The stunning statistic in that quote from the learned Sunday Post is half of our Council Tax now goes in paying pensions. This is bordering on extortion.
Earlier this year one of the high head yins at Dundee City Council decided to retire. Because this was contrived to occur in yet another reorganisation she walked away with over £300K of Council Tax money and, of course, an extremely generous unfunded pension.
I have a neighbour who retired on such a pension at 59. My Council Tax, when I am still working at 70 (health permitting) will be funding that.
There is currently a golden generation of well paid, enormously subsidised public sector management who are gaining wealth in a way that would make a banker blush. They never retire, they always get a "package", they get index linked pensions based on final salaries and they retire young. All of this will change and, in fairness, is starting to change already but the cost of this clovered generation will be a problem for the next 30 years.
Malcolm is deluding himself if he thinks rUK are going to be paying this extortion for those who have lived and worked in Scotland. That horrendous cost will fall on an independent Scotland and we will have as big a problem with it as the rest of the UK, possibly more so as our public sector is somewhat bigger.
Neil will be on shortly and point out once again it is anticipated that the share of our GDP subsidising such pensions is projected to fall. This is because of the sort of reforms that the Coalition has brought in including later retirement, higher contributions from the staff themselves and moves towards average pensions. But very little of this will hurt the golden generation now in their late 50s and desperately looking for the exit before the gates are shut.
David , for once we agree. However I did not say anywhere that it would be for UK to pay all future pensions. They will be and have stated publicly that they will be responsible for any pension contributions made till independence, that means state pensions and any civil servant pensions under UK. Local government pensions will come under the local government having the pension scheme.
Presumably Scotland would be responsible for all of the pensions from the Scottish NHS, those working for the Scottish government, all of our criminal justice system etc.? I can see more of an argument about the Armed forces and those who worked in England. I think this is going to be very complicated.
Everything stopped making sense after that part. Do you understand what the word 'independence' means? Have you any historical documentation* to back-up your thistled scenario?
Seriously, and I do mean this as a friend, Unckie' you do come across as a clown.
Yes, he is. He's talking about state pensions. Your link refers to private pensions and the impact of auto-enrollment (as introduced by the splendid Labour government*).
The stunning statistic in that quote from the learned Sunday Post is half of our Council Tax now goes in paying pensions. This is bordering on extortion.
Earlier this year one of the high head yins at Dundee City Council decided to retire. Because this was contrived to occur in yet another reorganisation she walked away with over £300K of Council Tax money and, of course, an extremely generous unfunded pension.
I have a neighbour who retired on such a pension at 59. My Council Tax, when I am still working at 70 (health permitting) will be funding that.
There is currently a golden generation of well paid, enormously subsidised public sector management who are gaining wealth in a way that would make a banker blush. They never retire, they always get a "package", they get index linked pensions based on final salaries and they retire young. All of this will change and, in fairness, is starting to change already but the cost of this clovered generation will be a problem for the next 30 years.
Malcolm is deluding himself if he thinks rUK are going to be paying this extortion for those who have lived and worked in Scotland. That horrendous cost will fall on an independent Scotland and we will have as big a problem with it as the rest of the UK, possibly more so as our public sector is somewhat bigger.
Neil will be on shortly and point out once again it is anticipated that the share of our GDP subsidising such pensions is projected to fall. This is because of the sort of reforms that the Coalition has brought in including later retirement, higher contributions from the staff themselves and moves towards average pensions. But very little of this will hurt the golden generation now in their late 50s and desperately looking for the exit before the gates are shut.
Dead right.
I could add to the woe, the utter disaster which is the 2004 Pension Act which has copper bottomed and gold plated guarantees for anyone lucky enough to be in a defined benefit scheme at that point and never changes jobs ( unless joining the public sector ) till they retire, but at the price of the nigh on total collapse of the defined benefit pension in the private sector.
A text book classic of making something so risky and difficult via regulation that people simply stop doing it, and a great example of the power of Government to ( how ever well intentioned ) screw up big time at vast cost to millions of its citizens,
Oh No !
Now you'll have Neil on, explaining why Gordon Brown was the best ever thing for UK pensions. :-(
Everything stopped making sense after that part. Do you understand what the word 'independence' means? Have you any historical documentation* to back-up your thistled scenario?
Seriously, and I do mean this as a friend, Unckie' you do come across as a clown.
* Mel Gibson's Disney effort does not count.
I know you are thick Fluffy, but in as small words as possible. If you pay into a pension scheme, they must pay you a pension, it is normal practice. You suggesting England would welch on its commitments after taking the money, surely not.
The stunning statistic in that quote from the learned Sunday Post is half of our Council Tax now goes in paying pensions. This is bordering on extortion.
Earlier this year one of the high head yins at Dundee City Council decided to retire. Because this was contrived to occur in yet another reorganisation she walked away with over £300K of Council Tax money and, of course, an extremely generous unfunded pension.
I have a neighbour who retired on such a pension at 59. My Council Tax, when I am still working at 70 (health permitting) will be funding that.
There is currently a golden generation of well paid, enormously subsidised public sector management who are gaining wealth in a way that would make a banker blush. They never retire, they always get a "package", they get index linked pensions based on final salaries and they retire young. All of this will change and, in fairness, is starting to change already but the cost of this clovered generation will be a problem for the next 30 years.
Malcolm is deluding himself if he thinks rUK are going to be paying this extortion for those who have lived and worked in Scotland. That horrendous cost will fall on an independent Scotland and we will have as big a problem with it as the rest of the UK, possibly more so as our public sector is somewhat bigger.
Neil will be on shortly and point out once again it is anticipated that the share of our GDP subsidising such pensions is projected to fall. This is because of the sort of reforms that the Coalition has brought in including later retirement, higher contributions from the staff themselves and moves towards average pensions. But very little of this will hurt the golden generation now in their late 50s and desperately looking for the exit before the gates are shut.
Dead right.
I could add to the woe, the utter disaster which is the 2004 Pension Act which has copper bottomed and gold plated guarantees for anyone lucky enough to be in a defined benefit scheme at that point and never changes jobs ( unless joining the public sector ) till they retire, but at the price of the nigh on total collapse of the defined benefit pension in the private sector.
A text book classic of making something so risky and difficult via regulation that people simply stop doing it, and a great example of the power of Government to ( how ever well intentioned ) screw up big time at vast cost to millions of its citizens,
Oh No !
Now you'll have Neil on, explaining why Gordon Brown was the best ever thing for UK pensions. :-(
Yes, he is. He's talking about state pensions. Your link refers to private pensions and the impact of auto-enrollment (as introduced by the splendid Labour government*).
* copyright TrollCentre.
Auto enrolment pensions, for the low paid, they aren't worth the pot one might use to piss in. 3% of nothing is nothing
The stunning statistic in that quote from the learned Sunday Post is half of our Council Tax now goes in paying pensions. This is bordering on extortion.
Neil will be on shortly and point out once again it is anticipated that the share of our GDP subsidising such pensions is projected to fall. This is because of the sort of reforms that the Coalition has brought in including later retirement, higher contributions from the staff themselves and moves towards average pensions. But very little of this will hurt the golden generation now in their late 50s and desperately looking for the exit before the gates are shut.
David , for once we agree. However I did not say anywhere that it would be for UK to pay all future pensions. They will be and have stated publicly that they will be responsible for any pension contributions made till independence, that means state pensions and any civil servant pensions under UK. Local government pensions will come under the local government having the pension scheme.
Presumably Scotland would be responsible for all of the pensions from the Scottish NHS, those working for the Scottish government, all of our criminal justice system etc.? I can see more of an argument about the Armed forces and those who worked in England. I think this is going to be very complicated.
David, it is very simple, for state pension it is UK if you have paid them your contributions. For other pension schemes it will be up to the pension scheme and who owns/controls it. If it is a UK government scheme they will have to pay , if Scottish , local or any other scheme they will need to pay. After independence any UK schemes will split and future contributions and pensions will be responsibility of whoever is owning/running the country/scheme. People all over the world get pensions from countries they used to live in.
Yes, he is. He's talking about state pensions. Your link refers to private pensions and the impact of auto-enrollment (as introduced by the splendid Labour government*).
* copyright TrollCentre.
He was talking about UK pensions, now he's changed to UK state pensions. I think as a member of the New Labour regime you should avoid pontificating on pensions.
So Malc and NPxMP are citing the Daily mail as the organ of truth now...
We really are through the looking glass!
Numpties like you use it Scott, so best keeping it simple like yourself and not confusing you by using something serious. Keeping it to the lowest common denominator so you could take it in.
I know you are thick Fluffy, but in as small words as possible. If you pay into a pension scheme, they must pay you a pension, it is normal practice. You suggesting England would welch on its commitments after taking the money, surely not.
Oi, I do the insults!
Simple point for my thick English skull to get round: You said that the pensions were owed by the UK. If so, once Scots independence, the UK will cease to exist in it's legal form.
