Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 1h If it falls to the Civil Service in London to direct the Civil Service in Northern Ireland whether to follow the DUP ministerial direction on trade checks, this potentially all lands on the desk of ….
So yet again we have the Tories offering financial support targeted at least to some extent at the least well off
Lab wants a pathetic VAT scrappage scheme benefiting the wealthy most.
SKS and Reeves are useless.
Once again as with Corporation Tax rise and NHS Pay outflanked to the left by Boris
Don't be a dick. VAT is seen as a regressive tax and impacts mostly on the poor.
It's another convoluted, headline grabbing, expensive to manage scheme like the Covid grants. With Sunak, why operate using simplicity when one can baffle with complicated bull****.
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Only problem for those Tory MPs thinking that is that it is not them who get the final say on electing any new Tory leader, it is Tory party members.
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Only problem for those Tory MPs thinking that is that it is not them who get the final say on electing any new Tory leader, it is Tory party members.
Like in the 2016 leadership election?
Truss is not going to withdraw like Leadsom did, she is far too ambitious
Way, way behind the curve now. Too little, too late.
Long overdue, I reckon but I think prices are being driven up by shortages rather than excess money in the system. Gas being the obvious one, but shipping costs etc too.
There is also excess money according to the monetarists. Absolute tons of QE sloshing around the system as we have printed like nobody's business during pandemic and post-finance crash.
Isn't that money in the financial markets. How related is QE to the price of food?
Lots of average people made a lot of money in the pandemic especially those who are self employed.
SNP leadership still doubling down on assertion that you Brits will be paying for Scots' pensions after Indy.
Be interested if our resident PB SNPers are sold on this. Don't think they've commented so far?
Don't have a lot of time for Gorgeous George but enjoyed this tweet:
George Galloway @georgegalloway · 33m If #Scots think #England will pay their pension in the event of #independence then no greater testimony to the collapse of Scotland’s once famous education system could exist. Not to mention our once infamous reputation of a tight-grasp of monetary matters.
It is not surprising at all
(a) HMG has always said it's a contributory scheme - you pay in, you get (b) HMT said it would cover HMG obligations in the events of independence (c) in 2014 HMG, I think the DHSS or whatever dept dealt with pensions, was confirming the position when asked. (d) we're all familiar with former UK citizens being paid their OAP after they emigrate to another country
Of course,it's a Ponzi job, and in reality negotiations would quite possibly trump that. But HMG did make promises more generally.
(A) that’s marketing not reality (B) there’s no legal obligation beyond a year (C) not sure what point you are making (D) difference between an individual leaving and a country separating
I believe Scotland is big enough to stand on its own two feet without a grant from England. Don’t you?
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
It strikes me how dependent the dynamics of the Tory leadership crisis are on Sir Graham Brady. I know the consensus is he's a man of the utmost integrity but what if he isn't? How can we be sure that Muscly hasn't got the fix in with him?
If here were not, how high could it go? Surely to 70 without anyone noticing. But probably not 80.
True. He could only be corrupt on the margins. But just exactly if and when the contest is triggered is key and it can be marginal. Eg 57 letters in, he holds off, the moment passes, letters get withdrawn, never a contest. But I'm only musing. I'm sure he's an absolute rock of gibraltar. He's a Knight of the Realm after all.
It is about reasonable expectations of financially unsophisticated tax payers. You cannot shake people down all their working lives for National INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS and then explain that they aren't actually contributions *to* anything nor insurance *against* anything, that's just marketing spin, because of some irrelevant bollocks about pots. There's a Bonzo song with some dialogue in it "your shirts will be ready in 3 weeks" "your sign says 24 hour laundry" "Oh no, that's just the name of the shop, dear."
SNP leadership still doubling down on assertion that you Brits will be paying for Scots' pensions after Indy.
Be interested if our resident PB SNPers are sold on this. Don't think they've commented so far?
Don't have a lot of time for Gorgeous George but enjoyed this tweet:
George Galloway @georgegalloway · 33m If #Scots think #England will pay their pension in the event of #independence then no greater testimony to the collapse of Scotland’s once famous education system could exist. Not to mention our once infamous reputation of a tight-grasp of monetary matters.
It is not surprising at all
(a) HMG has always said it's a contributory scheme - you pay in, you get (b) HMT said it would cover HMG obligations in the events of independence (c) in 2014 HMG, I think the DHSS or whatever dept dealt with pensions, was confirming the position when asked. (d) we're all familiar with former UK citizens being paid their OAP after they emigrate to another country
Of course,it's a Ponzi job, and in reality negotiations would quite possibly trump that. But HMG did make promises more generally.
(A) that’s marketing not reality (B) there’s no legal obligation beyond a year (C) not sure what point you are making (D) difference between an individual leaving and a country separating
I believe Scotland is big enough to stand on its own two feet without a grant from England. Don’t you?
Oh yes, but that is a state. it's individuals with their obligations that is the issue.
It is about reasonable expectations of financially unsophisticated tax payers. You cannot shake people down all their working lives for National INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS and then explain that they aren't actually contributions *to* anything nor insurance *against* anything, that's just marketing spin, because of some irrelevant bollocks about pots. There's a Bonzo song with some dialogue in it "your shirts will be ready in 3 weeks" "your sign says 24 hour laundry" "Oh no, that's just the name of the shop, dear."
There are one or twe posters who seem to be arguing that pensions arising from credits accumulated AFTER independence should be paid by rUK! Perhaps to muddle the argument. This is nonsense of course.
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
It strikes me how dependent the dynamics of the Tory leadership crisis are on Sir Graham Brady. I know the consensus is he's a man of the utmost integrity but what if he isn't? How can we be sure that Muscly hasn't got the fix in with him?
If here were not, how high could it go? Surely to 70 without anyone noticing. But probably not 80.
True. He could only be corrupt on the margins. But just exactly if and when the contest is triggered is key and it can be marginal. Eg 57 letters in, he holds off, the moment passes, letters get withdrawn, never a contest. But I'm only musing. I'm sure he's an absolute rock of gibraltar. He's a Knight of the Realm after all.
