It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
I would just caution that if there is any doubt over Scots pension payments I expect it would be indys poll tax moment on stilts
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt
Sorry Malcolmg that isn't going to be how it works
Because it will be specified at some point in the referendum debates that the Scottish Government will be responsible for paying Scottish pensions going forward and by voting yes in the Referendum you will be agreeing that those Terms and Conditions.
Great try but it won't wash, even Boris isn't that stupid.
And yes you may have a contract with a Government but come independence no such thing as the UK Government will exist. There will be instead 2 separate Governments, a Scottish one (which you are subject to and are responsible for you pension) if you live in Scotland and a Rest of the UK one if you live outside Scotland.
Yes and the rUK one will need to compensate as part of the deal, either in hard cash or assets. If I move to Australia they still have to pay my pension so no different. My contract is with Westminster and they have taken all my pension payments on that basis. A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
I would just caution that if there is any doubt over Scots pension payments I expect it would be indys poll tax moment on stilts
Nothing new about the argument, actually. Today's seeing some very familiar assertions warmed over again.
Re discussion of our new Met Office supercomputer, has anyone explained why Microsoft? The top American names in supercomputers are IBM, Dell and Cray, with IBM holding the two fastest Western systems. Is Microsoft giving us a hefty discount in order to enter the market or is it just that Microsoft is the only company our decision maker has heard of?
You need to look in the press release.
It's going to be from memory a set of Cray computers hosted in Azure South West and I suspect machines will be added, updated and reassigned continually - which isn't a problem given how virtual everything is nowadays.
This isn't a single computer in the old sense of things it's a multiple CPU, multiple box beast.
Built in stages, over a number of years. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/microsoft-brings-azure-supercomputing-to-uk-met-office/ ...Microsoft Azure will integrate HPE Cray EX supercomputers from Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), plus a Microsoft high-performance active data archive system, and other Azure cloud technologies, along with an end-to-end managed service to deliver this market-leading supercomputing-as-a-service. The partnership will also include innovation services to support the Met Office in exploiting future technologies, such as AI, plus commercialization opportunities.
Work on the project starts immediately, with the supercomputing capability becoming operational starting July 2022. The supercomputer is built in four quadrants to optimize operational resilience for mission-critical supercomputing capability. Each quadrant will consist of an HPE Cray EX supercomputer integrated into Azure, initially using 3rd generation AMD EPYC processors, which will later be augmented with next generation AMD EPYC processors. The first generation of the supercomputer solution will have a combined total of over 1.5 million processor cores and over 60 petaflops, otherwise known as 60 quadrillion (60,000,000,000,000,000) calculations per second of aggregate peak computing capacity. Microsoft will deliver further upgrades in computing capability over the ten years.
The active data archive system will support nearly 4 exabytes of data with high-performance data storage, query, and retrieval capabilities. The Met Office will also use Azure high-performance computing (HPC) cloud solutions such as HB-series InfiniBand clusters powered with AMD EPYC processors...
Someone wasn't happy about it, but I don't think this complaint got anywhere ?
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
Expats in the US, expats in Australia, people retaining dual citizenship ...
The UK government will have the option to pay its citizens resideimg in Scotland their full OAP, part OAO or zero OAP. They would likely do the former but there is no legal requirement to do so. Clearly all resident Scottish citizens will look to have their pensions paid by the Scottish government.
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt
Sorry Malcolmg that isn't going to be how it works
Because it will be specified at some point in the referendum debates that the Scottish Government will be responsible for paying Scottish pensions going forward and by voting yes in the Referendum you will be agreeing that those Terms and Conditions.
Great try but it won't wash, even Boris isn't that stupid.
And yes you may have a contract with a Government but come independence no such thing as the UK Government will exist. There will be instead 2 separate Governments, a Scottish one (which you are subject to and are responsible for you pension) if you live in Scotland and a Rest of the UK one if you live outside Scotland.
It never ceases to amaze how people blandly assume that there are no consequences when you transfer your sovereignty from a known to an unknown entity.
MalcolmG has his own personal unicorn version of Scottish independence
I'm not actually bothered whether Scotland goes or not - but if Scotland did leave I would be tempted to purchase shares in a popcorn factory.
Further, some ambassadors warned that a lawsuit would further diminish citizens’ trust in the vaccine because it would sully the image of AstraZeneca, according to the diplomat. In "emotional terms," the diplomat said the Commission understandably wants to hit back at the vaccine producer over the delivery shortfalls — but added that the company is also needed in the global response against COVID-19.
Valneva scraps talks with EU bosses wanting to buy its Covid vaccine in another blow to the bloc's shambolic jab roll-out
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
Well this will be highly confusing in a lot of cases though. Presumably there are lots of people who have over the past 40 years been resident in Scotland at some times and elsewhere in the UK at other times. Whose responsibility are they? This is going to take some untangling.
It is simple , the contract is with UK and will stay with its' successor. Future liabilities will fall to the new independent country but just the same as if you move abroad you still get your pension paid. Unless there is an agreement and compensation , all existing pensions remain with UK.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But that completely underestimates the risks. Let's suppose, as is likely, that the Scottish government agrees to pay the pension of pensioners resident in Scotland. Pay them what, exactly? In what currency? With what inflation? The inevitable squeeze on public spending will not miss pensioners. The largesse that Tories have piled on pensioners (arguably something of a disgrace) will be a distant memory.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
Its an absurd suggestion that Scots get their pensions paid by the English, Welsh and N Irish rather than by the Scots. Why would anyone want to stay in this rUK govt if you can leave and get other people to pay for you?
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt
Sorry Malcolmg that isn't going to be how it works
Because it will be specified at some point in the referendum debates that the Scottish Government will be responsible for paying Scottish pensions going forward and by voting yes in the Referendum you will be agreeing that those Terms and Conditions.
Great try but it won't wash, even Boris isn't that stupid.
Surely he does have a point though. The pension is deferred salary.
Not the OAP. That may apply to those in private of public pension schemes. However, the truth is it is a horrendously complex area out of which there are likely to be winner and losers.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
That is just utter bollox and especially coming from dog food salesman. You could at least try to get a source that would stand up to some scrutiny. Pathetic scaremongering from ignoramuses.
Trips abroad are basically the main factor of a return to normal I am happy to sacrifice. Keen to, even. Now to some extent this is because I had no plans to go anyway. ( But mainly it's that not going abroad doesn't make life feel not-normal in a way that virtually every other restriction does. And also it's virtually the only restriction which isn't a net negative for our economy (arguably). Who needs to go on holiday in a pandemic? I don't try to say this censoriously - I don't want to come across as one of those people who tuts at people for their indulgence in going to the park or talking to someone in the street. But really, what sort of a holiday is it going to be when you're all masked up for any activity and when half the places you want to go are limited or shut.
Travel abroad is not just holidays. There are many people with family overseas that they have been unable to see for ages. I've got a 7 month old that my parents have only been able to see once since she was born. For them it is far most important for me to be able to come back to the UK for a visit than it is to eat in a pub. Different people have different definitions of what matters to them in terms of these restrictions. I don't go to festivals so go ahead and shut them all down for years, but for others that is exactly what they are looking forwards to.
Of course, that has to be balanced with the risks involved, like all of these decisions, but closing the borders has more negative implications than just stopping brits getting a suntan abroad.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
Well this will be highly confusing in a lot of cases though. Presumably there are lots of people who have over the past 40 years been resident in Scotland at some times and elsewhere in the UK at other times. Whose responsibility are they? This is going to take some untangling.
It is simple , the contract is with UK and will stay with its' successor. Future liabilities will fall to the new independent country but just the same as if you move abroad you still get your pension paid. Unless there is an agreement and compensation , all existing pensions remain with UK.
but the successor for those in Scotland will not be the UK Government it will be the new Scottish Government.
You can argue all you want but it seems that your idea of independence is your own personal unicorn version.
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt
Sorry Malcolmg that isn't going to be how it works
Because it will be specified at some point in the referendum debates that the Scottish Government will be responsible for paying Scottish pensions going forward and by voting yes in the Referendum you will be agreeing that those Terms and Conditions.
Great try but it won't wash, even Boris isn't that stupid.
Surely he does have a point though. The pension is deferred salary.
