a bit rich of pensioners to complain having voted for governments that supported such dishonesty all their lives. Some of them wanted the government to spend and borrow even more and yet they complain about their "entitlements" that they have "paid for". It's a joke.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
Now you are doing a Boris, where have I ever said there was a British Investment Fund. Take your Lies elsewhere sunshine or perhaps read and understand what people post. Hint "Liability" does not equal "Great British Investment Fund".
So where will the money to pay for the state Scottish Pensions come from.
And why do you think any rUK Government would agree to continually send rUK tax payers money north of the border when those State pensions should be coming from Scottish tax payers money...
Doh from the Scottish budget and whatever settlement of assets and liabilities is agreed as part of the dissolution of the union. It is very simple. I have never ever said they will continue to send money to Scotland ( though the ymay settle as an annual payment over a period ), I have always stated the simple fact that there will be a settlement of the UK liabilities , which include pension liabilities alongside many other liabilities, and assets. For example, we will own a share of the Bank of England and all that is in it, just as rUK will own a share of faslane.
What’s in the Bank of England is currently -£2,300,000,000
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
Now you are doing a Boris, where have I ever said there was a British Investment Fund. Take your Lies elsewhere sunshine or perhaps read and understand what people post. Hint "Liability" does not equal "Great British Investment Fund".
So where will the money to pay for the state Scottish Pensions come from.
And why do you think any rUK Government would agree to continually send rUK tax payers money north of the border when those State pensions should be coming from Scottish tax payers money...
Doh from the Scottish budget and whatever settlement of assets and liabilities is agreed as part of the dissolution of the union. It is very simple. I have never ever said they will continue to send money to Scotland ( though the ymay settle as an annual payment over a period ), I have always stated the simple fact that there will be a settlement of the UK liabilities , which include pension liabilities alongside many other liabilities, and assets. For example, we will own a share of the Bank of England and all that is in it, just as rUK will own a share of faslane.
But there are no explicit liabilities for, say, a 25-year old in Scotland. The only liability is the money that is being drawn today.
Equally is there actually any liability at all? A Government could cancel the State Pension tomorrow (it won't but there is nothing that says it has to pay it).
Exactly. In some countries you have personal savings accounts. That would be an explicit liability. In the UK it's just a benefit people can claim with certain conditions.
Mr. Roberts, I especially like the Grand Canyon scale of cognitive dissonance from the SNP to believe these two things: 1) the English take too much from Scotland, we contribute far too much, they give us far too little 2) if we leave the UK the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) will voluntarily become the most generous neighbours in the world by funding the pensions of another country
Amazing the Little Englanders panic on here at the thought that their last colony is going to dump them, same sad group every time, pretty pathetic. Get a life.
I suspect a lot of people will be happy to let Scotland leave, but we won't be paying your bills for you after you've left.
‘Let’
By their verbs shall ye know them.
I don't see Spain letting Catalonia leave -
And what other verb shows a willingness to allow part of a country to choice a different path?
What is the process for the people of England to ‘let’ or ‘allow’ Scotland to leave? Will there be mass demonstrations on the streets of Swindon and Sheffield, or will a new eject the Jocks party arise?
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since.
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
Mr. Farooq, "The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut..."
Debatable, contingent upon one's view of Alfred.
I've also never heard that appellation attached to Canute before. Wikipedia suggests it is something said of him, but Alfred's far better known as an English king called the Great.
My Dad was a British citizen. He moved to NZ aged 40-something. He now draws a NZ pension. There is no contribution from the UK. He remains a British citizen.
Mr. Roberts, I especially like the Grand Canyon scale of cognitive dissonance from the SNP to believe these two things: 1) the English take too much from Scotland, we contribute far too much, they give us far too little 2) if we leave the UK the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) will voluntarily become the most generous neighbours in the world by funding the pensions of another country
Amazing the Little Englanders panic on here at the thought that their last colony is going to dump them, same sad group every time, pretty pathetic. Get a life.
I suspect a lot of people will be happy to let Scotland leave, but we won't be paying your bills for you after you've left.
‘Let’
By their verbs shall ye know them.
