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.
Newcastle is heaving too. Busiest I've seen it since December 2019. Lovely day helps, mind.
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Of course, those arrangements could be superseded by negotiations.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
Deluded unionist fantasies more like, you get more Little Englander by the day G..
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.
They absolutely can Malcolm and they will. This is not like a private pension where you buy an annuity and have a guaranteed income. You are relying upon the Scottish government meeting the obligations that the UK government took on. Maybe they will.
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).
No because its not the same as moving abroad. The UK continued to exist as a state and no new state was created if an individual went abroad, so it was just a change for the individual but this is the state itself changing.
Following the breakup of the USSR, Russia was recognised as the continuity state, thus keeping UNSC seat etc - but accrued USSR pensions weren't all paid by Moscow. Ukrainian pensions were paid by Ukraine, Azerbaijani pensions by Azerbaijan etc, Moscow was simply responsible for Russian pensions not all the former states.
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.
Only certain in your tiny Little Englander mind. You are talking out of your erchie as you have not a clue what any agreement will look like.
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.
If someone started paying NI as an 18 year old the year before independence, and you were correct about NI funding their pensions, they'd still be due the payments for that (tiny amounts, I grant) until they died. Which could be more than 90 years later. In the same way as, if you pay into a personal pension aged 18 and then stopped working after a year, you could buy an annuity at 65 and live on the (tiny!) income for the rest of your life.
The difference is that the State pension doesn't work like that, because it's unfunded.
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.
Personally I am totally against expat voting full stop. If you aren't living in the country then why do you get a vote on its direction. However there are not currently enough ex pats to make a difference. However there are enough scots to cause chaos. For example I have absolutely no doubt if the 2014 referendum had been a yes we would have seen a corbyn government here due to him picking up scottish voters wanting to lump it on the uk.
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!
Nobody is suggesting dual voting except those who have panicked about it. Actually there is a vcery good case for retaining it for English (etc) expats in Scotland, like those in e.g Spain.
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.
Again only in your fevered imagination. You are just making up any old crap and have no clue as to what will happen. Successor states always take liabilities with them unless they negotiate them away with assets/cash etc.
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!
Nobody is suggesting dual voting except those who have panicked about it. Actually there is a vcery good case for retaining it for English (etc) expats in Scotland, like those in e.g Spain.
Expats in spain don't get to vote in spanish elections however I believe. Maybe felix can confirm
I see there will be an enquiry into the No.10 text leak.
How does one leak a bilateral text message? One surely doesn't unless one is one of the two parties involved.
Not sure BoJo would be doing that, nor leaving his mobile around for people to scroll through on the off chance that there is something incriminating in there.
Which leaves Dyson. Again I don't see anyone scrolling through his texts.
So where else could it possibly have come from? And Cui Bono?
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.
Again only in your fevered imagination. You are just making up any old crap and have no clue as to what will happen. Successor states always take liabilities with them unless they negotiate them away with assets/cash etc.
Oh really?
So Russia (recognised as the successor state to the USSR) paid Ukrainian pensions after the Ukraine went independent?
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.
Personally I am totally against expat voting full stop. If you aren't living in the country then why do you get a vote on its direction. However there are not currently enough ex pats to make a difference. However there are enough scots to cause chaos. For example I have absolutely no doubt if the 2014 referendum had been a yes we would have seen a corbyn government here due to him picking up scottish voters wanting to lump it on the uk.
But it was you not the Scots on PB who suggested expat voting, so far as I am aware! No sane person would suggest it (except if the current arrangements persist for UK = rUK expats, certainly those who have entitlement within rUK).
To disallow expat voting completely is a separate issue - but one with which I have great sympathy.
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.
Again, you're voting to be independent. Grow a spine.
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!
Nobody is suggesting dual voting except those who have panicked about it. Actually there is a vcery good case for retaining it for English (etc) expats in Scotland, like those in e.g Spain.
Expats in spain don't get to vote in spanish elections however I believe. Maybe felix can confirm
Sortry - I was talking about voting in the UK despite being rtesident in Spain.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
I see there will be an enquiry into the No.10 text leak.
How does one leak a bilateral text message? One surely doesn't unless one is one of the two parties involved.
Not sure BoJo would be doing that, nor leaving his mobile around for people to scroll through on the off chance that there is something incriminating in there.
Which leaves Dyson. Again I don't see anyone scrolling through his texts.
So where else could it possibly have come from? And Cui Bono?
All very strange.
Has Whatsapp desktop app installed on a computer? And somebody got it from there? We know Boris drops a clanger or two when using Zoom.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
But what about (sa) the ENglish born? For a start.
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.
No, he's right. The UK pensions scheme by NI isn't specifically backed by any assets. It's a Ponzi scheme as it is paid for by current taxation.
I see there will be an enquiry into the No.10 text leak.
How does one leak a bilateral text message? One surely doesn't unless one is one of the two parties involved.
Not sure BoJo would be doing that, nor leaving his mobile around for people to scroll through on the off chance that there is something incriminating in there.
Which leaves Dyson. Again I don't see anyone scrolling through his texts.
So where else could it possibly have come from? And Cui Bono?
All very strange.
From what's been reported Johnson shared it with the Civil Service, following the Ministerial Code.
Plus Dyson shared it with the Treasury, saying that it had been authorised by their First Lord (ok I'm not sure if that's how it was phrased, but its been reported it was shared by Dyson).
So suddenly a lot of people have access to the texts, not just the people involved.
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.
If someone started paying NI as an 18 year old the year before independence, and you were correct about NI funding their pensions, they'd still be due the payments for that (tiny amounts, I grant) until they died. Which could be more than 90 years later. In the same way as, if you pay into a personal pension aged 18 and then stopped working after a year, you could buy an annuity at 65 and live on the (tiny!) income for the rest of your life.
The difference is that the State pension doesn't work like that, because it's unfunded.
