The Sunday Times @thesundaytimes NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership
Her accusation that bitter ex-officials are trying to discredit her can be true without making their claims untrue, though one would hope there is more than rumour or hearsay to substantiate it.
Quite.
I think the Sunday times said (but can't find it) that they had THREE sources saying Carrie has now decided enough is enough and wants to throw in the towel. What with that and pressure on MPs to get letters in before the 10 day recess starting Thursday I expect next week to be interesting
Sorry, but before I get my hopes up I'll remind you that people have been saying "the next few days!" for many weeks.
For any date since about October, something pretty dramatic has generally occurred in the next few days.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
And ultimately that is because the SNP don't care about the facts. The current government doesn't want a referendum. Creative tension between a pair of disgraced liars under police investigation suits both Sturgeon and Johnson rather well. It lets them play to their galleries and ignore the actual problems we have.
I think we all know that the worst imaginable outcome for the SNP would be a further referendum with a narrow 'yes' vote. They'll pull every trick in the book to avoid that. If a referendum block in Downing Street fails, by promising the unicorns they are trying to make any winning margin as wide as possible.
And even if that's never needed, it's nice red meat to their dafter supporters and deflects awkward questions about the politicisation of the judiciary, the weakness of Scotland's education system and exactly where that £600k has gone.
It's baffling that you could actually convince yourself that the SNP's nightmare scenario is a vote for independence. You are obviously wrong and I find it strange that someone even needs to tell you that.
Look at the £26bn that goes on welfare payments in Scotland and ask where the money for that will come from let alone everything else the Government would need to spend money on.
It's awkward to say this as MalcolmG and others will attack me but it's very hard to see how any Independent Scotland works without massive reductions in Government Expenditure.
Awkward my arse, it will come out of Scotland's money that is currently used by Westminster to apy all these things. We don't get any freebies and supposedly we borrow all the money. You claim to be intelligent but cannot grasp that we have a GDP and could live on that and borrow a small amount like every other country. You surely are not deluded enough to think that you are funding Scotland. People woul donly comment ( not attack) because it is such obvious hogwash. Ask yourself , how do all other countries pay their welfare budgets, how will England do it after independence. Try to think.
But you do get freebies. Under the Scottish government's own numbers, there is a subsidy from the rest of the UK.
Utter bollox , we send down a shedload and get around 40% back , the rest is spaffed up a wall by Westminster and they then claim we borrowed a fortune. GERS have been ridiculed for years, last one had 167 estimated numbers, total fiction.
Complete Noddy-econimics. I'm sorry Malcolm, but Scotand gets a big subsidy from the rest of the UK.
(It is true though that had Scotland been independent in the past they's likely be quite rich - like Norway)
We subsidised the rUK for 50 years , and who knows what the deficit is when you remove all the money used that is nothing to do with Scotland, for sure it will be nowhere near the 22% claimed on here. There are next to no countries running surplus budgets so why would Scotland having a small deficit be any obstacle.
You weren't independent then though, so it wasn't your money it was our money.
If you find a gold mine in your back garden can you declare independence?
Scotland has been an equal and good partner in a political relationship that has lastest some hundreds of years. England has been an equal and good partner in a political relationship that has lastest some hundreds of years.
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
Call me an anti-government cynic, but I'm not totally convinced that reducing in-person acquisitive and violent crime by 14% in a period which included long periods where the whole population were LOCKED IN THEIR HOUSES AND UNABLE TO GO ANYWHERE WITHOUT BEING NOTICED is quite the achievement you suggest.
That's right - I imagine criminals will have felt fraud was an easier crime during lockdown and burglary was harder. In addition, not all crimes are either personal assault or fraud. merely extracting one particular type of crime that went up a lot and then quoting the rest as "crime" without qualification is sleight of hand.
It's possible that this was a slip of the tongue. More likely, though, it was a deliberate omission, on the basis that if we start arguing about it then we're arguing about something people potentially like, whatever the reason - that last year fewer people were burgled. It's a sort of Unconscious Cat strategy - everyone starts examining the cat to see what can be done.
I looked in to it a bit more. It seems that the issue that drove the reduction was the scaling back of the night time economy, reducing violent offences, and a reduction in burglaries prompted by the reasons identified above. All that is clear from the statistical release. So, the government shouldn't be taking credit for a reduction in crime, as it seems most likely that any reduction was actually connected to policies relating to lockdown. I stand corrected.
» show previous quotes They don’t have a currency, central bank or reserves, for starters.
You fool we have the Bank of England at present as Central bank , it stores our reserves at £ for £ for all Scottish pounds and we use pounds Sterling, what planet are you on. PS: It appears you have Borisitis, an inability to tell the truth.
Sindy will not have the BoE as it’s central bank and rUK will not enter into a currency union with it.
the SNP's current currency position is to unofficially continue to use sterling outside the formal sterling area, much in the same way Montenegro uses the euro without the agreement of the eurozone or the European Central Bank. It is envisaged this 'sterlingisation' arrangement will last a considerable period. The SNP would then plan to launch a new Scottish currency if the economic conditions merited it.
McCrone sees the danger in this. Figures show that an independent Scotland would start life with a classic twin deficits problem. The country would be importing more than it is exporting and spending more money than it is generating in tax. It would therefore have unsustainably large current account and budget deficits.
'In the short term, even if taxes were raised or public expenditure cut, Scotland would have to borrow to finance both of these deficits,' notes McCrone. But as a new borrower with no long record of credibility like the UK, Scotland would 'have to pay considerably more on its borrowing'.
'Interest rates would be in danger of constantly increasing in a vicious circle, resulting in eventual collapse,' he warns.
Can you read, I am talking about the present situation, once independent we will have A Scottish Central Bank with all our reserves transferred and it will be the Scottish pound or whatever interim currency they use till joining the Euro.
Once Scotland achieves independence you'll have a massive period where the goodwill of others shapes your future nation.
Much of that good-will has to come from the rest of the UK.
And you certainly know that 'reserves' = 'debt'.
Of course but the frohters on here cannot accept that and can only wish Scotland ill will and unthruths. Personally I think both countries will get on perfectly well as any sane person would expect. The nutters will howl at the moon but who cares. Like most people I have relatives living in England , family members married to English people, that will not change.
(I suspect you've not read my most recent response to your comments.)
There is not the slightest chance though that the UK becomes other than some set of states that are pretty united. When the best fun to be had is jibing the opponents supporters in the rugby you know you're friends.
With my Scottish friends I may have questioned their ancentry and (apprently) wished them great ill yesterday evening.
Omnium , I did reply to your other post , however you are a sensible chap by the sound of it and we agree on most points other than how big or small the deficit really is or would be if Scotland was deciding what money was spent on. I claim it would be significantly smaller than the fake numbers used to hide prolifigate Westminster largesse and poor administration but do not claim to be an expert. I do however know that Scotland is rich in resources and would be similar to many other small countries who are doing very well without needing someone to decide where their money is spent. They would be able to fund welfare and pensions with little problem.
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
The actual process of independence could be a nightmare for financial services. For example, the launch of a new currency could be preceded by withdrawals of savings into (Sterling) cash, or even liquidation of assets such as property.
Usually, these things are done overnight or with bank holidays, but in the case of Scotland there will be a year or more of discussion and negotiation leading up to Independence Day, which will increase the uncertainty. We saw the same uncertainty, on a much smaller scale, with the EU negotiations - which of course didn’t involve a currency change.
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
Call me an anti-government cynic, but I'm not totally convinced that reducing in-person acquisitive and violent crime by 14% in a period which included long periods where the whole population were LOCKED IN THEIR HOUSES AND UNABLE TO GO ANYWHERE WITHOUT BEING NOTICED is quite the achievement you suggest.
I dunno. It proves correct the Tory mantra back to Howard that locking more people up reduces crime.
Though it seems like they've gone in for fraud instead.
Blooming crims, "working from home", when they should be getting ahead by doing proper robberies and supporting the city economy by buying lunch from Pret.
The Sunday Times @thesundaytimes NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership
Her accusation that bitter ex-officials are trying to discredit her can be true without making their claims untrue, though one would hope there is more than rumour or hearsay to substantiate it.
Quite.
I think the Sunday times said (but can't find it) that they had THREE sources saying Carrie has now decided enough is enough and wants to throw in the towel. What with that and pressure on MPs to get letters in before the 10 day recess starting Thursday I expect next week to be interesting
Sorry, but before I get my hopes up I'll remind you that people have been saying "the next few days!" for many weeks.
Nigel Foremain says he's resigning week of 21 Feb - inside info!
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
The actual process of independence could be a nightmare for financial services. For example, the launch of a new currency could be preceded by withdrawals of savings into (Sterling) cash, or even liquidation of assets such as property.
Usually, these things are done overnight or with bank holidays, but in the case of Scotland there will be a year or more of discussion and negotiation leading up to Independence Day, which will increase the uncertainty. We saw the same uncertainty, on a much smaller scale, with the EU negotiations - which of course didn’t involve a currency change.
You'd just have to be a total SNP loon to leave you money in a Scottish bank in that event - even most Scots will be trying to offshore their savings.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
And ultimately that is because the SNP don't care about the facts. The current government doesn't want a referendum. Creative tension between a pair of disgraced liars under police investigation suits both Sturgeon and Johnson rather well. It lets them play to their galleries and ignore the actual problems we have.
I think we all know that the worst imaginable outcome for the SNP would be a further referendum with a narrow 'yes' vote. They'll pull every trick in the book to avoid that. If a referendum block in Downing Street fails, by promising the unicorns they are trying to make any winning margin as wide as possible.
And even if that's never needed, it's nice red meat to their dafter supporters and deflects awkward questions about the politicisation of the judiciary, the weakness of Scotland's education system and exactly where that £600k has gone.
It's baffling that you could actually convince yourself that the SNP's nightmare scenario is a vote for independence. You are obviously wrong and I find it strange that someone even needs to tell you that.
Look at the £26bn that goes on welfare payments in Scotland and ask where the money for that will come from let alone everything else the Government would need to spend money on.
It's awkward to say this as MalcolmG and others will attack me but it's very hard to see how any Independent Scotland works without massive reductions in Government Expenditure.
Awkward my arse, it will come out of Scotland's money that is currently used by Westminster to apy all these things. We don't get any freebies and supposedly we borrow all the money. You claim to be intelligent but cannot grasp that we have a GDP and could live on that and borrow a small amount like every other country. You surely are not deluded enough to think that you are funding Scotland. People woul donly comment ( not attack) because it is such obvious hogwash. Ask yourself , how do all other countries pay their welfare budgets, how will England do it after independence. Try to think.