Of course I do , these are just idiots spouting drivel to try and scare people, they have no clue whatsoever. What do these idiots know about how negotiations will proceed, just windbaggery which Carlotta is especially famous for.
Re discussion of our new Met Office supercomputer, has anyone explained why Microsoft? The top American names in supercomputers are IBM, Dell and Cray, with IBM holding the two fastest Western systems. Is Microsoft giving us a hefty discount in order to enter the market or is it just that Microsoft is the only company our decision maker has heard of?
According to the Beeb the Met Office machine will be Cray and Azure. Don't quite see how that works, myself, but then I didn't realise Cray was owned by HPE. Too long out of the industry to keep up - 9 years behind the times now....
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt
Sorry Malcolmg that isn't going to be how it works
Because it will be specified at some point in the referendum debates that the Scottish Government will be responsible for paying Scottish pensions going forward and by voting yes in the Referendum you will be agreeing that those Terms and Conditions.
Great try but it won't wash, even Boris isn't that stupid.
And yes you may have a contract with a Government but come independence no such thing as the UK Government will exist. There will be instead 2 separate Governments, a Scottish one (which you are subject to and are responsible for you pension) if you live in Scotland and a Rest of the UK one if you live outside Scotland.
Yes and the rUK one will need to compensate as part of the deal, either in hard cash or assets. If I move to Australia they still have to pay my pension so no different. My contract is with Westminster and they have taken all my pension payments on that basis. A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
If you move to Australia the UK government is not obliged to continue to pay your UK pension or to annually uprate it. They generally do the former in most places but not always the latter.
Re discussion of our new Met Office supercomputer, has anyone explained why Microsoft? The top American names in supercomputers are IBM, Dell and Cray, with IBM holding the two fastest Western systems. Is Microsoft giving us a hefty discount in order to enter the market or is it just that Microsoft is the only company our decision maker has heard of?
According to the Beeb the Met Office machine will be Cray and Azure. Don't quite see how that works, myself, but then I didn't realise Cray was owned by HPE. Too long out of the industry to keep up - 9 years behind the times now....
French winemakers ask for government to move them to front of vaccine queue as Covid destroys taste.
The French wine industry has suffered heavy blows with the pandemic followed by severe frosts.
French wine tasters have urged the government to prioritise them for vaccines after dozens were left unable to work when they lost their sense of smell and taste after being infected with Covid-19.
In a survey of more than 2,600 wine workers, the Union of France Oenologists said nearly 70 per cent of those who contracted Covid-19 lost their sense of smell and over half lost their sense of taste, affecting their ability to do their job.
"It's like asking a musician to play without his instrument," said Didier Fages, the union's director.
As France's vaccination campaign picks up speed and workers deemed essential such as teachers and police officers get jabs, the body has written to Jean Castex, the prime minister, to demand that wine tasters be moved to the front of the queue for anti-Covid shots to protect their livelihoods.
"Tasting is at the heart of the profession of the wine expert who makes the wine. At each stage from harvesting the grape to bottling, the appreciation of the quality of the wine and the resulting technical decisions go through tasting," Mr Fages said in the open letter.
He asked the government to "consider measures to make access to vaccination easier," for oenologists.
The survey added that 40 per cent of wine professionals whose senses were dulled during an infection did not recover their abilities fully. The loss of smell and taste, a common symptom of a Covid infection, could also affect professional chefs, perfume makers and others.
Winemakers say subtler tastes are harder to detect after re-training their noses post-Covid, finding the aromas of dark fruits and berries are simple to detect, but those of mandarines and ripe citrus fruits are more elusive.
France's multi-billion pound wine industry had already been affected by restaurant closures and lockdowns since the start of the pandemic. Exports to Britain and the US have been complicated by Brexit and by tariffs slapped on by the former Trump Administration.
I'm sure there was a French study at the beginning of COVID where they tried to push the idea that nicotine prevented COVID. Two very french solutions.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
There are also as number of countries where the pension is payed but not uprated with inflation. Canada, for instance.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
There are also as number of countries where the pension is payed but not uprated with inflation. Canada, for instance.
It merely seems to me that this assertion that scotland can vote independence but they can also remain uk nationals with all the rights there of smacks a bit of us voting for brexit then demanding we keep the rights of being an eu citizen.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
There are also as number of countries where the pension is payed but not uprated with inflation. Canada, for instance.
As a UK citizen living in Spain this was something I looked at carefully before retiring here. The truth is for me I get my full pension annually uprated. However, the UK government decides to do that - they are not obliged to. And of course once out of the UK much of your income is subject to local taxation rules - which currently in Spain are much less generous than the UK. Be interesting to see how independent Scotland does it. There is no certainty.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Re discussion of our new Met Office supercomputer, has anyone explained why Microsoft? The top American names in supercomputers are IBM, Dell and Cray, with IBM holding the two fastest Western systems. Is Microsoft giving us a hefty discount in order to enter the market or is it just that Microsoft is the only company our decision maker has heard of?
According to the Beeb the Met Office machine will be Cray and Azure. Don't quite see how that works, myself, but then I didn't realise Cray was owned by HPE. Too long out of the industry to keep up - 9 years behind the times now....
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt
Sorry Malcolmg that isn't going to be how it works
Because it will be specified at some point in the referendum debates that the Scottish Government will be responsible for paying Scottish pensions going forward and by voting yes in the Referendum you will be agreeing that those Terms and Conditions.
Great try but it won't wash, even Boris isn't that stupid.
And yes you may have a contract with a Government but come independence no such thing as the UK Government will exist. There will be instead 2 separate Governments, a Scottish one (which you are subject to and are responsible for you pension) if you live in Scotland and a Rest of the UK one if you live outside Scotland.
Yes and the rUK one will need to compensate as part of the deal, either in hard cash or assets. If I move to Australia they still have to pay my pension so no different. My contract is with Westminster and they have taken all my pension payments on that basis. A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
If you move to Australia the UK government is not obliged to continue to pay your UK pension or to annually uprate it. They generally do the former in most places but not always the latter.
Again they can make and change rules if you are not in receipt of it but if you are in receipt of it then it is fixed, worst they can do is stop increases as they choose to do with Australia.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
There are also as number of countries where the pension is payed but not uprated with inflation. Canada, for instance.
It merely seems to me that this assertion that scotland can vote independence but they can also remain uk nationals with all the rights there of smacks a bit of us voting for brexit then demanding we keep the rights of being an eu citizen.
It follows logically from the HMG doctrine that rUK = present UK. Unless one confiscates about 5m passports.
The moral of the story seems to be that in England where the Tories are led by Boris the party is doing well nationwide, but in the other nations with their own leaders the party is struggling.
So how do we find a Welsh and Scottish Boris?
The tories are English nationalists, now.
Is there anything wrong with that? 🏴
In theory no, in practice yes. If you doubt this, take a look at the sort of people who profess the creed of EngNat. It's a grim bunch, by and large. There's a big overlap with far right sentiment.
No that's your closed-minded bigotry.
Like you saying you'd hate having a neighbour who flies a flag. Its perfectly normal to fly a flag around here.
Spend a bit of time looking into it and you'll see what I mean. If having discovered what a typical ardent Eng Nat looks like, you don't see the problem then you are a problem.
A typical Eng Nat is an entirely normal person.
Just like a typical Scot Nat or French Nat or anyone else.
If you are too closed minded to see that then you are part of the problem.
As I say, take a look into it. The speed of your reply indicates you haven't. There's no shame in learning or conceding something. You'll grow in stature. Same if you were to stop the childish mimicking of my language. Ardent Eng Nat has a particular character. There's quite an overlap with far right. Not totally, of course, but the link is there. It ought to trouble you. It would me if I were that way inclined. Eg, a small proportion of Labour members being antisemites (rightly) tarnished Labour. I know you agree with me on that. So here you cannot argue that a much larger proportion of Eng Nats being racist xenophobes leaves that creed untainted. You cannot argue that, ergo it's better that you don't try.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Personal unicorn - No rest of UK Government is going to use rest of UK Tax payers money to pay for the pension of Scottish pensioners.
The party will want to be re-elected and if they gave the Scots a penny they would never see a cross against their name ever again.