Yes so in 40 years time they will have to pay a fiver, big deal. You cannot seem to grasp that people pay for almost 50 years to get the state pension , it is completely funded by the person. Bit like you saying you don't need to pay your mortgage because you spent all your money, you are still liable in law.
Malcolm This is a quotation from the White Paper, Scotland's Future, signed off by Salmond before the previous referendum:
"Scotland has the people and infrastructure needed to manage and to pay pensions. The Pension Centres, located in Motherwell and Dundee and currently part of the Department for Work and Pensions, currently administer State Pension and Pension Credit claims for everyone living in Scotland. This Government proposes they will continue to do so on independence. The Scottish Public Pensions Agency and local authority teams already manage Scottish public sector pensions. This Government proposes that an independent Scotland will take on responsibility for the pensions of staff within the civil service, armed forces and others who work in Scotland’s public service, as well as existing pensioners and deferred members. For current UK-wide public service pension schemes, the Scottish Government proposes taking our fair share of pension liabilities based on responsibilities for meeting the pension entitlements of pensioners who live in Scotland. In short, Scotland can deliver high-quality state and public sector pensions, and future Scottish governments will be able to ensure that we have efficient systems in place to deliver pensions to those who rely on them"
Its page 159 of the pdf if you want to look it up. There really is no doubt about this.
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.
Only certain in your tiny Little Englander mind. You are talking out of your erchie as you have not a clue what any agreement will look like.
So Malc, will you be campaigning to keep your UK citizenship after Scotland leaves the UK?
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.
Again, you're voting to be independent. Grow a spine.
Quite a few people in Scotland might want to retain rUK citizenship whatever I think - for all sorts of reasons.
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
How do you know.
You cannot be both Scotland and UK residents
I am amazed that anyone could think they would be
Scotland votes to go independent everyone in Scotland becomes a citizen of the Country of Scotland
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.
Malcolm, Current pensions are funded by current NI contributions. There is no liability to anyone. If you retire now, your pension is paid by the rest of us now. An independent Scotland would be on its own - funding expenditure from Scottish taxes and borrowing. Unlike Brexit where the UK was a net payer to the EU, Scotland is a net recipient of UK funding - so an independent Scotland would have to make hard decisions on what to prioritise. I live in Edinburgh and I accept that Scotland could be independent - but people are not really clear about the full implications. Sticking our fingers in our ears and chanting Freedom won't make the sunlit uplands come any easier.
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.
Personally I am totally against expat voting full stop. If you aren't living in the country then why do you get a vote on its direction. However there are not currently enough ex pats to make a difference. However there are enough scots to cause chaos. For example I have absolutely no doubt if the 2014 referendum had been a yes we would have seen a corbyn government here due to him picking up scottish voters wanting to lump it on the uk.
But it was you not the Scots on PB who suggested expat voting, so far as I am aware! No sane person would suggest it (except if the current arrangements persist for UK = rUK expats, certainly those who have entitlement within rUK).
To disallow expat voting completely is a separate issue - but one with which I have great sympathy.
No but keeping UK citizenship allows it. It is one example of why I personally think if scotland goes yes that the people of scotland are in effect held to have renounced their uk citizenship. My point is retaining uk citizenship is not just a random piece of paper of no consequence. You want to be scottish fine I support that. I just say that you don't retain all the other stuff just like when we brexitted we didnt retain all the rights of being eu citizens.
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).
No because its not the same as moving abroad. The UK continued to exist as a state and no new state was created if an individual went abroad, so it was just a change for the individual but this is the state itself changing.
Following the breakup of the USSR, Russia was recognised as the continuity state, thus keeping UNSC seat etc - but accrued USSR pensions weren't all paid by Moscow. Ukrainian pensions were paid by Ukraine, Azerbaijani pensions by Azerbaijan etc, Moscow was simply responsible for Russian pensions not all the former states.
Doh that was how it was negotiated, 2 roubles was not a big loss. Giving fake examples does not help your case much. Do you have a link to teh agreement on the USSR pensions that explain how the liability was transferred from the successor state.
I see we're back to that fantasy world where for example an independent Scotland can tell the Governor of the Bank of England what they can and cannot do as well setting monetary policy/targets for the Governor.
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.
If someone started paying NI as an 18 year old the year before independence, and you were correct about NI funding their pensions, they'd still be due the payments for that (tiny amounts, I grant) until they died. Which could be more than 90 years later. In the same way as, if you pay into a personal pension aged 18 and then stopped working after a year, you could buy an annuity at 65 and live on the (tiny!) income for the rest of your life.
The difference is that the State pension doesn't work like that, because it's unfunded.
Yes so in 40 years time they will have to pay a fiver, big deal. You cannot seem to grasp that people pay for almost 50 years to get the state pension , it is completely funded by the person. Bit like you saying you don't need to pay your mortgage because you spent all your money, you are still liable in law.
That's not how it works. I pay NI today to support today's pensioners. In a few decades' time, younger people will pay NI to support my State pension. State pensions are emphatically not funded.
I could happily agree that they should be funded in the way you say. But, as things stand, they aren't.
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!
Nobody is suggesting dual voting except those who have panicked about it. Actually there is a vcery good case for retaining it for English (etc) expats in Scotland, like those in e.g Spain.
Expats in spain don't get to vote in spanish elections however I believe. Maybe felix can confirm
Sortry - I was talking about voting in the UK despite being rtesident in Spain.
No I was just pointing out being an expat he only gets to vote in uk elections. Can you not see why all the residents of a foreign country being allowed to vote in our elections might be a worry? That is merely one of the consequences of all the scots being able to keep uk citizenship
I havent heard as ridiculous a plan as the SNP pensions wheeze since........err......Sunday evening.
In fairness its not the SNP's, see the White Paper. It is some of their supporters who seem deluded about the consequences of the decision they want to take.
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.
On past and current evidence it appears that I can expect loads and loads of posts from you and others on how much you don't care if we clear off. Amongst all that not caring I'm looking forward to some strident criticism from you lads towards the three English parties who are being so obstructive in this matter.
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.