For someone who is “robust” in argumentation, but generally quite sensible in underlying thinking, you have an enormous blind spot when it comes to Sindy
The fact is, absent the oil, indy Scotland would be fiscally fucked for about ten years (during which time you would be, maybe, awkwardly trying to negotiate EU membership, from a position of great weakness). You don’t know what currency you’d be using, you wouldn’t have a central bank, you’d be cut adrift by the markets, it would be a nightmare, even as you dispute a painful divorce from England, the much larger partner (and those of us who are Brexiteers can vouch for the punitive and vengeful power of the stronger partner)
There is no way around it. Indy Scotland would face a decade or even two decades of horrible economics, and poorer lives. I am sure in the end you would prosper, but in the short-medium term it would be pretty awful
Denying this is futile. It is no better than the mad Brexiteers who said “Brexit will be the easiest negotiation in history” or some such bollocks. They were either lying or they were mad. Brexit was always going to be as traumatic as, say, having a baby. Scots who claim similarly hopeful nonsense about Scexit - it will be a breeze - are fucking idiots
By all means espouse indy. It is an entirely just and noble cause. But don’t lie about it
On here, we mapped out the big issues before the 2014 referendum that the SNP needed to have answers about.
They didn't - and consequently lost the referendum.
Eight years on, they still have no answers to those points. But layered onto this, they are blocking the development of the Cambo oil field. They now aren't even pretending oil's there to underpin the economy as they did in 2014.
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
No. See the financial sector in Montreal after the (failed) push for Quebecois indy. It fled to Toronto
“For those Scots still wavering about how to vote in next week’s referendum, First Canadian Place in Toronto is a concrete lesson in how money reacts to secession, or even the threat of one.
In 1976, the separatist-minded Parti Québécois beat the Quebec Liberal party in the province’s election. The next day, “the Brinks trucks [armoured vehicles for transporting cash] were rolling down the highway” and out of the French-speaking province, said Joe Martin, director of the Canadian business history programme at Toronto university’s Rotman School of Management.
After the election, the PQ steered Quebec towards its first independence referendum in 1980. In the end the motion was voted down – 59 per cent to 40 per cent – but the financial sector’s sentiment towards Quebec never recovered.”
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
Call me an anti-government cynic, but I'm not totally convinced that reducing in-person acquisitive and violent crime by 14% in a period which included long periods where the whole population were LOCKED IN THEIR HOUSES AND UNABLE TO GO ANYWHERE WITHOUT BEING NOTICED is quite the achievement you suggest.
I dunno. It proves correct the Tory mantra back to Howard that locking more people up reduces crime.
Though it seems like they've gone in for fraud instead.
Well, that's their own fault for electing Boris Johnson as their leader.
Oh sorry, did you mean criminals not the Tory party?
Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP UK deficit: 14% of GDP
Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either. You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
» show previous quotes They don’t have a currency, central bank or reserves, for starters.
You fool we have the Bank of England at present as Central bank , it stores our reserves at £ for £ for all Scottish pounds and we use pounds Sterling, what planet are you on. PS: It appears you have Borisitis, an inability to tell the truth.
The Scottish pound was officially abolished in 1707 and converted to sterling on a 12;1 basis. In practice it was still used in Scotland for another 70 years, although by 1755 it was rated at the worth of a shilling in Sterling.
Do we have Scottish pound notes at preset and do we have reserves lodged in our central bank at present though, no bollox squirrels about the Roman's will be accepted.
No and no.
I am assuming that in the event of independence there would need to be a central bank established and Scottish currency notes would be used as a new currency, on the basis that's the only logical thing to do. But at this moment there is no 'Scottish pound.'
In fact on further checking it looks as though I may have been wrong in my estimate of when the pound Scots died out - it looks as though it was when coinage was standardised in 1816. So over a hundred years after the Act of Union.
I was once on holiday and saw a bureau de change that had a separate (inferior) rate for Scottish notes.
I hope you reported them for fraud.
IIRC UK merchants have to take all UK notes as legal tender at face value - is that right?
But someone abroad, what is their legal situation, taking another countries legal tender?
Technically speaking, they are not legal tender anywhere as in Scotland notes are not legal tender and in England only Bank of England notes and coins are legal tender.
I suspect however the real problem is that banks outside the UK are more reluctant to accept Scottish notes simply because they don't see them very often.
And therefore more hassle to switch into their own currency
The EU would welcome Scotland but will try and avoid being dragged into any future Indy ref as they will be portrayed as trying to break up the UK. There’s no reason that Scotland can’t thrive if they do become independent.
Any chance that Man United still want Brendan Rogers?
😇
Thought Leicester were properly schooled by Forest there, and that Rogers was tactical inept. Forest just running riot down their right side and won easily - and deservedly.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
And ultimately that is because the SNP don't care about the facts. The current government doesn't want a referendum. Creative tension between a pair of disgraced liars under police investigation suits both Sturgeon and Johnson rather well. It lets them play to their galleries and ignore the actual problems we have.
I think we all know that the worst imaginable outcome for the SNP would be a further referendum with a narrow 'yes' vote. They'll pull every trick in the book to avoid that. If a referendum block in Downing Street fails, by promising the unicorns they are trying to make any winning margin as wide as possible.
And even if that's never needed, it's nice red meat to their dafter supporters and deflects awkward questions about the politicisation of the judiciary, the weakness of Scotland's education system and exactly where that £600k has gone.
It's baffling that you could actually convince yourself that the SNP's nightmare scenario is a vote for independence. You are obviously wrong and I find it strange that someone even needs to tell you that.
Look at the £26bn that goes on welfare payments in Scotland and ask where the money for that will come from let alone everything else the Government would need to spend money on.
It's awkward to say this as MalcolmG and others will attack me but it's very hard to see how any Independent Scotland works without massive reductions in Government Expenditure.
Awkward my arse, it will come out of Scotland's money that is currently used by Westminster to apy all these things. We don't get any freebies and supposedly we borrow all the money. You claim to be intelligent but cannot grasp that we have a GDP and could live on that and borrow a small amount like every other country. You surely are not deluded enough to think that you are funding Scotland. People woul donly comment ( not attack) because it is such obvious hogwash. Ask yourself , how do all other countries pay their welfare budgets, how will England do it after independence. Try to think.
But you do get freebies. Under the Scottish government's own numbers, there is a subsidy from the rest of the UK.
Utter bollox , we send down a shedload and get around 40% back , the rest is spaffed up a wall by Westminster and they then claim we borrowed a fortune. GERS have been ridiculed for years, last one had 167 estimated numbers, total fiction.
Complete Noddy-econimics. I'm sorry Malcolm, but Scotand gets a big subsidy from the rest of the UK.
(It is true though that had Scotland been independent in the past they's likely be quite rich - like Norway)
We subsidised the rUK for 50 years , and who knows what the deficit is when you remove all the money used that is nothing to do with Scotland, for sure it will be nowhere near the 22% claimed on here. There are next to no countries running surplus budgets so why would Scotland having a small deficit be any obstacle.
You weren't independent then though, so it wasn't your money it was our money.
If you find a gold mine in your back garden can you declare independence?
Scotland has been an equal and good partner in a political relationship that has lastest some hundreds of years. England has been an equal and good partner in a political relationship that has lastest some hundreds of years.
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
Let's drill down into what you mean by "overnight". The actual day of independence wouldn't happen for some years after a vote. The immediate post-vote landscape would be very much a case of "plan for every eventuality, and watch how things unfold". Which means that yes, of course any sensible firm would make plans to leave. Not as a decision, but as a precaution. And such plans would be good pressure on negotiators to get things right. It's a strange thing to imagine that the views of large employers wouldn't be central in the planning for what Day 1 would look like. The kind of capital flight you imagine would be a massive failure of all parties, not just the governments involved. I think there would be a number of parties that would regard this as a huge opportunity.
That's the truth that nobody wants to admit to on either side. Risk and opportunity come hand in hand.
See my post below. Understand what happened to financial services in Quebec after FAILED referendums
“When the Quebecois independence party won the elections in the Canadian territory of Quebec in 1976, there were people who went to take their savings out of the bank to deposit them elsewhere. Then began a campaign for the independence of the region that led to the departure of leading companies and the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people.
"The entire financial sector moved to Toronto," recalls the university's professor Reuven Brenner, who participated in the commission to discuss what would happen to the debt in the event that Quebec became independent.
A nice knock on impact if the Scots ever stop being scared of going their own way would be the needs of England finally moving up the agenda. The UK government would face overwhelming democratic demand to screw the Scots as hard as possible, and given even a 'fair' deal with leave Scotland with a fiscal position similar to Greece on day 1, no wonder they tell so many porkies about the economics of it all.
LOL, the rump UK government would be too busy wondering how to pay their massive debts and trying not to be a banana republic being laughed at by France , Germany etc. Given England is 90% of UK it will have debt so high that they will be desperate to be in as good a position as Greece. Back to playing with your toys.
We're on the same team mate. I'd bloody love you to bugger off but alas you were too scared to do it. rUK would have lower debt to GDP than the UK does, precisely because Scotland would have a shitshow ratio.
You cannot be that thick, Rump UK could not pretend the borrowing was Scotland's any more and so it's debt to GDP would be shit.
Just caught up with Kwarteng telling Phillips that Steve Barclay is "one of the most honest ministers we have." You'd hope he would pretend to think they were all level pegging at the top of the scale. I mean, "one of the most honest solicitors I know" doesn't really sound right.
The Sunday Times @thesundaytimes NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership
Her accusation that bitter ex-officials are trying to discredit her can be true without making their claims untrue, though one would hope there is more than rumour or hearsay to substantiate it.
Quite.
I think the Sunday times said (but can't find it) that they had THREE sources saying Carrie has now decided enough is enough and wants to throw in the towel. What with that and pressure on MPs to get letters in before the 10 day recess starting Thursday I expect next week to be interesting
Sorry, but before I get my hopes up I'll remind you that people have been saying "the next few days!" for many weeks.
Nigel Foremain says he's resigning week of 21 Feb - inside info!
Oh, I hope not. I'd miss Nigel and Malcolm's arguments.
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
Let's drill down into what you mean by "overnight". The actual day of independence wouldn't happen for some years after a vote. The immediate post-vote landscape would be very much a case of "plan for every eventuality, and watch how things unfold". Which means that yes, of course any sensible firm would make plans to leave. Not as a decision, but as a precaution. And such plans would be good pressure on negotiators to get things right. It's a strange thing to imagine that the views of large employers wouldn't be central in the planning for what Day 1 would look like. The kind of capital flight you imagine would be a massive failure of all parties, not just the governments involved. I think there would be a number of parties that would regard this as a huge opportunity.