You can dream all you want - the reality is that Scottish Independence won't go well for Scotland. It would have been an issue if oil was valuable and we were part of the EU but neither of those things are true now.
You may not like it but in reality you are better to keep things as they are and hope everyone ignores the extra spending money you get compared to English regions.
Re discussion of our new Met Office supercomputer, has anyone explained why Microsoft? The top American names in supercomputers are IBM, Dell and Cray, with IBM holding the two fastest Western systems. Is Microsoft giving us a hefty discount in order to enter the market or is it just that Microsoft is the only company our decision maker has heard of?
According to the Beeb the Met Office machine will be Cray and Azure. Don't quite see how that works, myself, but then I didn't realise Cray was owned by HPE. Too long out of the industry to keep up - 9 years behind the times now....
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
There are also as number of countries where the pension is payed but not uprated with inflation. Canada, for instance.
It merely seems to me that this assertion that scotland can vote independence but they can also remain uk nationals with all the rights there of smacks a bit of us voting for brexit then demanding we keep the rights of being an eu citizen.
It follows logically from the HMG doctrine that rUK = present UK. Unless one confiscates about 5m passports.
You don't need to confiscate them merely not renew them is the easy way.Alternatively just declare them no longer valid and add them to the electronic list that highlights an invalid passport when scanned if you want to do it immediately. If you want to be independent why would you want to be a citizen of the uk in any case?
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
Its an absurd suggestion that Scots get their pensions paid by the English, Welsh and N Irish rather than by the Scots. Why would anyone want to stay in this rUK govt if you can leave and get other people to pay for you?
You blithering idiot, because they have paid for it every month for best part of 50 years. It is not a freebie and it is peanuts compared to the contributions made. So no English , Welsh or N Irish person pays for it, engage your brain. If you have a pension plan with Scottish Widows do you think the Scottish pay your pension.
Labour are looking like they might do pretty well in Scotland and Wales, but have rubbish results in the English Mayoralties. If that does play out it will be interesting to see what the narrative is in the press, given that it will in truth be mixed in every sense. Nuance is not the media's strong point (or most people's generally, in fairness).
The Con win in Hartlepool will take a good slice of the media, I would think. An expected and logical result might be presented sloppily by many as a big shock. If so, I'll be on the look out for market overreaction in GE and Starmer markets.
On today's Survation Labour will gain county council seats from the Tories on May 6th and on UNS would comfortably hold Hartlepool but the high BXP share there means the Tories still may outperform UNS there
One of the most fascinating by-elections for years. A great betting steer for the longer term if read right. Which I will do.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
I would just caution that if there is any doubt over Scots pension payments I expect it would be indys poll tax moment on stilts
Nothing new about the argument, actually. Today's seeing some very familiar assertions warmed over again.
Resolutions to persuade Scots of the benefits of the Union by making a positive case for it rather regurgitating Project Fear seem to have melted like snow aff a dyke. Perhaps the least surprising occurrence of these opening skirmishes.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
I would just caution that if there is any doubt over Scots pension payments I expect it would be indys poll tax moment on stilts
It is utter bollox, as stated it would be negotiated and depend on where you were in the agreement, existing pensioners would be rUK , remainder would have a mix of both parties having some liability depending on pre and post contributions, it is not rocket science.
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt
Sorry Malcolmg that isn't going to be how it works
Because it will be specified at some point in the referendum debates that the Scottish Government will be responsible for paying Scottish pensions going forward and by voting yes in the Referendum you will be agreeing that those Terms and Conditions.
Great try but it won't wash, even Boris isn't that stupid.
Surely he does have a point though. The pension is deferred salary.
Of course I do , these are just idiots spouting drivel to try and scare people, they have no clue whatsoever. What do these idiots know about how negotiations will proceed, just windbaggery which Carlotta is especially famous for.
Malc
I would just say that blustering your way through this is not helping to address what would be a complex and difficult negotiation
This is just one of myriads of issues that need serious and independently verified answers and the very fact this may be an issue will cause widespread anxiety across Scotlland and cast a shadow over independence whether you like it or not
Indeed I expect it is an issue that is causing Nicola sleepless nights, along with others, and is one of the reasons why I expect the union to remain
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
I would just caution that if there is any doubt over Scots pension payments I expect it would be indys poll tax moment on stilts
Nothing new about the argument, actually. Today's seeing some very familiar assertions warmed over again.
Resolutions to persuade Scots of the benefits of the Union by making a positive case for it rather regurgitating Project Fear seem to have melted like snow aff a dyke. Perhaps the least surprising occurrence of these opening skirmishes.
Everytime we enter this debate I look at the £9.95 I've just spent on a prescription and the £9250 my children pay for University and think - I really don't care if the Scots clear off.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
There are also as number of countries where the pension is payed but not uprated with inflation. Canada, for instance.
It merely seems to me that this assertion that scotland can vote independence but they can also remain uk nationals with all the rights there of smacks a bit of us voting for brexit then demanding we keep the rights of being an eu citizen.
It follows logically from the HMG doctrine that rUK = present UK. Unless one confiscates about 5m passports.
You don't need to confiscate them merely not renew them is the easy way.Alternatively just declare them no longer valid and add them to the electronic list that highlights an invalid passport when scanned if you want to do it immediately. If you want to be independent why would you want to be a citizen of the uk in any case?
I was speaking metaphorically in terms of entitlement to a pension. We're used enough to people with dual nationality when it comes to UK and Ireland.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Personal unicorn - No rest of UK Government is going to use rest of UK Tax payers money to pay for the pension of Scottish pensioners.
The party will want to be re-elected and if they gave the Scots a penny they would never see a cross against their name ever again.
You can dream all you want - the reality is that Scottish Independence won't go well for Scotland. It would have been an issue if oil was valuable and we were part of the EU but neither of those things are true now.
You may not like it but in reality you are better to keep things as they are and hope everyone ignores the extra spending money you get compared to English regions.
Until today my view was Scottish independence is a matter for the Scots and the UK govt was being unreasonable. Given the commentary from Scottish nationalists in this thread for the first time I have sympathy with the UK govt's position.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
Of course not. And an independent Scotland would be sovereign too. That is rather the point. And the statutory framework for pensions in terms of amount, uplifts, taxation and age of entitlement would be matters for them.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
I would just caution that if there is any doubt over Scots pension payments I expect it would be indys poll tax moment on stilts
It is utter bollox, as stated it would be negotiated and depend on where you were in the agreement, existing pensioners would be rUK , remainder would have a mix of both parties having some liability depending on pre and post contributions, it is not rocket science.
It's all up for negotiation, but I suspect that either way the pensions will be denominated in the Scottish pound, which is likely to depreciate rather sharply.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Not if you live in another country it isn't. And if Scotland ceases to be part of the UK it becomes the job of the fromer to decide what pensions it can pay to existing and future pensioners. Similarly UK residents in Scotland will have to rely on the UK government as to how and if they continue to receive their full UK pension. There is no certainty about anything.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Personal unicorn - No rest of UK Government is going to use rest of UK Tax payers money to pay for the pension of Scottish pensioners.
The party will want to be re-elected and if they gave the Scots a penny they would never see a cross against their name ever again.
You can dream all you want - the reality is that Scottish Independence won't go well for Scotland. It would have been an issue if oil was valuable and we were part of the EU but neither of those things are true now.
You may not like it but in reality you are better to keep things as they are and hope everyone ignores the extra spending money you get compared to English regions.
Delusion, it is a UK liability and the successor state inherits the liabilities of the UK unless they welch on their debts which would not surprise me mind you.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
Of course not. And an independent Scotland would be sovereign too. That is rather the point. And the statutory framework for pensions in terms of amount, uplifts, taxation and age of entitlement would be matters for them.
Yet when [edit] UK pays an OAP Pension to an Australian expat, or a Spanish one, is the local host gmt involved? No, it isn't.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt
Sorry Malcolmg that isn't going to be how it works
Because it will be specified at some point in the referendum debates that the Scottish Government will be responsible for paying Scottish pensions going forward and by voting yes in the Referendum you will be agreeing that those Terms and Conditions.
Great try but it won't wash, even Boris isn't that stupid.
Surely he does have a point though. The pension is deferred salary.