They absolutely can Malcolm and they will. This is not like a private pension where you buy an annuity and have a guaranteed income. You are relying upon the Scottish government meeting the obligations that the UK government took on. Maybe they will.
Still David it is a UK liability , no-one knows what any settlement would look like. We could sell Trident to the Russians and fund our pension scheme that way. No-one has a clue how it would go but the liabilities are with the successor state unless negotiated away or they welch on their debts.
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).
No because its not the same as moving abroad. The UK continued to exist as a state and no new state was created if an individual went abroad, so it was just a change for the individual but this is the state itself changing.
Following the breakup of the USSR, Russia was recognised as the continuity state, thus keeping UNSC seat etc - but accrued USSR pensions weren't all paid by Moscow. Ukrainian pensions were paid by Ukraine, Azerbaijani pensions by Azerbaijan etc, Moscow was simply responsible for Russian pensions not all the former states.
Doh that was how it was negotiated, 2 roubles was not a big loss. Giving fake examples does not help your case much. Do you have a link to teh agreement on the USSR pensions that explain how the liability was transferred from the successor state.
Not fake examples, real examples based upon how the real world operates. Which is why in 2014 Scotland and Salmond said Scotland would pay Scottish pensions. Because of course it would, its laughable to suggest otherwise.
Do you have any real world examples of a country going independent and the former country they went independent from continuing to pay the state pensions for those in the new country?
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.
I am absolutely astonished by the independence supporters on here today who are either naive, in denial, or just have not thought this through
It must be a wake up call to PB posters who have not had an interest in independence to see some Scots expecting to continue to be part of the UK and have their pensions paid by the RUK government, post independence
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.
If someone started paying NI as an 18 year old the year before independence, and you were correct about NI funding their pensions, they'd still be due the payments for that (tiny amounts, I grant) until they died. Which could be more than 90 years later. In the same way as, if you pay into a personal pension aged 18 and then stopped working after a year, you could buy an annuity at 65 and live on the (tiny!) income for the rest of your life.
The difference is that the State pension doesn't work like that, because it's unfunded.
Yes so in 40 years time they will have to pay a fiver, big deal. You cannot seem to grasp that people pay for almost 50 years to get the state pension , it is completely funded by the person. Bit like you saying you don't need to pay your mortgage because you spent all your money, you are still liable in law.
Eh? No it isn't. It's not like a private pension pot. Today's tax-payers are paying for today's pensioners.
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.
Personally I am totally against expat voting full stop. If you aren't living in the country then why do you get a vote on its direction. However there are not currently enough ex pats to make a difference. However there are enough scots to cause chaos. For example I have absolutely no doubt if the 2014 referendum had been a yes we would have seen a corbyn government here due to him picking up scottish voters wanting to lump it on the uk.
But it was you not the Scots on PB who suggested expat voting, so far as I am aware! No sane person would suggest it (except if the current arrangements persist for UK = rUK expats, certainly those who have entitlement within rUK).
To disallow expat voting completely is a separate issue - but one with which I have great sympathy.
No but keeping UK citizenship allows it. It is one example of why I personally think if scotland goes yes that the people of scotland are in effect held to have renounced their uk citizenship. My point is retaining uk citizenship is not just a random piece of paper of no consequence. You want to be scottish fine I support that. I just say that you don't retain all the other stuff just like when we brexitted we didnt retain all the rights of being eu citizens.
Okay, I have no wish to have dual citizenship myself (having seen the complications which some US born friends have, for iunstance) but it does have a real and legitimate function for many people (eg English etc born but currently living in Scotland). And, as I said, some specific action would be needed to withdraw it from Scots generally as it wouldn't be automatic on independence under the current UK doctrine. Yet one has to allow for the former.
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.
On past and current evidence it appears that I can expect loads and loads of posts from you and others on how much you don't care if we clear off. Looking forward to some strident criticism from you lads towards the three English parties who are being so obstructive in this matter.
Some of us do criticise the unionist parties (and their most extreme supporters on here) who wish to deny Scots a choice in the matter.
Most reasonable unionists on this site seem to think another referendum is a bad idea and that Scotland shouldn't vote for one, but respect the Scots choice if they choose to vote for one. Only a few extremists insist the subject is closed for a generation.
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.
I am absolutely astonished by the independence supporters on here today who are either naive, in denial, or just have not thought this through
It must be a wake up call to PB posters who have not had an interest in independence to see some Scots expecting to continue to be part of the UK and have their pensions paid by the RUK government, post independence
If it succeeds, we will have the "voters did not know what they were voting for" debate repeating itself.
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.
I am absolutely astonished by the independence supporters on here today who are either naive, in denial, or just have not thought this through
It must be a wake up call to PB posters who have not had an interest in independence to see some Scots expecting to continue to be part of the UK and have their pensions paid by the RUK government, post independence
I actually support scottish independence and while I think they will have a rocky start after a while things will settle down and be ok. Just like brexit. However that does not mean I support the rUK being soft in post yes negotiations. I would like it made clear that the SNP mp's do not sit in westminster after a post yes vote during the independence negotiation period just as the UK did not sit in council of ministers meetings during brexit
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
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.
They absolutely can Malcolm and they will. This is not like a private pension where you buy an annuity and have a guaranteed income. You are relying upon the Scottish government meeting the obligations that the UK government took on. Maybe they will.
Still David it is a UK liability , no-one knows what any settlement would look like. We could sell Trident to the Russians and fund our pension scheme that way. No-one has a clue how it would go but the liabilities are with the successor state unless negotiated away or they welch on their debts.
That is not what the SNP themselves say Malcolm and for obvious reasons. The future liabilities of both rUK and the independent Scotland will of course be in the negotiations but they will be an easy bit, each party will take their own share. The idea that rUK would take their own share and our share is absurd. Dealing with the debt will be much more difficult. Do we take on 8.2% of it on a population basis or 9.2% of it on the basis Scotland is where that proportion of the debt has been spent?
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
Deluded unionist fantasies more like, you get more Little Englander by the day G..