So the question is quite simple: And I can use bold and italic fonts to make it clear for you. Why should England pay the pensions of a former state? You are free to provide - non-Disney - historical evidence.
Mr. G, UK pensions are pretty awful now, due in large part to Gordon Brown.
MD, morning , exactly as I said. Strangely some idiots try to claim it is not so. Their bitterness means they try to defend the indefensible. Very bizarre, the UK is very unequal and has crap state pensions and thanks to Brown mostly crap private pensions now as well.
Poll says George Osborne trusted more than Alex Salmond.
Only a turnip such as you could post such falsehoods.
Obvious troll, trolls obviously. Tick tock, soon be over.
Sad twat endlessly adds zero to debate , dire
its your lack of self awareness problem showing up again. Yu are relentlessly rude to people till the moderator warns you and then you slither off. When it comes to adding nothing to he debate", you should look in the mirror.
When have I ever slithered off fanny features. I am not a quivering jessie like yourself. Another dumpling that adds nothing , an empty headed F***wit who would struggle to spell his name.
PS: A boring little sh**head as well to boot
You always do Malc, once the level of insult has reached the point where they wont tolerate it any more..and noboby can be arsed to parley with you. As for the insults, I rest my case, as to my contributuion to the debate, the remarkable similarity between Eck and Jabba the Hut stands for all to see.
Yes, he is. He's talking about state pensions. Your link refers to private pensions and the impact of auto-enrollment (as introduced by the splendid Labour government*).
* copyright TrollCentre.
He was talking about UK pensions, now he's changed to UK state pensions. I think as a member of the New Labour regime you should avoid pontificating on pensions.
Keep blubbing Monica, you know we were talking about state pension. Strangely you are the only person to try and claim otherwise, very telling.
Yes, he is. He's talking about state pensions. Your link refers to private pensions and the impact of auto-enrollment (as introduced by the splendid Labour government*).
* copyright TrollCentre.
Not necessarily, Nick, the figures you quote are expressed as a percentage of average income, an unusual measure (at least not one I've seen talked about before), but one that can produce skewed results I would have thought (country which has low average income could pay out a pension lower than that in the UK but appear higher in the rankings, could it not).
I am not even sure the figures make sense in themselves, the UK state pension the article says is £110.75 per week, £5759 a year, but average income in the UK is about £26k. If as claimed the UK state pension was 32.6% of average income it would need to be about £8.5K p.a.. So what figures are being used to get to that table?
Then there are the comparison issues that Mr Howl raises.
Frankly, it is a Daily Mail article and I am amazed you put so much faith in it.
The stunning statistic in that quote from the learned Sunday Post is half of our Council Tax now goes in paying pensions. This is bordering on extortion.
Neil will be on shortly and point out once again it is anticipated that the share of our GDP subsidising such pensions is projected to fall. This is because of the sort of reforms that the Coalition has brought in including later retirement, higher contributions from the staff themselves and moves towards average pensions. But very little of this will hurt the golden generation now in their late 50s and desperately looking for the exit before the gates are shut.
David , for once we agree. However I did not say anywhere that it would be for UK to pay all future pensions. They will be and have stated publicly that they will be responsible for any pension contributions made till independence, that means state pensions and any civil servant pensions under UK. Local government pensions will come under the local government having the pension scheme.
Presumably Scotland would be responsible for all of the pensions from the Scottish NHS, those working for the Scottish government, all of our criminal justice system etc.? I can see more of an argument about the Armed forces and those who worked in England. I think this is going to be very complicated.
David, it is very simple, for state pension it is UK if you have paid them your contributions. For other pension schemes it will be up to the pension scheme and who owns/controls it. If it is a UK government scheme they will have to pay , if Scottish , local or any other scheme they will need to pay. After independence any UK schemes will split and future contributions and pensions will be responsibility of whoever is owning/running the country/scheme. People all over the world get pensions from countries they used to live in.
It really isn't Malcolm. It never is when a Ponzi scheme unravels.
Yes, he is. He's talking about state pensions. Your link refers to private pensions and the impact of auto-enrollment (as introduced by the splendid Labour government*).
* copyright TrollCentre.
He was talking about UK pensions, now he's changed to UK state pensions. I think as a member of the New Labour regime you should avoid pontificating on pensions.
Keep blubbing Monica, you know we were talking about state pension. Strangely you are the only person to try and claim otherwise, very telling.
Even your modified "worst state pension in Europe" claim is wrong. As the elderly in Scotland well know.
Frankly, it is a Daily Mail article and I am amazed you put so much faith in it.
True, but if you google "pensions Europe" you'll find similar articles from other sources. I must admit I've not done any systematic analysis myself, but certainly the countries that I've lived in had much higher state pensions. Several European countries think they'll have trouble affording them in the long term, though, unless pension age rises faster than currently planned.
True, but if you google "pensions Europe" you'll find similar articles from other sources. I must admit I've not done any systematic analysis myself, but certainly the countries that I've lived in had much higher state pensions. Several European countries think they'll have trouble affording them in the long term, though, unless pension age rises faster than currently planned.
Sadly you were in Parliament for thirteen years and did squat. How big is you Westminster pension-pot (excluding £30k+ pay-off in 2010) Sven...?
Yes, he is. He's talking about state pensions. Your link refers to private pensions and the impact of auto-enrollment (as introduced by the splendid Labour government*).
* copyright TrollCentre.
Nick this talks about "sustainable pensions". Well of course auto enrolled pensions are "sustainable" as they're a money purchase savings scheme, there's no IOU about it. What you need to ask is, are the levels of contribution enough generally to give a decent income in old age . Well if you want to retire on a decent level at 65, 8% ain't enough. Not even close. I laud the principle of their introduction whatever Govt did it, but if you are going to trumpet the Govt you supported as having a good record in pension provision in the round I seriously part company.
To be clear on the 1997 -2010 Labour Govt's record on this: It was utterly bloody God awful.
Only 13% of final salary schemes remained open as of early last year ( a drop from 21% the year just before - warp speed decline ). The vast majority of those still open are in the public sector as the State is just about the only organisation left prepared and stupid enough to contend with the risk cost and paperwork involved. Of the 4.5m left in the 6800 odd DB schemes the vast majority ( outside the State sector) are over 40. So Labour did over the young there then.
How many on auto enrolment know that to get a DB RPI linked pension at 65 with 50% surviving other half's benefit cost this week ( so not in inflated future Pounds) about £318000 ( three hundred and eighteen thousand ) per £10000 , (ten thousand )?. Or if you want £20000 over £600k ( or a Dollar millionaire status if you like!). Not many and fewer will get there.
Pensions policy is a shambles and the last Govt, if not culpable alone, played a leading role in making if worse for most of us.
If you are back in power next May please ruminate on this. I beg you.
If pensions are going to be affordable then either contributions are going to be higher, they will be paid out later, or they will be paid at a lower rate. Or any combination of the above.
So low state pensions are more affordable in the long term, and more sustainable.
The stunning statistic in that quote from the learned Sunday Post is half of our Council Tax now goes in paying pensions. This is bordering on extortion.
Earlier this year one of the high head yins at Dundee City Council decided to retire. Because this was contrived to occur in yet another reorganisation she walked away with over £300K of Council Tax money and, of course, an extremely generous unfunded pension.
I have a neighbour who retired on such a pension at 59. My Council Tax, when I am still working at 70 (health permitting) will be funding that.
There is currently a golden generation of well paid, enormously subsidised public sector management who are gaining wealth in a way that would make a banker blush. They never retire, they always get a "package", they get index linked pensions based on final salaries and they retire young. All of this will change and, in fairness, is starting to change already but the cost of this clovered generation will be a problem for the next 30 years.
Malcolm is deluding himself if he thinks rUK are going to be paying this extortion for those who have lived and worked in Scotland. That horrendous cost will fall on an independent Scotland and we will have as big a problem with it as the rest of the UK, possibly more so as our public sector is somewhat bigger.
Neil will be on shortly and point out once again it is anticipated that the share of our GDP subsidising such pensions is projected to fall. This is because of the sort of reforms that the Coalition has brought in including later retirement, higher contributions from the staff themselves and moves towards average pensions. But very little of this will hurt the golden generation now in their late 50s and desperately looking for the exit before the gates are shut.
When you assess UK PLC it's the public sector pensions liabilities that dwarf all others. The coalition have made progress on this to be fair.
I agree in general, the packages the public sector get are ridiculous.
The stunning statistic in that quote from the learned Sunday Post is half of our Council Tax now goes in paying pensions. This is bordering on extortion.
Neil will be on shortly and point out once again it is anticipated that the share of our GDP subsidising such pensions is projected to fall. This is because of the sort of reforms that the Coalition has brought in including later retirement, higher contributions from the staff themselves and moves towards average pensions. But very little of this will hurt the golden generation now in their late 50s and desperately looking for the exit before the gates are shut.
