@CD13 It's an error I make constantly. I foolishly think I am dealing with rational human beings instead of frothing lunatics. I blame the way I was brought up, "give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove you to have been mistaken to do so"
So you think no one in Rotherham has lost their entitlement to the benefit of the doubt?
You were also apparently brought up to think that "some muslims are rapists" implies that "all muslims are rapists" and that "all rapists are muslims", which is false. You might want to have a word with whoever was responsible for your upbringing.
@CD13 It's an error I make constantly. I foolishly think I am dealing with rational human beings instead of frothing lunatics. I blame the way I was brought up, "give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove you to have been mistaken to do so"
You are definitely one of the people it's more enjoyable to debate with on this board because you actually stick to reasoned arguments. Which is unexpected, because your username makes you sound like a rabid partisan.
The money comes from the non-central banks, which may be the reason for your confusion.
I believe the confusion was yours.
Your side is big on starry-minded "belief".
Lol, Neil adds Nat to his portfolio!
I've already been accused of being a Nat. Just like some of the most virulent Nats (no longer posting here) have long accused me of being a Unionist.
You know the way it goes with fanatics - you are either completely with them, or implacably against them. No shades of grey allowed.
That some might think Scottish independence might be a good thing - just not launched on the basis of the SNP's preposterous prospectus of piffle simply does not compute.
You oppose us - you must be an English Tory taking a break from eating babies.
Looking at some tweets this morning it does seem Carswell might bring a more measured atmosphere to ukip... Hopefully his influence will mean less cranky outrage from party members
I think Farage will rue the day Carswell came across - he will IMO cost Farage his job next year. If Carswell is in the HoC and Farage is not, how can the latter credibly remain leader? They'll find some formula that does the equivalent of kicking Farage upstairs so that he hasn't been too obviously ousted.
Meanwhile Carswell strikes me as UKIP's Cameron. Does he not have some rather unacceptable views on immigration, as in, it's beneficial? If so, this will make your average UKIPper hate him.
There was a DT article yesterday about Farage / Carswell under which one commenter invite the DT's UKIP massive to outline exactly what they would do about Britain's Muslims. The responses were either silence or demands for, basically, a pogrom.
It was deeply unpleasant reading; we can only hope Carswell damages them fatally.
You think everything is a disaster for UKIP. You must be the most one-eyed poster on here which is really, really going some.
He thinks UKIP will poll 4-5% in May.
I suppose it's a point of view.
Does he bet?
The nutty ones never do
Neither do the Clegg's going to lose Sheffield Hallam posters.
I presume that refers to me. Well firstly I don't think I've ever said Clegg WOULD lose Hallam. I just think it is a possibility. Secondly I'm not a betting person, but so what? Does that preclude me from having a view? And if I were a better, I would try to avoid betting on outcomes I favoured. Very dangerous.
You say yourself that culture is one of the hardest things in the world to change. So can I ask which of the following steps in the argument you disagree with?
(1) Culture is a critical element in the success of a democratic state
(2) British culture is far more democratic and tolerant than that of the poorest countries like, say, Afghanistan
(3) Immigrants usually bring their culture with them when they move countries
(4) Bringing large numbers of people from the poorest countries to the UK will increase the share of our population with less democratic cultural views
(5) Having a larger chunk of our population with less democratic cultural views is a step backwards for the UK
(6) It will take a very long time for such immigrant communities to change their culture, so this isn't easily fixed
(7) The best way to stop this step backwards is to not import as many people from these less democratic cultures
I disagree with (1) in the general form stated. I agree with (2). I partly disagree with (3) - it varies. I think (4) is somewhat irrelevant - most people moving to another country don't have forms of government high on their agenda, and they are often willing to adapt. For that reason, I think (5) is somewhat irrelevant. I definitely disagree with (6), and think there are numerous counter-examples in the recent past (Jewish immigration, West Indian immigration, Polish immigration). I disagree with (7), both in its contents and its terms - we do not "import" people, we allow them to exercise their choice to come, to some extent. There have to be very serious reasons to obstruct that important choice within our continent.
More generally, I disagree with your underlying premise that all this is relevant to free movement within the EU, which is the only kind of free immigration that we have. I don't think there are huge differences in political culture within the EU, and that is really my fundamental disagreement with UKIP. We seem to me a much more homogenous continent than many people believe, and the free interflow of people within Europe helps to make that clearer.
I've got several hours of meetings starting in a minute, so won't be able to pursue the discussion!
Looking at some tweets this morning it does seem Carswell might bring a more measured atmosphere to ukip... Hopefully his influence will mean less cranky outrage from party members
I think Farage will rue the day Carswell came across - he will IMO cost Farage his job next year. If Carswell is in the HoC and Farage is not, how can the latter credibly remain leader? They'll find some formula that does the equivalent of kicking Farage upstairs so that he hasn't been too obviously ousted.
Meanwhile Carswell strikes me as UKIP's Cameron. Does he not have some rather unacceptable views on immigration, as in, it's beneficial? If so, this will make your average UKIPper hate him.
There was a DT article yesterday about Farage / Carswell under which one commenter invite the DT's UKIP massive to outline exactly what they would do about Britain's Muslims. The responses were either silence or demands for, basically, a pogrom.
It was deeply unpleasant reading; we can only hope Carswell damages them fatally.
It is part of the massive misunderstanding of ukip that they think all immigration is bad. I was attacked on here for not wanting repatriation, because that apparently is the logical conclusion of closing open door immigration.
Enoch Powell was in favour of foreigners coming to the uk for work when required, he just saw the damage mass immigration would do.
I like Carswell! and your caricature of Farage is probably wide of the mark... Ukip needed someone else. Farage was accused of being a one man band for long enough.
As for British Muslims, there is nothing that can be done, even if there was a desire to do something as they are British citizens like anyone else
Unfortunately you have a very loud component that objects to all immigration, and thinks UKIP will stop it. The same component wants anti-Muslim laws passed, and quite a few openly want a violent pogrom. There are comments over at the DT suggesting that Muslims be removed "by boat, train or chimney", for example.
The problem is not that these people aren't representative of UKIP, but that they are.
James Bond calling Carswell a disaster for Ukip spells disaster for Ed Miliband.
I don't think he's necessarily a disaster for UKIP, only that he's bad news for Farage personally. In 2015, as UKIP's only MP, Farage will be as happy to see him in the HoC as Cameron will be to see Boris Johnson.
He's only a disaster for UKIP at large if he does in fact hold sane views on immigration and if a large tranche of UKIP imagines OTOH that he in fact shares their own views on immigration.
On topic stories like this (long predicted by turnips) won't shift the oldies
LONDON (Reuters) - Lloyds Banking Group is considering having its registered office in London rather than Edinburgh should Scots vote for independence, banking industry sources told Reuters.
Lloyds, which owns Bank of Scotland, has finalised contingency planning ahead of the Sept. 18 vote. The chances of secession have increased with support for Scottish independence rising dramatically in August.
Banking industry sources said Lloyds executives are considering having the group's registered office in London, with Bank of Scotland operating from Edinburgh as a foreign division of the business.
Moving Lloyds Registered Office from London to Edinburgh was done to comply with the terms of their TSB takeover. The TSB (or at least the brand and a different set of branches) has now been separated from the Lloyds Banking Group and Lloyds will have been released from their obligation.
If Scotland becomes independent and Lloyds remains registered in Scotland, the credit rating of its holding company will be downgraded since Scotland will not have a government lender of last resort (unless there is monetary union with rUK).