I would think that when the limit is reached, there would be an “are you sure?” ring-round…
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
It strikes me how dependent the dynamics of the Tory leadership crisis are on Sir Graham Brady. I know the consensus is he's a man of the utmost integrity but what if he isn't? How can we be sure that Muscly hasn't got the fix in with him?
If here were not, how high could it go? Surely to 70 without anyone noticing. But probably not 80.
True. He could only be corrupt on the margins. But just exactly if and when the contest is triggered is key and it can be marginal. Eg 57 letters in, he holds off, the moment passes, letters get withdrawn, never a contest. But I'm only musing. I'm sure he's an absolute rock of gibraltar. He's a Knight of the Realm after all.
I'd be happier if nus Ghani was looking over his shoulder, for sure.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
What money? All that money has already been spent, on Scottish hospitals and pensions, etc.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
What money? All that money has already been spent, on Scottish hospitals and pensions, etc.
Yep
Why is it the more I read from a your typical Scottish Independence supporter, the more I really wish they is a referendum as the reality of an independent Scotland will be fun to watch from a safe distance away.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
No it isn't, any more than it affects the repayability of a loan whether the borrower has spent the original money or kept it in a savings account
But the money has already been spent, servicing current pensions. None of it is saved for future payments, which is what is being claimed.
Only by you. You're confusing pension pots with pension obligations.
The contrast between Sunak's clear outline of policy at despatch box compared to Johnson's blather and stumbling bluster is very sharp.
Indeed. Feels like today is effectively a leadership pitch. Could it be enough to persuade the party that a clear successor is available and get the anti-BJ forces over the line?
Are we sure Johnson doesn't have compromising photos of Graham Brady?
Wouldn't it be funny if 102 letters had gone in and all the names had been sent straight to Number 10?
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
But it's all fungible. So you could say what's been spent has been borrowed via gilts and the old pensions contributions are still sitting there. You could say that in the House of Commons without having to resign because it's not a lie.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
What money? All that money has already been spent, on Scottish hospitals and pensions, etc.
Yep
Why is it the more I read from a your typical Scottish Independence supporter, the more I really wish they is a referendum as the reality of an independent Scotland will be fun to watch from a safe distance away.
Way, way behind the curve now. Too little, too late.
Long overdue, I reckon but I think prices are being driven up by shortages rather than excess money in the system. Gas being the obvious one, but shipping costs etc too.
There is also excess money according to the monetarists. Absolute tons of QE sloshing around the system as we have printed like nobody's business during pandemic and post-finance crash.
Isn't that money in the financial markets. How related is QE to the price of food?
Lots of average people made a lot of money in the pandemic especially those who are self employed.
If that is true, it goes to show what a crap delivery system SEISS was.
I'm self employed and I had to raid my savings. There again I am not a builder where a cash hobble could be added to the SEISS grants if one chose to be as dodgy as Johnson.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
Half the bloody posts on this topic are based on assumptions that are entirely wrong.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
No it isn't, any more than it affects the repayability of a loan whether the borrower has spent the original money or kept it in a savings account
But the money has already been spent, servicing current pensions. None of it is saved for future payments, which is what is being claimed.
Only by you. You're confusing pension pots with pension obligations.
Lets be honest and clear. What you are asking for is rUK future workers to pay historic iScottish pensions, but no iScottish future workers to pay either rUK historic pensions or even the iScottish historic pensions.
Why you think rUK future workers will accept that I have no idea.
Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter · 1m So Rishi Sunak's response to Energy Prices Crisis is to turn the government into a massive Klarna ? Buy Now Pay Later as social policy.
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
It strikes me how dependent the dynamics of the Tory leadership crisis are on Sir Graham Brady. I know the consensus is he's a man of the utmost integrity but what if he isn't? How can we be sure that Muscly hasn't got the fix in with him?
If here were not, how high could it go? Surely to 70 without anyone noticing. But probably not 80.
True. He could only be corrupt on the margins. But just exactly if and when the contest is triggered is key and it can be marginal. Eg 57 letters in, he holds off, the moment passes, letters get withdrawn, never a contest. But I'm only musing. I'm sure he's an absolute rock of gibraltar. He's a Knight of the Realm after all.
I'd be happier if nus Ghani was looking over his shoulder, for sure.
I wonder if it's strictly true that he and he alone tracks the letters and literally no-one else is in the loop. It has a slight 'urban myth' feel to me.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
But it's all fungible. So you could say what's been spent has been borrowed via gilts and the old pensions contributions are still sitting there. You could say that in the House of Commons without having to resign because it's not a lie.
Come to think of it, you can say anything in the House of Commons without having to resign, even if it is a lie.
It is about reasonable expectations of financially unsophisticated tax payers. You cannot shake people down all their working lives for National INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS and then explain that they aren't actually contributions *to* anything nor insurance *against* anything, that's just marketing spin, because of some irrelevant bollocks about pots. There's a Bonzo song with some dialogue in it "your shirts will be ready in 3 weeks" "your sign says 24 hour laundry" "Oh no, that's just the name of the shop, dear."
They are to some extent. You can only get JSA now with sufficient NI contributions (otherwise you can only get UC) and NI contributions and credits contribute to your eligibility for the state pension
So yet again we have the Tories offering financial support targeted at least to some extent at the least well off
Lab wants a pathetic VAT scrappage scheme benefiting the wealthy most.
SKS and Reeves are useless.
Once again as with Corporation Tax rise and NHS Pay outflanked to the left by Boris
I am not a fan of either, and don't like the idea of windfall taxes on particular sectors, but according to Reeves poor families do get more under her scheme:
If the Clown is cynical enough to collapse the GFA to get letters to Brady rescinded, Mrs May and her chums need to get their letter in.
How does collapsing the GFA result in letters being rescinded?
Because the Irish Sea border is an issue for the pro- pure Brexiteers, as is Unionist sovereignty. The first letters into Brady were ERG members.
It strikes me how dependent the dynamics of the Tory leadership crisis are on Sir Graham Brady. I know the consensus is he's a man of the utmost integrity but what if he isn't? How can we be sure that Muscly hasn't got the fix in with him?
If here were not, how high could it go? Surely to 70 without anyone noticing. But probably not 80.