David , for once we agree. However I did not say anywhere that it would be for UK to pay all future pensions. They will be and have stated publicly that they will be responsible for any pension contributions made till independence, that means state pensions and any civil servant pensions under UK. Local government pensions will come under the local government having the pension scheme.
Presumably Scotland would be responsible for all of the pensions from the Scottish NHS, those working for the Scottish government, all of our criminal justice system etc.? I can see more of an argument about the Armed forces and those who worked in England. I think this is going to be very complicated.
David, it is very simple, for state pension it is UK if you have paid them your contributions. For other pension schemes it will be up to the pension scheme and who owns/controls it. If it is a UK government scheme they will have to pay , if Scottish , local or any other scheme they will need to pay. After independence any UK schemes will split and future contributions and pensions will be responsibility of whoever is owning/running the country/scheme. People all over the world get pensions from countries they used to live in.
It really isn't Malcolm. It never is when a Ponzi scheme unravels.
David, I agree , however my point is that if Westminster welch on the pensions it will not matter whether we are in UK or independent, ergo we are NOT better together.
Frankly, it is a Daily Mail article and I am amazed you put so much faith in it.
True, but if you google "pensions Europe" you'll find similar articles from other sources. I must admit I've not done any systematic analysis myself, but certainly the countries that I've lived in had much higher state pensions. Several European countries think they'll have trouble affording them in the long term, though, unless pension age rises faster than currently planned.
I am quite sure that some countries do have higher state pensions but that is not the claim is it.
In making such a comparison then for it to be meaningful one would have to take into account the full range of benefits available to a pensioner in identical circumstances in each state and adjust for purchasing power parity. I really don't think the Mail article can be used to justify anything serious - as I point out the figures don't even work in their own terms.
Yes, he is. He's talking about state pensions. Your link refers to private pensions and the impact of auto-enrollment (as introduced by the splendid Labour government*).
* copyright TrollCentre.
Not necessarily, Nick, the figures you quote are expressed as a percentage of average income, an unusual measure (at least not one I've seen talked about before), but one that can produce skewed results I would have thought (country which has low average income could pay out a pension lower than that in the UK but appear higher in the rankings, could it not).
I am not even sure the figures make sense in themselves, the UK state pension the article says is £110.75 per week, £5759 a year, but average income in the UK is about £26k. If as claimed the UK state pension was 32.6% of average income it would need to be about £8.5K p.a.. So what figures are being used to get to that table?
Then there are the comparison issues that Mr Howl raises.
Frankly, it is a Daily Mail article and I am amazed you put so much faith in it.
I gave another example link as well. A 5 year old could google pages of links. It is very very well known that UK state pension is pathetic in comparison to other countries and among the very worst.
If pensions are going to be affordable then either contributions are going to be higher, they will be paid out later, or they will be paid at a lower rate. Or any combination of the above.
So low state pensions are more affordable in the long term, and more sustainable.
It certainly matches their low wages policy , if only the tax rates and NI contributions were similar.
If pensions are going to be affordable then either contributions are going to be higher, they will be paid out later, or they will be paid at a lower rate. Or any combination of the above.
So low state pensions are more affordable in the long term, and more sustainable.
It certainly matches their low wages policy , if only the tax rates and NI contributions were similar.
And any increase in pensions would be paid for how?
"I agree in general, the packages the public sector get are ridiculous."
They may appear that way now but at the time those schemes wee set up they were not outrageous or indeed unusual. It is only in the past fifteen years or so that defined benefit schemes have gone in the private sector for reasons we have rehearsed so often.
A two thirds final salary scheme was quite standard for most major employers when I started out, it was part of the deal. You gave Shell or the Prudential or whoever forty years of loyal service and they looked after you for life (along with all the sports and social facilities the company provided and other non-salary benefits).
Public sector pensions are now far less generous than they were (talk to Mr. Stopper, gent and fire-fighter of this parish), but still better than most private sector schemes.
The stunning statistic in that quote from the learned Sunday Post is half of our Council Tax now goes in paying pensions. This is bordering on extortion.
Earlier this year one of the high head yins at Dundee City Council decided to retire. Because this was contrived to occur in yet another reorganisation she walked away with over £300K of Council Tax money and, of course, an extremely generous unfunded pension.
I have a neighbour who retired on such a pension at 59. My Council Tax, when I am still working at 70 (health permitting) will be funding that.
I have certainly had to bite my tongue to avoid angry retorts at certain colleagues of mine in local government who so bitterly complained about retirement age being put back a year or two, and the unfairness of it, when those of my generation who lack the ability or luck to earn a very comfortable amount are continually told how we will have to work well into our 70s or until death, whichever occurs first.
If pensions are going to be affordable then either contributions are going to be higher, they will be paid out later, or they will be paid at a lower rate. Or any combination of the above.
So low state pensions are more affordable in the long term, and more sustainable.
It certainly matches their low wages policy , if only the tax rates and NI contributions were similar.
And any increase in pensions would be paid for how?
If they had policies to make the country more productive rather than just lining their own and their pals pockets then they would have more to spend on other things. They also waste significant amounts of money on wars, nuclear weapons, etc , etc that could be used to better effect. They are happy to keep the plebs on low wages and low pensions whilst enriching themselves and retaining power. Given how badly they have run the country and the debt they are racking up it will be low pensions for forseeable future. The fact that they award themselves huge gold plated pensions and do not need to worry about it should maybe register in voter's minds. They depend on the stupidity of the public.
So you think the UK will welch on state pensions after people have contributed all their lives.
No
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
If pensions are going to be affordable then either contributions are going to be higher, they will be paid out later, or they will be paid at a lower rate. Or any combination of the above.
So low state pensions are more affordable in the long term, and more sustainable.
It certainly matches their low wages policy , if only the tax rates and NI contributions were similar.
And any increase in pensions would be paid for how?
Well the only fiscally sane way out ( and this is a general point nothing to do with Scotland alone) is the raise retirement ages aggressively and to let the private sector do what the State already done which raise them retrospectively (I accept the State had to even though I lost out personally).
(Puts tin hat on and awaits brickbats about " broken promises" - buy a calculator and do some maths the numbers are overwhelming I'm afraid ). If not, accept lower payments and more old age poverty.
It certainly matches their low wages policy , if only the tax rates and NI contributions were similar.
Sorry,
Why should income, tax and insurance rates be the same in a theoretical 'Northern-BackwardShire' and a' DoonWidDaGroov London Borough Council'? If the ephemeral feeling of open spaces (c.f. Bhutan's economic model) outweighs the cut-and-thrust (of London vibrant, crime-ridden but - ahem - vibrant economy) then wages, taxes and insurance should vary, no?
So - in a future reality - English taxpayers should not pay for Al-Beeb terminals in the Scottish hinterland and Scots' insurance policy holders should not pay for burglars in London, no? There is a definite market adjustment required to ensure English-resident workers are paid more due to demographics and costs, not least in London. One size does not fit all!
OK; being slightly flippant! London has massive economies-of-scales. Unlike Scotland....
If pensions are going to be affordable then either contributions are going to be higher, they will be paid out later, or they will be paid at a lower rate. Or any combination of the above.
So low state pensions are more affordable in the long term, and more sustainable.
It certainly matches their low wages policy , if only the tax rates and NI contributions were similar.
And any increase in pensions would be paid for how?
The SNP has secretly been making plans to cut state pensions come independence;
So you think the UK will welch on state pensions after people have contributed all their lives.
No
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
Yes as I said, where you paid in will pay out, otherwise you are stating that the rumpUK will welch on their obligations. If I paid the UK pension contributions for forty years I would expect that they would pay my pension. You able to grasp that simple fact. I did not contribute to a Scotland state pension , I contributed to the UK. So they either pay the pension or transfer a lump sum to an independent Scotland to enable them to pay it, standard pension practice.
Yes, he is. He's talking about state pensions. Your link refers to private pensions and the impact of auto-enrollment (as introduced by the splendid Labour government*).
* copyright TrollCentre.
Not necessarily, Nick, the figures you quote are expressed as a percentage of average income, an unusual measure (at least not one I've seen talked about before), but one that can produce skewed results I would have thought (country which has low average income could pay out a pension lower than that in the UK but appear higher in the rankings, could it not).
I am not even sure the figures make sense in themselves, the UK state pension the article says is £110.75 per week, £5759 a year, but average income in the UK is about £26k. If as claimed the UK state pension was 32.6% of average income it would need to be about £8.5K p.a.. So what figures are being used to get to that table?
Then there are the comparison issues that Mr Howl raises.
Frankly, it is a Daily Mail article and I am amazed you put so much faith in it.
I gave another example link as well. A 5 year old could google pages of links. It is very very well known that UK state pension is pathetic in comparison to other countries and among the very worst.