So it is almost certain that Lloyds will move its registered office back to London in the event of a NO vote.
It is part of the massive misunderstanding of ukip that they think all immigration is bad. I was attacked on here for not wanting repatriation, because that apparently is the logical conclusion of closing open door immigration.
Enoch Powell was in favour of foreigners coming to the uk for work when required, he just saw the damage mass immigration would do.
I like Carswell! and your caricature of Farage is probably wide of the mark... Ukip needed someone else. Farage was accused of being a one man band for long enough.
As for British Muslims, there is nothing that can be done, even if there was a desire to do something as they are British citizens like anyone else
To be fair I think that's a perfectly coherent view - UKIP favours selective immigration, which as they correctly note is incompatible with EU membership. I don't agree with them, but you're right that it's not the same as hating foreigners or opposing all immigration. Occasionally, I get the impression that some UKIP members do dislike foreigners if they appear in non-trivial numbers, but I wouldn't claim that in a blanket way about the party as a whole.
Thanks for responding. I'm not talking about immigration from within the EU - I agree such people will integrate similarly quickly to the Jews and the Huguenots etc. I was more talking about from places like Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Congo etc.
Wouldn't appear to be the kind of bloke that didn't think carefully about it before defecting... Remember, he has heard first hand what Cameron pans to do renegotiation wise
Andrew Nicoll @AndrewSNicoll 18 mins Tories issue tough anti-Indy statement from Lang, Rifkind and Forsyth. I don't think they really want to win this referendum.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), reminds me, I saw a spot of Sky News as I had lunch. Question was "Is politics sexist?" Thankfully, all three guests agreed it was.
Edited extra bit: they did forget to mention the rather generous maternity leave women have or that most sexual harassment victims in Parliament are men, though...
@Ishmael_X Better make a dunce's cap for Theresa May then, she made the same point in the HOC yesterday.
You are very big on appeals to authority, aren't you? Try thinking for yourself.
The fact that white men abuse children in Surrey is not evidence against the fact that Pakistanis abuse children in Rotherham.
The fact that white men abuse children in Surrey is not an argument against doing something about the fact that Pakistanis abuse children in Rotherham.
Doing something about the fact that Pakistanis abuse children in Rotherham does not imply an unwillingness to do something about the fact that white men abuse children in Surrey.
How would this affect 1) an English pensioner living in Scotland who doesn't claim Scottish nationality 2) A Scottish pensioner living in Scotland who claims dual nationality 3) A Scottish pensioner living in England who doesn't claim dual nationality 4) A Scottish pensioner living in England who does claim dual nationality 5) A "Scottish" pensioner in England or Scotland who rejects Scottish nationality?
It wont. There is no nationality test for pension payments.
So who pays in each of these cases - the UK Govt or the Scottish Govt? The UK Govt doesn't currently restrict pension payments to those living in the UK does it?
But independence would blow that wide open wouldn't it? The rUK will clearly NOT be paying Scottish state pensions going fwds.
That was what i was asking - will "Scottish" pensioners be able to effectively determine which Govt they receive their pension from depending on how they (self-)determine their nationality - and regardless of where they live (ie. in Scotland, in rUK, or even elsewhere). On the one hand they may see pensions being paid by the UK Govt as more secure (and less vulnerable to teething problems as the Independence is implemented). On the other hand they may prefer Scotland if there is a retirement age differential.
Pensions are a massive element of the deficit. I can't see any rUK chancellor allowing people to choose which country they get paid from. If the Scots decide to leave the UK then their pensions become a Scottish responsibility. So there would absolutely need to be negotiated clarity around that. Or no dual nationality.
Dividing up assets and liabilities is not easy is it?
There is no way an rUK chancellor would accept liability to pay Scottish pensions, and if the law needs changing before independence then so be it.
If iScotland wants pensions paid by the rUK, then rUK should demand all NI from Scotland.
I have paid mine for the full qualifying period , are you telling me they will just steal my pension. You suggest they default on their debts.
The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.
the actual figures are:
9.6% - 2011 census
9.9% Yougov's most recent weighed share of electorate
How would this affect 1) an English pensioner living in Scotland who doesn't claim Scottish nationality 2) A Scottish pensioner living in Scotland who claims dual nationality 3) A Scottish pensioner living in England who doesn't claim dual nationality 4) A Scottish pensioner living in England who does claim dual nationality 5) A "Scottish" pensioner in England or Scotland who rejects Scottish nationality?
It wont. There is no nationality test for pension payments.
So who pays in each of these cases - the UK Govt or the Scottish Govt? The UK Govt doesn't currently restrict pension payments to those living in the UK does it?
But independence would blow that wide open wouldn't it? The rUK will clearly NOT be paying Scottish state pensions going fwds.
That was what i was asking - will "Scottish" pensioners be able to effectively determine which Govt they receive their pension from depending on how they (self-)determine their nationality - and regardless of where they live (ie. in Scotland, in rUK, or even elsewhere). On the one hand they may see pensions being paid by the UK Govt as more secure (and less vulnerable to teething problems as the Independence is implemented). On the other hand they may prefer Scotland if there is a retirement age differential.
Pensions are a massive element of the deficit. I can't see any rUK chancellor allowing people to choose which country they get paid from. If the Scots decide to leave the UK then their pensions become a Scottish responsibility. So there would absolutely need to be negotiated clarity around that. Or no dual nationality.
Dividing up assets and liabilities is not easy is it?
There is no way an rUK chancellor would accept liability to pay Scottish pensions, and if the law needs changing before independence then so be it.
If iScotland wants pensions paid by the rUK, then rUK should demand all NI from Scotland.
Reneging on any debt won't help the pension cause either.
Poor old malcolmg.
I won't be poor , my state pension will be pocket money , I will live on my generous final salary pension so hard luck but thanks for caring about me. We will be able to pay the pensions out of the 130 billion saving , as we will not have to pay the UK's debts so no hassle either way.
In the event I expect that the government of iScotland would negotiate a credit line with the BoE on commercial terms. This could allow sterlingisation to be at least a temporary solution. iScotland would need to have its own currency in the end, though.
The main problem is that once the referendum result is known to be YES then people will react instantly. There will be massive capital flight to accounts in England, and there is nothing anyone could do to stop it as the UK paradigm would still be in force: it would just be a case of money moving around the same country.
Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.
...
One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.
my emphasis added
I agree with almost all of this. As well as pensions, jobs have been an underrated issue in the campaign. Jobs are good. They provide an income for those that have them and support welfare for those that don't. They are aspirational things. A country where most people work is a country at ease with itself.
Jobs are good but there will be far fewer of them after independence. Scotland gets 60% of its wealth from being part of the UK internal market. That UK market business will slip away from Scotland. Some companies, financial companies in particular, will not even attempt to service their customers from a foreign country and will move straight away. Most will soldier on for a while, I think. But no-one will invest any more in Scotland for a UK market business. I run one and can say that categorically. The UK will be another important export market for Scotland, but we will not see the kind wealth that we do now. The difference will show up in cruel numbers of unemployed. The 35-55 age group, who are most enthusiastic voters for independence, will be the most unemployed after it. They are so wrapped up in wishful thinking they have no idea what they are voting for.
Scotland is what it is because we are part of the UK. It makes us a self confident, outward looking, connected and prosperous nation. We can choose a different Scotland, but it will be a diminished Scotland. The nationalists have won the identity argument. We are Scots. We shouldn't be fighting on that territory. The question should be what kind of Scotland do want to be? It is summed up in the title : Better Together Unfortunately the campaign never really convinced itself on that argument. I hope they can turn it around in the next couple of weeks so they at least get a narrow win.