That's the truth that nobody wants to admit to on either side. Risk and opportunity come hand in hand.
The opportunity would all be on the rUK side - they would be mad to not entice as much business across as possible, and given more or less the only reason there is an FS industy in Scotland is because it falls under the trusted BoE regulatory regime, the average investor in said firms (who is not Scottish) would be voting with their feet.
The people running those firms know this and will act accordingly to avoid it. The idea that there's some magic negotiating path which makes everyone feel super calm leaving their cash where a new government controled Bank of Scotland can forcibly convert them to independance bonds is just childish.
» show previous quotes They don’t have a currency, central bank or reserves, for starters.
You fool we have the Bank of England at present as Central bank , it stores our reserves at £ for £ for all Scottish pounds and we use pounds Sterling, what planet are you on. PS: It appears you have Borisitis, an inability to tell the truth.
Sindy will not have the BoE as it’s central bank and rUK will not enter into a currency union with it.
the SNP's current currency position is to unofficially continue to use sterling outside the formal sterling area, much in the same way Montenegro uses the euro without the agreement of the eurozone or the European Central Bank. It is envisaged this 'sterlingisation' arrangement will last a considerable period. The SNP would then plan to launch a new Scottish currency if the economic conditions merited it.
McCrone sees the danger in this. Figures show that an independent Scotland would start life with a classic twin deficits problem. The country would be importing more than it is exporting and spending more money than it is generating in tax. It would therefore have unsustainably large current account and budget deficits.
'In the short term, even if taxes were raised or public expenditure cut, Scotland would have to borrow to finance both of these deficits,' notes McCrone. But as a new borrower with no long record of credibility like the UK, Scotland would 'have to pay considerably more on its borrowing'.
'Interest rates would be in danger of constantly increasing in a vicious circle, resulting in eventual collapse,' he warns.
Can you read, I am talking about the present situation, once independent we will have A Scottish Central Bank with all our reserves transferred and it will be the Scottish pound or whatever interim currency they use till joining the Euro.
Once Scotland achieves independence you'll have a massive period where the goodwill of others shapes your future nation.
Much of that good-will has to come from the rest of the UK.
And you certainly know that 'reserves' = 'debt'.
Of course but the frohters on here cannot accept that and can only wish Scotland ill will and unthruths. Personally I think both countries will get on perfectly well as any sane person would expect. The nutters will howl at the moon but who cares. Like most people I have relatives living in England , family members married to English people, that will not change.
(I suspect you've not read my most recent response to your comments.)
There is not the slightest chance though that the UK becomes other than some set of states that are pretty united. When the best fun to be had is jibing the opponents supporters in the rugby you know you're friends.
With my Scottish friends I may have questioned their ancentry and (apprently) wished them great ill yesterday evening.
Omnium , I did reply to your other post , however you are a sensible chap by the sound of it and we agree on most points other than how big or small the deficit really is or would be if Scotland was deciding what money was spent on. I claim it would be significantly smaller than the fake numbers used to hide prolifigate Westminster largesse and poor administration but do not claim to be an expert. I do however know that Scotland is rich in resources and would be similar to many other small countries who are doing very well without needing someone to decide where their money is spent. They would be able to fund welfare and pensions with little problem.
An independent Scotland would, likely will, be a fantastic challenge. Quibbles over the numbers are irrelevant really. It's, I'm sure you'd agree, no plain sailing.
However it pans out I'm certainly one of the the very many English people that have nothing other than affetction for the people of Scotland - not sure I want to see you in my living room with an axe, and certainly wish you the darkest of fates when you take to the rugby field, but like it or not, you're honourary English
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
Your take is correct. People aren't thinking straight with this 'no fund' and 'all paid out of current taxation' business.
But what would the payment be for?
On what basis would you calculate it?
Why wouldn't there be a net payment in the other direction?
I wish the rest of Scotland were as deluded as the contingent on here and we might finally have a chance of no longer being forced to subsidise them whilst they moan constantly, but of course are too cowardly to go it alone when offered the chance.
SNP should campaign for a UK wide referendum - they'd find far more support for Scotland leaving if those paying for them were given a say.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
And ultimately that is because the SNP don't care about the facts. The current government doesn't want a referendum. Creative tension between a pair of disgraced liars under police investigation suits both Sturgeon and Johnson rather well. It lets them play to their galleries and ignore the actual problems we have.
I think we all know that the worst imaginable outcome for the SNP would be a further referendum with a narrow 'yes' vote. They'll pull every trick in the book to avoid that. If a referendum block in Downing Street fails, by promising the unicorns they are trying to make any winning margin as wide as possible.
And even if that's never needed, it's nice red meat to their dafter supporters and deflects awkward questions about the politicisation of the judiciary, the weakness of Scotland's education system and exactly where that £600k has gone.
It's baffling that you could actually convince yourself that the SNP's nightmare scenario is a vote for independence. You are obviously wrong and I find it strange that someone even needs to tell you that.
Voting for Indy by a narrow margin? You think that would be easy? It would be a case of 'be careful what you wish for.' Brexit on acid by a tiny majority could easily be disastrous for Scotland.
Whichever side wins the next referendum if it's not to cause endless trouble it needs to be decisive.
It only needs 50%+1 of those voting.
Ah, so the 2014 referendum was decisive after all.
So why are we even talking about this?
They are scared as they know another one is on its way and they are shi**ing their pants that teh result will be different. I personally don't care at present but will not just accept blatant lies and stupidity on the topic by half witted frothing unionists who know nothing of Scotland.
Because only your side is allowed to lie.
I fail to understand who "your side" is, I have no side other than I personally want Scotland to be independent. The clowns on here are spouting lies, I merely state that no-one especially not the crooked UK government have any clue of the real numbers and what the budgets etc would look like after independence. At this point everything is decided by Westminster so no-one has any idea whatsoever of what a Scottish budget would comprise. I take a slightly optimistic view that it would not be as bad as dim saddo's pretend it would be.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
Your take is correct. People aren't thinking straight with this 'no fund' and 'all paid out of current taxation' business.
But what would the payment be for?
On what basis would you calculate it?
Why wouldn't there be a net payment in the other direction?
Because UK currently holds 100% of the contributions.
Actually, why is this difficult? You calculate a reasonable hypothetical fund based on contributions and payout patterns, you divide it in the ratio iScot:rUK payments in, you pay iScot their share, job done.
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
If you think banks either will - or can - sort out fraud, think again.
I don't have any real knowledge in this area. But I just suspect that this is how the government and police see the problem. I have been doing a lot of high value transactions over the last year or so and the bank always flag them up as potentially fraudulent and put a bar on the account whilst checking out the situation with me. The KYC checks that I have to go through when doing any kind of business are obviously taken very seriously and are similarly a recent phenomenon seemingly prompted by fraud concerns.
My own experience is that such measures are very effective at inconveniencing regular clients but rather less so at hampering criminals.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
And ultimately that is because the SNP don't care about the facts. The current government doesn't want a referendum. Creative tension between a pair of disgraced liars under police investigation suits both Sturgeon and Johnson rather well. It lets them play to their galleries and ignore the actual problems we have.
I think we all know that the worst imaginable outcome for the SNP would be a further referendum with a narrow 'yes' vote. They'll pull every trick in the book to avoid that. If a referendum block in Downing Street fails, by promising the unicorns they are trying to make any winning margin as wide as possible.
And even if that's never needed, it's nice red meat to their dafter supporters and deflects awkward questions about the politicisation of the judiciary, the weakness of Scotland's education system and exactly where that £600k has gone.
It's baffling that you could actually convince yourself that the SNP's nightmare scenario is a vote for independence. You are obviously wrong and I find it strange that someone even needs to tell you that.
Look at the £26bn that goes on welfare payments in Scotland and ask where the money for that will come from let alone everything else the Government would need to spend money on.
It's awkward to say this as MalcolmG and others will attack me but it's very hard to see how any Independent Scotland works without massive reductions in Government Expenditure.
Awkward my arse, it will come out of Scotland's money that is currently used by Westminster to apy all these things. We don't get any freebies and supposedly we borrow all the money. You claim to be intelligent but cannot grasp that we have a GDP and could live on that and borrow a small amount like every other country. You surely are not deluded enough to think that you are funding Scotland. People woul donly comment ( not attack) because it is such obvious hogwash. Ask yourself , how do all other countries pay their welfare budgets, how will England do it after independence. Try to think.
But you do get freebies. Under the Scottish government's own numbers, there is a subsidy from the rest of the UK.
Utter bollox , we send down a shedload and get around 40% back , the rest is spaffed up a wall by Westminster and they then claim we borrowed a fortune. GERS have been ridiculed for years, last one had 167 estimated numbers, total fiction.
Complete Noddy-econimics. I'm sorry Malcolm, but Scotand gets a big subsidy from the rest of the UK.
(It is true though that had Scotland been independent in the past they's likely be quite rich - like Norway)
We subsidised the rUK for 50 years , and who knows what the deficit is when you remove all the money used that is nothing to do with Scotland, for sure it will be nowhere near the 22% claimed on here. There are next to no countries running surplus budgets so why would Scotland having a small deficit be any obstacle.
You weren't independent then though, so it wasn't your money it was our money.
If you find a gold mine in your back garden can you declare independence?
Scotland has been an equal and good partner in a political relationship that has lastest some hundreds of years. England has been an equal and good partner in a political relationship that has lastest some hundreds of years.
I wish the rest of Scotland were as deluded as the contingent on here and we might finally have a chance of no longer being forced to subsidise them whilst they moan constantly, but of course are too cowardly to go it alone when offered the chance.
SNP should campaign for a UK wide referendum - they'd find far more support for Scotland leaving if those paying for them were given a say.
Yes we hear the clamour by English people shouting for independence every day for sure. What a plonker.
Indy Ref II shaping up nicely, Evenbetterertogether majoring on Scotch are parasitic mendicants and all those contributions coming off their wage packets for years are worthless is gonnae be epic.
John Swinney here with a pension guarantee, making it clear that if Scotland was independent, the Scottish Government would be responsible for paying Scottish pensions.
You really are obsessing bout something that is not happening, you been looking at the private polling numbers again. Have a sherry and lie down for a while.
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
If you think banks either will - or can - sort out fraud, think again.