Not really and no I am not a Little Englander
But my Scots wife and I support the union and will continue to ask and respond to comments that threaten the union
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.
I am absolutely astonished by the independence supporters on here today who are either naive, in denial, or just have not thought this through
It must be a wake up call to PB posters who have not had an interest in independence to see some Scots expecting to continue to be part of the UK and have their pensions paid by the RUK government, post independence
Nope - I expect everyone to want their own personal Scottish Unicorn.
It MalcolmG was clearly a person who thought that the end result would be Scotland getting everything for nothing (as they already do in same ways).
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
I see there will be an enquiry into the No.10 text leak.
How does one leak a bilateral text message? One surely doesn't unless one is one of the two parties involved.
Not sure BoJo would be doing that, nor leaving his mobile around for people to scroll through on the off chance that there is something incriminating in there.
Which leaves Dyson. Again I don't see anyone scrolling through his texts.
So where else could it possibly have come from? And Cui Bono?
All very strange.
From what's been reported Johnson shared it with the Civil Service, following the Ministerial Code.
Plus Dyson shared it with the Treasury, saying that it had been authorised by their First Lord (ok I'm not sure if that's how it was phrased, but its been reported it was shared by Dyson).
So suddenly a lot of people have access to the texts, not just the people involved.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
Another potential issue is I am guessing there are many that live one side of the border but work on the other side. Do you pay income tax on where you live or where you work? I am assuming its where you live. However does mean some border firms are going to be working under two different tax regimes
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
For starters, LBG and RBS. If Scotland subsequently rejoins the EU, they can kiss goodbye to every last one of the Edinburgh-based insurers and asset managers that serve England and Wales, as well.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and LBG/HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
SKY NEWS: Boris Johnson has performed a U-turn after Downing Street announced an internal inquiry into how private text messages between the prime minister and billionaire Sir James Dyson were leaked.
MPs have asked questions of Mr Johnson after it emerged he promised to "fix" an issue over the tax status of Sir James's employees in a series of messages.
The conversations took place last March in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic after the government asked companies, including Dyson, to help supply ventilators.
The prime minister has said he would make "absolutely no apology at all" for "shifting heaven and earth" to secure ventilators for the UK. But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said the issue demonstrates "sleaze" and "cronyism" within Mr Johnson's government. He questioned whether NHS staff or steel workers would get the same treatment if they had the prime minister's private phone number.
Downing Street has now said the Cabinet Office will investigate how the text exchange between Mr Johnson and Sir James - seen by the BBC - became public.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
For starters, LBG and RBS. If Scotland subsequently rejoins the EU, they can kiss goodbye to every last one of the Edinburgh-based insurers and asset managers that serve England and Wales, as well.
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
Deluded unionist fantasies more like, you get more Little Englander by the day G..
Not really and no I am not a Little Englander
But my Scots wife and I support the union and will continue to ask and respond to comments that threaten the union
Interesting. PBs resident "Little Scotlander" accuses someone else of being a "Little Englander" (and most likely inaccurately so by the look of things). Typical bit of psychological projection from a sadly typical nationalist
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.
They absolutely can Malcolm and they will. This is not like a private pension where you buy an annuity and have a guaranteed income. You are relying upon the Scottish government meeting the obligations that the UK government took on. Maybe they will.
Still David it is a UK liability , no-one knows what any settlement would look like. We could sell Trident to the Russians and fund our pension scheme that way. No-one has a clue how it would go but the liabilities are with the successor state unless negotiated away or they welch on their debts.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
For starters, LBG and RBS. If Scotland subsequently rejoins the EU, they can kiss goodbye to every last one of the Edinburgh-based insurers and asset managers that serve England and Wales, as well.
Aberdeen Standard Life is gone on day 0 aiui.
Long before, I suspect before or after the vote there will be plans announced by so many firms assuring investors about what happens in the event of Indy happening, everyone will be working on the expectation of No Deal and working back from there.
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.
Indeed, part of my point. If I take up US citizenship, I still have the right to UK citizenship by way of birth. Even if, for the purposes of acquiring the US citizenship, I renounce UK citizenship.
Many Scots would have that right of citizenship either by way of birth (pre-1982) or through parents and grandparents.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
Though that was of course said about Brexit, and didn't really happen. A lot more complex to move from Edinburgh to Frankfurt than from Edinburgh to Newcastle though.
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
Deluded unionist fantasies more like, you get more Little Englander by the day G..
Not really and no I am not a Little Englander
But my Scots wife and I support the union and will continue to ask and respond to comments that threaten the union
Interesting. PBs resident "Little Scotlander" accuses someone else of being a "Little Englander" (and most likely inaccurately so by the look of things). Typical bit of psychological projection from a sadly typical nationalist
Indeed, BigG voted Remain and is a Unionist, he is neither a MalcG Little Scotlander or a Philip Thompson Little Englander
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
Yes I did but my state pension was largely earned through my work here in Wales
My wife is a Scot but when Scotland become independent she does not expect to have rights to a Scottish pension anymore than an Englishman living in Scotland has rights to a RUK pension, post independence
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
Though that was of course said about Brexit, and didn't really happen. A lot more complex to move from Edinburgh to Frankfurt than from Edinburgh to Newcastle though.
The issue is slightly different though, a lot of the financial industry needs to be in a country with a gigantic balance sheet and a trusted lender of last resort, the fear of a repeat Iceland and Ireland has scarred banks from betting on small countries for a very long time. In any case, the BoE will require companies based outside of the UK and it's remit to shift whatever assets are necessary to the UK to continue operating. That makes it easier for some like Standard Life to renominate it's HQ to the gherkin and make it's current Edinburgh HQ a branch office of the UK company. In terms of jobs they've mostly already gone, but this will move the rest of the tax base as well.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
For starters, LBG and RBS. If Scotland subsequently rejoins the EU, they can kiss goodbye to every last one of the Edinburgh-based insurers and asset managers that serve England and Wales, as well.
Aberdeen Standard Life is gone on day 0 aiui.