I don't see Spain letting Catalonia leave -
And what other verb shows a willingness to allow part of a country to choice a different path?
What is the process for the people of England to ‘let’ or ‘allow’ Scotland to leave? Will there be mass demonstrations on the streets of Swindon and Sheffield, or will a new eject the Jocks party arise?
The Award for the Most Chippy Deliberate Misinterpretation of Someone's Words goes to this post (and the previous one by the same poster who mentioned the same word as though it was an "aha" moment. )
Michael Gove, a Scottish fresher in 1985, told Johnson’s biographer Andrew Gimson: “The first time I saw him was in the Union bar . . . He seemed like a kindly, Oxford character, but he was really there like a great basking shark waiting for freshers to swim towards him.” Gove told Gimson: “I was Boris’s stooge. I became a votary of the Boris cult.”
In an essay for The Oxford Myth (1988), a book edited by his sister Rachel, Johnson advised aspiring student politicians to assemble “a disciplined and deluded collection of stooges” to get out the vote. “Lonely girls from the women’s colleges” who “back their largely male candidates with a porky decisiveness” were particularly useful, he wrote. “For these young women, machine politics offers human friction and warmth.” Reading this, you realise why almost all Union presidents who become Tory politicians are men. (Thatcher’s domain was OUCA, where she was president in 1946.)
Johnson added: “The tragedy of the stooge is that . . . he wants so much to believe that his relationship with the candidate is special that he shuts out the truth. The terrible art of the candidate is to coddle the self-deception of the stooge.”
I'm not a Boris hater (really I'm more instinctively against classic Thatcherites), but that is just horrible.
For me, I don't really care about this, but the sad fact is, Boris has failed to cultivate sufficient stooges to run the country efficiently and effectively. He has failed at being Boris. I knew when Boris came to power that he was lazy and would never be a PM in the style of Thatcher, but I felt that his London Mayoral tenure, whilst not perfect, demonstrated that with a good team doing most of the hard work, and him doing the 'charisma' bit on top, he could be a successful and even a loved leader. I saw no reason and I still see no reason why someone like Boris cannot be a good PM - hard yards don't equate to outcome, or May would have been great. My disappointment has been in the fact that almost from day one, he has failed to attract and retain a good team, or get the best out of the team he has.
I think the fundamental problem is London, or any Mayor, is largely charisma, and a relatively small amount of actual policy making, as they have few actual powers. Get in a decent transport person and then spout off on anything and everything beyond your control on the local news. It is why Ken did OK. Likewise, Burnham. And Houchen and Street on the other side. Unfortunately, PM doesn't work like that. Even if he had competent Ministers and officials, their remits overlap and inevitably clash.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
I have no clue how any of that rather feable rant relates to anything I said about the pathetic attempts to ensure independence is never viable by the SNP under Sturgeon.
Salmond was deadly serious about seeking Scottish independence which is why he was unequivocal that Scottish pensions would be paid by Scotland, because that's a serious policy.
Sturgeon's cake and eat it desire to be independent but have England still pay all the liabilities is just a bad joke.
What's worse, is that you know it too. Why can't you just admit that the only reason the SNP are now coming out with this ridiculous bullshit that Salmond when he was in charge ran a mile from is because Sturgeon has no desire to actually make independence viable. She's far more interested in feathering her own nest than winning a referendum and you know it.
Comments
The UN simply said 'fine' and everyone thinks the Russian Federation is the old Soviet Union rebadged (it seems it these days) but technically one country disappeared and fifteen came about.
In the end it's such a ridiculous discussion because there's no real controversy. The newly independent nation takes on the pension liabilities for its citizens and pays them out of its newly created treasury and tax receipts. Where there are pension assets (such as DC government pensions) they can be split with a fairly simple formula based on population and proportion of eligible employees living north/south of the new border.
Of all the things that will need to change after potential independence, pensions are probably the least controversial. The border and CTA accession will prove the most difficult discussions, pensions will be a single line "liabilities will be transferred and any assets that exist will be split according to where the contributions were made". If they don't agree then there will simply be millions of pensioners in Scotland that don't get paid while the new Scottish government collects the same tax they've collected.