I don't have any real knowledge in this area. But I just suspect that this is how the government and police see the problem. I have been doing a lot of high value transactions over the last year or so and the bank always flag them up as potentially fraudulent and put a bar on the account whilst checking out the situation with me. The KYC checks that I have to go through when doing any kind of business are obviously taken very seriously and are similarly a recent phenomenon seemingly prompted by fraud concerns.
My own experience is that such measures are very effective at inconveniencing regular clients but rather less so at hampering criminals.
Given the efforts they spend on KYC-ing all their usual customers, how come they have no idea what to do when one of their accounts receives a fraudulent transaction?
If everyone has been KYC-ed to death, it should be really simple to send the SWAT team around to the verified address of the criminals - so why isn’t this happening?
» show previous quotes They don’t have a currency, central bank or reserves, for starters.
You fool we have the Bank of England at present as Central bank , it stores our reserves at £ for £ for all Scottish pounds and we use pounds Sterling, what planet are you on. PS: It appears you have Borisitis, an inability to tell the truth.
Sindy will not have the BoE as it’s central bank and rUK will not enter into a currency union with it.
the SNP's current currency position is to unofficially continue to use sterling outside the formal sterling area, much in the same way Montenegro uses the euro without the agreement of the eurozone or the European Central Bank. It is envisaged this 'sterlingisation' arrangement will last a considerable period. The SNP would then plan to launch a new Scottish currency if the economic conditions merited it.
McCrone sees the danger in this. Figures show that an independent Scotland would start life with a classic twin deficits problem. The country would be importing more than it is exporting and spending more money than it is generating in tax. It would therefore have unsustainably large current account and budget deficits.
'In the short term, even if taxes were raised or public expenditure cut, Scotland would have to borrow to finance both of these deficits,' notes McCrone. But as a new borrower with no long record of credibility like the UK, Scotland would 'have to pay considerably more on its borrowing'.
'Interest rates would be in danger of constantly increasing in a vicious circle, resulting in eventual collapse,' he warns.
Can you read, I am talking about the present situation, once independent we will have A Scottish Central Bank with all our reserves transferred and it will be the Scottish pound or whatever interim currency they use till joining the Euro.
Once Scotland achieves independence you'll have a massive period where the goodwill of others shapes your future nation.
Much of that good-will has to come from the rest of the UK.
And you certainly know that 'reserves' = 'debt'.
Of course but the frohters on here cannot accept that and can only wish Scotland ill will and unthruths. Personally I think both countries will get on perfectly well as any sane person would expect. The nutters will howl at the moon but who cares. Like most people I have relatives living in England , family members married to English people, that will not change.
(I suspect you've not read my most recent response to your comments.)
There is not the slightest chance though that the UK becomes other than some set of states that are pretty united. When the best fun to be had is jibing the opponents supporters in the rugby you know you're friends.
With my Scottish friends I may have questioned their ancentry and (apprently) wished them great ill yesterday evening.
Omnium , I did reply to your other post , however you are a sensible chap by the sound of it and we agree on most points other than how big or small the deficit really is or would be if Scotland was deciding what money was spent on. I claim it would be significantly smaller than the fake numbers used to hide prolifigate Westminster largesse and poor administration but do not claim to be an expert. I do however know that Scotland is rich in resources and would be similar to many other small countries who are doing very well without needing someone to decide where their money is spent. They would be able to fund welfare and pensions with little problem.
An independent Scotland would, likely will, be a fantastic challenge. Quibbles over the numbers are irrelevant really. It's, I'm sure you'd agree, no plain sailing.
However it pans out I'm certainly one of the the very many English people that have nothing other than affetction for the people of Scotland - not sure I want to see you in my living room with an axe, and certainly wish you the darkest of fates when you take to the rugby field, but like it or not, you're honourary English
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
Let's drill down into what you mean by "overnight". The actual day of independence wouldn't happen for some years after a vote. The immediate post-vote landscape would be very much a case of "plan for every eventuality, and watch how things unfold". Which means that yes, of course any sensible firm would make plans to leave. Not as a decision, but as a precaution. And such plans would be good pressure on negotiators to get things right. It's a strange thing to imagine that the views of large employers wouldn't be central in the planning for what Day 1 would look like. The kind of capital flight you imagine would be a massive failure of all parties, not just the governments involved. I think there would be a number of parties that would regard this as a huge opportunity.
That's the truth that nobody wants to admit to on either side. Risk and opportunity come hand in hand.
The opportunity would all be on the rUK side - they would be mad to not entice as much business across as possible, and given more or less the only reason there is an FS industy in Scotland is because it falls under the trusted BoE regulatory regime, the average investor in said firms (who is not Scottish) would be voting with their feet.
The people running those firms know this and will act accordingly to avoid it. The idea that there's some magic negotiating path which makes everyone feel super calm leaving their cash where a new government controled Bank of Scotland can forcibly convert them to independance bonds is just childish.
It’s indyvoodoo economics. Stay in a newly independent country, the East Timor of the North Atlantic, with no currency and no central bank and a deficit that makes the Emperor Bokassa look soberly prudent, or move south about 200 miles to one of the oldest and most important financial centres in the world, with a currency and central bank and the same laws and language, a world capital and a probably more enticing prospect for most of your employees than even Edinburgh, for all its charms
The FS in Scotland would be eviscerated overnight; it would be Montreal times 20
Now, none of this means a vote for YES is wrong. I voted LEAVE with my eyes open, knowing it would cause significant economic pain, but with the belief that it would be worth it in the end
Scot Nats need to be similarly honest. At least with themselves
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
Economic imbecile
I think he's being pretty generous on the imbecility front actually.
The Sunday Times @thesundaytimes NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership
Her accusation that bitter ex-officials are trying to discredit her can be true without making their claims untrue, though one would hope there is more than rumour or hearsay to substantiate it.
Quite.
I think the Sunday times said (but can't find it) that they had THREE sources saying Carrie has now decided enough is enough and wants to throw in the towel. What with that and pressure on MPs to get letters in before the 10 day recess starting Thursday I expect next week to be interesting
Sorry, but before I get my hopes up I'll remind you that people have been saying "the next few days!" for many weeks.
Nigel Foremain says he's resigning week of 21 Feb - inside info!
Oh, I hope not. I'd miss Nigel and Malcolm's arguments.
Someone would need to explain what an argument was to that utter cretinous imbecilic moron.
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
Let's drill down into what you mean by "overnight". The actual day of independence wouldn't happen for some years after a vote. The immediate post-vote landscape would be very much a case of "plan for every eventuality, and watch how things unfold". Which means that yes, of course any sensible firm would make plans to leave. Not as a decision, but as a precaution. And such plans would be good pressure on negotiators to get things right. It's a strange thing to imagine that the views of large employers wouldn't be central in the planning for what Day 1 would look like. The kind of capital flight you imagine would be a massive failure of all parties, not just the governments involved. I think there would be a number of parties that would regard this as a huge opportunity.
That's the truth that nobody wants to admit to on either side. Risk and opportunity come hand in hand.
See my post below. Understand what happened to financial services in Quebec after FAILED referendums
“When the Quebecois independence party won the elections in the Canadian territory of Quebec in 1976, there were people who went to take their savings out of the bank to deposit them elsewhere. Then began a campaign for the independence of the region that led to the departure of leading companies and the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people.
"The entire financial sector moved to Toronto," recalls the university's professor Reuven Brenner, who participated in the commission to discuss what would happen to the debt in the event that Quebec became independent.
Was the Crab off then and causing you these delusions.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
For many companies the issue isn't even one of viability or Scottish government competence, it would come down to the bulk of their customers now residing in a foreign country. At the very least many of them would feel the need to redomicile.
When contacted by City A.M. today, John Nolan, Meta’s London-based tech media and advertising communications leader, did not deny or play down the reports.
Instead, he shared a statement from Nick Clegg, Meta’s VP of Global Affairs and Communications.
Clegg warned that “a lack of safe, secure and legal international data transfers would damage the economy and hamper the growth of data-driven businesses in the EU, just as we seek a recovery from Covid-19.”
“The impact would be felt by businesses large and small, across multiple sectors,” he continued.
“Businesses need clear, global rules, underpinned by the strong rule of law, to protect transatlantic data flows over the long term.”
“In the worst case scenario, this could mean that a small tech start up in Germany would no longer be able to use a US-based cloud provider.
Any "small tech start up in Germany" is needlessly setting fire to a big pile of euros if it uses a US-based cloud provider. Germany's own Hetzner is much, much cheaper...
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
No. See the financial sector in Montreal after the (failed) push for Quebecois indy. It fled to Toronto
“For those Scots still wavering about how to vote in next week’s referendum, First Canadian Place in Toronto is a concrete lesson in how money reacts to secession, or even the threat of one.
In 1976, the separatist-minded Parti Québécois beat the Quebec Liberal party in the province’s election. The next day, “the Brinks trucks [armoured vehicles for transporting cash] were rolling down the highway” and out of the French-speaking province, said Joe Martin, director of the Canadian business history programme at Toronto university’s Rotman School of Management.
After the election, the PQ steered Quebec towards its first independence referendum in 1980. In the end the motion was voted down – 59 per cent to 40 per cent – but the financial sector’s sentiment towards Quebec never recovered.”
FT (££)
Strangely finance is still a major sector in Montreal. It must have bounced back remarkably quickly... or Delaney is exaggerating.
No I don't think he is exaggerating but I do believe the harm done to Quebec would have been less if the Qeubecois government had shown itself rather more competent in the succeeding years.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
And ultimately that is because the SNP don't care about the facts. The current government doesn't want a referendum. Creative tension between a pair of disgraced liars under police investigation suits both Sturgeon and Johnson rather well. It lets them play to their galleries and ignore the actual problems we have.
I think we all know that the worst imaginable outcome for the SNP would be a further referendum with a narrow 'yes' vote. They'll pull every trick in the book to avoid that. If a referendum block in Downing Street fails, by promising the unicorns they are trying to make any winning margin as wide as possible.
And even if that's never needed, it's nice red meat to their dafter supporters and deflects awkward questions about the politicisation of the judiciary, the weakness of Scotland's education system and exactly where that £600k has gone.
It's baffling that you could actually convince yourself that the SNP's nightmare scenario is a vote for independence. You are obviously wrong and I find it strange that someone even needs to tell you that.
Voting for Indy by a narrow margin? You think that would be easy? It would be a case of 'be careful what you wish for.' Brexit on acid by a tiny majority could easily be disastrous for Scotland.
Whichever side wins the next referendum if it's not to cause endless trouble it needs to be decisive.