The other link was based on the same figures as the Daily Mail article. You ignore the points I raise and insult me. Frankly, Mr. G., I am bored with your rude rantings, you seem to deliberately set out to insult and contribute next to nothing to any debate. It would seem that the moderators give you special licence that is not applied to any other poster, I don't know why but that is their decision. I can see no further point in engaging with you.
If pensions are going to be affordable then either contributions are going to be higher, they will be paid out later, or they will be paid at a lower rate. Or any combination of the above.
So low state pensions are more affordable in the long term, and more sustainable.
It certainly matches their low wages policy , if only the tax rates and NI contributions were similar.
And any increase in pensions would be paid for how?
The SNP has secretly been making plans to cut state pensions come independence;
Yes, he is. He's talking about state pensions. Your link refers to private pensions and the impact of auto-enrollment (as introduced by the splendid Labour government*).
* copyright TrollCentre.
I gave another example link as well. A 5 year old could google pages of links. It is very very well known that UK state pension is pathetic in comparison to other countries and among the very worst.
The other link was based on the same figures as the Daily Mail article. You ignore the points I raise and insult me. Frankly, Mr. G., I am bored with your rude rantings, you seem to deliberately set out to insult and contribute next to nothing to any debate. It would seem that the moderators give you special licence that is not applied to any other poster, I don't know why but that is their decision. I can see no further point in engaging with you.
What are you wittering about , after your puerile rant about it being the Daily Mail to try and deflect from the truth , I pointed out the other article and said there would be many easily found. You then fall back on your usual poor me why am I being insulted when I am so clever routine. You are very acerbic yourself but do not like any in return. Crying like a big baby about me getting special treatment is pathetic and juvenile. We have one of the worst state pensions around , if you think otherwise show us some proof and do not cry like a big baby, saying you do not like evidence. Rebut the evidence and prove the pension is somehow not the worst instead of whinging. The reason it used the same figures is that they are the TRUTH.
If pensions are going to be affordable then either contributions are going to be higher, they will be paid out later, or they will be paid at a lower rate. Or any combination of the above.
So low state pensions are more affordable in the long term, and more sustainable.
It certainly matches their low wages policy , if only the tax rates and NI contributions were similar.
And any increase in pensions would be paid for how?
The SNP has secretly been making plans to cut state pensions come independence;
New Daily Patriot @newdailypatriot 15m FREE Palestine, boycott Israel messages are being stamped on bank notes and handed out by a Muslim newsagent in... http://fb.me/1z3ObCZwi
So you think the UK will welch on state pensions after people have contributed all their lives.
No
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
Yes as I said, where you paid in will pay out, otherwise you are stating that the rumpUK will welch on their obligations. If I paid the UK pension contributions for forty years I would expect that they would pay my pension. You able to grasp that simple fact. I did not contribute to a Scotland state pension , I contributed to the UK. So they either pay the pension or transfer a lump sum to an independent Scotland to enable them to pay it, standard pension practice.
Malcolm, forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't what you're doing here a bit of spectacular picking and choosing about whether you want to count a newly independent Scotland as a new emerging state or a successor state.
As I understad it it'd be up for negotiation of course, but from the base expectation that a newly independent Scotland would take over responsbility for a certain chunk of the state pension, rather than rUK continuing to pay them or transferring a lump sum of any kind to Scotland.
So you think the UK will welch on state pensions after people have contributed all their lives.
No
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
Yes as I said, where you paid in will pay out, otherwise you are stating that the rumpUK will welch on their obligations. If I paid the UK pension contributions for forty years I would expect that they would pay my pension. You able to grasp that simple fact. I did not contribute to a Scotland state pension , I contributed to the UK. So they either pay the pension or transfer a lump sum to an independent Scotland to enable them to pay it, standard pension practice.
Malcolm, forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't what you're doing here a bit of spectacular picking and choosing about whether you want to count a newly independent Scotland as a new emerging state or a successor state.
As I understad it it'd be up for negotiation of course, but from the base expectation that a newly independent Scotland would take over responsbility for a certain chunk of the state pension, rather than rUK continuing to pay them or transferring a lump sum of any kind to Scotland.
Yes indeed, however I am told on here ad infinitum that the rump UK is the successor state which will retain everything and Scotland will be expunged from every organisation in the world. Do you think people on here are lying to me.
PS. The current Pensions Minister has publicly stated that the rUK would be responsible for any pensions to all people who had contributed to UK prior to independence, just as you can move to anywhere in the world at present and still receive your UK state pension.
(1) It depends on what is "mandatory", and thus ignores contributory aspects of different countries.
(2) More importantly, it is reported as a share of final salary, meaning the UK does worse because it has high salaries versus e.g. Slovenia. It's thus highly misleading. To actually understand how good pensions are you want the absolute amounts, adjusted on a PPP basis.
I am quite sure that some countries do have higher state pensions but that is not the claim is it.
In making such a comparison then for it to be meaningful one would have to take into account the full range of benefits available to a pensioner in identical circumstances in each state and adjust for purchasing power parity. I really don't think the Mail article can be used to justify anything serious - as I point out the figures don't even work in their own terms.
Fair enough! I withdraw the claim and substitute "I have a vague impression based on miscellaneous dubious newspaper articles and anecdotal experience that UK state pensions are lower than most European countries".
We wargamers call that "a retreat to a tactically defensible position".
You're also right about it having been common in company pensions to have final salary provision. Companies had various kinds of small print though. When I left my Swiss employer of 18 years I discovered that they could then chuck away all their employers' contributions and merely return my contributions plus I think 3%. To benefit from the superb pension I'd have needed to stay there till I retired. I discovered that after I was already standing for election and I did think oo-er, but at age 47 you don't worry too much about such things.
Fluffy: since you ask, my Parliamentary pension would be £21,000/year and payable from whenever I cease to be a candidate or MP. If I'm elected, I forfeit it until no longer elected (the scheme has no compensation for claiming late). So in addition to having more time to play Elite, I have a financial interest in losing next year :-).
paid plenty for it as well fluffy, hopefully rump are not welchers
Scottish independence is a de-merger. Any businessman will understand this and it's implications....
Yes and the responsibilities that come with. What do you think happens when companies divest or de-merger. You obviously think one of them just steals all the pension contributions and the other gets nothing. Hopefully you are not involved in any financial decisions at work.
So you think the UK will welch on state pensions after people have contributed all their lives.
No
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
Yes as I said, where you paid in will pay out, otherwise you are stating that the rumpUK will welch on their obligations. If I paid the UK pension contributions for forty years I would expect that they would pay my pension. You able to grasp that simple fact. I did not contribute to a Scotland state pension , I contributed to the UK. So they either pay the pension or transfer a lump sum to an independent Scotland to enable them to pay it, standard pension practice.
Malcolm, forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't what you're doing here a bit of spectacular picking and choosing about whether you want to count a newly independent Scotland as a new emerging state or a successor state.
As I understad it it'd be up for negotiation of course, but from the base expectation that a newly independent Scotland would take over responsbility for a certain chunk of the state pension, rather than rUK continuing to pay them or transferring a lump sum of any kind to Scotland.
Yes indeed, however I am told on here ad infinitum that the rump UK is the successor state which will retain everything and Scotland will be expunged from every organisation in the world. Do you think people on here are lying to me.
PS. The current Pensions Minister has publicly stated that the rUK would be responsible for any pensions to all people who had contributed to UK prior to independence, just as you can move to anywhere in the world at present and still receive your UK state pension.
I think you have to take it one way or the other.
As for Steve Webb, could you link to that. Because I was under the impression what he said was that pensioners would definitely receive the money, but there was a question over who would be paying it.
Imagine the senescent screeching on here if one of the few remaining Yes supporters put forward a poll of a selected subset of respondents historically in favour of Yes?
Something of similar psephological value would be the Scottish subset of 170 in yesterday's Comres poll (thanks for these figs from Scottish Skier, a valuable contributor on Scot Goes Pop, a site that's actually relevant to the indy debate).
Modestly sized (170) subset from Comres
How favourable or unfavourable are you towards each of the following?
Independence for Scotland
45% Favourable 36% Unfavourable 9% Neither 11% DK
That's from a group identifying as 55% voters for Unionist parties, 37% for SNP. A straw in the wind.
Sitting on my balcony in Belem, west of Lisbon, staring at the deep deep blue where the Tagus meets the sea, under a cloudless sky. Serene and happy.
Made the mistake of popping by pb. Like walking into a faintly whiffy old people's home, where most of the respectable denizens are trying to ignore the mad geriatric Scotsman angrily masturbating in the corner.
*quietly closes door again*
At least I do not need to pay someone else to do it for me. Or to get it to rise for me.
PS: Euneuch's should refrain from throwing stones at glasshouses. Stick to being a degenerate and impressing fools.
So you think the UK will welch on state pensions after people have contributed all their lives.
No
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
Yes as I said, where you paid in will pay out, otherwise you are stating that the rumpUK will welch on their obligations. If I paid the UK pension contributions for forty years I would expect that they would pay my pension. You able to grasp that simple fact. I did not contribute to a Scotland state pension , I contributed to the UK. So they either pay the pension or transfer a lump sum to an independent Scotland to enable them to pay it, standard pension practice.