Long before, I suspect before or after the vote there will be plans announced by so many firms assuring investors about what happens in the event of Indy happening, everyone will be working on the expectation of No Deal and working back from there.
At least they have the SL brand to work from in the UK. The one I feel most sorry for is Scottish Widows.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
Though that was of course said about Brexit, and didn't really happen. A lot more complex to move from Edinburgh to Frankfurt than from Edinburgh to Newcastle though.
Quite a number of finance related businesses moved out of Scotland in 2013 in anticipation of the last referendum. Most to England but some to Ireland. There were a series of reverse take overs by which the ultimate holding company changed domicile. I have no doubt if we go down this road again there will be further damage.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and LBG/HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
That's interesting Eagles. What's your view on whether there will be a mass move south on Independence? And how will it be analagous or otherwise to Brexit? If companies do move south, where will they go? You have a golden opportunity to move the Edinburgh finance industry to Sheffield!
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
For starters, LBG and RBS. If Scotland subsequently rejoins the EU, they can kiss goodbye to every last one of the Edinburgh-based insurers and asset managers that serve England and Wales, as well.
Aberdeen Standard Life is gone on day 0 aiui.
Long before, I suspect before or after the vote there will be plans announced by so many firms assuring investors about what happens in the event of Indy happening, everyone will be working on the expectation of No Deal and working back from there.
At least they have the SL brand to work from in the UK. The one I feel most sorry for is Scottish Widows.
Yes, they sure just become Standard Life Investments again and dump the Aberdeen bit of the name.
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.
I wish it was that simple. A UK pensioner living in Spain does not have their pension paid by the Spanish government. UK citizens are going to have to be allocated and in some case will be able to elect whether they are rUK or Scottish. The dual citizenship applications will I assume be allowed to proceed subsequently.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He'd be a Lord North on speed.
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He would have no choice, no Conservative and Unionist PM could survive having lost the over 300 year old Union, he would have to resign the day after or lose a vote of confidence from Tory backbenchers straight after.
He knows that, hence Boris will never allow or recognise a legal and binding indyref2.
Obviously the next PM, probably Sunak, would be expected to take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks if Boris did allow indyref2 (which he won't anyway), lost it and resigned
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
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.
I wish it was that simple. A UK pensioner living in Spain does not have their pension paid by the Spanish government. UK citizens are going to have to be allocated and in some case will be able to elect whether they are rUK or Scottish. The dual citizenship applications will I assume be allowed to proceed subsequently.
So I'll circle back around, if they're all keeping their UK citizenship, what are they actually voting 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.
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
Deluded unionist fantasies more like, you get more Little Englander by the day G..
Not really and no I am not a Little Englander
But my Scots wife and I support the union and will continue to ask and respond to comments that threaten the union
I hear you Big G. I'm a Scot living in England but all my family are still north of the border - we are all British first and support the Union.
I'm torn. I hate the SNP and what it is planning to do to my homeland so I want them treated as harshly as possible when Indy happens. No favours. The rUK government must put its citizens first - Scotland has lived off the English taxpayer for far too long. But what about the effect on my family living in the SNP hell-hole post Indy (assuming they haven't all fled south to live in my spare room)?
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He'd be a Lord North on speed.
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and LBG/HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
That's interesting Eagles. What's your view on whether there will be a mass move south on Independence? And how will it be analagous or otherwise to Brexit? If companies do move south, where will they go? You have a golden opportunity to move the Edinburgh finance industry to Sheffield!
As Max has said Brexit didn't change our lender of last resort, Scottish independence does.
Some of the more militant Nats have said they will default on their portion of the UK debt if they don't get a good deal (whilst the UK Government have told the markets they will honour all the debts, even if Scotland doesn't).
That talk from Scotland will not reassure the markets.
This means hardly anyone will lend to an independent Scotland because of their default, so there's no mechanism for a Scotland to bailout or support any company, they'd struggle to bailout a chippy with a grand's worth of debt.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
Tbh, they're going to bottle it again anyway.
A good job then that Brave Sir Boris is not going to allow it just in case.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
Tbh, they're going to bottle it again anyway.
A good job Brave Sir Boris is not going to allow it just in case.
Boris might be just a bit braver than some cowardly wretches in Essex.
This has been one of the most informative and intense threads I can remember and to be honest, (and expecting a quick get lost from independence supporters) it has shown up just how poorly they are prepared for an onslaught of questions if they win indyref2 and how naïve and in the denial they seem to be
Today has made me more confident Boris can win indyref2
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He'd be a Lord North on speed.
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
I havent heard as ridiculous a plan as the SNP pensions wheeze since........err......Sunday evening.
In fairness its not the SNP's, see the White Paper. It is some of their supporters who seem deluded about the consequences of the decision they want to take.
The Royal Commission would kill independence stone dead, once it turned over those stones the SNP insists on standing upon to prevent any sunlight entering.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
Though that was of course said about Brexit, and didn't really happen. A lot more complex to move from Edinburgh to Frankfurt than from Edinburgh to Newcastle though.
The issue is slightly different though, a lot of the financial industry needs to be in a country with a gigantic balance sheet and a trusted lender of last resort, the fear of a repeat Iceland and Ireland has scarred banks from betting on small countries for a very long time. In any case, the BoE will require companies based outside of the UK and it's remit to shift whatever assets are necessary to the UK to continue operating. That makes it easier for some like Standard Life to renominate it's HQ to the gherkin and make it's current Edinburgh HQ a branch office of the UK company. In terms of jobs they've mostly already gone, but this will move the rest of the tax base as well.
Lots of insurers in Guernsey/Malta/Ireland/Lux/Bermuda/Gibraltar, but it is as you say. Financial services isn't just a London thing; Edinburgh relies heavily on it too and has a long and proud history in the pensions, life insurance and investment space in particular. That works because it's part of the UK, and it will cease working as soon as it's not.
If you want a positive argument for the Union, it's that: it gives Scottish companies a much larger domestic market to sell to in its areas of particular strength.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He'd be a Lord North on speed.