It only needs 50%+1 of those voting.
Ah, so the 2014 referendum was decisive after all.
So why are we even talking about this?
They are scared as they know another one is on its way and they are shi**ing their pants that teh result will be different. I personally don't care at present but will not just accept blatant lies and stupidity on the topic by half witted frothing unionists who know nothing of Scotland.
Because only your side is allowed to lie.
I fail to understand who "your side" is, I have no side other than I personally want Scotland to be independent.
You and your fellow separatists - who mostly, in any case, don't want Scotland to be independent.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
Your take is correct. People aren't thinking straight with this 'no fund' and 'all paid out of current taxation' business.
But what would the payment be for?
On what basis would you calculate it?
Why wouldn't there be a net payment in the other direction?
Because UK currently holds 100% of the contributions.
Actually, why is this difficult? You calculate a reasonable hypothetical fund based on contributions and payout patterns, you divide it in the ratio iScot:rUK payments in, you pay iScot their share, job done.
But the UK has spent a larger share of the contributions in Scotland - Scotland receives higher per-capita spending on hospitals, etc.
So by that argument Scotland would have to repay to rump UK some of the overspending that has occurred in Scotland.
Also, insofar as you can calculate a notional fund, the money in that fund comes from future tax revenue, so if you were to split any such fund, you would also have to split future tax revenue - but the whole essence of independence is that Scotland doesn't want to share tax revenue. So the fund to pay future pension liabilities is already going to be split on a geographical basis, which means the liabilities the fund is meant to cover should be split in the same way. Scottish taxes to pay for Scottish pensions.
Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP UK deficit: 14% of GDP
Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either. You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
"The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort"
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
Let's drill down into what you mean by "overnight". The actual day of independence wouldn't happen for some years after a vote. The immediate post-vote landscape would be very much a case of "plan for every eventuality, and watch how things unfold". Which means that yes, of course any sensible firm would make plans to leave. Not as a decision, but as a precaution. And such plans would be good pressure on negotiators to get things right. It's a strange thing to imagine that the views of large employers wouldn't be central in the planning for what Day 1 would look like. The kind of capital flight you imagine would be a massive failure of all parties, not just the governments involved. I think there would be a number of parties that would regard this as a huge opportunity.
That's the truth that nobody wants to admit to on either side. Risk and opportunity come hand in hand.
The opportunity would all be on the rUK side - they would be mad to not entice as much business across as possible, and given more or less the only reason there is an FS industy in Scotland is because it falls under the trusted BoE regulatory regime, the average investor in said firms (who is not Scottish) would be voting with their feet.
The people running those firms know this and will act accordingly to avoid it. The idea that there's some magic negotiating path which makes everyone feel super calm leaving their cash where a new government controled Bank of Scotland can forcibly convert them to independance bonds is just childish.
Imagine being in the room to help design a new financial services regulatory regime. You could push to copy the bits of the BoE you like, discard the bits you don't like. I don't know about you, but that smells like opportunity. I don't doubt for a minute that some won't like the risk, you're right there. But there's really nothing stopping the likes of NatWest having a presence in both countries, like they already do. Big companies don't flee from a decent market, they make the most of it. Private enterprise is really good at this sort of thing, which is why the big thing that would worry me is if this was a big socialist project, to turn Scotland into a Corbyn paradise. It clearly isn't anything like that, which is why I tend to side with the nationalists on this issue in thinking of it as largely an exercise in stoking fear.
Given what happened to RBS, not sure I'd be using Natwest in an argument about why investors will feel fine about leaving their money in an independent Scotland. RBS would be first to leave given most of their business is in England, and neither management or shareholders are majority Scottish. There is just zero reason to stay.
They couldn't copy the BoE regime, because the single biggest element of the BoE regime is a long track record, and they won;t have it. They can talk nice all their like, but nobody is leaving a material deposit sat in a new country on independance day.
The Sunday Times @thesundaytimes NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership
Her accusation that bitter ex-officials are trying to discredit her can be true without making their claims untrue, though one would hope there is more than rumour or hearsay to substantiate it.
Quite.
I think the Sunday times said (but can't find it) that they had THREE sources saying Carrie has now decided enough is enough and wants to throw in the towel. What with that and pressure on MPs to get letters in before the 10 day recess starting Thursday I expect next week to be interesting
Sorry, but before I get my hopes up I'll remind you that people have been saying "the next few days!" for many weeks.
Nigel Foremain says he's resigning week of 21 Feb - inside info!
Oh, I hope not. I'd miss Nigel and Malcolm's arguments.
Someone would need to explain what an argument was to that utter cretinous imbecilic moron.
Like I say, I'd miss the arguments. But here's a tip Malc, don't hold back, say what you really think.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
» show previous quotes They don’t have a currency, central bank or reserves, for starters.
You fool we have the Bank of England at present as Central bank , it stores our reserves at £ for £ for all Scottish pounds and we use pounds Sterling, what planet are you on. PS: It appears you have Borisitis, an inability to tell the truth.
Sindy will not have the BoE as it’s central bank and rUK will not enter into a currency union with it.
the SNP's current currency position is to unofficially continue to use sterling outside the formal sterling area, much in the same way Montenegro uses the euro without the agreement of the eurozone or the European Central Bank. It is envisaged this 'sterlingisation' arrangement will last a considerable period. The SNP would then plan to launch a new Scottish currency if the economic conditions merited it.
McCrone sees the danger in this. Figures show that an independent Scotland would start life with a classic twin deficits problem. The country would be importing more than it is exporting and spending more money than it is generating in tax. It would therefore have unsustainably large current account and budget deficits.
'In the short term, even if taxes were raised or public expenditure cut, Scotland would have to borrow to finance both of these deficits,' notes McCrone. But as a new borrower with no long record of credibility like the UK, Scotland would 'have to pay considerably more on its borrowing'.
'Interest rates would be in danger of constantly increasing in a vicious circle, resulting in eventual collapse,' he warns.
Can you read, I am talking about the present situation, once independent we will have A Scottish Central Bank with all our reserves transferred and it will be the Scottish pound or whatever interim currency they use till joining the Euro.
Once Scotland achieves independence you'll have a massive period where the goodwill of others shapes your future nation.
Much of that good-will has to come from the rest of the UK.
And you certainly know that 'reserves' = 'debt'.
Of course but the frohters on here cannot accept that and can only wish Scotland ill will and unthruths. Personally I think both countries will get on perfectly well as any sane person would expect. The nutters will howl at the moon but who cares. Like most people I have relatives living in England , family members married to English people, that will not change.
(I suspect you've not read my most recent response to your comments.)
There is not the slightest chance though that the UK becomes other than some set of states that are pretty united. When the best fun to be had is jibing the opponents supporters in the rugby you know you're friends.
With my Scottish friends I may have questioned their ancentry and (apprently) wished them great ill yesterday evening.
Omnium , I did reply to your other post , however you are a sensible chap by the sound of it and we agree on most points other than how big or small the deficit really is or would be if Scotland was deciding what money was spent on. I claim it would be significantly smaller than the fake numbers used to hide prolifigate Westminster largesse and poor administration but do not claim to be an expert. I do however know that Scotland is rich in resources and would be similar to many other small countries who are doing very well without needing someone to decide where their money is spent. They would be able to fund welfare and pensions with little problem.
An independent Scotland would, likely will, be a fantastic challenge. Quibbles over the numbers are irrelevant really. It's, I'm sure you'd agree, no plain sailing.
However it pans out I'm certainly one of the the very many English people that have nothing other than affetction for the people of Scotland - not sure I want to see you in my living room with an axe, and certainly wish you the darkest of fates when you take to the rugby field, but like it or not, you're honourary English
I did have Irish grandparents on my fathers side.
My ancestry is a bit dull. Mainly English, but my paternal line is Scottish. Peasants originally and then mainly the army serving the Empire.
My Great-grandfather earned some accolades as a park-keeper.
My family name comes from Aberdeenshire origninally. Fyvie. That's a tough place.
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
Let's drill down into what you mean by "overnight". The actual day of independence wouldn't happen for some years after a vote. The immediate post-vote landscape would be very much a case of "plan for every eventuality, and watch how things unfold". Which means that yes, of course any sensible firm would make plans to leave. Not as a decision, but as a precaution. And such plans would be good pressure on negotiators to get things right. It's a strange thing to imagine that the views of large employers wouldn't be central in the planning for what Day 1 would look like. The kind of capital flight you imagine would be a massive failure of all parties, not just the governments involved. I think there would be a number of parties that would regard this as a huge opportunity.
That's the truth that nobody wants to admit to on either side. Risk and opportunity come hand in hand.
The opportunity would all be on the rUK side - they would be mad to not entice as much business across as possible, and given more or less the only reason there is an FS industy in Scotland is because it falls under the trusted BoE regulatory regime, the average investor in said firms (who is not Scottish) would be voting with their feet.
The people running those firms know this and will act accordingly to avoid it. The idea that there's some magic negotiating path which makes everyone feel super calm leaving their cash where a new government controled Bank of Scotland can forcibly convert them to independance bonds is just childish.
Imagine being in the room to help design a new financial services regulatory regime. You could push to copy the bits of the BoE you like, discard the bits you don't like. I don't know about you, but that smells like opportunity. I don't doubt for a minute that some won't like the risk, you're right there. But there's really nothing stopping the likes of NatWest having a presence in both countries, like they already do. Big companies don't flee from a decent market, they make the most of it. Private enterprise is really good at this sort of thing, which is why the big thing that would worry me is if this was a big socialist project, to turn Scotland into a Corbyn paradise. It clearly isn't anything like that, which is why I tend to side with the nationalists on this issue in thinking of it as largely an exercise in stoking fear.
The Scottish people would still need retail banking - the day-to-day of current accounts, loans and mortgages - and that business would indeed remain in Scotland. The investment sector though, that would disappear to somewhere regulated by the BoE almost overnight. Maybe some Scots might like the higher interest rates on savings that would be available in local currency.
Fraud must have gone up a lot for everything else to be down 14%.
The "value" of many other crimes has collapsed. Cars are harder and harder to steal, without the keys. Personal possessions have fallen massively, in terms of saleable value. Apart from phones and laptops, the contents of even a rich persons home isn't worth much on the second hand market. And even for phone and laptops it's a pittance.
Jewellery of the kind that has major re-sale value has dropped out of fashion, for most people.
The value is on your credit cards.
Not to mention no bugger carries cash anymore.
Good luck shopping round here if you don't have cash.
Truly, the life of a Gentleman of the Road is hard. Not enough pickings from London stagecoach to keep one in port, let alone powder and shot......