David, they lost on nationality and they lost on Better Together, why do you think they changed to No Thanks, they got a drubbing.
@Ishmael_X I am big on appeals to rationality, The perpetrators in Rotherham share a commonality with other child abusers all over the country. The danger of concentrating on race and culture is that it blinds us to the real reasons that abuse happened and continues to happen, and leads to the wrong solutions. Criminality thrives when we look for simple causes and effects, and if we continue to concentrate on one particular stereotype of abuser, we fail all the other children that are being abused by different groups.
How would this affect 1) an English pensioner living in Scotland who doesn't claim Scottish nationality 2) A Scottish pensioner living in Scotland who claims dual nationality 3) A Scottish pensioner living in England who doesn't claim dual nationality 4) A Scottish pensioner living in England who does claim dual nationality 5) A "Scottish" pensioner in England or Scotland who rejects Scottish nationality?
It wont. There is no nationality test for pension payments.
So who pays in each of these cases - the UK Govt or the Scottish Govt? The UK Govt doesn't currently restrict pension payments to those living in the UK does it?
But independence would blow that wide open wouldn't it? The rUK will clearly NOT be paying Scottish state pensions going fwds.
That was what i was asking - will "Scottish" pensioners be able to effectively determine which Govt they receive their pension from depending on how they (self-)determine their nationality - and regardless of where they live (ie. in Scotland, in rUK, or even elsewhere). On the one hand they may see pensions being paid by the UK Govt as more secure (and less vulnerable to teething problems as the Independence is implemented). On the other hand they may prefer Scotland if there is a retirement age differential.
Pensions are a massive element of the deficit. I can't see any rUK chancellor allowing people to choose which country they get paid from. If the Scots decide to leave the UK then their pensions become a Scottish responsibility. So there would absolutely need to be negotiated clarity around that. Or no dual nationality.
Dividing up assets and liabilities is not easy is it?
There is no way an rUK chancellor would accept liability to pay Scottish pensions, and if the law needs changing before independence then so be it.
If iScotland wants pensions paid by the rUK, then rUK should demand all NI from Scotland.
Reneging on any debt won't help the pension cause either.
Poor old malcolmg.
I won't be poor , my state pension will be pocket money , I will live on my generous final salary pension so hard luck but thanks for caring about me. We will be able to pay the pensions out of the 130 billion saving , as we will not have to pay the UK's debts so no hassle either way.
The pensions gamble. A brave step into the unknown for those less fortunate than you.
@Ishmael_X I am big on appeals to rationality, The perpetrators in Rotherham share a commonality with other child abusers all over the country. The danger of concentrating on race and culture is that it blinds us to the real reasons that abuse happened and continues to happen, and leads to the wrong solutions. Criminality thrives when we look for simple causes and effects, and if we continue to concentrate on one particular stereotype of abuser, we fail all the other children that are being abused by different groups.
Do you think child abuse can be exterminated?
Me neither, so either we can crack down ad hoc on its manifestations as and when they occur, or we can sit and let it happen while the left dithers and pretends to look for "the right solution". There are 1400+ victims in one town alone who would probably say that the wrong solution would have been just fine by them, if it stopped what happened from happening. Do you sympathise with them?
@Ishmael_X I am big on appeals to rationality, The perpetrators in Rotherham share a commonality with other child abusers all over the country. The danger of concentrating on race and culture is that it blinds us to the real reasons that abuse happened and continues to happen, and leads to the wrong solutions. Criminality thrives when we look for simple causes and effects, and if we continue to concentrate on one particular stereotype of abuser, we fail all the other children that are being abused by different groups.
Part of my job involves looking through large amounts of data for a certain type of financial crime. It is quite well understood in the industry that to spot it, you identify the key features of the offence and the perpetrator, look for instances where those risk features coalesce, and investigate.
If you have 100 units of resource and 100 areas of risk, you don't apply the former to the latter on a 1 to 1 basis. You look for the 10% where a lot of planets align and focus on those at a ratio of 10 to 1.
There is no virtue in deliberately carrying this surveillance out ineptly, simply to appease your inner Owen Jones. You waste a lot of time and also increase the risk of the real perps getting away with it.
Based on what we've seen so far, being a Pakistani Muslim may turn out to be a key risk factor, perhaps the most significant one, for being a predatory paedophile. If it turns out that they are 4% of the population but 40% of the paedophile gangs, then your job of identifying should have just got appreciably simpler.
"quite a few openly want a violent pogrom. There are comments over at the DT suggesting that Muslims be removed "by boat, train or chimney"".
Who'd have thought even the Telegraph would post comments such as this in 2014? I'm beginning to think the Scots might be well out of it. Just hope they leave the border open long enough for those who need it to escape.
How would this affect 1) an English pensioner living in Scotland who doesn't claim Scottish nationality 2) A Scottish pensioner living in Scotland who claims dual nationality 3) A Scottish pensioner living in England who doesn't claim dual nationality 4) A Scottish pensioner living in England who does claim dual nationality 5) A "Scottish" pensioner in England or Scotland who rejects Scottish nationality?
It wont. There is no nationality test for pension payments.
So who pays in each of these cases - the UK Govt or the Scottish Govt? The UK Govt doesn't currently restrict pension payments to those living in the UK does it?
But independence would blow that wide open wouldn't it? The rUK will clearly NOT be paying Scottish state pensions going fwds.
That was what i was asking - will "Scottish" pensioners be able to effectively determine which Govt they receive their pension from depending on how they (self-)determine their nationality - and regardless of where they live (ie. in Scotland, in rUK, or even elsewhere). On the one hand they may see pensions being paid by the UK Govt as more secure (and less vulnerable to teething problems as the Independence is implemented). On the other hand they may prefer Scotland if there is a retirement age differential.
Pensions are a massive element of the deficit. I can't see any rUK chancellor allowing people to choose which country they get paid from. If the Scots decide to leave the UK then their pensions become a Scottish responsibility. So there would absolutely need to be negotiated clarity around that. Or no dual nationality.
Dividing up assets and liabilities is not easy is it?
There is no way an rUK chancellor would accept liability to pay Scottish pensions, and if the law needs changing before independence then so be it.
If iScotland wants pensions paid by the rUK, then rUK should demand all NI from Scotland.
I have paid mine for the full qualifying period , are you telling me they will just steal my pension. You suggest they default on their debts.
What happens in the situation where you pay NI and then retire abroad. You can get your state pension then can't you.
I assume the same would apply to independence. Scots which retired but made UK pensions contributions in terms of NI would be entitled to a UK pension wouldn't they?
Edit: Although I expect what would happen is the Scottish pension liability would form part of the liabilities of the group, and Scotland would take responsibility for those pensions as part of it's liability settlement.
"quite a few openly want a violent pogrom. There are comments over at the DT suggesting that Muslims be removed "by boat, train or chimney"".
Who'd have thought even the Telegraph would post comments such as this in 2014? I'm beginning to think the Scots might be well out of it. Just hope they leave the border open long enough for those who need it to escape.
You say yourself that culture is one of the hardest things in the world to change. So can I ask which of the following steps in the argument you disagree with?