Malcolm, forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't what you're doing here a bit of spectacular picking and choosing about whether you want to count a newly independent Scotland as a new emerging state or a successor state.
As I understad it it'd be up for negotiation of course, but from the base expectation that a newly independent Scotland would take over responsbility for a certain chunk of the state pension, rather than rUK continuing to pay them or transferring a lump sum of any kind to Scotland.
Yes indeed, however I am told on here ad infinitum that the rump UK is the successor state which will retain everything and Scotland will be expunged from every organisation in the world. Do you think people on here are lying to me.
PS. The current Pensions Minister has publicly stated that the rUK would be responsible for any pensions to all people who had contributed to UK prior to independence, just as you can move to anywhere in the world at present and still receive your UK state pension.
I think you have to take it one way or the other.
As for Steve Webb, could you link to that. Because I was under the impression what he said was that pensioners would definitely receive the money, but there was a question over who would be paying it.
I understand that the UK pays pensioners their pensions whether they retire to Spain, Australia, Thailand or wherever. However in some cases (eg Spain) it pays the going rate, ie what the pensioner would get if they lived in UK. In other cases, (eg Australia) they continue to pay the pension of an emigrant pensioner, but only at the rate it was when they emigrated.
Now, as an OAP, if I was a voter in Scotland I’d want to know, before I voted Yes, as I might be inclined to do, I’d want to know if I was going to be treated as a Spaniard or an Australian! Bearing in mind of course that there are a lot of OAP’s in Scotland, probably more than OAP Brits (of all sorts) in Spain!
While multiculturalism has been a huge failure, a bigger cause is this bit:
"Part of the problem is that many Muslims in Britain come from parts of the world like Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Horn of Africa, where political violence is endemic."
We need to start much higher levels of scrutiny for immigrants coming from such areas of the world. If you come from a country with endemic extremism (Pakistan, Somalia, DR Congo, Nigeria etc) then you should have to have an interview about your political/social views. If there's any evidence of extremist views (e.g. belief that gay people should be killed, belief that women should have to cover their faces, etc) then you don't get in.
Bringing back the primary purpose rule would also help.
I understand that the UK pays pensioners their pensions whether they retire to Spain, Australia, Thailand or wherever. However in some cases (eg Spain) it pays the going rate, ie what the pensioner would get if they lived in UK. In other cases, (eg Australia) they continue to pay the pension of an emigrant pensioner, but only at the rate it was when they emigrated.
Now, as an OAP, if I was a voter in Scotland I’d want to know, before I voted Yes, as I might be inclined to do, I’d want to know if I was going to be treated as a Spaniard or an Australian! Bearing in mind of course that there are a lot of OAP’s in Scotland, probably more than OAP Brits (of all sorts) in Spain!
However they have also said you can retain dual citizenship and keep your UK passport etc , so how would they pick and choose how/who gets and who does not get. As said on here already there is little guarantee we will get pensions in the future no matter which state etc.
Hopefully you are not involved in any financial decisions at work.
Nope: I just integrate the systems. Actuaries do (or not do) the finance.Trust me: Give up on patronising conflations and try to answer a/any question posed.
I support the idea of Scots' independence and you respond with witless paraphrases of hopelessness-over-hope. Why cannot Scotland come up with a reason for independence other then 'Erggh! Engurlisch!"...?
So you think the UK will welch on state pensions after people have contributed all their lives.
No
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
Yes indeed, however I am told on here ad infinitum that the rump UK is the successor state which will retain everything and Scotland will be expunged from every organisation in the world. Do you think people on here are lying to me.
PS. The current Pensions Minister has publicly stated that the rUK would be responsible for any pensions to all people who had contributed to UK prior to independence, just as you can move to anywhere in the world at present and still receive your UK state pension.
I think you have to take it one way or the other.
As for Steve Webb, could you link to that. Because I was under the impression what he said was that pensioners would definitely receive the money, but there was a question over who would be paying it.
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: State pensions would still paid after independence a UK minister has told MPs despite concerns raised by the Better Together campaign.
Giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee Lib Dem pensions minister Steve Webb said that anybody who had paid UK national insurance would be entitled to their state pension whatever the outcome of the referendum.
He said: “Citizenship is irrelevant. It is what you have put into the UK National Insurance system prior to separation, answer 35 years, that builds up to a continued UK pension under continuing UK rules, the question is who is paying for it, but they are entitled to that money.”
I understand that the UK pays pensioners their pensions whether they retire to Spain, Australia, Thailand or wherever. However in some cases (eg Spain) it pays the going rate, ie what the pensioner would get if they lived in UK. In other cases, (eg Australia) they continue to pay the pension of an emigrant pensioner, but only at the rate it was when they emigrated.
Now, as an OAP, if I was a voter in Scotland I’d want to know, before I voted Yes, as I might be inclined to do, I’d want to know if I was going to be treated as a Spaniard or an Australian! Bearing in mind of course that there are a lot of OAP’s in Scotland, probably more than OAP Brits (of all sorts) in Spain!
However they have also said you can retain dual citizenship and keep your UK passport etc , so how would they pick and choose how/who gets and who does not get. As said on here already there is little guarantee we will get pensions in the future no matter which state etc.
I suggest it would depend on the address to which notices were sent. And I’m pretty sure one can retain dual citizenship in Australia. Not a problem in Spain since it’s part of the EU.
Hopefully you are not involved in any financial decisions at work.
Nope: I just integrate the systems. Actuaries do (or not do) the finance.Trust me: Give up on patronising conflations and try to answer a/any question posed.
I support the idea of Scots' independence and you respond with witless paraphrases of hopelessness-over-hope. Why cannot Scotland come up with a reason for independence other then 'Erggh! Engurlisch!"...?
Nobody gives a hoot about the English, we want independence to run our own affairs. You are the one doing the conflating and saying the rUK will welch on paying people their state pension that they have contributed to. I think they are better than that and will meet their obligations.
I understand that the UK pays pensioners their pensions whether they retire to Spain, Australia, Thailand or wherever. However in some cases (eg Spain) it pays the going rate, ie what the pensioner would get if they lived in UK. In other cases, (eg Australia) they continue to pay the pension of an emigrant pensioner, but only at the rate it was when they emigrated.
Now, as an OAP, if I was a voter in Scotland I’d want to know, before I voted Yes, as I might be inclined to do, I’d want to know if I was going to be treated as a Spaniard or an Australian! Bearing in mind of course that there are a lot of OAP’s in Scotland, probably more than OAP Brits (of all sorts) in Spain!
However they have also said you can retain dual citizenship and keep your UK passport etc , so how would they pick and choose how/who gets and who does not get. As said on here already there is little guarantee we will get pensions in the future no matter which state etc.
I suggest it would depend on the address to which notices were sent. And I’m pretty sure one can retain dual citizenship in Australia. Not a problem in Spain since it’s part of the EU.
yes I am no expert but given it happens and Scotland is also in EU etc , people opt to keep being English/British/rUK whilst residing in Scotland. I would expect they would get the same pension. However they may choose to do as per private pensions and hand over a sum of money and give responsibility to Scottish government but that also could have issues as all the current 400K English people could retain citizenship and move back to England meaning they pay out twice.
Do you know what currently happens if someone returns to UK from Australia, do they go back to UK pension rules or stay as emigrant pensioner.
So you think the UK will welch on state pensions after people have contributed all their lives.
No
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
Yes indeed, however I am told on here ad infinitum that the rump UK is the successor state which will retain everything and Scotland will be expunged from every organisation in the world. Do you think people on here are lying to me.
PS. The current Pensions Minister has publicly stated that the rUK would be responsible for any pensions to all people who had contributed to UK prior to independence, just as you can move to anywhere in the world at present and still receive your UK state pension.
I think you have to take it one way or the other.
As for Steve Webb, could you link to that. Because I was under the impression what he said was that pensioners would definitely receive the money, but there was a question over who would be paying it.
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: State pensions would still paid after independence a UK minister has told MPs despite concerns raised by the Better Together campaign.
Giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee Lib Dem pensions minister Steve Webb said that anybody who had paid UK national insurance would be entitled to their state pension whatever the outcome of the referendum.
He said: “Citizenship is irrelevant. It is what you have put into the UK National Insurance system prior to separation, answer 35 years, that builds up to a continued UK pension under continuing UK rules, the question is who is paying for it, but they are entitled to that money.”
Yes , there was a video of the committee as well I believe and he went further on that but as you say it is politicians so could be and likely to be denied/altered in any case. If that was the case then I presume UK would have to give Scotland a consideration for all the payments made till independence.