Of course I do , these are just idiots spouting drivel to try and scare people, they have no clue whatsoever. What do these idiots know about how negotiations will proceed, just windbaggery which Carlotta is especially famous for.
Malc
I would just say that blustering your way through this is not helping to address what would be a complex and difficult negotiation
This is just one of myriads of issues that need serious and independently verified answers and the very fact this may be an issue will cause widespread anxiety across Scotlland and cast a shadow over independence whether you like it or not
Indeed I expect it is an issue that is causing Nicola sleepless nights, along with others, and is one of the reasons why I expect the union to remain
G, who is blustering , I will refrain from replying in kind. If you don't like my opinions, cut the insults and stop replying.
I don't know if we're still doing awards on pb but I'd nominate @williamglenn for the wittiest poster of the year!
I love a bit of William myself but you're only saying that because he's switched sides on Brexit. His old act was high class too but there weren't many giggles from you and ilk.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
Independence from contributing, dependence on taking out.....shameless.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
There are also as number of countries where the pension is payed but not uprated with inflation. Canada, for instance.
It merely seems to me that this assertion that scotland can vote independence but they can also remain uk nationals with all the rights there of smacks a bit of us voting for brexit then demanding we keep the rights of being an eu citizen.
It follows logically from the HMG doctrine that rUK = present UK. Unless one confiscates about 5m passports.
You don't need to confiscate them merely not renew them is the easy way.Alternatively just declare them no longer valid and add them to the electronic list that highlights an invalid passport when scanned if you want to do it immediately. If you want to be independent why would you want to be a citizen of the uk in any case?
I was speaking metaphorically in terms of entitlement to a pension. We're used enough to people with dual nationality when it comes to UK and Ireland.
Sorry to make clear in case it wasnt I regard the two as separate things. I was merely commenting in the same post that who pays ensions would be part of the negotiations. I don't see have you can declare independence of a country though then demand all your citizens remain citizens of that country. I think the term is cherrypicking. For a start a major issue, as an expat uk citizen you would still be able to vote in uk elections. My brief answer to that would be no way!
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
Of course not. And an independent Scotland would be sovereign too. That is rather the point. And the statutory framework for pensions in terms of amount, uplifts, taxation and age of entitlement would be matters for them.
Yet when [edit] UK pays an OAP Pension to an Australian expat, or a Spanish one, is the local host gmt involved? No, it isn't.
But those people have not given up their British citizenship. It's almost certain that the UK government will require it as part of the independence process unless ties to England, Wales or NI can be confirmed by way of a job or residence. It's called being independent.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
I'm using that as an example of how it's impossible for the UK to dump its liability without conspicuous
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
So what happens in Australia or the EU today? Nobody is explaining why this is somehow different.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
FFS can you get any dafter.
Malc, this is the price of independence. You might not like it but ultimately that's the cost of going it alone. I think you should do it anyway and after a few years you'll be all good and people will wonder what the fuss was about but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the tough questions.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
There are also as number of countries where the pension is payed but not uprated with inflation. Canada, for instance.
It merely seems to me that this assertion that scotland can vote independence but they can also remain uk nationals with all the rights there of smacks a bit of us voting for brexit then demanding we keep the rights of being an eu citizen.
It follows logically from the HMG doctrine that rUK = present UK. Unless one confiscates about 5m passports.
You don't need to confiscate them merely not renew them is the easy way.Alternatively just declare them no longer valid and add them to the electronic list that highlights an invalid passport when scanned if you want to do it immediately. If you want to be independent why would you want to be a citizen of the uk in any case?
I was speaking metaphorically in terms of entitlement to a pension. We're used enough to people with dual nationality when it comes to UK and Ireland.
Sorry to make clear in case it wasnt I regard the two as separate things. I was merely commenting in the same post that who pays ensions would be part of the negotiations. I don't see have you can declare independence of a country though then demand all your citizens remain citizens of that country. I think the term is cherrypicking. For a start a major issue, as an expat uk citizen you would still be able to vote in uk elections. My brief answer to that would be no way!
When Czechoslovakia became Czech Republic and Slovakia, did each side take responsibility for their own finances or did one demand the other pay the ongoing pensions?
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
I would just caution that if there is any doubt over Scots pension payments I expect it would be indys poll tax moment on stilts
Nothing new about the argument, actually. Today's seeing some very familiar assertions warmed over again.
Resolutions to persuade Scots of the benefits of the Union by making a positive case for it rather regurgitating Project Fear seem to have melted like snow aff a dyke. Perhaps the least surprising occurrence of these opening skirmishes.
Project reality v fantasy of SNP and the positive case of guaranteed Scots pensions from HMG for life
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
I'm using that as an example of how it's impossible for the UK to dump its liability without conspicuous
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
So what happens in Australia or the EU today? Nobody is explaining why this is somehow different.
What happens in Aus/EU is entirely a goodwill arrangement, in reality the UK Govt is *likely* to pay for current state pensions already being distributed, but probably in return for a 999 year irrevocable lease of Faslane or the like. In the negotiations it's not the sort of bargaining chip that will be given away for free.
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
There are also as number of countries where the pension is payed but not uprated with inflation. Canada, for instance.
It merely seems to me that this assertion that scotland can vote independence but they can also remain uk nationals with all the rights there of smacks a bit of us voting for brexit then demanding we keep the rights of being an eu citizen.
It follows logically from the HMG doctrine that rUK = present UK. Unless one confiscates about 5m passports.
You don't need to confiscate them merely not renew them is the easy way.Alternatively just declare them no longer valid and add them to the electronic list that highlights an invalid passport when scanned if you want to do it immediately. If you want to be independent why would you want to be a citizen of the uk in any case?
I was speaking metaphorically in terms of entitlement to a pension. We're used enough to people with dual nationality when it comes to UK and Ireland.
Sorry to make clear in case it wasnt I regard the two as separate things. I was merely commenting in the same post that who pays ensions would be part of the negotiations. I don't see have you can declare independence of a country though then demand all your citizens remain citizens of that country. I think the term is cherrypicking. For a start a major issue, as an expat uk citizen you would still be able to vote in uk elections. My brief answer to that would be no way!
When Czechoslovakia became Czech Republic and Slovakia, did each side take responsibility for their own finances or did one demand the other pay the ongoing pensions?
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
I'm using that as an example of how it's impossible for the UK to dump its liability without conspicuous
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
So what happens in Australia or the EU today? Nobody is explaining why this is somehow different.
Becuase those people in the EU or Australia are still UK citizens. That's is unlikely to be the case for the vast majority of Scottish people after independence. Only a small number will keep it due to residency or job status etc...
You all become Scottish citizens on a certain date, you get sent a new passport and unless you can prove you still qualify for UK citizenship you don't get to be a dual national and keep it.
As I said, it's called being independent. I mean if you want to keep UK citizenship then what are you actually voting for?
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
Of course not. And an independent Scotland would be sovereign too. That is rather the point. And the statutory framework for pensions in terms of amount, uplifts, taxation and age of entitlement would be matters for them.
Yet when [edit] UK pays an OAP Pension to an Australian expat, or a Spanish one, is the local host gmt involved? No, it isn't.
No because they are still UK citizens who under the current framework have certain rights. Those rights may not be the same as those held by residents, for example some are not upgraded but remain fixed at the level they are when they left. But what they are paid is really a matter for the UK government. If we have independence there will be negotiations about who is liable for these obligations and it is inevitable that that obligation will be taken on by the Scottish government. At that point the rUK Parliament will pass legislation removing all of the rights we have against them and we will have our rights against the Scottish government instead.
This may work out fine of course and if Scotland thrives Scottish pensioners may become better off than their English counterparts. But it is completely dishonest to suggest that there are not risks here. We have a very large funding gap. We will not have the same ready and cheap access to the markets as rUK, at least until we show ourselves to be creditworthy. There is a currency risk. Our economy may not thrive, especially if we end up out of the UK SM or if some of our tax base departs. Pensioners, like the rest of us, will not be immune to these slings and arrows. We will all be in the same leaky vessel together. This is the great adventure that independence implies. Things will not be the same. That is the point, isn't it?
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
On independence Scots will not be UK passport holders
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
So what happens in Australia or the EU today? Nobody is explaining why this is somehow different.