Good luck shopping for port round here as well. They can spell it but they can't pronounce it...
I blame DfE and OFSTED.
In fairness 'Cockburn' is a funny one. You wonder if it will eventually go the way of Shrewsbury and end up being pronounced as it's spelled not as it's traditionally spoken.
TfL announces Plaistow as Playstow rather than the correct Plahstow.
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
If you think banks either will - or can - sort out fraud, think again.
I don't have any real knowledge in this area. But I just suspect that this is how the government and police see the problem. I have been doing a lot of high value transactions over the last year or so and the bank always flag them up as potentially fraudulent and put a bar on the account whilst checking out the situation with me. The KYC checks that I have to go through when doing any kind of business are obviously taken very seriously and are similarly a recent phenomenon seemingly prompted by fraud concerns.
My own experience is that such measures are very effective at inconveniencing regular clients but rather less so at hampering criminals.
Given the efforts they spend on KYC-ing all their usual customers, how come they have no idea what to do when one of their accounts receives a fraudulent transaction?
If everyone has been KYC-ed to death, it should be really simple to send the SWAT team around to the verified address of the criminals - so why isn’t this happening?
Because they don't know shit from clay would be my answer, but that may be a little harsh.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Pension liabilities are not the same as debt claims. As Ireland, India and the UK have all demonstrated by taking on pension liabilities from organisations they were leaving.
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
If you think banks either will - or can - sort out fraud, think again.
I don't have any real knowledge in this area. But I just suspect that this is how the government and police see the problem. I have been doing a lot of high value transactions over the last year or so and the bank always flag them up as potentially fraudulent and put a bar on the account whilst checking out the situation with me. The KYC checks that I have to go through when doing any kind of business are obviously taken very seriously and are similarly a recent phenomenon seemingly prompted by fraud concerns.
My own experience is that such measures are very effective at inconveniencing regular clients but rather less so at hampering criminals.
Given the efforts they spend on KYC-ing all their usual customers, how come they have no idea what to do when one of their accounts receives a fraudulent transaction?
If everyone has been KYC-ed to death, it should be really simple to send the SWAT team around to the verified address of the criminals - so why isn’t this happening?
I can only presume that people are using fake documents to pass the KYC checks and open accounts in a random persons name. So the person who 'owns' the account connected to the fraud doesn't know anything about what is going on, the stolen money just moves through it; probably somewhere overseas. All pretty terrifying, if you think about it.
Presumably fraudsters can just hack in to someones email account using a password for sale on the internet and get a copy of their passport/bank statement that they have been emailing every time they are asked to go through a KYC check? I assume though that it is quite hard to actually hack in to a gmail account because even if you've got the password, all the security checks kick in whenever a new device/location is used for a login.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
No. They may have thought that they were paying NI contributions in exchange for a pension, but they were actually paying tax.
You're making the fundamental mistake of confusing private sector pensions (in which there exists a contractual obligation for the employer or provider to whom the contributions are being made to stump up on retirement) and the state pension (which is a social security benefit, no different at all to child benefit or JSA, for example, and which the Government can amend, and could theoretically decide to withdraw or replace entirely, at any time.)
Many British voters labour under the false assumption that national insurance payments all go into a massive pot to pay out contributory pensions to them, personally. Many British politicians have found it convenient from time to time to harp on about the contributory principle. But, to borrow a phrase, it's all rhubarb.
Therefore, whilst there are indeed pension complexities to be resolved (e.g. in respect of occupational pensions paid to UK state employees, or in cases where people have lived and worked for some time on both sides of the border,) for the majority of Scots who have never lived or worked outside of Scotland, the entire liability for funding their social security benefits - including state pensions - will be assumed by the Scottish Government upon independence. Nothing else makes any sense at all.
No, you are making the mistake. It makes no difference whether there is a pot or not *unless the paying party goes broke.* The UK cannot go broke.
NI contributions are effectively a contract under which UK has existing obligations which are not abrogated by Scindy. What is rhubarb, is saying that they are not contributions, they are just a thing which the naive and uninitiated might be misled into thinking were contributions, because of their slightly misleading name "contributions." Even if there were merit in the argument, which there isn't, would you be proud to live in a country which took such an unbelievably shitty point against poor, elderly individuals?
A lawyer claiming something is “effectively a contract” is admitting it *isn’t* a contract…
Just caught up with Kwarteng telling Phillips that Steve Barclay is "one of the most honest ministers we have." You'd hope he would pretend to think they were all level pegging at the top of the scale. I mean, "one of the most honest solicitors I know" doesn't really sound right.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Extremely bizarrely, William Glenn has got me in the mood for listening to more Sheena Easton numbers today, and this is another thing Sheena tells us in another of her songs.
Fraud must have gone up a lot for everything else to be down 14%.
The "value" of many other crimes has collapsed. Cars are harder and harder to steal, without the keys. Personal possessions have fallen massively, in terms of saleable value. Apart from phones and laptops, the contents of even a rich persons home isn't worth much on the second hand market. And even for phone and laptops it's a pittance.
Jewellery of the kind that has major re-sale value has dropped out of fashion, for most people.
The value is on your credit cards.
Not to mention no bugger carries cash anymore.
Good luck shopping round here if you don't have cash.
Truly, the life of a Gentleman of the Road is hard. Not enough pickings from London stagecoach to keep one in port, let alone powder and shot......
Good luck shopping for port round here as well. They can spell it but they can't pronounce it...
I blame DfE and OFSTED.
In fairness 'Cockburn' is a funny one. You wonder if it will eventually go the way of Shrewsbury and end up being pronounced as it's spelled not as it's traditionally spoken.
TfL announces Plaistow as Playstow rather than the correct Plahstow.
The locals call my place of birth Acne, but I don't think this will ever be formally adopted.
A NEW European hub is to be set up by ministers in the coming weeks as they step up the indyref2 campaign with a key goal to take an independent Scotland into the European Union.
It will open in Copenhagen this spring ahead of the council elections in May when the SNP will be ramping up the constitutional debate and highlighting the crisis surrounding Boris Johnson and partygate.
Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP UK deficit: 14% of GDP
Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either. You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
There you go again... It is not the case that any of the CEE states has yet acheived economic numbers anywhere close to the UK, and I have been involved in this region for over 40 years in one way or another. Slovenia, the wealthiest CEE economy per capita had in 2020 a GDP/capita of USD 25,459 and the UK USD 40, 428. Bulgaria´s 2020 GDP/capita was only USD 10,006. These by the way are pretty good numbers and reflect nearly 3 decades of economic restructuring and growth.
So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
The Sunday Times @thesundaytimes NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership
Her accusation that bitter ex-officials are trying to discredit her can be true without making their claims untrue, though one would hope there is more than rumour or hearsay to substantiate it.
Quite.
I think the Sunday times said (but can't find it) that they had THREE sources saying Carrie has now decided enough is enough and wants to throw in the towel. What with that and pressure on MPs to get letters in before the 10 day recess starting Thursday I expect next week to be interesting
Sorry, but before I get my hopes up I'll remind you that people have been saying "the next few days!" for many weeks.
Nigel Foremain says he's resigning week of 21 Feb - inside info!
Oh, I hope not. I'd miss Nigel and Malcolm's arguments.
Someone would need to explain what an argument was to that utter cretinous imbecilic moron.
I think any impartial observer would note that I do put together cogent arguments whereas you just spout pathetic insults that would be deemed too unintellectual for the average 8 year old. I really shouldn't engage with you because you are the PB pub bore, but every time you tap one of your pathetic attempts at repost you simply remind everyone on here that not only are you a silly angry little man, but that you clearly have a brain that is of such low capacity that an amoeba would look like a Nobel prize winner. Most people on here are interesting in some way. If anyone ever needed evidence of the type of small brained prejudiced unpleasant fuckwit that follows Alex Salmond they only need look at some of your posts.
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
Let's drill down into what you mean by "overnight". The actual day of independence wouldn't happen for some years after a vote. The immediate post-vote landscape would be very much a case of "plan for every eventuality, and watch how things unfold". Which means that yes, of course any sensible firm would make plans to leave. Not as a decision, but as a precaution. And such plans would be good pressure on negotiators to get things right. It's a strange thing to imagine that the views of large employers wouldn't be central in the planning for what Day 1 would look like. The kind of capital flight you imagine would be a massive failure of all parties, not just the governments involved. I think there would be a number of parties that would regard this as a huge opportunity.
That's the truth that nobody wants to admit to on either side. Risk and opportunity come hand in hand.
See my post below. Understand what happened to financial services in Quebec after FAILED referendums
“When the Quebecois independence party won the elections in the Canadian territory of Quebec in 1976, there were people who went to take their savings out of the bank to deposit them elsewhere. Then began a campaign for the independence of the region that led to the departure of leading companies and the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people.
"The entire financial sector moved to Toronto," recalls the university's professor Reuven Brenner, who participated in the commission to discuss what would happen to the debt in the event that Quebec became independent.
Was the Crab off then and causing you these delusions.
The crab was utterly superb. One of the best crab meals I have ever had.
Sri Lankan lagoon crab is celebrated around Asia (especially in Singapore, where they use it to make Singapore chili crab)
I now totally understand why. It is EXQUIZZ
Colombo (CNN) — Crabs caught in Sri Lankan waters are so prized in Singapore's fine dining establishments that a single one can sell for hundreds of dollars. But there was one place where these crabs weren't the hottest dish on the menu -- Sri Lanka. That's when chef Dharshan Munidasa, who grew up in Colombo, began thinking about how he could return one of Sri Lanka's most iconic exports back to the people who made it famous.
A NEW European hub is to be set up by ministers in the coming weeks as they step up the indyref2 campaign with a key goal to take an independent Scotland into the European Union.
It will open in Copenhagen this spring ahead of the council elections in May when the SNP will be ramping up the constitutional debate and highlighting the crisis surrounding Boris Johnson and partygate.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Pensions are not the same as debt claims. As Ireland, India and the UK have all demonstrated by taking on pension liabilities from organisations they were leaving.
Twas an analogy.
I am now going to retire to the sofa to watch The Great. I advise you not to imitate me if you have any regard for historical accuracy.
One thing about it, it has several Russian nobles at the court of Catherine the Great played by black actors, and I am astonished how little of a problem this is. You think OK he is black, which Count Rostov probably wasn't, but also he probably owns a car and an iphone, which Count Rostov probably didn't, so what's the problem?
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
If you think banks either will - or can - sort out fraud, think again.