(1) Culture is a critical element in the success of a democratic state
(2) British culture is far more democratic and tolerant than that of the poorest countries like, say, Afghanistan
(3) Immigrants usually bring their culture with them when they move countries
(4) Bringing large numbers of people from the poorest countries to the UK will increase the share of our population with less democratic cultural views
(5) Having a larger chunk of our population with less democratic cultural views is a step backwards for the UK
(6) It will take a very long time for such immigrant communities to change their culture, so this isn't easily fixed
(7) The best way to stop this step backwards is to not import as many people from these less democratic cultures
I disagree with (1) in the general form stated. I agree with (2). I partly disagree with (3) - it varies. I think (4) is somewhat irrelevant - most people moving to another country don't have forms of government high on their agenda, and they are often willing to adapt. For that reason, I think (5) is somewhat irrelevant. I definitely disagree with (6), and think there are numerous counter-examples in the recent past (Jewish immigration, West Indian immigration, Polish immigration). I disagree with (7), both in its contents and its terms - we do not "import" people, we allow them to exercise their choice to come, to some extent. There have to be very serious reasons to obstruct that important choice within our continent.
More generally, I disagree with your underlying premise that all this is relevant to free movement within the EU, which is the only kind of free immigration that we have. I don't think there are huge differences in political culture within the EU, and that is really my fundamental disagreement with UKIP. We seem to me a much more homogenous continent than many people believe, and the free interflow of people within Europe helps to make that clearer.
I've got several hours of meetings starting in a minute, so won't be able to pursue the discussion!
I trust you will include in your election address why you think more mass immigration is good for Britain. I also notice you "partly" disagree that British culture is more tolerant and democratic than Afghanistan's? Novel viewpoint indeed.
7) We certainly do not import people - agree. The Labour party imported third world immigrants to bolster their vote. Is this why you are in favour of mass third world immigration?
"quite a few openly want a violent pogrom. There are comments over at the DT suggesting that Muslims be removed "by boat, train or chimney"".
Who'd have thought even the Telegraph would post comments such as this in 2014? I'm beginning to think the Scots might be well out of it. Just hope they leave the border open long enough for those who need it to escape.
It's not the Telegraph posting it. It's random nutters and it takes a while for the moderator to catch them and delete.
How would this affect 1) an English pensioner living in Scotland who doesn't claim Scottish nationality 2) A Scottish pensioner living in Scotland who claims dual nationality 3) A Scottish pensioner living in England who doesn't claim dual nationality 4) A Scottish pensioner living in England who does claim dual nationality 5) A "Scottish" pensioner in England or Scotland who rejects Scottish nationality?
It wont. There is no nationality test for pension payments.
So who pays in each of these cases - the UK Govt or the Scottish Govt? The UK Govt doesn't currently restrict pension payments to those living in the UK does it?
But independence would blow that wide open wouldn't it? The rUK will clearly NOT be paying Scottish state pensions going fwds.
That was what i was asking - will "Scottish" pensioners be able to effectively determine which Govt they receive their pension from depending on how they (self-)determine their nationality - and regardless of where they live (ie. in Scotland, in rUK, or even elsewhere). On the one hand they may see pensions being paid by the UK Govt as more secure (and less vulnerable to teething problems as the Independence is implemented). On the other hand they may prefer Scotland if there is a retirement age differential.
Pensions are a massive element of the deficit. I can't see any rUK chancellor allowing people to choose which country they get paid from. If the Scots decide to leave the UK then their pensions become a Scottish responsibility. So there would absolutely need to be negotiated clarity around that. Or no dual nationality.
Dividing up assets and liabilities is not easy is it?
There is no way an rUK chancellor would accept liability to pay Scottish pensions, and if the law needs changing before independence then so be it.
If iScotland wants pensions paid by the rUK, then rUK should demand all NI from Scotland.
Reneging on any debt won't help the pension cause either.
Poor old malcolmg.
I won't be poor , my state pension will be pocket money , I will live on my generous final salary pension so hard luck but thanks for caring about me. We will be able to pay the pensions out of the 130 billion saving , as we will not have to pay the UK's debts so no hassle either way.
Ah the rich elite not caring for the poor as long as their cultural dalliances can be achieved.
"Let them eat Dundee cake" says Malcolm antoinette
Thanks for responding. I'm not talking about immigration from within the EU - I agree such people will integrate similarly quickly to the Jews and the Huguenots etc. I was more talking about from places like Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Congo etc.
And of course EU immigrants do not (normally) vote in UK general elections. Labour's preferred immigrants from the third world are fast tracked to citizenship.
@Ishmael_X I am big on appeals to rationality, The perpetrators in Rotherham share a commonality with other child abusers all over the country. The danger of concentrating on race and culture is that it blinds us to the real reasons that abuse happened and continues to happen, and leads to the wrong solutions. Criminality thrives when we look for simple causes and effects, and if we continue to concentrate on one particular stereotype of abuser, we fail all the other children that are being abused by different groups.
It also thrives if you fail to identify the abuse because of ideological reasons. There was that one incident in Rotherham when the rapists told a police officer they'd report him for racial harassment if he kept asking them questions about why they were with a 12 year old girl.
How would this affect 1) an English pensioner living in Scotland who doesn't claim Scottish nationality 2) A Scottish pensioner living in Scotland who claims dual nationality 3) A Scottish pensioner living in England who doesn't claim dual nationality 4) A Scottish pensioner living in England who does claim dual nationality 5) A "Scottish" pensioner in England or Scotland who rejects Scottish nationality?
It wont. There is no nationality test for pension payments.
So who pays in each of these cases - the UK Govt or the Scottish Govt? The UK Govt doesn't currently restrict pension payments to those living in the UK does it?
But independence would blow that wide open wouldn't it? The rUK will clearly NOT be paying Scottish state pensions going fwds.
That was what i was asking - will "Scottish" pensioners be able to effectively determine which Govt they receive their pension from depending on how they (self-)determine their nationality - and regardless of where they live (ie. in Scotland, in rUK, or even elsewhere). On the one hand they may see pensions being paid by the UK Govt as more secure (and less vulnerable to teething problems as the Independence is implemented). On the other hand they may prefer Scotland if there is a retirement age differential.
Pensions are a massive element of the deficit. I can't see any rUK chancellor allowing people to choose which country they get paid from. If the Scots decide to leave the UK then their pensions become a Scottish responsibility. So there would absolutely need to be negotiated clarity around that. Or no dual nationality.
Dividing up assets and liabilities is not easy is it?
There is no way an rUK chancellor would accept liability to pay Scottish pensions, and if the law needs changing before independence then so be it.
If iScotland wants pensions paid by the rUK, then rUK should demand all NI from Scotland.
Reneging on any debt won't help the pension cause either.
Poor old malcolmg.
I won't be poor , my state pension will be pocket money , I will live on my generous final salary pension so hard luck but thanks for caring about me.
"quite a few openly want a violent pogrom. There are comments over at the DT suggesting that Muslims be removed "by boat, train or chimney"".
Who'd have thought even the Telegraph would post comments such as this in 2014? I'm beginning to think the Scots might be well out of it. Just hope they leave the border open long enough for those who need it to escape.
It's not the Telegraph posting it. It's random nutters and it takes a while for the moderator to catch them and delete.
Not so. The original question - seemingly along the lines of "So what would you actually do with those Muslims who are already here" - has been censored by the mods, in several palces. But replies such as the above, advocating state murder, quote it but have not been removed.
It's fascinating really. You have UKIPpers demanding that Muslims be murdered by the state because, in effect, they're not civilised and we are. Is there a word for an epic self-perception fail of this kind?
@Ishmael_X We can never eliminate child abuse, but one of the causes of it's prevalence we can tackle, and without recourse to new laws. In almost every case you read about, the children were not believed, or were considered not worth the effort of protecting as they were contributing to their own abuse. Yes, the abuse is cultural, but it the culture of our society as much as any other one. There is a problem with certain communities in that they fear the "shame" of the truth, and sweep it under the carpet. Councilors, Police, and of course Muslim of Pakistan heritige, in the case of Rotherham, but other combination are available depending on the particular case.
