If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
I have no clue how any of that rather feable rant relates to anything I said about the pathetic attempts to ensure independence is never viable by the SNP under Sturgeon.
Salmond was deadly serious about seeking Scottish independence which is why he was unequivocal that Scottish pensions would be paid by Scotland, because that's a serious policy.
Sturgeon's cake and eat it desire to be independent but have England still pay all the liabilities is just a bad joke.
What's worse, is that you know it too. Why can't you just admit that the only reason the SNP are now coming out with this ridiculous bullshit that Salmond when he was in charge ran a mile from is because Sturgeon has no desire to actually make independence viable. She's far more interested in feathering her own nest than winning a referendum and you know it.
Malcolm, in fairness, has said as much on many occasions.
I have no comment on the pensions thing, other than to say it is a mess. Splitting up a successful country and turning people against each other on the grounds of opposing ideas of national identity plays brilliantly in to the hands of our adversaries, in the same manner as those who peddle guilt and outrage about things that happened generations ago. All of this just has the effect of weakening the shared host, prompting a descent in to introspection, and likely to be followed by chaos and ruin. It is sad to watch it happen.
It’s obvious to see from Brexit that English/Scottish relations will be…difficult.
It’s definitely worth doing though if you want to make life more complex and less peaceful.
And on the positive side when Czechoslovakia broke up they had something like 1300 arbitrations to resolve these issues. At least the lawyers won't starve!
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
It will be sore for some time, as it is between the UK and EU, only more so.
The only question is if those enthusiastically backing the EU taking an uncompromising stance toward the UK, or vice versa, mysteriously adopt the alternative view. Suddenly the larger entity should adopt flexibility to be reasonable etc. Suddenly cherry picking is not ok for the smaller one etc.
My Dad was a British citizen. He moved to NZ aged 40-something. He now draws a NZ pension. There is no contribution from the UK. He remains a British citizen.
If he paid NI for at least 10 years when in the UK (no matter how long ago), then I think that if he applies he'll find he is entitled to a modest UK pension too. Worth enquiring.
How are you going to differentiate between a Scottish British citizen and an English British citizen? Residence at iDay?
The distinction (see my last post) is not citizenship, but rather residency.
So the SG will pay pensions of people living in Scotland, and UKG will pay pensions of those living in UK.
Pretty much.
I think the issue is that any current plans have a massive hole in the finances (well beyond what can be sanely borrowed) so the argument over pensions is very much how do we fill that hole.. @CarlottaVance 's chart shows the issue
That is £26bn of income that needs to be raised just to keep the current welfare system going. For a population of 5million that's £5,000 per head that needs to be raised before the number increases as pensioners and children are excluded.
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
Given in laws etc Scotland would easily meet requirements I assume, and people joining looks good, I imagine a good deal on finances could be had pretty quickly.
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since.
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
There was a significant battle between the English and the Danes in 894 about 30 miles away from where I believe you are. Part of a major war.
I have no comment on the pensions thing, other than to say it is a mess. Splitting up a successful country and turning people against each other on the grounds of opposing ideas of national identity plays brilliantly in to the hands of our adversaries, in the same manner as those who peddle guilt and outrage about things that happened generations ago. All of this just has the effect of weakening the shared host, prompting a descent in to introspection, and likely to be followed by chaos and ruin. It is sad to watch it happen.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because the British state stops existing in it's present state if / when Scotland goes independent.
So a single Government is split in 2 and 1 of those governments is trying to pass a very large bill on to the other Government.
Which may work for 30 seconds until the British Government witnessed the reaction to British Tax payers giving Scotland money.
LOL, you could not make up the stupidity on here, idiots who think they are great intellects pontificating on topics they have no clue about. Constitutional guidance by Dummies.
Please can you show me the Great British Investment Fund that is used to pay for State Pensions - that you continually claim exists.
Now you are doing a Boris, where have I ever said there was a British Investment Fund. Take your Lies elsewhere sunshine or perhaps read and understand what people post. Hint "Liability" does not equal "Great British Investment Fund".
So where will the money to pay for the state Scottish Pensions come from.
And why do you think any rUK Government would agree to continually send rUK tax payers money north of the border when those State pensions should be coming from Scottish tax payers money...
Doh from the Scottish budget and whatever settlement of assets and liabilities is agreed as part of the dissolution of the union. It is very simple. I have never ever said they will continue to send money to Scotland ( though the ymay settle as an annual payment over a period ), I have always stated the simple fact that there will be a settlement of the UK liabilities , which include pension liabilities alongside many other liabilities, and assets. For example, we will own a share of the Bank of England and all that is in it, just as rUK will own a share of faslane.
What’s in the Bank of England is currently -£2,300,000,000
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
I have no clue how any of that rather feable rant relates to anything I said about the pathetic attempts to ensure independence is never viable by the SNP under Sturgeon.
Salmond was deadly serious about seeking Scottish independence which is why he was unequivocal that Scottish pensions would be paid by Scotland, because that's a serious policy.