True. He could only be corrupt on the margins. But just exactly if and when the contest is triggered is key and it can be marginal. Eg 57 letters in, he holds off, the moment passes, letters get withdrawn, never a contest. But I'm only musing. I'm sure he's an absolute rock of gibraltar. He's a Knight of the Realm after all.
I would think that when the limit is reached, there would be an “are you sure?” ring-round…
Yes, I bet that's what happens. It's great for intrigue, this MO, but it's rather odd.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
The Tories finishing behind a fringe candidate in Southend is about as likely as David Owen's SDP finishing behind the Official Monster Raving Loony Party in Bootle, May 1990.
Oh, wait.
(No, I don't think it'll happen, but it'd be very funny.)
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
"... This finding implies that a combination of interventions related to a strict lockdown environment and public awareness (such as closures of schools and workplaces, cancellations of public events, travel restrictions, keeping the public informed, testing and contact tracing) was most likely a more effective measure of slowing down the spread of the virus and the related number of deaths."
I doubt that those clinging to what it says have read it or care about these issues. It's just useful for people to have an outwardly credible response for the "research" method of typing into Google "what I want to be true"
I don't think anyone doubts that putting in place 'lockdown' measures reduces the spread of the virus. The issue is whether you are simply slowing the spread of a virus that people will eventually get anyway. Now we have vaccines and a milder variant so Denmark may come out of this better than Sweden but the key point of the GBD was that the harms of lockdown were greater than the virus. Questionable but that is a different point.
The John Hopkins study being cited states that neither lockdowns nor border closures reduce deaths. And the longest time scales they look at is still measured in weeks.
Not to get onto the GBD claims, which have their own issues; this was a look at this study that claims to prove that lockdowns do not reduce the deaths from the virus in that time scale (so if you don't think anyone doubts that, these people do, and those who cite it seem to believe it as well)
I think before vaccines you could make the case that lockdowns probably only delayed deaths by keeping vulnerable people from being exposed to the virus that would carry them away given the chance. After vaccines everything changed. The biggest criticism I have of the UK government was the failure to lockdown in Dec 2020 on the basis that we would vaccinate as fast as possible but keep people safe until we had. It would have been a lockdown with a purpose other than just delay. Holding out to try to keep Christmas, and then failing, and then locking down may well have killed 30K more than needed.
With this study, it will be interesting to see if it makes it through peer review anywhere.
Should be possible to get anything through if you choose your peer reviewers carefully. Sunetra Gupta (we all had herd immunity in April 2020 and it was all over), Jay Battacharya, John Ioannidis (the maximum IFR is 0.2%), for example, for this one.
Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter · 1m So Rishi Sunak's response to Energy Prices Crisis is to turn the government into a massive Klarna ? Buy Now Pay Later as social policy.
Yeah, It’s bullshit.
Its also a tax on very young adults, who won’t get the discount, but, presumably, will have to pay the 5x£40 as they take out their first energy supply contracts.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
Not sure if pretend is a typo? But anyway that's just about mechanics; in practice you would arrive at a lump sum payable rUK to iScot.
Really interesting article in Nature about the differences in how original, alpha, beta, delta and omicron (original) behave in lung and bronchial tissues.
Short version is that omicron is 70x replication increase in bronchial tissues compared with wild type and delta. It seems likely that this leads to a large increase in the amount of infectious virus released when breathing, contributing to the transmission increase. It also confirms that omicron has lower replication in lung tissues, which may go some way to explain its relative reduction in severity/mortality compared with delta, although its complicated.
Stuff that was strongly suspected, so nice to see it confirmed.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
No it isn't, any more than it affects the repayability of a loan whether the borrower has spent the original money or kept it in a savings account
But the money has already been spent, servicing current pensions. None of it is saved for future payments, which is what is being claimed.
Only by you. You're confusing pension pots with pension obligations.
Lets be honest and clear. What you are asking for is rUK future workers to pay historic iScottish pensions, but no iScottish future workers to pay either rUK historic pensions or even the iScottish historic pensions.
Why you think rUK future workers will accept that I have no idea.
Any rUK government who agreed to this in the independence negotiations would lose by a landslide at the following GE.
Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter · 1m So Rishi Sunak's response to Energy Prices Crisis is to turn the government into a massive Klarna ? Buy Now Pay Later as social policy.
Yeah, It’s bullshit.
Its also a tax on very young adults, who won’t get the discount, but, presumably, will have to pay the 5x£40 as they take out their first energy supply contracts.
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
"... This finding implies that a combination of interventions related to a strict lockdown environment and public awareness (such as closures of schools and workplaces, cancellations of public events, travel restrictions, keeping the public informed, testing and contact tracing) was most likely a more effective measure of slowing down the spread of the virus and the related number of deaths."
I doubt that those clinging to what it says have read it or care about these issues. It's just useful for people to have an outwardly credible response for the "research" method of typing into Google "what I want to be true"
I don't think anyone doubts that putting in place 'lockdown' measures reduces the spread of the virus. The issue is whether you are simply slowing the spread of a virus that people will eventually get anyway. Now we have vaccines and a milder variant so Denmark may come out of this better than Sweden but the key point of the GBD was that the harms of lockdown were greater than the virus. Questionable but that is a different point.
The John Hopkins study being cited states that neither lockdowns nor border closures reduce deaths. And the longest time scales they look at is still measured in weeks.
Not to get onto the GBD claims, which have their own issues; this was a look at this study that claims to prove that lockdowns do not reduce the deaths from the virus in that time scale (so if you don't think anyone doubts that, these people do, and those who cite it seem to believe it as well)
I think before vaccines you could make the case that lockdowns probably only delayed deaths by keeping vulnerable people from being exposed to the virus that would carry them away given the chance. After vaccines everything changed. The biggest criticism I have of the UK government was the failure to lockdown in Dec 2020 on the basis that we would vaccinate as fast as possible but keep people safe until we had. It would have been a lockdown with a purpose other than just delay. Holding out to try to keep Christmas, and then failing, and then locking down may well have killed 30K more than needed.
With this study, it will be interesting to see if it makes it through peer review anywhere.