It's really simple
Currently there is a single UK Government - that pays the pension of those who earnt long enough to qualify for one
In the future there will be no such thing as the UK Government. Instead there will be 2 separate Governments, 1 for Scotland the other for the rest of the UK.
Both Governments will have responsibility for paying the pensions for people resident in the appropriate country at a date to be decided.
For what it's worth my opinion is morally we should pay what is due for years racked up till an independence vote occurs. We all ready do that for migrant workers from other countries.
My bigger concern by far is this idea that on independence that people would keep uk citizenship status. The being able to vote issue alone seals that for me.
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
I think tparto f the problem with the discussion today is that (a) HMG and all the PB TOrties are treating Scottish independence as a secession from a settled state (contrary to the oiriginal Acts of Union) and (b) HMG has already declared (in 2013 IIRC) it will accept all liabilities accruing to current UK (doubtless with a compensation payment from Scotland). That automatically introduces asymmetries and potential anomalies compared with, say, what happened to Czechoslovakia.
Also: although pensions are not separately funded - their entitlement is certainly accrued, and that involves rUK in the first instance.
To take another instance - Why should Scots retaining rUK voting rights be a major issue? If one is a UK passport holder with dopcumented prior residence in rUK then of course one should kjeep them even if resident in Scotland. If not, not. I'd expect @RochdalePioneers (for instance) to retain rights to vote in Rochdale (or wherver) but I wouldn't expect it of those of us who haven't lived in rUk for whatever the current time limit is - 25 years is it not?
Just been into ‘the office’ today, although my entire day has been spent in the pub. I can report that the Death of London, as forecast repeatedly by the PB Introverts, has been greatly exaggerated. Everybody was out enjoying the sunshine, the place was effing buzzing, to the point we got kicked off our table at 3pm to allow another party in.
For what it's worth my opinion is morally we should pay what is due for years racked up till an independence vote occurs. We all ready do that for migrant workers from other countries.
My bigger concern by far is this idea that on independence that people would keep uk citizenship status. The being able to vote issue alone seals that for me.
See myt comment just above yours. I can't see that it is a problem.
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
Indeed not.
How would we decide whether someone currently living in Scotland was a New Scot, or still a UK citizen? Personal choice? Surely it would have to be. Would 48% of Scots choose to remain as UK citizens?
Would these UK citizens still pay tax in the rUK, like US citizens do? Would there be a double taxation treaty? Would Nicola encourage everyone who was a tax liability (such as pensioners) not to become New Scots?
It would be a total nightmare.
Or are we going to have partition, where if you want to remain a UK citizen you have to trek back to England?
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
I would have thought there may be an issue in any case during the post referendum negotiations with scottish citizens keeping uk citizenship. It would raise a possible point in the future where those in scotland can choose to move freely to the rump uk and work here but citizens from the rump uk did not have the same right to move and work in scotland. While I am all for scottish independence I certainly think that is something that would need to be considered.
Surely it's inevitable under the UK Gmt doctrine that rUK and present UK are one and the same thing; pretty much any Scot alive today has UK citizenship automatically. You can't take people's passports away from them (well, you can, but it's not easy).
Quite a few rUK citizens would have the right to move to Scotland under likely settlements, however - those born there or whose parents were born there.
The other point is that in the last indyref HM Treasury said that all debts borne by present UK would be assumed by rUK (separate from whatever payment was agreed to HMT from Scotland). As rights to state pensions are defined on previous NI payments then any UK citizen with enough NI payments would simply claim that state pension. As if they were iving in Torremolinos.
Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.
It could well be as you say all I am saying is I suspect it should form part of the negotiation as should who pays pensions
But it's no business of the Scottish government who pays a previously accrued UK pension, is it? It's a contract between the UK Gmt and the individual pensioner.
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
That doesn't mean part of the negotiation might be along the lines of "You agree to pay pensions of scottish residents and we agree this other thing you asked for"
There is also the point that you need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any uk state pension so probably anyone aged 31 or under at the time of a successful independence referendum is going to find the 9 odd years they have been working get them nothing
There are also as number of countries where the pension is payed but not uprated with inflation. Canada, for instance.
It merely seems to me that this assertion that scotland can vote independence but they can also remain uk nationals with all the rights there of smacks a bit of us voting for brexit then demanding we keep the rights of being an eu citizen.
It follows logically from the HMG doctrine that rUK = present UK. Unless one confiscates about 5m passports.
You don't need to confiscate them merely not renew them is the easy way.Alternatively just declare them no longer valid and add them to the electronic list that highlights an invalid passport when scanned if you want to do it immediately. If you want to be independent why would you want to be a citizen of the uk in any case?
I was speaking metaphorically in terms of entitlement to a pension. We're used enough to people with dual nationality when it comes to UK and Ireland.
Sorry to make clear in case it wasnt I regard the two as separate things. I was merely commenting in the same post that who pays ensions would be part of the negotiations. I don't see have you can declare independence of a country though then demand all your citizens remain citizens of that country. I think the term is cherrypicking. For a start a major issue, as an expat uk citizen you would still be able to vote in uk elections. My brief answer to that would be no way!
When Czechoslovakia became Czech Republic and Slovakia, did each side take responsibility for their own finances or did one demand the other pay the ongoing pensions?
I have no idea, nor any why you are asking me
I don't know either.....but from wiki, any transfer payments stopped two years ahead of dissolution:
"Transfer payments from the Czech budget to Slovakia, which had been the rule in the past, were stopped in January 1991.
Division of national property
Most federal assets were divided in a ratio of two to one, the approximate ratio between the Czech and Slovak population in Czechoslovakia, including army equipment, rail and airliner infrastructure. Some minor disputes, such as gold reserves stored in Prague and federal know-how valuation, lasted for a few years after the dissolution.
Currency division
Initially, the old Czechoslovak currency, the Czechoslovak koruna, remained in use by both countries. Czech fears of an economic loss caused the adoption two national currencies as early as February 8, 1993. At the beginning, the currencies had an equal exchange rate, but the value of the Slovak koruna was then usually lower than that of the Czech koruna (in 2004, around 25–27% lower)."
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
On independence Scots will not be UK passport holders
But jneither will you. The UK won't exist any more. And how do you define a Scot?
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
I think tparto f the problem with the discussion today is that (a) HMG and all the PB TOrties are treating Scottish independence as a secession from a settled state (contrary to the oiriginal Acts of Union) and (b) HMG has already declared (in 2013 IIRC) it will accept all liabilities accruing to current UK (doubtless with a compensation payment from Scotland). That automatically introduces asymmetries and potential anomalies compared with, say, what happened to Czechoslovakia.
Also: although pensions are not separately funded - their entitlement is certainly accrued, and that involves rUK in the first instance.
To take another instance - Why should Scots retaining rUK voting rights be a major issue? If one is a UK passport holder with dopcumented prior residence in rUK then of course one should kjeep them even if resident in Scotland. If not, not. I'd expect @RochdalePioneers (for instance) to retain rights to vote in Rochdale (or wherver) but I wouldn't expect it of those of us who haven't lived in rUk for whatever the current time limit is - 25 years is it not?
Personally, I find this fascinating. A Scottish independence where all Scots retain rUK citizenship and the right to vote in rUK elections through dual nationality is clearly a mockery. But the concept of dual rUK-Scottish citizenship itself is clearly warranted.
At what ratio of Scots having dual nationality do we go from mockery to reasonable?
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
On independence Scots will not be UK passport holders
But jneither will you. The UK won't exist any more. And how do you define a Scot?
Plenty to discuss ...
I am pretty sure we will keep the UK name regardless of it no longer including scotland it is sort of a global brand
The moral of the story seems to be that in England where the Tories are led by Boris the party is doing well nationwide, but in the other nations with their own leaders the party is struggling.
So how do we find a Welsh and Scottish Boris?
The tories are English nationalists, now.
Is there anything wrong with that? 🏴
In theory no, in practice yes. If you doubt this, take a look at the sort of people who profess the creed of EngNat. It's a grim bunch, by and large. There's a big overlap with far right sentiment.
No that's your closed-minded bigotry.
Like you saying you'd hate having a neighbour who flies a flag. Its perfectly normal to fly a flag around here.