I don't have any real knowledge in this area. But I just suspect that this is how the government and police see the problem. I have been doing a lot of high value transactions over the last year or so and the bank always flag them up as potentially fraudulent and put a bar on the account whilst checking out the situation with me. The KYC checks that I have to go through when doing any kind of business are obviously taken very seriously and are similarly a recent phenomenon seemingly prompted by fraud concerns.
I was talking to someone recently whose bank had blocked a company payment as suspected fraud. Never mind he regularly made the same payment. The ludicrous (and potentially painful) part was the payee was HMRC. AI should be left to its main purpose of writing poetry.
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
Banks now have a legal obligation to refund most fraudulent payments out of their own funds
A NEW European hub is to be set up by ministers in the coming weeks as they step up the indyref2 campaign with a key goal to take an independent Scotland into the European Union.
It will open in Copenhagen this spring ahead of the council elections in May when the SNP will be ramping up the constitutional debate and highlighting the crisis surrounding Boris Johnson and partygate.
Just about the only way the currency issue can be dealt with, is for the new Scottish currency to be pegged to the Euro on Day 1, with the European Central Bank standing behind it. That’s one hell of a big ask though, they’d better hope there’s enough support for immediate Scottish accession. They’d be negotiating with the UK and EU simultaneously.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP UK deficit: 14% of GDP
Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either. You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
There you go again... It is not the case that any of the CEE states has yet acheived economic numbers anywhere close to the UK, and I have been involved in this region for over 40 years in one way or another. Slovenia, the wealthiest CEE economy per capita had in 2020 a GDP/capita of USD 25,459 and the UK USD 40, 428. Bulgaria´s 2020 GDP/capita was only USD 10,006. These by the way are pretty good numbers and reflect nearly 3 decades of economic restructuring and growth.
So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
Terrible to have the credibility of one’s arguements destroyed.
Who is ‘us’ and why do you need a case made to you?
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
Your take is correct. People aren't thinking straight with this 'no fund' and 'all paid out of current taxation' business.
But what would the payment be for?
On what basis would you calculate it?
Why wouldn't there be a net payment in the other direction?
Because UK currently holds 100% of the contributions.
Actually, why is this difficult? You calculate a reasonable hypothetical fund based on contributions and payout patterns, you divide it in the ratio iScot:rUK payments in, you pay iScot their share, job done.
Lets say England wanted to be independent rather than Scotland. Should Scottish, N Irish and Welsh workers pay the English pensions?
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
Banks now have a legal obligation to refund most fraudulent payments out of their own funds
I would imagine that low level petty fraud is difficult to prosecute and consumes a lot of police resources in doing so. The test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one to pass. I would imagine it is easy for a defendent to construct a plausible denial which would derail a prosecution. Its not like a violent crime where someone was caught on CCTV.
If other crime, including violence, is actually going down 14%, then the government surely do deserve some credit for that. It shows that despite lots of high profile cases, the country is not an unsafe place when compared against recent history and other comparable countries.
Kwarteng is correct in that people generally want the police to tackle crimes against the person. I would also imagine that the government want the banks to sort out fraud, not the police.
Banks now have a legal obligation to refund most fraudulent payments out of their own funds
As well they should, since in processing money obtained fraudulently the banks are handling in stolen goods.
Just caught up with Kwarteng telling Phillips that Steve Barclay is "one of the most honest ministers we have." You'd hope he would pretend to think they were all level pegging at the top of the scale. I mean, "one of the most honest solicitors I know" doesn't really sound right.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Extremely bizarrely, William Glenn has got me in the mood for listening to more Sheena Easton numbers today, and this is another thing Sheena tells us in another of her songs.
My wife wrote one of Sheena Easton's top 40 songs.....
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
No. They may have thought that they were paying NI contributions in exchange for a pension, but they were actually paying tax.
You're making the fundamental mistake of confusing private sector pensions (in which there exists a contractual obligation for the employer or provider to whom the contributions are being made to stump up on retirement) and the state pension (which is a social security benefit, no different at all to child benefit or JSA, for example, and which the Government can amend, and could theoretically decide to withdraw or replace entirely, at any time.)
Many British voters labour under the false assumption that national insurance payments all go into a massive pot to pay out contributory pensions to them, personally. Many British politicians have found it convenient from time to time to harp on about the contributory principle. But, to borrow a phrase, it's all rhubarb.
Therefore, whilst there are indeed pension complexities to be resolved (e.g. in respect of occupational pensions paid to UK state employees, or in cases where people have lived and worked for some time on both sides of the border,) for the majority of Scots who have never lived or worked outside of Scotland, the entire liability for funding their social security benefits - including state pensions - will be assumed by the Scottish Government upon independence. Nothing else makes any sense at all.
No, you are making the mistake. It makes no difference whether there is a pot or not *unless the paying party goes broke.* The UK cannot go broke.
NI contributions are effectively a contract under which UK has existing obligations which are not abrogated by Scindy. What is rhubarb, is saying that they are not contributions, they are just a thing which the naive and uninitiated might be misled into thinking were contributions, because of their slightly misleading name "contributions." Even if there were merit in the argument, which there isn't, would you be proud to live in a country which took such an unbelievably shitty point against poor, elderly individuals?
A lawyer claiming something is “effectively a contract” is admitting it *isn’t* a contract…
Yes. So what? If you want it spelled out, it would be a contract if the parties were private entities or corporations.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
Right, okay, but as I said, it spent more of it, per capita, in Scotland than elsewhere, so the accounting would result in a net payment from Scotland to the rump UK. Not the rump UK making a payment in the other direction.
Just caught up with Kwarteng telling Phillips that Steve Barclay is "one of the most honest ministers we have." You'd hope he would pretend to think they were all level pegging at the top of the scale. I mean, "one of the most honest solicitors I know" doesn't really sound right.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Extremely bizarrely, William Glenn has got me in the mood for listening to more Sheena Easton numbers today, and this is another thing Sheena tells us in another of her songs.
My wife wrote one of Sheena Easton's top 40 songs.....
An '80s belter ? I wonder if Queen Shena came back in the '90s.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
There is no pot!
The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.
And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Tbf a lot of Scotland's financial services industry has spent the last decade quietly doing just as you say, at least in terms of where the decision maker and registered addresses are concerned.
Just reading up on the Russell murders. I don’t think Bellfield was the perpetrator.
As I recall he was fingered before but his then girlfriend - who shopped him for the killing of at least one of his victims - is adamant they were together on that day. So it does seem improbable. More likely he's attention seeking in the hope of getting a payment from a newspaper to improve his prison cell.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
There is no pot!
The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.
And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
The Sunday Times @thesundaytimes NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership
I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.
There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.
She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
There is no pot!
The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.
And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.
As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
And ultimately that is because the SNP don't care about the facts. The current government doesn't want a referendum. Creative tension between a pair of disgraced liars under police investigation suits both Sturgeon and Johnson rather well. It lets them play to their galleries and ignore the actual problems we have.
I think we all know that the worst imaginable outcome for the SNP would be a further referendum with a narrow 'yes' vote. They'll pull every trick in the book to avoid that. If a referendum block in Downing Street fails, by promising the unicorns they are trying to make any winning margin as wide as possible.
And even if that's never needed, it's nice red meat to their dafter supporters and deflects awkward questions about the politicisation of the judiciary, the weakness of Scotland's education system and exactly where that £600k has gone.
It's baffling that you could actually convince yourself that the SNP's nightmare scenario is a vote for independence. You are obviously wrong and I find it strange that someone even needs to tell you that.
Voting for Indy by a narrow margin? You think that would be easy? It would be a case of 'be careful what you wish for.' Brexit on acid by a tiny majority could easily be disastrous for Scotland.
Whichever side wins the next referendum if it's not to cause endless trouble it needs to be decisive.
It only needs 50%+1 of those voting.
Ah, so the 2014 referendum was decisive after all.
So why are we even talking about this?
They are scared as they know another one is on its way and they are shi**ing their pants that teh result will be different. I personally don't care at present but will not just accept blatant lies and stupidity on the topic by half witted frothing unionists who know nothing of Scotland.
Because only your side is allowed to lie.
I fail to understand who "your side" is, I have no side other than I personally want Scotland to be independent. The clowns on here are spouting lies, I merely state that no-one especially not the crooked UK government have any clue of the real numbers and what the budgets etc would look like after independence. At this point everything is decided by Westminster so no-one has any idea whatsoever of what a Scottish budget would comprise. I take a slightly optimistic view that it would not be as bad as dim saddo's pretend it would be.
Share with us your great economic credentials please? You throw around offensive words about everyone else who disagrees with you, but, sorry, you really are easily seen as the most stupid poster on here with the least evidence of having any indepth knowledge of anything. You throw around words like moron and cretin without understanding what they mean, but it is apparent to everyone here that if these offensive words apply to anyone they apply to you most.
You have never once engaged with another poster and beaten them on argument that I have seen, because you are fundamentally incapable of doing so. In the absence of being able to do so you are just rude. You are a silly angry little man and everyone on here thinks you are a bigger laughing stock than Boris Johnson and Alex Salmond put together. I imagine there are quite a few people who are in favour of Scottish Independence who cringe every time you post.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
There is no pot!
The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.
And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
There is no pot!
The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.
And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
Show me the pot.
Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.
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?
The currency of Scotland Doh!
Well done, Malc!
It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality. Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.
So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.
Why?
The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.
Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.
Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
There is no pot!
The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.
And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
Show me the pot.
Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
Just reading up on the Russell murders. I don’t think Bellfield was the perpetrator.
As I recall he was fingered before but his then girlfriend - who shopped him for the killing of at least one of his victims - is adamant they were together on that day. So it does seem improbable. More likely he's attention seeking in the hope of getting a payment from a newspaper to improve his prison cell.
Yes, and I don’t think Lin Russell was his type. He went for blondes (or at least, not brunettes).
Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.
Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.
The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
Let's drill down into what you mean by "overnight". The actual day of independence wouldn't happen for some years after a vote. The immediate post-vote landscape would be very much a case of "plan for every eventuality, and watch how things unfold". Which means that yes, of course any sensible firm would make plans to leave. Not as a decision, but as a precaution. And such plans would be good pressure on negotiators to get things right. It's a strange thing to imagine that the views of large employers wouldn't be central in the planning for what Day 1 would look like. The kind of capital flight you imagine would be a massive failure of all parties, not just the governments involved. I think there would be a number of parties that would regard this as a huge opportunity.
That's the truth that nobody wants to admit to on either side. Risk and opportunity come hand in hand.