Thanks for responding. I'm not talking about immigration from within the EU - I agree such people will integrate similarly quickly to the Jews and the Huguenots etc. I was more talking about from places like Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Congo etc.
And of course EU immigrants do not (normally) vote in UK general elections. Labour's preferred immigrants from the third world are fast tracked to citizenship.
Most of them don't need citizenship. If you're from India or Pakistan you can vote as soon as you start living here. It's an absurd system.
That's true but identiying them seems a problem. We've had Socrates talking about nothing else for weeks. Obsessionally. No balance no comment on the one third of these 1400 who were abused at home ( by their non Muslim parents presumably) before they ever got touched by their later abusers. Yet people on here seem to find his posts reasonable. I'm afraid it's just blind prejudice and very dangerous.
Are the electorate in this referendum the same as the group of people who will have the right to claim Scottish nationality after Independence? Or are the two groups completely different with many having no right to Scottish nationality, and many ex-pat non voters the reverse?
Also does anyone know how the suggested dual nationality will happen in practice, and what rights it will give those who claim it? And will individuals, wherever they live have the right to reject "Scottish" nationality if they think it would serve their personal circumstances better? For example, my understanding is that state pensions will be paid out by the Scottish govt after independence (out of current revenue). How would this affect 1) an English pensioner living in Scotland who doesn't claim Scottish nationality 2) A Scottish pensioner living in Scotland who claims dual nationality 3) A Scottish pensioner living in England who doesn't claim dual nationality 4) A Scottish pensioner living in England who does claim dual nationality 5) A "Scottish" pensioner in England or Scotland who rejects Scottish nationality?
There are 12 pages on pensions in the Indy white paper, including
State Pension entitlement in an independent Scotland The key points of the Scottish Government’s proposals for State Pension entitlement are: ■■ for those people living in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for the payment of that pension will transfer to the Scottish Government ■■ for those people of working age who are living and working in Scotland at the time of independence, the UK pension entitlement they have accrued prior to independence will form part of their Scottish State Pension entitlement. Any pension entitlement accrued in Scotland after independence would also form part of that Scottish State Pension. On reaching the State Pension Age, their Scottish State Pension would be paid by the Scottish Government ■■ for future pensioners who have accrued rights to the Scottish State Pension but who retire outside Scotland, the Scottish State Pension will be paid either via a Scottish equivalent of the International Pensions Centre (IPC) or by the pensions institution in the country of residence, depending on their circumstances. The Scottish IPC will be established following a transitional period of shared service provision ■■ for people who build up entitlement to a range of State Pensions – in Scotland, in the rest of the UK, in Europe, or elsewhere – the current situation will continue. The only difference will be that, from independence, pension entitlement accrued from working in Scotland will be to the Scottish State Pension, rather than to the UK State Pension.
How would this affect 1) an English pensioner living in Scotland who doesn't claim Scottish nationality 2) A Scottish pensioner living in Scotland who claims dual nationality 3) A Scottish pensioner living in England who doesn't claim dual nationality 4) A Scottish pensioner living in England who does claim dual nationality 5) A "Scottish" pensioner in England or Scotland who rejects Scottish nationality?
It wont. There is no nationality test for pension payments.
So who pays in each of these cases - the UK Govt or the Scottish Govt? The UK Govt doesn't currently restrict pension payments to those living in the UK does it?
But independence would blow that wide open wouldn't it? The rUK will clearly NOT be paying Scottish state pensions going fwds.
That was what i was asking - will "Scottish" pensioners be able to effectively determine which Govt they receive their pension from depending on how they (self-)determine their nationality - and regardless of where they live (ie. in Scotland, in rUK, or even elsewhere). On the one hand they may see pensions being paid by the UK Govt as more secure (and less vulnerable to teething problems as the Independence is implemented). On the other hand they may prefer Scotland if there is a retirement age differential.
Pensions are a massive element of the deficit. I can't see any rUK chancellor allowing people to choose which country they get paid from. If the Scots decide to leave the UK then their pensions become a Scottish responsibility. So there would absolutely need to be negotiated clarity around that. Or no dual nationality.
Dividing up assets and liabilities is not easy is it?
There is no way an rUK chancellor would accept liability to pay Scottish pensions, and if the law needs changing before independence then so be it.
If iScotland wants pensions paid by the rUK, then rUK should demand all NI from Scotland.
Reneging on any debt won't help the pension cause either.
Are the electorate in this referendum the same as the group of people who will have the right to claim Scottish nationality after Independence? Or are the two groups completely different with many having no right to Scottish nationality, and many ex-pat non voters the reverse? 2) A Scottish pensioner living in Scotland who claims dual nationality 3) A Scottish pensioner living in England who doesn't claim dual nationality 4) A Scottish pensioner living in England who does claim dual nationality 5) A "Scottish" pensioner in England or Scotland who rejects Scottish nationality?
There are 12 pages on pensions in the Indy white paper, including
State Pension entitlement in an independent Scotland The key points of the Scottish Government’s proposals for State Pension entitlement are: ■■ for those people living in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for the payment of that pension will transfer to the Scottish Government ■■ for those people of working age who are living and working in Scotland at the time of independence, the UK pension entitlement they have accrued prior to independence will form part of their Scottish State Pension entitlement. Any pension entitlement accrued in Scotland after independence would also form part of that Scottish State Pension. On reaching the State Pension Age, their Scottish State Pension would be paid by the Scottish Government ■■ for future pensioners who have accrued rights to the Scottish State Pension but who retire outside Scotland, the Scottish State Pension will be paid either via a Scottish equivalent of the International Pensions Centre (IPC) or by the pensions institution in the country of residence, depending on their circumstances. The Scottish IPC will be established following a transitional period of shared service provision ■■ for people who build up entitlement to a range of State Pensions – in Scotland, in the rest of the UK, in Europe, or elsewhere – the current situation will continue. The only difference will be that, from independence, pension entitlement accrued from working in Scotland will be to the Scottish State Pension, rather than to the UK State Pension.
Important point. What if you are say, English, but living in Scotland (like my in-laws) but want to keep their pension being paid by the UK?
Andrew Nicoll @AndrewSNicoll 18 mins Tories issue tough anti-Indy statement from Lang, Rifkind and Forsyth. I don't think they really want to win this referendum.
Are Scottish Tories not allowed to comment at all on the future of their country?
I accept they are not supported by a majority of Scots, but didn't Lord Ashcroft's research find c.20-25% of Scots had some sympathy with their politics?
It seems to me they are an important constituency of the vote.
That's true but identiying them seems a problem. We've had Socrates talking about nothing else for weeks. Obsessionally. No balance no comment on the one third of these 1400 who were abused at home ( by their non Muslim parents presumably) before they ever got touched by their later abusers. Yet people on here seem to find his posts reasonable. I'm afraid it's just blind prejudice and very dangerous.
The people who claim to be UKIPpers over at the DT are in many cases simply mad. They demand repatriation of Muslims to some other country, presumably of the nutters' choosing; anti-Muslim laws; the withdrawal of benefits from Muslims; and, in general, institutional state harassment and oppression of Muslims, up to and including killing them.
It's extraordinarily dispiriting that such people still exist in 2014.
@Socrates Those policemen were being intimidated and threatened, they could have arrested them for that alone. That they did not do so, is a failure on their part, as instead of doing what they are paid to do, they chose the easy option of turning a blind eye.