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
Boris Johnson wouldn't resign even if he was caught on film engaging in watersports with a sheep while shouting " I am Vladimir's man and the love child of Leonid Breshnev"
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and LBG/HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
That's interesting Eagles. What's your view on whether there will be a mass move south on Independence? And how will it be analagous or otherwise to Brexit? If companies do move south, where will they go? You have a golden opportunity to move the Edinburgh finance industry to Sheffield!
As Max has said Brexit didn't change our lender of last resort, Scottish independence does.
Some of the more militant Nats have said they will default on their portion of the UK debt if they don't get a good deal (whilst the UK Government have told the markets they will honour all the debts, even if Scotland doesn't).
That talk from Scotland will not reassure the markets.
This means hardly anyone will lend to an independent Scot because of their default, so there's no mechanism for a Scotland to bailout or support any company, they'd struggle to bailout a chippy with a grand's worth of debt.
So essentially money, jobs and people move south (or elsewhere), in probably that order of significance?
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He'd be a Lord North on speed.
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
You think Boris has honour?
He won't be able to get out of it.
Who resigned from Europe when they lost the UK?
It would be very simple for the PM if he's still popular in England and Wales (which is where his MPs are from) to say he's the right person to stand up for England & Wales in the divorce like he stood up for Britain in the Brexit divorce. If he's still popular and the MPs think they can keep their seats at the next election - and if the Tories tilt full EngNat I think they will and then some - then it will be possible to turn this into a political advantage not a weakness to resign from.
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
Though that was of course said about Brexit, and didn't really happen. A lot more complex to move from Edinburgh to Frankfurt than from Edinburgh to Newcastle though.
The issue is slightly different though, a lot of the financial industry needs to be in a country with a gigantic balance sheet and a trusted lender of last resort, the fear of a repeat Iceland and Ireland has scarred banks from betting on small countries for a very long time. In any case, the BoE will require companies based outside of the UK and it's remit to shift whatever assets are necessary to the UK to continue operating. That makes it easier for some like Standard Life to renominate it's HQ to the gherkin and make it's current Edinburgh HQ a branch office of the UK company. In terms of jobs they've mostly already gone, but this will move the rest of the tax base as well.
Lots of insurers in Guernsey/Malta/Ireland/Lux/Bermuda/Gibraltar, but it is as you say. Financial services isn't just a London thing; Edinburgh relies heavily on it too and has a long and proud history in the pensions, life insurance and investment space in particular. That works because it's part of the UK, and it will cease working as soon as it's not.
If you want a positive argument for the Union, it's that: it gives Scottish companies a much larger domestic market to sell to in its areas of particular strength.
And a lender of last resort and a well respected financial regulatory set up through the FCA and access to all the trade deals that the UK has which will hopefully include reciprocity with the EU once again.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He'd be a Lord North on speed.
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
Boris Johnson wouldn't resign even if he was caught on film engaging in watersports with a sheep while shouting " I am Vladimir's man and the love child of Leonid Breshnev"
So he'd be going Welsh Nat instead of English Nat? 😉
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 ...
Nothing to discuss
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Well it strikes me as pretty complex. You've worked in Scotland in your time haven't you Big G? So do you draw some of your pension from the new Scottish government?
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
There will be a lot of people (and companies) rapidly moving location
Though that was of course said about Brexit, and didn't really happen. A lot more complex to move from Edinburgh to Frankfurt than from Edinburgh to Newcastle though.
The issue is slightly different though, a lot of the financial industry needs to be in a country with a gigantic balance sheet and a trusted lender of last resort, the fear of a repeat Iceland and Ireland has scarred banks from betting on small countries for a very long time. In any case, the BoE will require companies based outside of the UK and it's remit to shift whatever assets are necessary to the UK to continue operating. That makes it easier for some like Standard Life to renominate it's HQ to the gherkin and make it's current Edinburgh HQ a branch office of the UK company. In terms of jobs they've mostly already gone, but this will move the rest of the tax base as well.
Lots of insurers in Guernsey/Malta/Ireland/Lux/Bermuda/Gibraltar, but it is as you say. Financial services isn't just a London thing; Edinburgh relies heavily on it too and has a long and proud history in the pensions, life insurance and investment space in particular. That works because it's part of the UK, and it will cease working as soon as it's not.
If you want a positive argument for the Union, it's that: it gives Scottish companies a much larger domestic market to sell to in its areas of particular strength.
That didn't work for Brexit, ultimately I think Scotland will vote to keep hold of all it's sweeties and keep voting for the SNP to Stoke up grievances with Westminster. It's the best of both worlds for them. They reluctantly stay in the Union and extort more English taxpayer money for free prescriptions and student fees etc...
It would be completely stupid to end that parasitical relationship they have with 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.
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
Deluded unionist fantasies more like, you get more Little Englander by the day G..
Not really and no I am not a Little Englander
But my Scots wife and I support the union and will continue to ask and respond to comments that threaten the union
I hear you Big G. I'm a Scot living in England but all my family are still north of the border - we are all British first and support the Union.
I'm torn. I hate the SNP and what it is planning to do to my homeland so I want them treated as harshly as possible when Indy happens. No favours. The rUK government must put its citizens first - Scotland has lived off the English taxpayer for far too long. But what about the effect on my family living in the SNP hell-hole post Indy (assuming they haven't all fled south to live in my spare room)?
All my family identify as British as we have Welsh, Scots and English forebears and solidly support the union
My wife has a large Scots family and I just hope that if indyref2 happens the reality of it becomes so apparent the Scots vote for their status quo and we all remain in the union
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and LBG/HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
That's interesting Eagles. What's your view on whether there will be a mass move south on Independence? And how will it be analagous or otherwise to Brexit? If companies do move south, where will they go? You have a golden opportunity to move the Edinburgh finance industry to Sheffield!
As Max has said Brexit didn't change our lender of last resort, Scottish independence does.