Spend a bit of time looking into it and you'll see what I mean. If having discovered what a typical ardent Eng Nat looks like, you don't see the problem then you are a problem.
A typical Eng Nat is an entirely normal person.
Just like a typical Scot Nat or French Nat or anyone else.
If you are too closed minded to see that then you are part of the problem.
As I say, take a look into it. The speed of your reply indicates you haven't. There's no shame in learning or conceding something. You'll grow in stature. Same if you were to stop the childish mimicking of my language. Ardent Eng Nat has a particular character. There's quite an overlap with far right. Not totally, of course, but the link is there. It ought to trouble you. It would me if I were that way inclined. Eg, a small proportion of Labour members being antisemites (rightly) tarnished Labour. I know you agree with me on that. So here you cannot argue that a much larger proportion of Eng Nats being racist xenophobes leaves that creed untainted. You cannot argue that, ergo it's better that you don't try.
There is no "particular character" for English nationalists, you are making that up in your own head.
What you are doing is typical English Socialism, or Ingsoc for short. You are attempting to define positions you dislike as ungood, by defining them by association as those who are doubleplusungood.
The Labour Party was tarnished by xenophobia because they institutionally allowed, welcomed, tolerated and promoted people who were xenophobic. They challenged and harrassed anyone who tried to blow the whistle or criticise xenophobia. That is what the ECHR investigation was all about - and that is why the issue was dropped once Jeremy Corbyn was expelled from the Party, because Starmer dealt with it. There is no such comparison with English nationalism since there is no English nationalist party, except some would say the Tories, and none of that happens within that party.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism, whether English or otherwise, and your attempts to pretend there is something "tarnished" about it by you choosing to define who you think is or is not nationalist based upon your own prejudices is just pure bigotry on your own party. With an Ingsoc rewriting of the truth.
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
I think tparto f the problem with the discussion today is that (a) HMG and all the PB TOrties are treating Scottish independence as a secession from a settled state (contrary to the oiriginal Acts of Union) and (b) HMG has already declared (in 2013 IIRC) it will accept all liabilities accruing to current UK (doubtless with a compensation payment from Scotland). That automatically introduces asymmetries and potential anomalies compared with, say, what happened to Czechoslovakia.
Also: although pensions are not separately funded - their entitlement is certainly accrued, and that involves rUK in the first instance.
To take another instance - Why should Scots retaining rUK voting rights be a major issue? If one is a UK passport holder with dopcumented prior residence in rUK then of course one should kjeep them even if resident in Scotland. If not, not. I'd expect @RochdalePioneers (for instance) to retain rights to vote in Rochdale (or wherver) but I wouldn't expect it of those of us who haven't lived in rUk for whatever the current time limit is - 25 years is it not?
The UK commitment in 2013 was to the bond markets and guaranteed all UK gilts. There is no promise to pay pensions to people who would no longer be citizens. It is truly remarkable that this level of self deception about what the independent supporters are demanding still exists. We did all this before the last referendum.
This isn't project fear. This is simple reality. We would have thrown in our lot with our new country for good or ill. That is the point. There is not a life raft for anyone on board.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Would be treated as any other UK citizen moving abroad surely? Scots would get a UK state pension entitlement as at date of leaving the UK with no further accrual and no annual indexation (annual indexation only applies where people move to countries with reciprocal agreement which wouldn't be possible in this case, at least initially).
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt .
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it assumes responsibility for its own spending taxation and revenue. Are you suggesting you would remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland and not take up Scottish citizenship? But live as a UK expat? You don't think they'll have thought of that? HMRC knows where you are and have been resident. Residents of Scotland will look to the government of Scotland for their pensions, no one else.
That is just utter bollox and especially coming from dog food salesman. You could at least try to get a source that would stand up to some scrutiny. Pathetic scaremongering from ignoramuses.
Institute of Actuaries:
UK State pensions currently in payment to Scottish residents would be paid by the Scottish Government.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
David , It is different once you are receiving your pension, only changes then are whether they do or do not give increases for inflation. I agree and have said that there would have to be some kind of agreement on sharing the liabilities of people currently contributing around past and future payments and potentially rUK could be nasty and renege on their commitments and reduce Scottish payments compared to rUK etc but highly unlikely. I still maintain they are liable for all UK commitments and cannot just drop them on a whim.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
FFS can you get any dafter.
Yes you could think you can divorce and abandon a country setting up a new one - and think the old one is responsible for picking up your tab.
I fully welcome Scotland's ability to be an independent country, but if it becomes one of course it will need to pick up responsibility for the likes of pensions etc Scottish citizens accrued. That is part of becoming independent, if you don't like it, don't vote for it.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
On independence Scots will not be UK passport holders
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
I think tparto f the problem with the discussion today is that (a) HMG and all the PB TOrties are treating Scottish independence as a secession from a settled state (contrary to the oiriginal Acts of Union) and (b) HMG has already declared (in 2013 IIRC) it will accept all liabilities accruing to current UK (doubtless with a compensation payment from Scotland). That automatically introduces asymmetries and potential anomalies compared with, say, what happened to Czechoslovakia.
Also: although pensions are not separately funded - their entitlement is certainly accrued, and that involves rUK in the first instance.
To take another instance - Why should Scots retaining rUK voting rights be a major issue? If one is a UK passport holder with dopcumented prior residence in rUK then of course one should kjeep them even if resident in Scotland. If not, not. I'd expect @RochdalePioneers (for instance) to retain rights to vote in Rochdale (or wherver) but I wouldn't expect it of those of us who haven't lived in rUk for whatever the current time limit is - 25 years is it not?
That was the 2014 referendum that the UK Government created.
If this referendum comes from a Scottish Government without UK support there is zero need for any promises made in 2013 to be kept now. Heck that would be the case even if the UK Government was calling for the referendum.
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
I think tparto f the problem with the discussion today is that (a) HMG and all the PB TOrties are treating Scottish independence as a secession from a settled state (contrary to the oiriginal Acts of Union) and (b) HMG has already declared (in 2013 IIRC) it will accept all liabilities accruing to current UK (doubtless with a compensation payment from Scotland). That automatically introduces asymmetries and potential anomalies compared with, say, what happened to Czechoslovakia.
Also: although pensions are not separately funded - their entitlement is certainly accrued, and that involves rUK in the first instance.
To take another instance - Why should Scots retaining rUK voting rights be a major issue? If one is a UK passport holder with dopcumented prior residence in rUK then of course one should kjeep them even if resident in Scotland. If not, not. I'd expect @RochdalePioneers (for instance) to retain rights to vote in Rochdale (or wherver) but I wouldn't expect it of those of us who haven't lived in rUk for whatever the current time limit is - 25 years is it not?
Personally, I find this fascinating. A Scottish independence where all Scots retain rUK citizenship and the right to vote in rUK elections through dual nationality is clearly a mockery. But the concept of dual rUK-Scottish citizenship itself is clearly warranted.
At what ratio of Scots having dual nationality do we go from mockery to reasonable?
The scots are clearly no longer citizens of the rump uk. They just voted to leave. It is obviously untenable for 3 million scots to still vote in rUK elections. I would say 0 is the correct number.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
I'm using that as an example of how it's impossible for the UK to dump its liability without conspicuous
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
So what you're saying is that you want to vote for independence but still be a UK citizen. Seems a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
So what happens in Australia or the EU today? Nobody is explaining why this is somehow different.
Becuase those people in the EU or Australia are still UK citizens. That's is unlikely to be the case for the vast majority of Scottish people after independence. Only a small number will keep it due to residency or job status etc...
You all become Scottish citizens on a certain date, you get sent a new passport and unless you can prove you still qualify for UK citizenship you don't get to be a dual national and keep it.
As I said, it's called being independent. I mean if you want to keep UK citizenship then what are you actually voting for?
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
I think tparto f the problem with the discussion today is that (a) HMG and all the PB TOrties are treating Scottish independence as a secession from a settled state (contrary to the oiriginal Acts of Union) and (b) HMG has already declared (in 2013 IIRC) it will accept all liabilities accruing to current UK (doubtless with a compensation payment from Scotland). That automatically introduces asymmetries and potential anomalies compared with, say, what happened to Czechoslovakia.