I suspect if anything this poll underestimates the proportion of pensioners who will vote No. It's hard to see how the Yes campaign can turn that round because, as with currency, EU membership and NATO they just haven't bothered to think the pensions issue through. So rather than address legitimate concerns I expect the Yes campaign to carry on with it's last desperate tactic of telling lies about the NHS. All part of their positive message of course!
So you think the UK will welch on state pensions after people have contributed all their lives.
No
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
Yes, but a fuller account of the evidence he gave that day (and pointing to the final paragraph).
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: State pensions would still paid after independence a UK minister has told MPs despite concerns raised by the Better Together campaign.
Giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee Lib Dem pensions minister Steve Webb said that anybody who had paid UK national insurance would be entitled to their state pension whatever the outcome of the referendum.
He said: “Citizenship is irrelevant. It is what you have put into the UK National Insurance system prior to separation, answer 35 years, that builds up to a continued UK pension under continuing UK rules, the question is who is paying for it, but they are entitled to that money.”
Yes , there was a video of the committee as well I believe and he went further on that but as you say it is politicians so could be and likely to be denied/altered in any case. If that was the case then I presume UK would have to give Scotland a consideration for all the payments made till independence.
Pre-independence something would be worked out in terms of Scotland's tax contributions vs liabilities etc.
Post-independence then as I said, it'll be negotiated but with the expectation that a newly independent Scotland would take over the paying of a proportion of pensions rather than rUK funding them.
I suspect if anything this poll underestimates the proportion of pensioners who will vote No. It's hard to see how the Yes campaign can turn that round because, as with currency, EU membership and NATO they just haven't bothered to think the pensions issue through. So rather than address legitimate concerns I expect the Yes campaign to carry on with it's last desperate tactic of telling lies about the NHS. All part of their positive message of course!
Here come the Tories, "stay with us and be impoverished you stupid Scots Twunts" only we can tell you how to live , you are too stupid to think for yourselves. Vote Tory.
I understand that the UK pays pensioners their pensions whether they retire to Spain, Australia, Thailand or wherever. However in some cases (eg Spain) it pays the going rate, ie what the pensioner would get if they lived in UK. In other cases, (eg Australia) they continue to pay the pension of an emigrant pensioner, but only at the rate it was when they emigrated.
Now, as an OAP, if I was a voter in Scotland I’d want to know, before I voted Yes, as I might be inclined to do, I’d want to know if I was going to be treated as a Spaniard or an Australian! Bearing in mind of course that there are a lot of OAP’s in Scotland, probably more than OAP Brits (of all sorts) in Spain!
However they have also said you can retain dual citizenship and keep your UK passport etc , so how would they pick and choose how/who gets and who does not get. As said on here already there is little guarantee we will get pensions in the future no matter which state etc.
I suggest it would depend on the address to which notices were sent. And I’m pretty sure one can retain dual citizenship in Australia. Not a problem in Spain since it’s part of the EU.
yes I am no expert but given it happens and Scotland is also in EU etc , people opt to keep being English/British/rUK whilst residing in Scotland. I would expect they would get the same pension. However they may choose to do as per private pensions and hand over a sum of money and give responsibility to Scottish government but that also could have issues as all the current 400K English people could retain citizenship and move back to England meaning they pay out twice.
Do you know what currently happens if someone returns to UK from Australia, do they go back to UK pension rules or stay as emigrant pensioner.
I think they get pensions at the current rate, but they don’t get back pay. That’s a think; if anyoine knows better, I’m happy to be told I’m wrong.
So you think the UK will welch on state pensions after people have contributed all their lives.
No
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
Yes, but a fuller account of the evidence he gave that day (and pointing to the final paragraph).
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: State pensions would still paid after independence a UK minister has told MPs despite concerns raised by the Better Together campaign.
Giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee Lib Dem pensions minister Steve Webb said that anybody who had paid UK national insurance would be entitled to their state pension whatever the outcome of the referendum.
He said: “Citizenship is irrelevant. It is what you have put into the UK National Insurance system prior to separation, answer 35 years, that builds up to a continued UK pension under continuing UK rules, the question is who is paying for it, but they are entitled to that money.”
Yes , there was a video of the committee as well I believe and he went further on that but as you say it is politicians so could be and likely to be denied/altered in any case. If that was the case then I presume UK would have to give Scotland a consideration for all the payments made till independence.
Pre-independence something would be worked out in terms of Scotland's tax contributions vs liabilities etc.
Post-independence then as I said, it'll be negotiated but with the expectation that a newly independent Scotland would take over the paying of a proportion of pensions rather than rUK funding them.
I understand that the UK pays pensioners their pensions whether they retire to Spain, Australia, Thailand or wherever. However in some cases (eg Spain) it pays the going rate, ie what the pensioner would get if they lived in UK. In other cases, (eg Australia) they continue to pay the pension of an emigrant pensioner, but only at the rate it was when they emigrated.
Now, as an OAP, if I was a voter in Scotland I’d want to know, before I voted Yes, as I might be inclined to do, I’d want to know if I was going to be treated as a Spaniard or an Australian! Bearing in mind of course that there are a lot of OAP’s in Scotland, probably more than OAP Brits (of all sorts) in Spain!
However they have also said you can retain dual citizenship and keep your UK passport etc , so how would they pick and choose how/who gets and who does not get. As said on here already there is little guarantee we will get pensions in the future no matter which state etc.
I suggest it would depend on the address to which notices were sent. And I’m pretty sure one can retain dual citizenship in Australia. Not a problem in Spain since it’s part of the EU.
yes I am no expert but given it happens and Scotland is also in EU etc , people opt to keep being English/British/rUK whilst residing in Scotland. I would expect they would get the same pension. However they may choose to do as per private pensions and hand over a sum of money and give responsibility to Scottish government but that also could have issues as all the current 400K English people could retain citizenship and move back to England meaning they pay out twice.
Do you know what currently happens if someone returns to UK from Australia, do they go back to UK pension rules or stay as emigrant pensioner.
I think they get pensions at the current rate, but they don’t get back pay. That’s a think; if anyoine knows better, I’m happy to be told I’m wrong.
Do you know if they single out Australia as it is non EU, but are forced to pay those that move to Spain under EU rules.
I understand that the UK pays pensioners their pensions whether they retire to Spain, Australia, Thailand or wherever. However in some cases (eg Spain) it pays the going rate, ie what the pensioner would get if they lived in UK. In other cases, (eg Australia) they continue to pay the pension of an emigrant pensioner, but only at the rate it was when they emigrated.
Now, as an OAP, if I was a voter in Scotland I’d want to know, before I voted Yes, as I might be inclined to do, I’d want to know if I was going to be treated as a Spaniard or an Australian! Bearing in mind of course that there are a lot of OAP’s in Scotland, probably more than OAP Brits (of all sorts) in Spain!
However they have also said you can retain dual citizenship and keep your UK passport etc , so how would they pick and choose how/who gets and who does not get. As said on here already there is little guarantee we will get pensions in the future no matter which state etc.
I suggest it would depend on the address to which notices were sent. And I’m pretty sure one can retain dual citizenship in Australia. Not a problem in Spain since it’s part of the EU.
yes I am no expert but given it happens and Scotland is also in EU etc , people opt to keep being English/British/rUK whilst residing in Scotland. I would expect they would get the same pension. However they may choose to do as per private pensions and hand over a sum of money and give responsibility to Scottish government but that also could have issues as all the current 400K English people could retain citizenship and move back to England meaning they pay out twice.
Do you know what currently happens if someone returns to UK from Australia, do they go back to UK pension rules or stay as emigrant pensioner.
I think they get pensions at the current rate, but they don’t get back pay. That’s a think; if anyoine knows better, I’m happy to be told I’m wrong.
Do you know if they single out Australia as it is non EU, but are forced to pay those that move to Spain under EU rules.
No, apparently it depends on agreements with individual countries. According to affected people it appears quite random. The official statement is the UK for 6 months or more each year; the European Economic Area (EEA); Switzerland; a country that has a social security agreement with the UK that allows for increases.
After having been inactive for the past 11 days, UKPR has at last updated its polling average. Despite the inclusion of two better results for the Tories over the past 24 hours,each showing them just 2% behind, the average nonetheless shows Labour having extended its lead from 3% to 4% and unless updated again before next Friday (unlikely on past performance), this 1% shift towards EdM & Co. seems likely to bring Labour at least equal to the Tories in Stephen Fisher's next 2015 GE Seats projection.
I suspect if anything this poll underestimates the proportion of pensioners who will vote No. It's hard to see how the Yes campaign can turn that round because, as with currency, EU membership and NATO they just haven't bothered to think the pensions issue through. So rather than address legitimate concerns I expect the Yes campaign to carry on with it's last desperate tactic of telling lies about the NHS. All part of their positive message of course!
Here come the Tories, "stay with us and be impoverished you stupid Scots Twunts" only we can tell you how to live , you are too stupid to think for yourselves. Vote Tory.