On topic stories like this (long predicted by turnips) won't shift the oldies
LONDON (Reuters) - Lloyds Banking Group is considering having its registered office in London rather than Edinburgh should Scots vote for independence, banking industry sources told Reuters.
Lloyds, which owns Bank of Scotland, has finalised contingency planning ahead of the Sept. 18 vote. The chances of secession have increased with support for Scottish independence rising dramatically in August.
Banking industry sources said Lloyds executives are considering having the group's registered office in London, with Bank of Scotland operating from Edinburgh as a foreign division of the business.
Moving Lloyds Registered Office from London to Edinburgh was done to comply with the terms of their TSB takeover. The TSB (or at least the brand and a different set of branches) has now been separated from the Lloyds Banking Group and Lloyds will have been released from their obligation.
If Scotland becomes independent and Lloyds remains registered in Scotland, the credit rating of its holding company will be downgraded since Scotland will not have a government lender of last resort (unless there is monetary union with rUK).
So it is almost certain that Lloyds will move its registered office back to London in the event of a NO vote.
It is rehashed old news and as shown when they did it last time it made absolutely no difference whatsoever. It is a paperwork exercise.
Wouldn't appear to be the kind of bloke that didn't think carefully about it before defecting... Remember, he has heard first hand what Cameron pans to do renegotiation wise
Here's a comment from that article, I wonder if NPXMP, or indeed anyone from the Left, could explain where/if the poster is wrong, and try to convince me why I should not vote for UKIP:
We paid £61,000,000 last year - as free handouts to EU students - besides lending millions in unpaid loans. We paid £55,000,000 in child benefit straight to Poland for children who have never been in this country. 37% of our entire tax credit budget - £5,000,000,000 (5 billion) per annum goes to Europeans working here. We have hundreds of thousands of EU migrants here living completely on benefits. We hand out houses like sweeties to EU migrants whilst British people pay half their earnings in extortionate rents. We pay billions a year to be a member - a despised member - of the EU to pay for better roads than ours in Roumania and schools for Bulgaria.. And we borrow, borrow the lot.
British taxpayers are being bled. If we are to get our finances in order the first thing we must do is exit the EUSSR and close our borders. Mr Carswell is apparently keen for the truth of our financial situation - dire as it is - to be known. And he has now joined UKIP. Why is obvious.
Andrew Nicoll @AndrewSNicoll 18 mins Tories issue tough anti-Indy statement from Lang, Rifkind and Forsyth. I don't think they really want to win this referendum.
They are rolling out the Dodos , first Brown Reid and Kennedy , now this lot. Imagine those turnips as you last line of defence. Down to their shock Dad's Army troops now.
That's true but identiying them seems a problem. We've had Socrates talking about nothing else for weeks. Obsessionally. No balance no comment on the one third of these 1400 who were abused at home ( by their non Muslim parents presumably) before they ever got touched by their later abusers. Yet people on here seem to find his posts reasonable. I'm afraid it's just blind prejudice and very dangerous.
Well you put the other side to the story then instead of smearing posters on here,thats all you have done since you have returned.
Wow, some of the DT Muslim comments seem a bit on the harsh side! I expect this sort of absolutist mindset will only grow until and unless the authorities actually get their fingers out of their %^$&#s and take action on the Rotherhams of the world.
How we then get the 'unwilling to compromise' Muslim community back into the British fold - well God only knows. That's a tough one. Any ideas?
Re Pensions ..... editing function’s decided to be awkward.
UK pensions paid in different countries vary. In some countries you only the get it at the rate it was when you retired. In other words, you don’t get an increase each year. Depends on the agreement between UK and whoever. What will the agreement be with Scotland?
Andrew Nicoll @AndrewSNicoll 18 mins Tories issue tough anti-Indy statement from Lang, Rifkind and Forsyth. I don't think they really want to win this referendum.
Are Scottish Tories not allowed to comment at all on the future of their country?
I accept they are not supported by a majority of Scots, but didn't Lord Ashcroft's research find c.20-25% of Scots had some sympathy with their politics?
It seems to me they are an important constituency of the vote.
I'm all for them having their say, I assure you.
More interesting is that the tweet is from the Scottish Sun's political correspondent.
On topic stories like this (long predicted by turnips) won't shift the oldies
LONDON (Reuters) - Lloyds Banking Group is considering having its registered office in London rather than Edinburgh should Scots vote for independence, banking industry sources told Reuters.
Lloyds, which owns Bank of Scotland, has finalised contingency planning ahead of the Sept. 18 vote. The chances of secession have increased with support for Scottish independence rising dramatically in August.
Banking industry sources said Lloyds executives are considering having the group's registered office in London, with Bank of Scotland operating from Edinburgh as a foreign division of the business.
Moving Lloyds Registered Office from London to Edinburgh was done to comply with the terms of their TSB takeover. The TSB (or at least the brand and a different set of branches) has now been separated from the Lloyds Banking Group and Lloyds will have been released from their obligation.
If Scotland becomes independent and Lloyds remains registered in Scotland, the credit rating of its holding company will be downgraded since Scotland will not have a government lender of last resort (unless there is monetary union with rUK).
So it is almost certain that Lloyds will move its registered office back to London in the event of a NO vote.
It is rehashed old news and as shown when they did it last time it made absolutely no difference whatsoever. It is a paperwork exercise.
Of course it's a paperwork exercise, it's P45s for Scots.
Wouldn't appear to be the kind of bloke that didn't think carefully about it before defecting... Remember, he has heard first hand what Cameron pans to do renegotiation wise
Here's a comment from that article, I wonder if NPXMP, or indeed anyone from the Left, could explain where/if the poster is wrong, and try to convince me why I should not vote for UKIP:
We paid £61,000,000 last year - as free handouts to EU students - besides lending millions in unpaid loans. We paid £55,000,000 in child benefit straight to Poland for children who have never been in this country. 37% of our entire tax credit budget - £5,000,000,000 (5 billion) per annum goes to Europeans working here. We have hundreds of thousands of EU migrants here living completely on benefits. We hand out houses like sweeties to EU migrants whilst British people pay half their earnings in extortionate rents. We pay billions a year to be a member - a despised member - of the EU to pay for better roads than ours in Roumania and schools for Bulgaria.. And we borrow, borrow the lot.
British taxpayers are being bled. If we are to get our finances in order the first thing we must do is exit the EUSSR and close our borders. Mr Carswell is apparently keen for the truth of our financial situation - dire as it is - to be known. And he has now joined UKIP. Why is obvious.
comment from that article tick the Left tick free handouts tick hand out houses like sweeties to EU migrants tick Roumania (sic) tick British taxpayers are being bled tick EUSSR HOUSE
Thanks for responding. I'm not talking about immigration from within the EU - I agree such people will integrate similarly quickly to the Jews and the Huguenots etc. I was more talking about from places like Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Congo etc.
And of course EU immigrants do not (normally) vote in UK general elections. Labour's preferred immigrants from the third world are fast tracked to citizenship.
Most of them don't need citizenship. If you're from India or Pakistan you can vote as soon as you start living here. It's an absurd system.
Agree - why has this not been looked at? Certainly where there are no reciprocal rights?
The Tories deserve to lose since they don't want to win
@Socrates Those policemen were being intimidated and threatened, they could have arrested them for that alone. That they did not do so, is a failure on their part, as instead of doing what they are paid to do, they chose the easy option of turning a blind eye.