Also: although pensions are not separately funded - their entitlement is certainly accrued, and that involves rUK in the first instance.
To take another instance - Why should Scots retaining rUK voting rights be a major issue? If one is a UK passport holder with dopcumented prior residence in rUK then of course one should kjeep them even if resident in Scotland. If not, not. I'd expect @RochdalePioneers (for instance) to retain rights to vote in Rochdale (or wherver) but I wouldn't expect it of those of us who haven't lived in rUk for whatever the current time limit is - 25 years is it not?
Personally, I find this fascinating. A Scottish independence where all Scots retain rUK citizenship and the right to vote in rUK elections through dual nationality is clearly a mockery. But the concept of dual rUK-Scottish citizenship itself is clearly warranted.
At what ratio of Scots having dual nationality do we go from mockery to reasonable?
I don't know.
For the reasons given above, I don't think the rights of voting is an issue in reality. But citizenship is a separate thing.
Also the concept of mass confiscation of UK citizenship is a strrange one. It's not as if being a UK citizen was going to desappear under the HMG concept of the continuity successor state. We'd not be dealing with a situation where you handed in your UK passport and got in return either a rUK or Scottish passport according to choice.
What happened with the Irtish presumably recognised the issue, though IANAE.
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
I think tparto f the problem with the discussion today is that (a) HMG and all the PB TOrties are treating Scottish independence as a secession from a settled state (contrary to the oiriginal Acts of Union) and (b) HMG has already declared (in 2013 IIRC) it will accept all liabilities accruing to current UK (doubtless with a compensation payment from Scotland). That automatically introduces asymmetries and potential anomalies compared with, say, what happened to Czechoslovakia.
Also: although pensions are not separately funded - their entitlement is certainly accrued, and that involves rUK in the first instance.
To take another instance - Why should Scots retaining rUK voting rights be a major issue? If one is a UK passport holder with dopcumented prior residence in rUK then of course one should kjeep them even if resident in Scotland. If not, not. I'd expect @RochdalePioneers (for instance) to retain rights to vote in Rochdale (or wherver) but I wouldn't expect it of those of us who haven't lived in rUk for whatever the current time limit is - 25 years is it not?
No, i'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The liabilities are not accrued - as I said before, pensions are paid out of general taxation according to current rules, and whatever the previous rules were when the individual was working are effectively irrelevant.
If NI was properly hypothecated - and there is an excellent argument to be made that it should be, because at present it looks a lot like a Ponzi scheme, and risks serious generational inequity if the population ever decreases - then the correct thing to do would be for the Government Actuary's Department to run a valuation exercise and figure out what proportion of the funds/assets/whatever was due to the new Scottish citizens/residents as at the date of independence, and hand over stewardship to the new Scottish Government. However, as that's not the case, the only way to argue that Westminster should pay anything towards Scottish pensions is that they should also receive a portion of Scottish tax revenue. Which I assume is not a road anyone wants to go down.
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
I think tparto f the problem with the discussion today is that (a) HMG and all the PB TOrties are treating Scottish independence as a secession from a settled state (contrary to the oiriginal Acts of Union) and (b) HMG has already declared (in 2013 IIRC) it will accept all liabilities accruing to current UK (doubtless with a compensation payment from Scotland). That automatically introduces asymmetries and potential anomalies compared with, say, what happened to Czechoslovakia.
Also: although pensions are not separately funded - their entitlement is certainly accrued, and that involves rUK in the first instance.
To take another instance - Why should Scots retaining rUK voting rights be a major issue? If one is a UK passport holder with dopcumented prior residence in rUK then of course one should kjeep them even if resident in Scotland. If not, not. I'd expect @RochdalePioneers (for instance) to retain rights to vote in Rochdale (or wherver) but I wouldn't expect it of those of us who haven't lived in rUk for whatever the current time limit is - 25 years is it not?
Personally, I find this fascinating. A Scottish independence where all Scots retain rUK citizenship and the right to vote in rUK elections through dual nationality is clearly a mockery. But the concept of dual rUK-Scottish citizenship itself is clearly warranted.
At what ratio of Scots having dual nationality do we go from mockery to reasonable?
The scots are clearly no longer citizens of the rump uk. They just voted to leave. It is obviously untenable for 3 million scots to still vote in rUK elections. I would say 0 is the correct number.
But what if they are ENglish by birth or prior residence according to the rules? That is fair enopugh.
A contract is a contract is a contract and you cannot just novate it with agreement.
You don't have a contract, though, do you? At best you have an understanding - like the WASPI women had an understanding that they would retire at 60.
Another fool, of course you have a contract , they give you everything in writing. You sign up for NI and they promise you a state pension and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to. How stupid can people on here get.
Malcolm, if there was any contract why does the Chancellor bother announcing what he is upgrading the pension to every year? Your rights are not fixed. You have set rights under the current framework but that framework can change and has done many times during my working life. To take an obvious example, if the government did the right thing and combined NI and IT with the result that NI was payable on investment income and pensions would that be a breach of contract? Of course it wouldn't. You would have no remedy.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
Ultimately the UK parliament is sovereign and can change the law as it sees fit. I don't think there's really any way an independent Scotland could have any expectations on the UK treasury for anything.
But it's not the Scottish Gmt. It's individual UK passport holders we are talking about.
On independence Scots will not be UK passport holders
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
I think tparto f the problem with the discussion today is that (a) HMG and all the PB TOrties are treating Scottish independence as a secession from a settled state (contrary to the oiriginal Acts of Union) and (b) HMG has already declared (in 2013 IIRC) it will accept all liabilities accruing to current UK (doubtless with a compensation payment from Scotland). That automatically introduces asymmetries and potential anomalies compared with, say, what happened to Czechoslovakia.
Also: although pensions are not separately funded - their entitlement is certainly accrued, and that involves rUK in the first instance.
To take another instance - Why should Scots retaining rUK voting rights be a major issue? If one is a UK passport holder with dopcumented prior residence in rUK then of course one should kjeep them even if resident in Scotland. If not, not. I'd expect @RochdalePioneers (for instance) to retain rights to vote in Rochdale (or wherver) but I wouldn't expect it of those of us who haven't lived in rUk for whatever the current time limit is - 25 years is it not?
Personally, I find this fascinating. A Scottish independence where all Scots retain rUK citizenship and the right to vote in rUK elections through dual nationality is clearly a mockery. But the concept of dual rUK-Scottish citizenship itself is clearly warranted.
At what ratio of Scots having dual nationality do we go from mockery to reasonable?
Dual nationality with entitlement to vote and receive state pensions in both countries seems to be what is requested and expected, no wonder they think its a good idea!
So, the latest Scottish independence claim is that Scotland can become an independent country but still expect the UK government to fund a(n ever-decreasing) portion of its pension liabilities for the next 90 years.
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
Now the real nutters are arriving , some deluded halfwit that thinks people last 90 years on state pension, give me strength. They are funded by NI you clod , someone has paid in money for 50 years to get the pittance, fact UK government has squandered it is neither here nor there. They have the liability based on what you have paid.
Comments
Edit: obviously, somethign has to be agreed eg on part accruals.
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/microsoft-brings-azure-supercomputing-to-uk-met-office/
...Microsoft Azure will integrate HPE Cray EX supercomputers from Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), plus a Microsoft high-performance active data archive system, and other Azure cloud technologies, along with an end-to-end managed service to deliver this market-leading supercomputing-as-a-service. The partnership will also include innovation services to support the Met Office in exploiting future technologies, such as AI, plus commercialization opportunities.
Work on the project starts immediately, with the supercomputing capability becoming operational starting July 2022. The supercomputer is built in four quadrants to optimize operational resilience for mission-critical supercomputing capability. Each quadrant will consist of an HPE Cray EX supercomputer integrated into Azure, initially using 3rd generation AMD EPYC processors, which will later be augmented with next generation AMD EPYC processors. The first generation of the supercomputer solution will have a combined total of over 1.5 million processor cores and over 60 petaflops, otherwise known as 60 quadrillion (60,000,000,000,000,000) calculations per second of aggregate peak computing capacity. Microsoft will deliver further upgrades in computing capability over the ten years.