What you would lose is a few Government Departments / Quangos. For instance, Student Loans would move back to England (and should anyway given that it's a devolved item but that's by the by).
Now there is a valid argument that often the only work that was sent to Scotland is relatively low paid admin work but that's a completely different issue.
Any Government agreeing to such a thing (which is a 30-70 year commitment to continually send a significant amount of rUK tax revenue into another economy) wouldn't last 5 minutes.
If division of assets and debts are being based on population figures, the date of those statistics could be very important.
I don' believe the UK carries that same amount of weight internationally.
And if what you say is correct then again England and Wales would have to pick up the responsibilities as well as the rights of the previous state.
Google tells me there are 47,500 Uk civil servants in Scotland (10%).
That’s a lot of jobs for deprived areas of England - and while Scotland would need some they probably would need that many (my guess is a little more than half based on scaling to population and adding a bit for diseconomies of scale) - they would need to fund unemployment benefits for the remainder
In her message, she references the broadcast she made on her 21st birthday in which she pledged her life’s work to the people of the Commonwealth with the words:
“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1490083072460607488?s=20&t=UZUiMCuOdP33Mqj7yxzcaw
Which on criminal stuff is a pity as Not Proven would be incredibly useful at times.
A more sensible idea (and looking at the state of government right now, this is by no means guaranteed) would be to preserve the jobs where they are in the medium term and transfer the functions gradually. That would go in both directions.
It would require two countries to be comfortable with aspects of their civil service being done "abroad" but it's the kind of factor that I think ought to -- ought to! -- lead negotiators to realise that it's best to get a deal done and not grandstand.
Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?
And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?
Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.
I disagree with the very different tone you strike in those two posts. You're clearly trying to have your cake and eat it in terms of absolving and retaining blame.
Your first statement is also factually incorrect. More fake news from the Leave side.
They seem to have been driven to it by realising that their sums don’t add up.
This is Kwasi's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwasi_Kwarteng
No country pays the state pensions for other countries.
See my edit, no country pays for another countries state pensions.
And why do you think any rUK Government would agree to continually send rUK tax payers money north of the border when those State pensions should be coming from Scottish tax payers money...
That said, many people look at historical matters far too simplistically, i.e. this good; this bad. There are somethings that you can say are categorically the latter, but such a judgement too often leads to bad analysis. It is generally as dumb as Malcolm's view that anyone that doesn't agree with his tunnel vision is a "moron", which is either highly ironic or more likely a simple case of psychological projection.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
By their verbs shall ye know them.
But if Scotland becomes an independent country, then it is no longer part of the same political unit, and its voters will elect their own representatives, to their own Parliament, and they will have to make their own decisions about what pensions their independent country wants to pay to its pensioners out of the tax revenues that they can raise.
And what other verb shows a willingness to allow part of a country to choice a different path?
Take a deep breath and see if you can respond to something with an actual argument and no insults.
This is maybe the 19th time we've danced round this tartan handbag. Enuff
The Scottish Govt White Paper on Savings:
No where does it suggest that rUK is picking up the £8bn pension liability.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
Debatable, contingent upon one's view of Alfred.
I've also never heard that appellation attached to Canute before. Wikipedia suggests it is something said of him, but Alfred's far better known as an English king called the Great.
He moved to NZ aged 40-something.
He now draws a NZ pension.
There is no contribution from the UK.
He remains a British citizen.
It is why Ken did OK. Likewise, Burnham. And Houchen and Street on the other side.
Unfortunately, PM doesn't work like that. Even if he had competent Ministers and officials, their remits overlap and inevitably clash.
Salmond was deadly serious about seeking Scottish independence which is why he was unequivocal that Scottish pensions would be paid by Scotland, because that's a serious policy.
Sturgeon's cake and eat it desire to be independent but have England still pay all the liabilities is just a bad joke.
What's worse, is that you know it too. Why can't you just admit that the only reason the SNP are now coming out with this ridiculous bullshit that Salmond when he was in charge ran a mile from is because Sturgeon has no desire to actually make independence viable. She's far more interested in feathering her own nest than winning a referendum and you know it.