Doesn’t that rather underline the former Chief Constable’s point; he was never told. Why the two beat officers didn’t discuss it with their superiors of course is different. And if they did, why they weren’t bawled out for failing to act as suggested by Smarmeron?
Was there a policy of handling "such persons" with kid gloves?
"Well you put the other side to the story then instead of smearing posters on here,thats all you have done since you have returned."
There isn't another side. To say anything on here or on the internet that makes Asian's or identifyable Muslims uncomfortable or worse is unacceptable. I don't mean to insult Socrates who seems very sincere just completely without empathy. Though it's got a long way to go how people can so quickly forget the events leading up to the pogroms in Rwanda let alone further back I can't imagine.
comment from that article tick the Left tick free handouts tick hand out houses like sweeties to EU migrants tick Roumania (sic) tick British taxpayers are being bled tick EUSSR HOUSE
And of course a special bonus for the made-up figures. I particularly liked the one about tax credits.
@OldKingCole It comes down to the attitudes of our police force. As an example, if there is a random police check on the road, I might as well start indicating to pull in as soon as I see them. Long hair and a beard = "a wrong 'un"
@OldKingCole It comes down to the attitudes of our police force. As an example, if there is a random police check on the road, I might as well start indicating to pull in as soon as I see them. Long hair and a beard = "a wrong 'un"
"Well you put the other side to the story then instead of smearing posters on here,thats all you have done since you have returned."
There isn't another side. To say anything on here or on the internet that makes Asian's or identifyable Muslims uncomfortable or worse is unacceptable. I don't mean to insult Socrates who seems very sincere just completely without empathy. Though it's got a long way to go how people can so quickly forget the events leading up to the pogroms in Rwanda let alone further back I can't imagine.
You going way over the top.
So to you,there isn't another side,so there right ? they is a discussion on PB about that story,just like we did with jimmy saville.
Are the electorate in this referendum the same as the group of people who will have the right to claim Scottish nationality after Independence? Or are the two groups completely different with many having no right to Scottish nationality, and many ex-pat non voters the reverse? 2) A Scottish pensioner living in Scotland who claims dual nationality 3) A Scottish pensioner living in England who doesn't claim dual nationality 4) A Scottish pensioner living in England who does claim dual nationality 5) A "Scottish" pensioner in England or Scotland who rejects Scottish nationality?
There are 12 pages on pensions in the Indy white paper, including
State Pension entitlement in an independent Scotland The key points of the Scottish Government’s proposals for State Pension entitlement are: ■■ for those people living in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for the payment of that pension will transfer to the Scottish Government ■■ for those people of working age who are living and working in Scotland at the time of independence, the UK pension entitlement they have accrued prior to independence will form part of their Scottish State Pension entitlement. Any pension entitlement accrued in Scotland after independence would also form part of that Scottish State Pension. On reaching the State Pension Age, their Scottish State Pension would be paid by the Scottish Government ■■ for future pensioners who have accrued rights to the Scottish State Pension but who retire outside Scotland, the Scottish State Pension will be paid either via a Scottish equivalent of the International Pensions Centre (IPC) or by the pensions institution in the country of residence, depending on their circumstances. The Scottish IPC will be established following a transitional period of shared service provision ■■ for people who build up entitlement to a range of State Pensions – in Scotland, in the rest of the UK, in Europe, or elsewhere – the current situation will continue. The only difference will be that, from independence, pension entitlement accrued from working in Scotland will be to the Scottish State Pension, rather than to the UK State Pension.
Important point. What if you are say, English, but living in Scotland (like my in-laws) but want to keep their pension being paid by the UK?
It looks clear to me , wherever you paid your NI will determine who funds your pension, they will hopefully agree to pay out a single pension and have some kind of agreement in th background rather than having multiple pensions , but who knows.
Re Pensions ..... editing function’s decided to be awkward.
UK pensions paid in different countries vary. In some countries you only the get it at the rate it was when you retired. In other words, you don’t get an increase each year. Depends on the agreement between UK and whoever. What will the agreement be with Scotland?
Since both will be members of the EU, the pension will be paid in full with annual increases in both directions. Outside the EU - same rules as UK currently apply to Australia, Canada I imagine
Comments
You were also apparently brought up to think that "some muslims are rapists" implies that "all muslims are rapists" and that "all rapists are muslims", which is false. You might want to have a word with whoever was responsible for your upbringing.
Are weekdays not worth bothering with?
That some might think Scottish independence might be a good thing - just not launched on the basis of the SNP's preposterous prospectus of piffle simply does not compute.
You oppose us - you must be an English Tory taking a break from eating babies.
No other explanation is possible....
More generally, I disagree with your underlying premise that all this is relevant to free movement within the EU, which is the only kind of free immigration that we have. I don't think there are huge differences in political culture within the EU, and that is really my fundamental disagreement with UKIP. We seem to me a much more homogenous continent than many people believe, and the free interflow of people within Europe helps to make that clearer.
I've got several hours of meetings starting in a minute, so won't be able to pursue the discussion!
The problem is not that these people aren't representative of UKIP, but that they are. I don't think he's necessarily a disaster for UKIP, only that he's bad news for Farage personally. In 2015, as UKIP's only MP, Farage will be as happy to see him in the HoC as Cameron will be to see Boris Johnson.
He's only a disaster for UKIP at large if he does in fact hold sane views on immigration and if a large tranche of UKIP imagines OTOH that he in fact shares their own views on immigration.
Moving Lloyds Registered Office from London to Edinburgh was done to comply with the terms of their TSB takeover. The TSB (or at least the brand and a different set of branches) has now been separated from the Lloyds Banking Group and Lloyds will have been released from their obligation.
If Scotland becomes independent and Lloyds remains registered in Scotland, the credit rating of its holding company will be downgraded since Scotland will not have a government lender of last resort (unless there is monetary union with rUK).
So it is almost certain that Lloyds will move its registered office back to London in the event of a NO vote.
Thanks for responding. I'm not talking about immigration from within the EU - I agree such people will integrate similarly quickly to the Jews and the Huguenots etc. I was more talking about from places like Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Congo etc.
Let's face it Neil you just annoy everybody.
And I am sure you are perfectly ok with that.
Wouldn't appear to be the kind of bloke that didn't think carefully about it before defecting... Remember, he has heard first hand what Cameron pans to do renegotiation wise
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/11065741/Carswell-Ukip-defection-highlights-UKs-dire-fiscal-situation.html
Incidentally, if the fraught business of independence is grating, why not peruse my brief but bet-riddled post on the forthcoming F1 race in Italy?:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/italy-early-thoughts.html
Edited extra bit: hmm. Apparently the most popular Ladbrokes bet for Monza is a Vettel victory at 21. Surprised by that, but there we are.
Tories issue tough anti-Indy statement from Lang, Rifkind and Forsyth. I don't think they really want to win this referendum.
Edited extra bit: they did forget to mention the rather generous maternity leave women have or that most sexual harassment victims in Parliament are men, though...
http://tinyurl.com/lnptxbt
Real abuse versus a possible threat.
Good luck Shadsy!
The fact that white men abuse children in Surrey is not evidence against the fact that Pakistanis abuse children in Rotherham.
The fact that white men abuse children in Surrey is not an argument against doing something about the fact that Pakistanis abuse children in Rotherham.
Doing something about the fact that Pakistanis abuse children in Rotherham does not imply an unwillingness to do something about the fact that white men abuse children in Surrey.
None of this is difficult.
9.6% - 2011 census
9.9% Yougov's most recent weighed share of electorate
We will be able to pay the pensions out of the 130 billion saving , as we will not have to pay the UK's debts so no hassle either way.