Should be possible to get anything through if you choose your peer reviewers carefully. Sunetra Gupta (we all had herd immunity in April 2020 and it was all over), Jay Battacharya, John Ioannidis (the maximum IFR is 0.2%), for example, for this one.
Choice of reviewers is not the pick of the authors at reputable journals!
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
The whole point of independence is that a Scotland responsible for its own affairs would be better than one dependent on the rest of the UK. That surely includes taking on the liability to pay their own pensioners.
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
But wouldn't it (potentially) be part of the separation settlement? ie an amount is agreed and reflected in that, after a complex calculation and a tough negotiation no doubt, then Scottish pensioners get paid their pension by the Scottish Treasury?
The settlement of liabilities, sure. The UK government has no state pension assets to divide, it's all just one giant liability.
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
"... This finding implies that a combination of interventions related to a strict lockdown environment and public awareness (such as closures of schools and workplaces, cancellations of public events, travel restrictions, keeping the public informed, testing and contact tracing) was most likely a more effective measure of slowing down the spread of the virus and the related number of deaths."
I doubt that those clinging to what it says have read it or care about these issues. It's just useful for people to have an outwardly credible response for the "research" method of typing into Google "what I want to be true"
I don't think anyone doubts that putting in place 'lockdown' measures reduces the spread of the virus. The issue is whether you are simply slowing the spread of a virus that people will eventually get anyway. Now we have vaccines and a milder variant so Denmark may come out of this better than Sweden but the key point of the GBD was that the harms of lockdown were greater than the virus. Questionable but that is a different point.
The John Hopkins study being cited states that neither lockdowns nor border closures reduce deaths. And the longest time scales they look at is still measured in weeks.
Not to get onto the GBD claims, which have their own issues; this was a look at this study that claims to prove that lockdowns do not reduce the deaths from the virus in that time scale (so if you don't think anyone doubts that, these people do, and those who cite it seem to believe it as well)
I think before vaccines you could make the case that lockdowns probably only delayed deaths by keeping vulnerable people from being exposed to the virus that would carry them away given the chance. After vaccines everything changed. The biggest criticism I have of the UK government was the failure to lockdown in Dec 2020 on the basis that we would vaccinate as fast as possible but keep people safe until we had. It would have been a lockdown with a purpose other than just delay. Holding out to try to keep Christmas, and then failing, and then locking down may well have killed 30K more than needed.
With this study, it will be interesting to see if it makes it through peer review anywhere.
Should be possible to get anything through if you choose your peer reviewers carefully. Sunetra Gupta (we all had herd immunity in April 2020 and it was all over), Jay Battacharya, John Ioannidis (the maximum IFR is 0.2%), for example, for this one.
Choice of reviewers is not the pick of the authors at reputable journals!
The penultimate word is very important. It would be very interesting to see if it is successfully peer-reviewed at a reputable journal where no choice of peer reviewer is given.
The £200 loan against energy bills is completely unworkable and will unravel. What happens when people move home? You get a final bill, move to a different property and often have a different supplier - how will the debt follow you, or will the loan be payable in full on your 'final' bill. Shambles ahead.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
What money? All that money has already been spent, on Scottish hospitals and pensions, etc.
Yep
Why is it the more I read from a your typical Scottish Independence supporter, the more I really wish they is a referendum as the reality of an independent Scotland will be fun to watch from a safe distance away.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
No it isn't, any more than it affects the repayability of a loan whether the borrower has spent the original money or kept it in a savings account
Our pension system operates on the basis of paying pensions out of current contributions.
This means that pensions in an independent Scotland will be paid out of current contributions from an independent Scotland.
That's simple and obvious.
There's no liability to pay pensions that the UK retains, because there's no legal guarantee to pay pensions. The government can, and does, vary the terms on which pensions are paid - e.g. by reducing payouts by increasing the retirement age, even to people who made contributions on the basis of an earlier retirement age.
HMG could cut the state pension in half tomorrow, and it wouldn't legally be in default (only politically). There's no liability for Scottish Pensions.
This is completely different to the situation with UK government bonds, and even with civil service pensions (where although there isn't a pension fund, there is a legal liability).
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Truly hilarious. You have no idea, do you?
NIC contributions are not going into a future pension pot. By paying them we are simply getting a "right" to a state pension when we come to retirement age based on how many years we have contributed. It's entirely up to the Government of the day how much, or how little, that pension is.
The obligation to pay it, or not, will fall to the Scottish Government if Scotland becomes independent.
The idea that rUK would transfer funds to a foreign country to pay the pensions of its citizens is laughable. You really think MPs in rump UK are gonna vote through that.
This energy loan is a frankly, terrible idea. A big blot on Rishi's book.
Politically it is a good move from him.
It will go down well with Redwall voters and pensioners and they are the voters he needs to appeal to now, most fiscal conservatives like you already back him
This energy loan is a frankly, terrible idea. A big blot on Rishi's book.
So bad, it is something Miliband or Corbyn would come out with.
Almost as bad as the energy price cap. What a disaster that policy has turned into.
Dave and George were right when they said it was a terrible idea, I'm so old I remember when proper Conservatives called an increase on NI a tax on jobs.
Bryant claims the average weekly shop is up by £340 in the Rhondda.
Weekly???
Surely that can't be right?
Perhaps he meant monthly.
340 quid buys a lot of underpants...
Big families in the Rhondda so lots required.
I was thinking more on these lines...
No, I knew where you were coming from. They do look like rather expensive pants, so perhaps you are right.
Speaking as a gay man myself I doubt there are many of us who wouldn't have to worry about similar pictures if we ever entered politics. Frankly I'd have expressed interest if that came up on Grindr.
This energy loan is a frankly, terrible idea. A big blot on Rishi's book.
So bad, it is something Miliband or Corbyn would come out with.
Almost as bad as the energy price cap. What a disaster that policy has turned into.
Dave and George were right when they said it was a terrible idea, I'm so old I remember when proper Conservatives called an increase on NI a tax on jobs.
That’s because NI is, quite literally, a tax on jobs.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
No it isn't, any more than it affects the repayability of a loan whether the borrower has spent the original money or kept it in a savings account
Our pension system operates on the basis of paying pensions out of current contributions.