The opportunity would all be on the rUK side - they would be mad to not entice as much business across as possible, and given more or less the only reason there is an FS industy in Scotland is because it falls under the trusted BoE regulatory regime, the average investor in said firms (who is not Scottish) would be voting with their feet.
The people running those firms know this and will act accordingly to avoid it. The idea that there's some magic negotiating path which makes everyone feel super calm leaving their cash where a new government controled Bank of Scotland can forcibly convert them to independance bonds is just childish.
Imagine being in the room to help design a new financial services regulatory regime. You could push to copy the bits of the BoE you like, discard the bits you don't like. I don't know about you, but that smells like opportunity. I don't doubt for a minute that some won't like the risk, you're right there. But there's really nothing stopping the likes of NatWest having a presence in both countries, like they already do. Big companies don't flee from a decent market, they make the most of it. Private enterprise is really good at this sort of thing, which is why the big thing that would worry me is if this was a big socialist project, to turn Scotland into a Corbyn paradise. It clearly isn't anything like that, which is why I tend to side with the nationalists on this issue in thinking of it as largely an exercise in stoking fear.
The Scottish people would still need retail banking - the day-to-day of current accounts, loans and mortgages - and that business would indeed remain in Scotland. The investment sector though, that would disappear to somewhere regulated by the BoE almost overnight. Maybe some Scots might like the higher interest rates on savings that would be available in local currency.
Regulatory regimes can be copied. But something that is less mobile is the expertise in things like asset servicing and investment management. Scotland has experience and excellence in these areas, which isn't going to all just up sticks and leave. People don't just move from Edinburgh to London en masse just because the senior management want it. If they were minded to abandon their talent then those companies that want to stay or move into Scotland would have an easy time with recruitment. There's a big disincentive to firms just moving hundreds of miles like that, which I believe Remainers failed to take account of when they made their most doomy predictions about everything moving to Frankfurt.
The EU thought they could regulate London out of existence. What the Brexit experience has shown, is that London’s financial centre is unique, massive, and isn’t going anywhere, if anything it’s getting bigger as EU banks expand London offices.
Just reading up on the Russell murders. I don’t think Bellfield was the perpetrator.
As I recall he was fingered before but his then girlfriend - who shopped him for the killing of at least one of his victims - is adamant they were together on that day. So it does seem improbable. More likely he's attention seeking in the hope of getting a payment from a newspaper to improve his prison cell.
Yes, and I don’t think Lin Russell was his type. He went for blondes (or at least, not brunettes).
Hasn't he also confessed to a series of other crimes he transparently didn't commit?
I'm not sure why this is getting so much media prominence, tbh. Doesn't say much about the integrity of our media.
The SNP explanation for why their pensions policy hasn’t changed is basically ‘when I said I’d get you a round of drinks I didn’t mean I’d pay for them, I only meant I’d go to the bar.’ It’s embarrassing.
- A bunch of spring onions - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon. - 2 big garlic cloves - A tablespoon of salt - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.
1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste 2) Add the paste to
- 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds. - 500g beef mince meat
3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across. 4) Oven to 200c. 5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven. 6) Given them 25 minute 7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240 8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside
Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.
Comments
I am bullish.
If you find a gold mine in your back garden can you declare independence?
Scotland has been an equal and good partner in a political relationship that has lastest some hundreds of years. England has been an equal and good partner in a political relationship that has lastest some hundreds of years.
(Of course 'equal' here is a bit misleading)
Usually, these things are done overnight or with bank holidays, but in the case of Scotland there will be a year or more of discussion and negotiation leading up to Independence Day, which will increase the uncertainty. We saw the same uncertainty, on a much smaller scale, with the EU negotiations - which of course didn’t involve a currency change.
Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
Blooming crims, "working from home", when they should be getting ahead by doing proper robberies and supporting the city economy by buying lunch from Pret.
They didn't - and consequently lost the referendum.
Eight years on, they still have no answers to those points. But layered onto this, they are blocking the development of the Cambo oil field. They now aren't even pretending oil's there to underpin the economy as they did in 2014.
“For those Scots still wavering about how to vote in next week’s referendum, First Canadian Place in Toronto is a concrete lesson in how money reacts to secession, or even the threat of one.
In 1976, the separatist-minded Parti Québécois beat the Quebec Liberal party in the province’s election. The next day, “the Brinks trucks [armoured vehicles for transporting cash] were rolling down the highway” and out of the French-speaking province, said Joe Martin, director of the Canadian business history programme at Toronto university’s Rotman School of Management.
After the election, the PQ steered Quebec towards its first independence referendum in 1980. In the end the motion was voted down – 59 per cent to 40 per cent – but the financial sector’s sentiment towards Quebec never recovered.”
FT (££)
Oh sorry, did you mean criminals not the Tory party?
You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
https://www.theeconomyjournal.eu/texto-diario/mostrar/972930/what-the-montreal-effect-is-and-how-catalonias-economy-can-be-hit-by-the-independence-movement
“When the Quebecois independence party won the elections in the Canadian territory of Quebec in 1976, there were people who went to take their savings out of the bank to deposit them elsewhere. Then began a campaign for the independence of the region that led to the departure of leading companies and the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people.
"The entire financial sector moved to Toronto," recalls the university's professor Reuven Brenner, who participated in the commission to discuss what would happen to the debt in the event that Quebec became independent.
The people running those firms know this and will act accordingly to avoid it. The idea that there's some magic negotiating path which makes everyone feel super calm leaving their cash where a new government controled Bank of Scotland can forcibly convert them to independance bonds is just childish.
However it pans out I'm certainly one of the the very many English people that have nothing other than affetction for the people of Scotland - not sure I want to see you in my living room with an axe, and certainly wish you the darkest of fates when you take to the rugby field, but like it or not, you're honourary English
On what basis would you calculate it?
Why wouldn't there be a net payment in the other direction?
SNP should campaign for a UK wide referendum - they'd find far more support for Scotland leaving if those paying for them were given a say.
There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
I take a slightly optimistic view that it would not be as bad as dim saddo's pretend it would be.
Actually, why is this difficult? You calculate a reasonable hypothetical fund based on contributions and payout patterns, you divide it in the ratio iScot:rUK payments in, you pay iScot their share, job done.
Oh for the day when we are finally rid of this nonsense.
They can’t both be telling the truth.
If everyone has been KYC-ed to death, it should be really simple to send the SWAT team around to the verified address of the criminals - so why isn’t this happening?
The FS in Scotland would be eviscerated overnight; it would be Montreal times 20
Now, none of this means a vote for YES is wrong. I voted LEAVE with my eyes open, knowing it would cause significant economic pain, but with the belief that it would be worth it in the end
Scot Nats need to be similarly honest. At least with themselves
2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
The money didn't roll back, and for good reason.
So by that argument Scotland would have to repay to rump UK some of the overspending that has occurred in Scotland.
Also, insofar as you can calculate a notional fund, the money in that fund comes from future tax revenue, so if you were to split any such fund, you would also have to split future tax revenue - but the whole essence of independence is that Scotland doesn't want to share tax revenue. So the fund to pay future pension liabilities is already going to be split on a geographical basis, which means the liabilities the fund is meant to cover should be split in the same way. Scottish taxes to pay for Scottish pensions.
Careful now. Don't let the mask slip.
They couldn't copy the BoE regime, because the single biggest element of the BoE regime is a long track record, and they won;t have it. They can talk nice all their like, but nobody is leaving a material deposit sat in a new country on independance day.
My Great-grandfather earned some accolades as a park-keeper.
My family name comes from Aberdeenshire origninally. Fyvie. That's a tough place.
Presumably fraudsters can just hack in to someones email account using a password for sale on the internet and get a copy of their passport/bank statement that they have been emailing every time they are asked to go through a KYC check? I assume though that it is quite hard to actually hack in to a gmail account because even if you've got the password, all the security checks kick in whenever a new device/location is used for a login.
Forget @malcolmg 's pension - who is thinking about my mortgage?
A NEW European hub is to be set up by ministers in the coming weeks as they step up the indyref2 campaign with a key goal to take an independent Scotland into the European Union.
It will open in Copenhagen this spring ahead of the council elections in May when the SNP will be ramping up the constitutional debate and highlighting the crisis surrounding Boris Johnson and partygate.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19902965.scotland-open-new-eu-hub-amid-push-indyref2/
So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
Sri Lankan lagoon crab is celebrated around Asia (especially in Singapore, where they use it to make Singapore chili crab)
I now totally understand why. It is EXQUIZZ
Colombo (CNN) — Crabs caught in Sri Lankan waters are so prized in Singapore's fine dining establishments that a single one can sell for hundreds of dollars. But there was one place where these crabs weren't the hottest dish on the menu -- Sri Lanka.
That's when chef Dharshan Munidasa, who grew up in Colombo, began thinking about how he could return one of Sri Lanka's most iconic exports back to the people who made it famous.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/ministry-of-crab-sri-lanka-cmb/index.html
Why is it so good? I’ve no idea. The totally unpolluted waters? Or maybe the crabs are eating Chinese plastic and prospering thereby?
Anyway it is the best crab I have had in the world. Even better than Cromer and Devon. And possibly even better than USHUAIA
And what costs “hundreds of dollars” in Singapore costs about £4 here in Lanks
I am now going to retire to the sofa to watch The Great. I advise you not to imitate me if you have any regard for historical accuracy.
One thing about it, it has several Russian nobles at the court of Catherine the Great played by black actors, and I am astonished how little of a problem this is. You think OK he is black, which Count Rostov probably wasn't, but also he probably owns a car and an iphone, which Count Rostov probably didn't, so what's the problem?
Who is ‘us’ and why do you need a case made to you?
That would clearly bankrupt the rump UK govt.
The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.
And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
You have never once engaged with another poster and beaten them on argument that I have seen, because you are fundamentally incapable of doing so. In the absence of being able to do so you are just rude. You are a silly angry little man and everyone on here thinks you are a bigger laughing stock than Boris Johnson and Alex Salmond put together. I imagine there are quite a few people who are in favour of Scottish Independence who cringe every time you post.
Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
I'm not sure why this is getting so much media prominence, tbh. Doesn't say much about the integrity of our media.
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1490324359021568000?s=20&t=3CIWHX3EJzMi9vZ-m197aQ
- A bunch of spring onions
- A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
- One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
- 2 big garlic cloves
- A tablespoon of salt
- 2 tablespoons sesame oil.
1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
2) Add the paste to
- 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
- 500g beef mince meat
3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
4) Oven to 200c.
5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
6) Given them 25 minute
7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside
Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.