What are you wittering on about now? And we aren't impoverished now. Have you ever been outside of Scotland and seen what impoverished truly means? You know as well as me that the Yes campaign have no answers to some very important questions. You're just too pig-headed to admit it.
Nobody gives a hoot about the English, we want independence to run our own affairs. You are the one doing the conflating and saying the rUK will welch on paying people their state pension that they have contributed to. I think they are better than that and will meet their obligations.
I suspect if anything this poll underestimates the proportion of pensioners who will vote No. It's hard to see how the Yes campaign can turn that round because, as with currency, EU membership and NATO they just haven't bothered to think the pensions issue through. So rather than address legitimate concerns I expect the Yes campaign to carry on with it's last desperate tactic of telling lies about the NHS. All part of their positive message of course!
Here come the Tories, "stay with us and be impoverished you stupid Scots Twunts" only we can tell you how to live , you are too stupid to think for yourselves. Vote Tory.
What are you wittering on about now? And we aren't impoverished now. Have you ever been outside of Scotland and seen what impoverished truly means? You know as well as me that the Yes campaign have no answers to some very important questions. You're just too pig-headed to admit it.
Max, NO have not got any answers whatsoever. As to your other point , I have travelled extensively and lived and worked outside Scotland , so put that in your pompous pipe and smoke it. I would have thought a smarty like you would know that nowadays you can see how the world is without actually having to travel in any case. Everything may be rosy in your smug little world but if you actually travelled about Scotland you would actually know that many many people are impoverished , live terrible lives etc. You will not see that in your winebars or the conservative club though, get out and see reality.
Nobody gives a hoot about the English, we want independence to run our own affairs. You are the one doing the conflating and saying the rUK will welch on paying people their state pension that they have contributed to. I think they are better than that and will meet their obligations.
OT. M6.1 Earthquake hits Napa Valley area of California. Not much in the way of damage thankfully but biggest earthquake to hit California in 25 years.
After having been inactive for the past 11 days, UKPR has at last updated its polling average. Despite the inclusion of two better results for the Tories over the past 24 hours,each showing them just 2% behind, the average nonetheless shows Labour having extended its lead from 3% to 4% and unless updated again before next Friday (unlikely on past performance), this 1% shift towards EdM & Co. seems likely to bring Labour at least equal to the Tories in Stephen Fisher's next 2015 GE Seats projection.
I suspect if anything this poll underestimates the proportion of pensioners who will vote No. It's hard to see how the Yes campaign can turn that round because, as with currency, EU membership and NATO they just haven't bothered to think the pensions issue through. So rather than address legitimate concerns I expect the Yes campaign to carry on with it's last desperate tactic of telling lies about the NHS. All part of their positive message of course!
Here come the Tories, "stay with us and be impoverished you stupid Scots Twunts" only we can tell you how to live , you are too stupid to think for yourselves. Vote Tory.
What are you wittering on about now? And we aren't impoverished now. Have you ever been outside of Scotland and seen what impoverished truly means? You know as well as me that the Yes campaign have no answers to some very important questions. You're just too pig-headed to admit it.
Max, NO have not got any answers whatsoever. As to your other point , I have travelled extensively and lived and worked outside Scotland , so put that in your pompous pipe and smoke it. I would have thought a smarty like you would know that nowadays you can see how the world is without actually having to travel in any case. Everything may be rosy in your smug little world but if you actually travelled about Scotland you would actually know that many many people are impoverished , live terrible lives etc. You will not see that in your winebars or the conservative club though, get out and see reality.
Come on Malcolm you can't seriously be accusing another poster of being pompous. You seem to be totally lacking in self awareness. And No have plenty answers, we'll be part of the EU, part of NATO and won't have the insane currency Plan B advocated by Yes.
And what do you have against winebars? Can we expect them to be outlawed in an independent Scotland for not being sufficiently Scottish?
OT. M6.1 Earthquake hits Napa Valley area of California. Not much in the way of damage thankfully but biggest earthquake to hit California in 25 years.
Years ago when I lived in California , there was a reasonable earthquake, very similar and it was scary with everything shaking etc. Not something you would want to be in often. That was in the late 80's so could be the very one you mention.
I suspect if anything this poll underestimates the proportion of pensioners who will vote No. It's hard to see how the Yes campaign can turn that round because, as with currency, EU membership and NATO they just haven't bothered to think the pensions issue through. So rather than address legitimate concerns I expect the Yes campaign to carry on with it's last desperate tactic of telling lies about the NHS. All part of their positive message of course!
Here come the Tories, "stay with us and be impoverished you stupid Scots Twunts" only we can tell you how to live , you are too stupid to think for yourselves. Vote Tory.
What are you wittering on about now? And we aren't impoverished now. Have you ever been outside of Scotland and seen what impoverished truly means? You know as well as me that the Yes campaign have no answers to some very important questions. You're just too pig-headed to admit it.
Max, NO have not got any answers whatsoever. As to your other point , I have travelled extensively and lived and worked outside Scotland , so put that in your pompous pipe and smoke it. I would have thought a smarty like you would know that nowadays you can see how the world is without actually having to travel in any case. Everything may be rosy in your smug little world but if you actually travelled about Scotland you would actually know that many many people are impoverished , live terrible lives etc. You will not see that in your winebars or the conservative club though, get out and see reality.
Come on Malcolm you can't seriously be accusing another poster of being pompous. You seem to be totally lacking in self awareness. And No have plenty answers, we'll be part of the EU, part of NATO and won't have the insane currency Plan B advocated by Yes.
And what do you have against winebars? Can we expect them to be outlawed in an independent Scotland for not being sufficiently Scottish?
Max , now you are being really silly. We will of course be in the EU and NATO as well and like all other countries will have a currency , the pound , either in CU or not as the case may be. I of course have nothing against winebars, but would not base my view on the prosperity of Scotland based on them. NO have only scaremongering , all made up and without foundation. You can only lie for so long.
PS: I note your pathetic churlish " "sufficiently Scottish". I note you omitted the usual pathetic unionist "I am a proud Scot" BUT.............
Comments
We really are through the looking glass!
Presumably Scotland would be responsible for all of the pensions from the Scottish NHS, those working for the Scottish government, all of our criminal justice system etc.? I can see more of an argument about the Armed forces and those who worked in England. I think this is going to be very complicated.
Seriously, and I do mean this as a friend, Unckie' you do come across as a clown.
* Mel Gibson's Disney effort does not count.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/oil-the-last-gasp-scare-story-fails.25123685
* copyright TrollCentre.
Now you'll have Neil on, explaining why Gordon Brown was the best ever thing for UK pensions. :-(
Who knew!!!!!!!
Simple point for my thick English skull to get round: You said that the pensions were owed by the UK. If so, once Scots independence, the UK will cease to exist in it's legal form.
So the question is quite simple: And I can use bold and italic fonts to make it clear for you. Why should England pay the pensions of a former state? You are free to provide - non-Disney - historical evidence.
:hammer-the-point-home:
I am not even sure the figures make sense in themselves, the UK state pension the article says is £110.75 per week, £5759 a year, but average income in the UK is about £26k. If as claimed the UK state pension was 32.6% of average income it would need to be about £8.5K p.a.. So what figures are being used to get to that table?
Then there are the comparison issues that Mr Howl raises.
Frankly, it is a Daily Mail article and I am amazed you put so much faith in it.
"Come closer. Icy old people!"
To be clear on the 1997 -2010 Labour Govt's record on this: It was utterly bloody God awful.
Only 13% of final salary schemes remained open as of early last year ( a drop from 21% the year just before - warp speed decline ). The vast majority of those still open are in the public sector as the State is just about the only organisation left prepared and stupid enough to contend with the risk cost and paperwork involved. Of the 4.5m left in the 6800 odd DB schemes the vast majority ( outside the State sector) are over 40. So Labour did over the young there then.
How many on auto enrolment know that to get a DB RPI linked pension at 65 with 50% surviving other half's benefit cost this week ( so not in inflated future Pounds) about £318000 ( three hundred and eighteen thousand ) per £10000 , (ten thousand )?. Or if you want £20000 over £600k ( or a Dollar millionaire status if you like!). Not many and fewer will get there.
Pensions policy is a shambles and the last Govt, if not culpable alone, played a leading role in making if worse for most of us.
If you are back in power next May please ruminate on this. I beg you.
So low state pensions are more affordable in the long term, and more sustainable.
I agree in general, the packages the public sector get are ridiculous.
In making such a comparison then for it to be meaningful one would have to take into account the full range of benefits available to a pensioner in identical circumstances in each state and adjust for purchasing power parity. I really don't think the Mail article can be used to justify anything serious - as I point out the figures don't even work in their own terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
"I agree in general, the packages the public sector get are ridiculous."
They may appear that way now but at the time those schemes wee set up they were not outrageous or indeed unusual. It is only in the past fifteen years or so that defined benefit schemes have gone in the private sector for reasons we have rehearsed so often.