This means that pensions in an independent Scotland will be paid out of current contributions from an independent Scotland.
That's simple and obvious.
There's no liability to pay pensions that the UK retains, because there's no legal guarantee to pay pensions. The government can, and does, vary the terms on which pensions are paid - e.g. by reducing payouts by increasing the retirement age, even to people who made contributions on the basis of an earlier retirement age.
HMG could cut the state pension in half tomorrow, and it wouldn't legally be in default (only politically). There's no liability for Scottish Pensions.
This is completely different to the situation with UK government bonds, and even with civil service pensions (where although there isn't a pension fund, there is a legal liability).
Well explained. But try getting that across to the saltire-wavers up here. They think they have the English between a rock and a hard place.
The £200 loan against energy bills is completely unworkable and will unravel. What happens when people move home? You get a final bill, move to a different property and often have a different supplier - how will the debt follow you, or will the loan be payable in full on your 'final' bill. Shambles ahead.
I assume it’ll be billed as 11p/day extra on everyone’s standing charge for the next 5 years.
Great to see some nitpicking from a few on my pensions comments. Pretty much every pension fund pays out todays pensioners from today's working people. You don't get your money back, you get someone else's money.
The principle is very simple though. If there are say a million people paying into their state pensions on the promise of a payout later its unreasonable to say their contributions were now zero and there was no liability.
I have several pension schemes where I have left the company, have stopped paying in, but will still receive a return on my investment. It is utterly disingenuous of Rob and others to suggest the same does not apply to the state pension.
This energy loan is a frankly, terrible idea. A big blot on Rishi's book.
So bad, it is something Miliband or Corbyn would come out with.
Almost as bad as the energy price cap. What a disaster that policy has turned into.
Dave and George were right when they said it was a terrible idea, I'm so old I remember when proper Conservatives called an increase on NI a tax on jobs.
Indeed. Though they aren't blameless in this either, their failure to decouple energy generation from selling to end users is why we're in the shit.
So yet again we have the Tories offering financial support targeted at least to some extent at the least well off
Lab wants a pathetic VAT scrappage scheme benefiting the wealthy most.
SKS and Reeves are useless.
Once again as with Corporation Tax rise and NHS Pay outflanked to the left by Boris
Don't be a dick. VAT is seen as a regressive tax and impacts mostly on the poor.
It's another convoluted, headline grabbing, expensive to manage scheme like the Covid grants. With Sunak, why operate using simplicity when one can baffle with complicated bull****.
Dont forget the crap eat out to help out scheme. Sunak really is crap
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The Nat argument is
- Scottish workers have made payments to the UK government. The UK government should transfer that money to iScot or pay the pensions
The issue is that the money paid by Scottish workers has already been spent on current Scottish pensions. So there is no “pot” of money to be transferred. Going forward future pensions should be paid by future wages.
Now the Scot Nats can confidently assure of us about Scottish pensions in the event of Scottish independence, can they tell me
1) Who will be the lender of last resort?
2) What currency will they use?
3) And if I accept their premise on pensions, will they be paid on a 1:1 exchange rate, because if Scotland's plan to walk away without paying any share of their debts, their currency will tank if their first act is to default.
4) What happens if RUK doesn't pay the pensions?
I have other questions that need asking but I'll stick to the easy ones, I have many others that need answering in my day job
I think Scot;and should adopt the Ningi as currency. Then the BofE can refuse to deal with them having declared them as "fiddling small change"
The £200 loan against energy bills is completely unworkable and will unravel. What happens when people move home? You get a final bill, move to a different property and often have a different supplier - how will the debt follow you, or will the loan be payable in full on your 'final' bill. Shambles ahead.
I assume it’ll be billed as 11p/day extra on everyone’s standing charge for the next 5 years.
So that would mean new households who never received the loan will also have to pay it back?
Bryant claims the average weekly shop is up by £340 in the Rhondda.
Weekly???
Surely that can't be right?
Perhaps he meant monthly.
340 quid buys a lot of underpants...
Big families in the Rhondda so lots required.
I was thinking more on these lines...
No, I knew where you were coming from. They do look like rather expensive pants, so perhaps you are right.
Speaking as a gay man myself I doubt there are many of us who wouldn't have to worry about similar pictures if we ever entered politics. Frankly I'd have expressed interest if that came up on Grindr.
Not that way inclined, nonetheless the picture didn't worry me.
I was just a little envious that my holiday snaps are more Party Seven than Six Pack.
Having pointed out a bit of shitty BBC journalism, they also had an interesting comment on how few people will be affected by raised interest rates on mortgages.
The no of owner-occupied households with variable interest mortgages in England is less than 10% of people.
Three-quarters of mortages are at fixed rates.
For some reason in the panic-stories this is not being mentioned.
The £200 loan against energy bills is completely unworkable and will unravel. What happens when people move home? You get a final bill, move to a different property and often have a different supplier - how will the debt follow you, or will the loan be payable in full on your 'final' bill. Shambles ahead.
I assume it’ll be billed as 11p/day extra on everyone’s standing charge for the next 5 years.
So that would mean new households who never received the loan will also have to pay it back?
Yep. I made exactly that point upthread.
Also, oldies who get the loan and die before it’s paid back benefit.
It’s not a huge injustice in the scheme of things, but pretty shitty policy making, nonetheless.
Great to see some nitpicking from a few on my pensions comments. Pretty much every pension fund pays out todays pensioners from today's working people. You don't get your money back, you get someone else's money.
The principle is very simple though. If there are say a million people paying into their state pensions on the promise of a payout later its unreasonable to say their contributions were now zero and there was no liability.
I have several pension schemes where I have left the company, have stopped paying in, but will still receive a return on my investment. It is utterly disingenuous of Rob and others to suggest the same does not apply to the state pension.
They are not saying there is no moral liability or in some cases a legal liability, they are saying that the repeated talk of paying out or dividing pension assets is nonsense because there are no pension assets.
Great to see some nitpicking from a few on my pensions comments. Pretty much every pension fund pays out todays pensioners from today's working people. You don't get your money back, you get someone else's money.