Some of the more militant Nats have said they will default on their portion of the UK debt if they don't get a good deal (whilst the UK Government have told the markets they will honour all the debts, even if Scotland doesn't).
That talk from Scotland will not reassure the markets.
This means hardly anyone will lend to an independent Scot because of their default, so there's no mechanism for a Scotland to bailout or support any company, they'd struggle to bailout a chippy with a grand's worth of debt.
So essentially money, jobs and people move south (or elsewhere), in probably that order of significance?
I suspect it'll be registered HQs and companies numbers to England first*, then money, and people.
*Companies House will have 'fun' with this as people try and ditch company numbers beginning with SC.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He'd be a Lord North on speed.
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He'd be a Lord North on speed.
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
Boris Johnson wouldn't resign even if he was caught on film engaging in watersports with a sheep while shouting " I am Vladimir's man and the love child of Leonid Breshnev"
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He'd be a Lord North on speed.
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
You think Boris has honour?
He won't be able to get out of it.
I think you underestimate how many of your fellow English and Welsh voters would shrug and say “thank god we don’t have to listen to that SNP whinging any more”. I think Scottish independence is increasingly priced in and inevitable one day, and the PM it happens to will stay in post.
Now on the Scots Nats views expressed on this thread, that they want us to keep paying their pensions? Fine. We will keep all past liabilities so long as we also keep all past assets. And if we’re paying pensions and the like then Trident’s going nowhere.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and LBG/HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
That's interesting Eagles. What's your view on whether there will be a mass move south on Independence? And how will it be analagous or otherwise to Brexit? If companies do move south, where will they go? You have a golden opportunity to move the Edinburgh finance industry to Sheffield!
As Max has said Brexit didn't change our lender of last resort, Scottish independence does.
Some of the more militant Nats have said they will default on their portion of the UK debt if they don't get a good deal (whilst the UK Government have told the markets they will honour all the debts, even if Scotland doesn't).
That talk from Scotland will not reassure the markets.
This means hardly anyone will lend to an independent Scot because of their default, so there's no mechanism for a Scotland to bailout or support any company, they'd struggle to bailout a chippy with a grand's worth of debt.
So essentially money, jobs and people move south (or elsewhere), in probably that order of significance?
I suspect it'll be registered HQs and companies numbers to England first*, then money, and people.
*Companies House will have 'fun' with this as people try and ditch company numbers beginning with SC.
A lot of the jobs were shifted in 2014. I have a friend who was asked to commute to London from Edinburgh, she decided to move down here and doesn't regret it. The argument on this in the referendum will be "well they've all gone already so what have we got to lose" from the SNP.
FWIW I was recently promoted at work and after my stellar success in ensuring the firm I work was ready for Brexit I've also been handed the job of Indyref2 preparations. I worked on the 2014 preparations but didn't manage it but I suspect this one will be even more complicated.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
There has been some talk about the treasury said this and that in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. Is there any certainty that the treasury would say the same things this time? I get the impression that some think anything said in the lead up to the last time is regarded as a done deal.
Depends on the Chancellor/PM.
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
I don't think Boris would resign if Scotland goes, I think it would fire him up to fight for England & Wales even more.
He'd be a Lord North on speed.
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
You think Boris has honour?
He won't be able to get out of it.
@Philip_Thompson may actually have a point. It rather depends on your assessment of the answer to three questions that arise in the event of a Scottish vote to secede:
1. How much do English Tory MPs really care about the Union? If the answer is "a lot" then Johnson has had it; if the answer actually turns out to be "not very much" then we move on to... 2. How much does the English electorate really care about the Union? If the answer is "not much" then Johnson is probably safe; if the answer is "a lot" then we move on to... 3. Who do the English blame for this state of affairs: the Prime Minister, or the Scots?
Comments
Busiest I've seen it since December 2019.
Lovely day helps, mind.
Following the breakup of the USSR, Russia was recognised as the continuity state, thus keeping UNSC seat etc - but accrued USSR pensions weren't all paid by Moscow. Ukrainian pensions were paid by Ukraine, Azerbaijani pensions by Azerbaijan etc, Moscow was simply responsible for Russian pensions not all the former states.
The difference is that the State pension doesn't work like that, because it's unfunded.
It's only 8/100 of 90bn a year, and they tell us that Scotland is going to have a hugely strong economy in a year or two. Scotland will hardly notice.
I see there will be an enquiry into the No.10 text leak.
How does one leak a bilateral text message? One surely doesn't unless one is one of the two parties involved.
Not sure BoJo would be doing that, nor leaving his mobile around for people to scroll through on the off chance that there is something incriminating in there.
Which leaves Dyson. Again I don't see anyone scrolling through his texts.
So where else could it possibly have come from? And Cui Bono?
All very strange.
So Russia (recognised as the successor state to the USSR) paid Ukrainian pensions after the Ukraine went independent?
Are you sure about that?
To disallow expat voting completely is a separate issue - but one with which I have great sympathy.
You will be a Scotland citizens with your own Parliament, pensions, and of course passports
Nothing to do with RUK
Plus Dyson shared it with the Treasury, saying that it had been authorised by their First Lord (ok I'm not sure if that's how it was phrased, but its been reported it was shared by Dyson).
So suddenly a lot of people have access to the texts, not just the people involved.
This is a quotation from the White Paper, Scotland's Future, signed off by Salmond before the previous referendum:
"Scotland has the people and infrastructure needed to manage
and to pay pensions. The Pension Centres, located in
Motherwell and Dundee and currently part of the Department
for Work and Pensions, currently administer State Pension
and Pension Credit claims for everyone living in Scotland.
This Government proposes they will continue to do so on
independence.
The Scottish Public Pensions Agency and local authority
teams already manage Scottish public sector pensions. This
Government proposes that an independent Scotland will take
on responsibility for the pensions of staff within the civil service,
armed forces and others who work in Scotland’s public service,
as well as existing pensioners and deferred members. For
current UK-wide public service pension schemes, the Scottish
Government proposes taking our fair share of pension liabilities
based on responsibilities for meeting the pension entitlements of
pensioners who live in Scotland. In short, Scotland can deliver
high-quality state and public sector pensions, and future Scottish
governments will be able to ensure that we have efficient
systems in place to deliver pensions to those who rely on them"
Its page 159 of the pdf if you want to look it up. There really is no doubt about this.