A two thirds final salary scheme was quite standard for most major employers when I started out, it was part of the deal. You gave Shell or the Prudential or whoever forty years of loyal service and they looked after you for life (along with all the sports and social facilities the company provided and other non-salary benefits).
Public sector pensions are now far less generous than they were (talk to Mr. Stopper, gent and fire-fighter of this parish), but still better than most private sector schemes.
They are happy to keep the plebs on low wages and low pensions whilst enriching themselves and retaining power.
Given how badly they have run the country and the debt they are racking up it will be low pensions for forseeable future. The fact that they award themselves huge gold plated pensions and do not need to worry about it should maybe register in voter's minds. They depend on the stupidity of the public.
I think any successor states after separation will operate their State pension systems in the way they have always operated. Current payments will be met out of current contributions.
(Puts tin hat on and awaits brickbats about " broken promises" - buy a calculator and do some maths the numbers are overwhelming I'm afraid ). If not, accept lower payments and more old age poverty.
Why should income, tax and insurance rates be the same in a theoretical 'Northern-BackwardShire' and a' DoonWidDaGroov London Borough Council'? If the ephemeral feeling of open spaces (c.f. Bhutan's economic model) outweighs the cut-and-thrust (of London vibrant, crime-ridden but - ahem - vibrant economy) then wages, taxes and insurance should vary, no?
So - in a future reality - English taxpayers should not pay for Al-Beeb terminals in the Scottish hinterland and Scots' insurance policy holders should not pay for burglars in London, no? There is a definite market adjustment required to ensure English-resident workers are paid more due to demographics and costs, not least in London. One size does not fit all!
OK; being slightly flippant! London has massive economies-of-scales. Unlike Scotland....
Kindly drop the personal insults people, call it a favour to me.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-dossier-reveals-pensions-could-1748133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
Where you pay in (not paid in) pays out.
There is no pot. No lump sum.
The SNP and sums. Epic Fail, every time.
Anything but comment on the topic Monica.
:roll-eyes:
You then fall back on your usual poor me why am I being insulted when I am so clever routine. You are very acerbic yourself but do not like any in return. Crying like a big baby about me getting special treatment is pathetic and juvenile.
We have one of the worst state pensions around , if you think otherwise show us some proof and do not cry like a big baby, saying you do not like evidence. Rebut the evidence and prove the pension is somehow not the worst instead of whinging.
The reason it used the same figures is that they are the TRUTH.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/poll-of-over-60s-72-fear-for-pension-in-iscotland.1408873000
But keep on deluding yourself if you want.
FREE Palestine, boycott Israel messages are being stamped on bank notes and handed out by a Muslim newsagent in... http://fb.me/1z3ObCZwi
As I understad it it'd be up for negotiation of course, but from the base expectation that a newly independent Scotland would take over responsbility for a certain chunk of the state pension, rather than rUK continuing to pay them or transferring a lump sum of any kind to Scotland.
PS. The current Pensions Minister has publicly stated that the rUK would be responsible for any pensions to all people who had contributed to UK prior to independence, just as you can move to anywhere in the world at present and still receive your UK state pension.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/nick-ferrari/502733/Nick-Ferrari-Enough-is-enough-it-is-time-to-protect-us-from-hate
(1) It depends on what is "mandatory", and thus ignores contributory aspects of different countries.
(2) More importantly, it is reported as a share of final salary, meaning the UK does worse because it has high salaries versus e.g. Slovenia. It's thus highly misleading. To actually understand how good pensions are you want the absolute amounts, adjusted on a PPP basis.
We wargamers call that "a retreat to a tactically defensible position".
You're also right about it having been common in company pensions to have final salary provision. Companies had various kinds of small print though. When I left my Swiss employer of 18 years I discovered that they could then chuck away all their employers' contributions and merely return my contributions plus I think 3%. To benefit from the superb pension I'd have needed to stay there till I retired. I discovered that after I was already standing for election and I did think oo-er, but at age 47 you don't worry too much about such things.
Fluffy: since you ask, my Parliamentary pension would be £21,000/year and payable from whenever I cease to be a candidate or MP. If I'm elected, I forfeit it until no longer elected (the scheme has no compensation for claiming late). So in addition to having more time to play Elite, I have a financial interest in losing next year :-).
Hopefully you are not involved in any financial decisions at work.
As for Steve Webb, could you link to that. Because I was under the impression what he said was that pensioners would definitely receive the money, but there was a question over who would be paying it.
Vicky @2tweetaboutit 35m
"The Biggest Single Trigger of Jihadism Has Been our Adherence to ‘Multiculturalism’ http://bit.ly/1p3GYBC @Nigel_Farage @David_Cameron
Something of similar psephological value would be the Scottish subset of 170 in yesterday's Comres poll (thanks for these figs from Scottish Skier, a valuable contributor on Scot Goes Pop, a site that's actually relevant to the indy debate).
Modestly sized (170) subset from Comres
How favourable or unfavourable are you towards each of the following?
Independence for Scotland
45% Favourable
36% Unfavourable
9% Neither
11% DK
That's from a group identifying as 55% voters for Unionist parties, 37% for SNP. A straw in the wind.
PS: Euneuch's should refrain from throwing stones at glasshouses. Stick to being a degenerate and impressing fools.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/pjpensions.jpg
Now, as an OAP, if I was a voter in Scotland I’d want to know, before I voted Yes, as I might be inclined to do, I’d want to know if I was going to be treated as a Spaniard or an Australian! Bearing in mind of course that there are a lot of OAP’s in Scotland, probably more than OAP Brits (of all sorts) in Spain!
"Part of the problem is that many Muslims in Britain come from parts of the world like Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Horn of Africa, where political violence is endemic."
We need to start much higher levels of scrutiny for immigrants coming from such areas of the world. If you come from a country with endemic extremism (Pakistan, Somalia, DR Congo, Nigeria etc) then you should have to have an interview about your political/social views. If there's any evidence of extremist views (e.g. belief that gay people should be killed, belief that women should have to cover their faces, etc) then you don't get in.
Bringing back the primary purpose rule would also help.
As said on here already there is little guarantee we will get pensions in the future no matter which state etc.
I support the idea of Scots' independence and you respond with witless paraphrases of hopelessness-over-hope. Why cannot Scotland come up with a reason for independence other then 'Erggh! Engurlisch!"...?
http://archive.today/2J7dt
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: State pensions would still paid after independence a UK minister has told MPs despite concerns raised by the Better Together campaign.
Giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee Lib Dem pensions minister Steve Webb said that anybody who had paid UK national insurance would be entitled to their state pension whatever the outcome of the referendum.
He said: “Citizenship is irrelevant. It is what you have put into the UK National Insurance system prior to separation, answer 35 years, that builds up to a continued UK pension under continuing UK rules, the question is who is paying for it, but they are entitled to that money.”
I think they are better than that and will meet their obligations.
Do you know what currently happens if someone returns to UK from Australia, do they go back to UK pension rules or stay as emigrant pensioner.
If that was the case then I presume UK would have to give Scotland a consideration for all the payments made till independence.
Post-independence then as I said, it'll be negotiated but with the expectation that a newly independent Scotland would take over the paying of a proportion of pensions rather than rUK funding them.
The official statement is
the UK for 6 months or more each year;
the European Economic Area (EEA);
Switzerland;
a country that has a social security agreement with the UK that allows for increases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX60LFD4-iw
They must all be grumpy old folks by now....
Despite the inclusion of two better results for the Tories over the past 24 hours,each showing them just 2% behind, the average nonetheless shows Labour having extended its lead from 3% to 4% and unless updated again before next Friday (unlikely on past performance), this 1% shift towards EdM & Co. seems likely to bring Labour at least equal to the Tories in Stephen Fisher's next 2015 GE Seats projection.
UKPR's latest average shows:
Labour ........... 37%
Conservative ....33%
LibDems ........... 9%
UKIP ................13%
Greens ............. 4%
Others .............. 4%
Total ..............100%
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2732865/Miliband-aide-Northerners-backward-storm-replacing-elderly-male-MPs-young-women.html#comments
nation,
contribution,
sovereignty, and
sadly clueless....
:P
I would have thought a smarty like you would know that nowadays you can see how the world is without actually having to travel in any case. Everything may be rosy in your smug little world but if you actually travelled about Scotland you would actually know that many many people are impoverished , live terrible lives etc.
You will not see that in your winebars or the conservative club though, get out and see reality.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/terror-chief-deifs-mother-in-law-offers-him-her-other-daughters/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Lab 37.2% (+1.0)
Con 33.4% (+0.3)
UKIP 12.8% (-0.3)
LibDem 8.6% (-0.2)
And what do you have against winebars? Can we expect them to be outlawed in an independent Scotland for not being sufficiently Scottish?
NO have only scaremongering , all made up and without foundation. You can only lie for so long.
PS: I note your pathetic churlish " "sufficiently Scottish". I note you omitted the usual pathetic unionist "I am a proud Scot" BUT.............