The principle is very simple though. If there are say a million people paying into their state pensions on the promise of a payout later its unreasonable to say their contributions were now zero and there was no liability.
I have several pension schemes where I have left the company, have stopped paying in, but will still receive a return on my investment. It is utterly disingenuous of Rob and others to suggest the same does not apply to the state pension.
Not nitpicking, Rochdale. This is about the SNP deliberately and cynically trying to deceive people about who will fund their state pension. There is no "investment" or pension pot sitting there which is owing to people when they hit retirement age. The responsibility for paying the state pension to Scottish pensioners post-Indy will rest entirely with Scottish taxpayers. Can you not understand that?
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
No it isn't, any more than it affects the repayability of a loan whether the borrower has spent the original money or kept it in a savings account
Our pension system operates on the basis of paying pensions out of current contributions.
This means that pensions in an independent Scotland will be paid out of current contributions from an independent Scotland.
That's simple and obvious.
There's no liability to pay pensions that the UK retains, because there's no legal guarantee to pay pensions. The government can, and does, vary the terms on which pensions are paid - e.g. by reducing payouts by increasing the retirement age, even to people who made contributions on the basis of an earlier retirement age.
HMG could cut the state pension in half tomorrow, and it wouldn't legally be in default (only politically). There's no liability for Scottish Pensions.
This is completely different to the situation with UK government bonds, and even with civil service pensions (where although there isn't a pension fund, there is a legal liability).
Well explained. But try getting that across to the saltire-wavers up here. They think they have the English between a rock and a hard place.
I have this argument with a number of my relatives who keep saying "I paid for my bloody pension". I always tell them that actually they paid for their parents' pension.
The John Hopkins study is being reported in the mainstream media despite being accused of being propaganda by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration.
"... This finding implies that a combination of interventions related to a strict lockdown environment and public awareness (such as closures of schools and workplaces, cancellations of public events, travel restrictions, keeping the public informed, testing and contact tracing) was most likely a more effective measure of slowing down the spread of the virus and the related number of deaths."
I doubt that those clinging to what it says have read it or care about these issues. It's just useful for people to have an outwardly credible response for the "research" method of typing into Google "what I want to be true"
I don't think anyone doubts that putting in place 'lockdown' measures reduces the spread of the virus. The issue is whether you are simply slowing the spread of a virus that people will eventually get anyway. Now we have vaccines and a milder variant so Denmark may come out of this better than Sweden but the key point of the GBD was that the harms of lockdown were greater than the virus. Questionable but that is a different point.
The John Hopkins study being cited states that neither lockdowns nor border closures reduce deaths. And the longest time scales they look at is still measured in weeks.
Not to get onto the GBD claims, which have their own issues; this was a look at this study that claims to prove that lockdowns do not reduce the deaths from the virus in that time scale (so if you don't think anyone doubts that, these people do, and those who cite it seem to believe it as well)
I think before vaccines you could make the case that lockdowns probably only delayed deaths by keeping vulnerable people from being exposed to the virus that would carry them away given the chance. After vaccines everything changed. The biggest criticism I have of the UK government was the failure to lockdown in Dec 2020 on the basis that we would vaccinate as fast as possible but keep people safe until we had. It would have been a lockdown with a purpose other than just delay. Holding out to try to keep Christmas, and then failing, and then locking down may well have killed 30K more than needed.
With this study, it will be interesting to see if it makes it through peer review anywhere.
Should be possible to get anything through if you choose your peer reviewers carefully. Sunetra Gupta (we all had herd immunity in April 2020 and it was all over), Jay Battacharya, John Ioannidis (the maximum IFR is 0.2%), for example, for this one.
Choice of reviewers is not the pick of the authors at reputable journals!
The penultimate word is very important. It would be very interesting to see if it is successfully peer-reviewed at a reputable journal where no choice of peer reviewer is given.
Now the Scot Nats can confidently assure of us about Scottish pensions in the event of Scottish independence, can they tell me
1) Who will be the lender of last resort?
2) What currency will they use?
3) And if I accept their premise on pensions, will they be paid on a 1:1 exchange rate, because if Scotland's plan to walk away without paying any share of their debts, their currency will tank if their first act is to default.
4) What happens if RUK doesn't pay the pensions?
I have other questions that need asking but I'll stick to the easy ones, I have many others that need answering in my day job
I think Scot;and should adopt the Ningi as currency. Then the BofE can refuse to deal with them having declared them as "fiddling small change"
On another practical level, pensions aren't fixed.
Who gets to set increases? Heck, the RUK could lower them to a £1 a month and what happens then?
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
Since it's pay-as-we-go, it would seem that the past contributions from Scotland have been spent on past Scottish pensions.
Now the Scot Nats can confidently assure of us about Scottish pensions in the event of Scottish independence, can they tell me
1) Who will be the lender of last resort?
2) What currency will they use?
3) And if I accept their premise on pensions, will they be paid on a 1:1 exchange rate, because if Scotland's plan to walk away without paying any share of their debts, their currency will tank if their first act is to default.
4) What happens if RUK doesn't pay the pensions?
I have other questions that need asking but I'll stick to the easy ones, I have many others that need answering in my day job
I think Scot;and should adopt the Ningi as currency. Then the BofE can refuse to deal with them having declared them as "fiddling small change"
On another practical level, pensions aren't fixed.
Who gets to set increases? Heck, the RUK could lower them to a £1 a month and what happens then?
This energy loan is a frankly, terrible idea. A big blot on Rishi's book.
The people who need it can't afford to repay loans. Unless the government is guarantor for the energy companies this just creates a big expensive mess.
Bryant claims the average weekly shop is up by £340 in the Rhondda.
Weekly???
Surely that can't be right?
Perhaps he meant monthly.
340 quid buys a lot of underpants...
Big families in the Rhondda so lots required.
I was thinking more on these lines...
No, I knew where you were coming from. They do look like rather expensive pants, so perhaps you are right.
Speaking as a gay man myself I doubt there are many of us who wouldn't have to worry about similar pictures if we ever entered politics. Frankly I'd have expressed interest if that came up on Grindr.
Not that way inclined, nonetheless the picture didn't worry me.