I am amazed that anyone could think they would be
Scotland votes to go independent everyone in Scotland becomes a citizen of the Country of Scotland
I could happily agree that they should be funded in the way you say. But, as things stand, they aren't.
Do you have any real world examples of a country going independent and the former country they went independent from continuing to pay the state pensions for those in the new country?
It must be a wake up call to PB posters who have not had an interest in independence to see some Scots expecting to continue to be part of the UK and have their pensions paid by the RUK government, post independence
Most reasonable unionists on this site seem to think another referendum is a bad idea and that Scotland shouldn't vote for one, but respect the Scots choice if they choose to vote for one. Only a few extremists insist the subject is closed for a generation.
Defining what a Scot is hasn't really mattered for 300 years - it's largely been a matter of personal preference. No one minded a bit when Budge Poutney played for Scotland, for example. But once it starts getting into the realms of which of two successor states takes responsibility for you it seems to get a bit hairy.
Is citizenship decided by birth or residency? If the latter, for how long? There are going to be a lot of people finding themselves on the 'wrong' side of the divide.
But my Scots wife and I support the union and will continue to ask and respond to comments that threaten the union
It MalcolmG was clearly a person who thought that the end result would be Scotland getting everything for nothing (as they already do in same ways).
Wants to talk about and demand independence, without actually going through the effort and responsibilities of actually becoming independent.
My plan to name it Project Unicorn, after Scotland's national animal, was denied (we already have a Project Unicorn).
But spare a thought for those people who work at the RBS Natwest Group and LBG/HBOS whose job is even more complicated.
MPs have asked questions of Mr Johnson after it emerged he promised to "fix" an issue over the tax status of Sir James's employees in a series of messages.
The conversations took place last March in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic after the government asked companies, including Dyson, to help supply ventilators.
The prime minister has said he would make "absolutely no apology at all" for "shifting heaven and earth" to secure ventilators for the UK. But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said the issue demonstrates "sleaze" and "cronyism" within Mr Johnson's government. He questioned whether NHS staff or steel workers would get the same treatment if they had the prime minister's private phone number.
Downing Street has now said the Cabinet Office will investigate how the text exchange between Mr Johnson and Sir James - seen by the BBC - became public.
No-one has a clue how it would go but the liabilities are with the successor state unless negotiated away or they welch on their debts.
And that should scare Scottish pensioners more than anything the poll tax did
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1385256968823218177?s=20
Many Scots would have that right of citizenship either by way of birth (pre-1982) or through parents and grandparents.
A lot more complex to move from Edinburgh to Frankfurt than from Edinburgh to Newcastle though.
My wife is a Scot but when Scotland become independent she does not expect to have rights to a Scottish pension anymore than an Englishman living in Scotland has rights to a RUK pension, post independence
I know Dave and George wanted to avoid inflaming English nationalism (nor pissing off the Scots) before the vote, I think they would have said they would aim for a velvet divorce (even though Dave would have resigned.)
I expect a Boris Johnson led government before the Indyref2 vote will be telling the English & Welsh voters that not a single penny of their money will be spent on an independent Scotland.
What's your view on whether there will be a mass move south on Independence? And how will it be analagous or otherwise to Brexit? If companies do move south, where will they go?
You have a golden opportunity to move the Edinburgh finance industry to Sheffield!
As Minister for the Union he is honour bound to resign.
He knows that, hence Boris will never allow or recognise a legal and binding indyref2.
Obviously the next PM, probably Sunak, would be expected to take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks if Boris did allow indyref2 (which he won't anyway), lost it and resigned
I'm torn. I hate the SNP and what it is planning to do to my homeland so I want them treated as harshly as possible when Indy happens. No favours. The rUK government must put its citizens first - Scotland has lived off the English taxpayer for far too long. But what about the effect on my family living in the SNP hell-hole post Indy (assuming they haven't all fled south to live in my spare room)?
Some of the more militant Nats have said they will default on their portion of the UK debt if they don't get a good deal (whilst the UK Government have told the markets they will honour all the debts, even if Scotland doesn't).
That talk from Scotland will not reassure the markets.
This means hardly anyone will lend to an independent Scotland because of their default, so there's no mechanism for a Scotland to bailout or support any company, they'd struggle to bailout a chippy with a grand's worth of debt.
Today has made me more confident Boris can win indyref2
If you want a positive argument for the Union, it's that: it gives Scottish companies a much larger domestic market to sell to in its areas of particular strength.
It would be very simple for the PM if he's still popular in England and Wales (which is where his MPs are from) to say he's the right person to stand up for England & Wales in the divorce like he stood up for Britain in the Brexit divorce. If he's still popular and the MPs think they can keep their seats at the next election - and if the Tories tilt full EngNat I think they will and then some - then it will be possible to turn this into a political advantage not a weakness to resign from.
It would be completely stupid to end that parasitical relationship they have with England.
My wife has a large Scots family and I just hope that if indyref2 happens the reality of it becomes so apparent the Scots vote for their status quo and we all remain in the union
*Companies House will have 'fun' with this as people try and ditch company numbers beginning with SC.
So he'll be staying.
Now on the Scots Nats views expressed on this thread, that they want us to keep paying their pensions? Fine. We will keep all past liabilities so long as we also keep all past assets. And if we’re paying pensions and the like then Trident’s going nowhere.
1. How much do English Tory MPs really care about the Union? If the answer is "a lot" then Johnson has had it; if the answer actually turns out to be "not very much" then we move on to...
2. How much does the English electorate really care about the Union? If the answer is "not much" then Johnson is probably safe; if the answer is "a lot" then we move on to...
3. Who do the English blame for this state of affairs: the Prime Minister, or the Scots?