The main problem is that once the referendum result is known to be YES then people will react instantly. There will be massive capital flight to accounts in England, and there is nothing anyone could do to stop it as the UK paradigm would still be in force: it would just be a case of money moving around the same country.
I am big on appeals to rationality, The perpetrators in Rotherham share a commonality with other child abusers all over the country.
The danger of concentrating on race and culture is that it blinds us to the real reasons that abuse happened and continues to happen, and leads to the wrong solutions.
Criminality thrives when we look for simple causes and effects, and if we continue to concentrate on one particular stereotype of abuser, we fail all the other children that are being abused by different groups.
Me neither, so either we can crack down ad hoc on its manifestations as and when they occur, or we can sit and let it happen while the left dithers and pretends to look for "the right solution". There are 1400+ victims in one town alone who would probably say that the wrong solution would have been just fine by them, if it stopped what happened from happening. Do you sympathise with them?
If you have 100 units of resource and 100 areas of risk, you don't apply the former to the latter on a 1 to 1 basis. You look for the 10% where a lot of planets align and focus on those at a ratio of 10 to 1.
There is no virtue in deliberately carrying this surveillance out ineptly, simply to appease your inner Owen Jones. You waste a lot of time and also increase the risk of the real perps getting away with it.
Based on what we've seen so far, being a Pakistani Muslim may turn out to be a key risk factor, perhaps the most significant one, for being a predatory paedophile. If it turns out that they are 4% of the population but 40% of the paedophile gangs, then your job of identifying should have just got appreciably simpler.
"quite a few openly want a violent pogrom. There are comments over at the DT suggesting that Muslims be removed "by boat, train or chimney"".
Who'd have thought even the Telegraph would post comments such as this in 2014? I'm beginning to think the Scots might be well out of it. Just hope they leave the border open long enough for those who need it to escape.
I assume the same would apply to independence. Scots which retired but made UK pensions contributions in terms of NI would be entitled to a UK pension wouldn't they?
Edit: Although I expect what would happen is the Scottish pension liability would form part of the liabilities of the group, and Scotland would take responsibility for those pensions as part of it's liability settlement.
7) We certainly do not import people - agree. The Labour party imported third world immigrants to bolster their vote. Is this why you are in favour of mass third world immigration?
"Let them eat Dundee cake" says Malcolm antoinette
Labour's preferred immigrants from the third world are fast tracked to citizenship.
It's fascinating really. You have UKIPpers demanding that Muslims be murdered by the state because, in effect, they're not civilised and we are. Is there a word for an epic self-perception fail of this kind?
We can never eliminate child abuse, but one of the causes of it's prevalence we can tackle, and without recourse to new laws.
In almost every case you read about, the children were not believed, or were considered not worth the effort of protecting as they were contributing to their own abuse.
Yes, the abuse is cultural, but it the culture of our society as much as any other one.
There is a problem with certain communities in that they fear the "shame" of the truth, and sweep it under the carpet. Councilors, Police, and of course Muslim of Pakistan heritige, in the case of Rotherham, but other combination are available depending on the particular case.
"You're going to get nutters on all sides..."
That's true but identiying them seems a problem. We've had Socrates talking about nothing else for weeks. Obsessionally. No balance no comment on the one third of these 1400 who were abused at home ( by their non Muslim parents presumably) before they ever got touched by their later abusers. Yet people on here seem to find his posts reasonable. I'm afraid it's just blind prejudice and very dangerous.
State Pension entitlement in an independent Scotland
The key points of the Scottish Government’s proposals for State
Pension entitlement are:
■■ for those people living in Scotland in receipt of the UK State
Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for
the payment of that pension will transfer to the Scottish
Government
■■ for those people of working age who are living and working
in Scotland at the time of independence, the UK pension
entitlement they have accrued prior to independence will
form part of their Scottish State Pension entitlement. Any
pension entitlement accrued in Scotland after independence
would also form part of that Scottish State Pension. On
reaching the State Pension Age, their Scottish State
Pension would be paid by the Scottish Government
■■ for future pensioners who have accrued rights to the
Scottish State Pension but who retire outside Scotland,
the Scottish State Pension will be paid either via a Scottish
equivalent of the International Pensions Centre (IPC) or
by the pensions institution in the country of residence,
depending on their circumstances. The Scottish IPC will be
established following a transitional period of shared service
provision
■■ for people who build up entitlement to a range of State
Pensions – in Scotland, in the rest of the UK, in Europe,
or elsewhere – the current situation will continue. The
only difference will be that, from independence, pension
entitlement accrued from working in Scotland will be to the
Scottish State Pension, rather than to the UK State Pension.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-eu-deals-pensions-blow-1-3356554
Let's hope your company funds a shortfall rather than transfer you to a lump sum annuity jobbie...
I accept they are not supported by a majority of Scots, but didn't Lord Ashcroft's research find c.20-25% of Scots had some sympathy with their politics?
It seems to me they are an important constituency of the vote.
It's extraordinarily dispiriting that such people still exist in 2014.
Those policemen were being intimidated and threatened, they could have arrested them for that alone.
That they did not do so, is a failure on their part, as instead of doing what they are paid to do, they chose the easy option of turning a blind eye.
We paid £61,000,000 last year - as free handouts to EU students - besides lending millions in unpaid loans.
We paid £55,000,000 in child benefit straight to Poland for children who have never been in this country.
37% of our entire tax credit budget - £5,000,000,000 (5 billion) per annum goes to Europeans working here.
We have hundreds of thousands of EU migrants here living completely on benefits.
We hand out houses like sweeties to EU migrants whilst British people pay half their earnings in extortionate rents.
We pay billions a year to be a member - a despised member - of the EU to pay for better roads than ours in Roumania and schools for Bulgaria..
And we borrow, borrow the lot.
British taxpayers are being bled.
If we are to get our finances in order the first thing we must do is exit the EUSSR and close our borders.
Mr Carswell is apparently keen for the truth of our financial situation - dire as it is - to be known.
And he has now joined UKIP.
Why is obvious.
How we then get the 'unwilling to compromise' Muslim community back into the British fold - well God only knows. That's a tough one. Any ideas?
UK pensions paid in different countries vary.
In some countries you only the get it at the rate it was when you retired. In other words, you don’t get an increase each year.
Depends on the agreement between UK and whoever. What will the agreement be with Scotland?
More interesting is that the tweet is from the Scottish Sun's political correspondent.
Apply our existing laws without fear or favour would be my solution.
( not that it ever has been, but it could be worth a try )
the Left tick
free handouts tick
hand out houses like sweeties to EU migrants tick
Roumania (sic) tick
British taxpayers are being bled tick
EUSSR HOUSE
The Tories deserve to lose since they don't want to win
Was there a policy of handling "such persons" with kid gloves?
"Well you put the other side to the story then instead of smearing posters on here,thats all you have done since you have returned."
There isn't another side. To say anything on here or on the internet that makes Asian's or identifyable Muslims uncomfortable or worse is unacceptable. I don't mean to insult Socrates who seems very sincere just completely without empathy. Though it's got a long way to go how people can so quickly forget the events leading up to the pogroms in Rwanda let alone further back I can't imagine.
It comes down to the attitudes of our police force. As an example, if there is a random police check on the road, I might as well start indicating to pull in as soon as I see them.
Long hair and a beard = "a wrong 'un"
You going way over the top.
So to you,there isn't another side,so there right ? they is a discussion on PB about that story,just like we did with jimmy saville.
Get a grip man.
This kinda sums up how I feel about Dave....