I was just a little envious that my holiday snaps are more Party Seven than Six Pack.
I'd be a bit concerned if it were still his Grindr picture.
For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the Scottish Government.
Yes, and I would anticipate that the new SG gets the value of pension contributions made by Scottish citizens transferred to them.
So not the rUK government paying their pensions, but rUK giving them back the money they have put into a UK pension so that it can become a Scottish pension.
Pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no pot, or share of assets, earmarked for them.
That's a somewhat disingenuous point. Earmarked pots are excellent when they would otherwise be available to creditors if the body holding them went bust, and irrelevant when the body holding them cannot go bust. They are about security, not about liability.
No, it’s not disingenuous. As has been noted by others, the money has already been spent, there is no savings aspect.
What money has already been spent? Why should there be a savings aspect whatever that means? Can I decline to pay my electricity bill because I have no dedicated electricity pot earmarked, or I have spent it on strong drink?
The argument is that the contribution of a Scottish taxpayer should be returned to the Scottish government post independence. Whether or not that contribution still exists seems relevant.
No it isn't, any more than it affects the repayability of a loan whether the borrower has spent the original money or kept it in a savings account
Our pension system operates on the basis of paying pensions out of current contributions.
This means that pensions in an independent Scotland will be paid out of current contributions from an independent Scotland.
That's simple and obvious.
There's no liability to pay pensions that the UK retains, because there's no legal guarantee to pay pensions. The government can, and does, vary the terms on which pensions are paid - e.g. by reducing payouts by increasing the retirement age, even to people who made contributions on the basis of an earlier retirement age.
HMG could cut the state pension in half tomorrow, and it wouldn't legally be in default (only politically). There's no liability for Scottish Pensions.
This is completely different to the situation with UK government bonds, and even with civil service pensions (where although there isn't a pension fund, there is a legal liability).
Well explained. But try getting that across to the saltire-wavers up here. They think they have the English between a rock and a hard place.
Just wrong, and predicated on a complete inability to distinguish practice from principle. If I have a mortgage, it is irrelevant to relations between me and the lender whether I make monthly payments out of a salary, or from a pot of money I have sitting on deposit.
Great to see some nitpicking from a few on my pensions comments. Pretty much every pension fund pays out todays pensioners from today's working people. You don't get your money back, you get someone else's money.
The principle is very simple though. If there are say a million people paying into their state pensions on the promise of a payout later its unreasonable to say their contributions were now zero and there was no liability.
I have several pension schemes where I have left the company, have stopped paying in, but will still receive a return on my investment. It is utterly disingenuous of Rob and others to suggest the same does not apply to the state pension.
well both of you are right really- company pensions will have assets behind them (maybe not enough if on a defined benefit scheme but assets in any case) - you are a member of that scheme that owes those assets and hence entitled to them even if you dont pay in when you leave a company - Some public pension schemes run like this like the Local Goverment Worker Scheme which is asset backed. A lot of public pensions (NHS ,Police ,Army , civil service) including the state one though do not have any assets backing them up and are paid out of curernt taxation. A lot of countries have sovereign wealth funds that do tie in with their state pensions (hence asset backed) but we dont
Great to see some nitpicking from a few on my pensions comments. Pretty much every pension fund pays out todays pensioners from today's working people. You don't get your money back, you get someone else's money.
The principle is very simple though. If there are say a million people paying into their state pensions on the promise of a payout later its unreasonable to say their contributions were now zero and there was no liability.
I have several pension schemes where I have left the company, have stopped paying in, but will still receive a return on my investment. It is utterly disingenuous of Rob and others to suggest the same does not apply to the state pension.
Not nitpicking, Rochdale. This is about the SNP deliberately and cynically trying to deceive people about who will fund their state pension. There is no "investment" or pension pot sitting there which is owing to people when they hit retirement age. The responsibility for paying the state pension to Scottish pensioners post-Indy will rest entirely with Scottish taxpayers. Can you not understand that?
Don’t be silly, everyone knows that every NI payment you ever make is accumulated and invested…
Having pointed out a bit of shitty BBC journalism, they also had an interesting comment on how few people will be affected by raised interest rates on mortgages.
The no of owner-occupied households with variable interest mortgages in England is less than 10% of people.
Three-quarters of mortages are at fixed rates.
For some reason in the panic-stories this is not being mentioned.
Thanks for the response - are you saying the BBC were not being shitty for once?
Having pointed out a bit of shitty BBC journalism, they also had an interesting comment on how few people will be affected by raised interest rates on mortgages.
The no of owner-occupied households with variable interest mortgages in England is less than 10% of people.
Three-quarters of mortages are at fixed rates.
For some reason in the panic-stories this is not being mentioned.
Good point but it will mean future arranged fixed mortgages cost more
Now the Scot Nats can confidently assure of us about Scottish pensions in the event of Scottish independence, can they tell me
1) Who will be the lender of last resort?
2) What currency will they use?
3) And if I accept their premise on pensions, will they be paid on a 1:1 exchange rate, because if Scotland's plan to walk away without paying any share of their debts, their currency will tank if their first act is to default.
4) What happens if RUK doesn't pay the pensions?
I have other questions that need asking but I'll stick to the easy ones, I have many others that need answering in my day job
I think Scot;and should adopt the Ningi as currency. Then the BofE can refuse to deal with them having declared them as "fiddling small change"
Surely they will go for the Pu? Wanting to have a currency that is more valuable per unit than the Pound and all that.
Great to see some nitpicking from a few on my pensions comments. Pretty much every pension fund pays out todays pensioners from today's working people. You don't get your money back, you get someone else's money.
The principle is very simple though. If there are say a million people paying into their state pensions on the promise of a payout later its unreasonable to say their contributions were now zero and there was no liability.
I have several pension schemes where I have left the company, have stopped paying in, but will still receive a return on my investment. It is utterly disingenuous of Rob and others to suggest the same does not apply to the state pension.
They are not saying there is no moral liability or in some cases a legal liability, they are saying that the repeated talk of paying out or dividing pension assets is nonsense because there are no pension assets.
There are no pension assets or pots for the state retirement pension, today’s pensions are paid out from today’s income.