The active data archive system will support nearly 4 exabytes of data with high-performance data storage, query, and retrieval capabilities. The Met Office will also use Azure high-performance computing (HPC) cloud solutions such as HB-series InfiniBand clusters powered with AMD EPYC processors...
Someone wasn't happy about it, but I don't think this complaint got anywhere ?
Microsoft awarded £1.2bn UK Met Office supercomputing contract, Atos claims in legal challenge (Feb 22)
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/microsoft-awarded-12-billion-uk-met-office-supercomputing-contract-atos-files-legal-challenge/
Atos says it was unfairly excluded from supercomputer tender due to undisclosed requirements around processors..
I'm not actually bothered whether Scotland goes or not - but if Scotland did leave I would be tempted to purchase shares in a popcorn factory.
You can argue all you want but it seems that your idea of independence is your own personal unicorn version.
And it won't come off as it doesn't exist.
https://twitter.com/otto_english/status/1385220237960826885?s=21
and once you start receiving it they cannot withdraw it, worst they can do is transfer the liability to someone else and no fool will take that on for free. The WASPI women were not receiving pensions when the rules were changed, of course you can change rules before you get your pension but once it is being paid it is fixed for the contractual terms you signed up to.
How stupid can people on here get.
The party will want to be re-elected and if they gave the Scots a penny they would never see a cross against their name ever again.
You can dream all you want - the reality is that Scottish Independence won't go well for Scotland. It would have been an issue if oil was valuable and we were part of the EU but neither of those things are true now.
You may not like it but in reality you are better to keep things as they are and hope everyone ignores the extra spending money you get compared to English regions.
In an independent Scotland these decisions would be the decisions of the Scottish government of the day. What could possibly go wrong?
I would just say that blustering your way through this is not helping to address what would be a complex and difficult negotiation
This is just one of myriads of issues that need serious and independently verified answers and the very fact this may be an issue will cause widespread anxiety across Scotlland and cast a shadow over independence whether you like it or not
Indeed I expect it is an issue that is causing Nicola sleepless nights, along with others, and is one of the reasons why I expect the union to remain
#bringbackoldwilliam
Have I seriously understood this correctly? Please tell me I haven't, because there's surely no way anyone in an official position in the Independence movement can have so badly misunderstood this issue. UK Government pensions are not funded - no liabilities are accrued and no assets explicitly back them. The Government of the day pays them as they fall due, out of general taxation revenue. National Insurance, despite the name, is not ring-fenced for pensioners or even social care more generally, and certainly does not go towards the pension provisions of the individuals actually paying the tax. There is no way that Westminster would agree to this, and no possible case to be made that they should.
You all become Scottish citizens on a certain date, you get sent a new passport and unless you can prove you still qualify for UK citizenship you don't get to be a dual national and keep it.
As I said, it's called being independent. I mean if you want to keep UK citizenship then what are you actually voting for?
This may work out fine of course and if Scotland thrives Scottish pensioners may become better off than their English counterparts. But it is completely dishonest to suggest that there are not risks here. We have a very large funding gap. We will not have the same ready and cheap access to the markets as rUK, at least until we show ourselves to be creditworthy. There is a currency risk. Our economy may not thrive, especially if we end up out of the UK SM or if some of our tax base departs. Pensioners, like the rest of us, will not be immune to these slings and arrows. We will all be in the same leaky vessel together. This is the great adventure that independence implies. Things will not be the same. That is the point, isn't it?
Currently there is a single UK Government - that pays the pension of those who earnt long enough to qualify for one
In the future there will be no such thing as the UK Government. Instead there will be 2 separate Governments, 1 for Scotland the other for the rest of the UK.
Both Governments will have responsibility for paying the pensions for people resident in the appropriate country at a date to be decided.
My bigger concern by far is this idea that on independence that people would keep uk citizenship status. The being able to vote issue alone seals that for me.
Also: although pensions are not separately funded - their entitlement is certainly accrued, and that involves rUK in the first instance.
To take another instance - Why should Scots retaining rUK voting rights be a major issue? If one is a UK passport holder with dopcumented prior residence in rUK then of course one should kjeep them even if resident in Scotland. If not, not. I'd expect @RochdalePioneers (for instance) to retain rights to vote in Rochdale (or wherver) but I wouldn't expect it of those of us who haven't lived in rUk for whatever the current time limit is - 25 years is it not?
Hospitalisations only 140.
201 last Thursday and 220 Thursday before.
How would we decide whether someone currently living in Scotland was a New Scot, or still a UK citizen? Personal choice? Surely it would have to be. Would 48% of Scots choose to remain as UK citizens?
Would these UK citizens still pay tax in the rUK, like US citizens do? Would there be a double taxation treaty? Would Nicola encourage everyone who was a tax liability (such as pensioners) not to become New Scots?
It would be a total nightmare.
Or are we going to have partition, where if you want to remain a UK citizen you have to trek back to England?
"Transfer payments from the Czech budget to Slovakia, which had been the rule in the past, were stopped in January 1991.
Division of national property
Most federal assets were divided in a ratio of two to one, the approximate ratio between the Czech and Slovak population in Czechoslovakia, including army equipment, rail and airliner infrastructure. Some minor disputes, such as gold reserves stored in Prague and federal know-how valuation, lasted for a few years after the dissolution.
Currency division
Initially, the old Czechoslovak currency, the Czechoslovak koruna, remained in use by both countries. Czech fears of an economic loss caused the adoption two national currencies as early as February 8, 1993. At the beginning, the currencies had an equal exchange rate, but the value of the Slovak koruna was then usually lower than that of the Czech koruna (in 2004, around 25–27% lower)."
Plenty to discuss ...
At what ratio of Scots having dual nationality do we go from mockery to reasonable?
What you are doing is typical English Socialism, or Ingsoc for short. You are attempting to define positions you dislike as ungood, by defining them by association as those who are doubleplusungood.
The Labour Party was tarnished by xenophobia because they institutionally allowed, welcomed, tolerated and promoted people who were xenophobic. They challenged and harrassed anyone who tried to blow the whistle or criticise xenophobia. That is what the ECHR investigation was all about - and that is why the issue was dropped once Jeremy Corbyn was expelled from the Party, because Starmer dealt with it. There is no such comparison with English nationalism since there is no English nationalist party, except some would say the Tories, and none of that happens within that party.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism, whether English or otherwise, and your attempts to pretend there is something "tarnished" about it by you choosing to define who you think is or is not nationalist based upon your own prejudices is just pure bigotry on your own party. With an Ingsoc rewriting of the truth.
This isn't project fear. This is simple reality. We would have thrown in our lot with our new country for good or ill. That is the point. There is not a life raft for anyone on board.
UK State pensions currently in payment to Scottish residents would be paid by the Scottish Government.
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/documents/pdf/1310ifoa-commentary-challenges-facing-financial-services-if-there-should-be-independent-scotland-rev.pdf
I fully welcome Scotland's ability to be an independent country, but if it becomes one of course it will need to pick up responsibility for the likes of pensions etc Scottish citizens accrued. That is part of becoming independent, if you don't like it, don't vote for it.
If this referendum comes from a Scottish Government without UK support there is zero need for any promises made in 2013 to be kept now. Heck that would be the case even if the UK Government was calling for the referendum.
Remember - personal unicorns...
For the reasons given above, I don't think the rights of voting is an issue in reality. But citizenship is a separate thing.
Also the concept of mass confiscation of UK citizenship is a strrange one. It's not as if being a UK citizen was going to desappear under the HMG concept of the continuity successor state. We'd not be dealing with a situation where you handed in your UK passport and got in return either a rUK or Scottish passport according to choice.
What happened with the Irtish presumably recognised the issue, though IANAE.
If NI was properly hypothecated - and there is an excellent argument to be made that it should be, because at present it looks a lot like a Ponzi scheme, and risks serious generational inequity if the population ever decreases - then the correct thing to do would be for the Government Actuary's Department to run a valuation exercise and figure out what proportion of the funds/assets/whatever was due to the new Scottish citizens/residents as at the date of independence, and hand over stewardship to the new Scottish Government. However, as that's not the case, the only way to argue that Westminster should pay anything towards Scottish pensions is that they should also receive a portion of Scottish tax revenue. Which I assume is not a road anyone wants to go down.