This is in contrast to private or workplace schemes, where the money is invested in a fund over time, and that fund pays out the pensioners in their retirements.
If Scotland were to secede, there would be a massive liability to pay Scotland’s current and future pensions, but definitely no assets to split. Scotland would need to start paying them out of their tax receipts.
Comments
@SamCoatesSky
·
1h
If it falls to the Civil Service in London to direct the Civil Service in Northern Ireland whether to follow the DUP ministerial direction on trade checks, this potentially all lands on the desk of ….
… Sue Gray, Permanent Secretary for the Union
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky
EDIT - against USD obvs
It's another convoluted, headline grabbing, expensive to manage scheme like the Covid grants. With Sunak, why operate using simplicity when one can baffle with complicated bull****.
(B) there’s no legal obligation beyond a year
(C) not sure what point you are making
(D) difference between an individual leaving and a country separating
I believe Scotland is big enough to stand on its own two feet without a grant from England. Don’t you?
There There are one or twe posters who seem to be arguing that pensions arising from credits accumulated AFTER independence should be paid by rUK! Perhaps to muddle the argument. This is nonsense of course.
Why is it the more I read from a your typical Scottish Independence supporter, the more I really wish they is a referendum as the reality of an independent Scotland will be fun to watch from a safe distance away.
Wouldn't it be funny if 102 letters had gone in and all the names had been sent straight to Number 10?
I'm self employed and I had to raid my savings. There again I am not a builder where a cash hobble could be added to the SEISS grants if one chose to be as dodgy as Johnson.
Why you think rUK future workers will accept that I have no idea.
Solomon Hughes
@SolHughesWriter
·
1m
So Rishi Sunak's response to Energy Prices Crisis is to turn the government into a massive Klarna ? Buy Now Pay Later as social policy.
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1489209550309888000?t=RsRgI02jkK4p3Z1Zvk4m6A&s=19
What other pretend country has another country paying the pensions of its pensioners?
Oh, wait.
(No, I don't think it'll happen, but it'd be very funny.)
Sunetra Gupta (we all had herd immunity in April 2020 and it was all over), Jay Battacharya, John Ioannidis (the maximum IFR is 0.2%), for example, for this one.
Its also a tax on very young adults, who won’t get the discount, but, presumably, will have to pay the 5x£40 as they take out their first energy supply contracts.
EDIT - sorry, that's the best that I can come up with.
https://nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04479-6
Short version is that omicron is 70x replication increase in bronchial tissues compared with wild type and delta. It seems likely that this leads to a large increase in the amount of infectious virus released when breathing, contributing to the transmission increase.
It also confirms that omicron has lower replication in lung tissues, which may go some way to explain its relative reduction in severity/mortality compared with delta, although its complicated.
Stuff that was strongly suspected, so nice to see it confirmed.
It would be very interesting to see if it is successfully peer-reviewed at a reputable journal where no choice of peer reviewer is given.
This means that pensions in an independent Scotland will be paid out of current contributions from an independent Scotland.
That's simple and obvious.
There's no liability to pay pensions that the UK retains, because there's no legal guarantee to pay pensions. The government can, and does, vary the terms on which pensions are paid - e.g. by reducing payouts by increasing the retirement age, even to people who made contributions on the basis of an earlier retirement age.
HMG could cut the state pension in half tomorrow, and it wouldn't legally be in default (only politically). There's no liability for Scottish Pensions.
This is completely different to the situation with UK government bonds, and even with civil service pensions (where although there isn't a pension fund, there is a legal liability).
NIC contributions are not going into a future pension pot. By paying them we are simply getting a "right" to a state pension when we come to retirement age based on how many years we have contributed. It's entirely up to the Government of the day how much, or how little, that pension is.
The obligation to pay it, or not, will fall to the Scottish Government if Scotland becomes independent.
The idea that rUK would transfer funds to a foreign country to pay the pensions of its citizens is laughable. You really think MPs in rump UK are gonna vote through that.
Wake up.
It will go down well with Redwall voters and pensioners and they are the voters he needs to appeal to now, most fiscal conservatives like you already back him
Not only are bills rising anyway, but now the government is getting the blame.
Who would have thought, that trying to micromanage huge free markets would turn out badly?
The principle is very simple though. If there are say a million people paying into their state pensions on the promise of a payout later its unreasonable to say their contributions were now zero and there was no liability.
I have several pension schemes where I have left the company, have stopped paying in, but will still receive a return on my investment. It is utterly disingenuous of Rob and others to suggest the same does not apply to the state pension.
- Scottish workers have made payments to the UK government. The UK government should transfer that money to iScot or pay the pensions
The issue is that the money paid by Scottish workers has already been spent on current Scottish pensions. So there is no “pot” of money to be transferred. Going forward future pensions should be paid by future wages.
I was just a little envious that my holiday snaps are more Party Seven than Six Pack.
Having pointed out a bit of shitty BBC journalism, they also had an interesting comment on how few people will be affected by raised interest rates on mortgages.
The no of owner-occupied households with variable interest mortgages in England is less than 10% of people.
Three-quarters of mortages are at fixed rates.
For some reason in the panic-stories this is not being mentioned.
Also, oldies who get the loan and die before it’s paid back benefit.
It’s not a huge injustice in the scheme of things, but pretty shitty policy making, nonetheless.
Who gets to set increases? Heck, the RUK could lower them to a £1 a month and what happens then?
Jacob Rees-Mogg has just cited at length @Keir_Starmer statement when he was DPP about Savile case. Likens it to ministerial responsibility for No10, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1489198878008217609
He is LITERALLY calling him an ACTUAL kiddy fiddler.
This is in contrast to private or workplace schemes, where the money is invested in a fund over time, and that fund pays out the pensioners in their retirements.
If Scotland were to secede, there would be a massive liability to pay Scotland’s current and future pensions, but definitely no assets to split. Scotland would need to start paying them out of their tax receipts.
HM Treasury will take one look at Scotland's projected age distribution by 2045 (recently published by NRS) and that will be the end of that.
Well, maybe by us.
I live in a much more expensive place than the Rhondda and shop in Waitrose and don't spend anywhere near that on my weekly shop!