Sturgeon's cake and eat it desire to be independent but have England still pay all the liabilities is just a bad joke.
What's worse, is that you know it too. Why can't you just admit that the only reason the SNP are now coming out with this ridiculous bullshit that Salmond when he was in charge ran a mile from is because Sturgeon has no desire to actually make independence viable. She's far more interested in feathering her own nest than winning a referendum and you know it.
As I recall you support scottish independence? So criticism of SNP tactics isnt grounded in opposition.
Has Rishi ever told the House of Commons he never attended a party in Downing Street during the lockdown period? Because that is why Boris will have to resign.
Don't think Rishi's every spoken in the House about it. He's mentioned it in interviews, IIRC, saying something anodyne.
Incidentally, we sometimes see pictures of him with a glass of beer in his hand, when we know he's teetotal; I realise it's 'publicity', but surely that's dishonest. Personally, while I do, I have no problem with people who choose not to drink alcoholic drinks. It's a respectable lifestyle choice which is different to mine, that's all.
I understand alcohol-free beer is a thing.
Admittedly, never met anyone who drinks it.....
I drink low and alcohol free beer. It’s fine. A nice option to have on a night out if you’re driving or just don’t want booze.
Low alcohol and alcohol free beer has come a long way from the 1990’s when I worked in pubs and only had Kaliber as an option. As others have said there are a few decent ones now, nicely filling the gap between booze and soft drinks. You do have to find what you like. Some taste like watered down beer. Some are plain weird. Ghost ship and nanny state are decent.
Punk AF is good too, and of the lagers Heiniken. Thornbridge do an AF Stout that is quite drinkable too.
Most contain some residual alcohol, so not truly alcohol free, and it is one of the fastest growing sectors of the market, Alcohol free wine is undrinkable though.
These are fine if you are going through a period of not drinking. You can actually adapt to them and give up alcohol completely, as I did for a year. The beers at 0.5% have a more authentic bitterness in my experience than the 0.0% beers, which just taste sweet.
I had an idea yesterday: Mix Punk AF with Punk IPA (or similar). You get a drinkable IPA at about 2.5% alcohol.
There used to be a beer round here called SPA, made I think by Gibbs. It may have been Salisbury Poor Ale but that’s a guess. It packed a hefty 3.0% abv, and my dad used to drink it as a safer option when driving (three pints equivalent to two at 4.5%). There probably is a market for similar beers. Not 0.5% etc, but in the 2 to 3 %.
Tougher in Scotland where limit is lower, dangerous even with one pint nowadays.
Yes, and I understand the reason being to leave no ambiguity about whether a pint or two is ok. Im generally happy with the England position as I like to have a beer after cricket, but if I have more than one it moves to shandy.
Old limit suited me , you could have a pint and not have to worry. Not up fpr drink driving but one pint would be no harm to anyone, meanwhile they can drive about stoned off their heads.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
That may well be the case.
However, we are talking about what happens in a referendum vote and which way people will vote. You don't have to disagree with the line the English are sh1tting their pants to also thinking that worries about pensions are likely to influence people's votes.
Only for the ill educated MrEd. If they have enough braincells to take part then they will see that our pathetic UK pension is among the worst in the developed world and a banana republic could afford to continue to pay it.
It's not great that is for sure and about to get relatively worse, although there is then the question of what you do about it.
Personally, as someone else pointed out below, Alex Salmond (and you) have a credible answer i.e. we will pay it ourselves. Ok, questions over revenues but that is for Scotland to sort and the same question applied to Ireland posr-1922. I think where the annoyance with Sturgeon is coming from is she knows her answer hasn't got a hope in hell's chance of being adopted and so she is taking everyone for a ride (including Scots who want independence).
Britain’s ultimate Westminster insider is actually its queen.
As head of state, Queen Elizabeth II must rise above the political fray, playing a largely ceremonial role by formally appointing ministers despite having no say over who gets the jobs, and unquestioningly setting out her elected government’s legislative agenda.
But that doesn’t mean the British monarch doesn’t want to know Westminster’s hottest gossip.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
I have no clue how any of that rather feable rant relates to anything I said about the pathetic attempts to ensure independence is never viable by the SNP under Sturgeon.
Salmond was deadly serious about seeking Scottish independence which is why he was unequivocal that Scottish pensions would be paid by Scotland, because that's a serious policy.
Sturgeon's cake and eat it desire to be independent but have England still pay all the liabilities is just a bad joke.
What's worse, is that you know it too. Why can't you just admit that the only reason the SNP are now coming out with this ridiculous bullshit that Salmond when he was in charge ran a mile from is because Sturgeon has no desire to actually make independence viable. She's far more interested in feathering her own nest than winning a referendum and you know it.
Malcolm, in fairness, has said as much on many occasions.
Yes he's prepared to criticise Sturgeon in abstract but when it comes to specifics like this ridiculous pensions own goal he's not prepared to admit or criticise it as garbage only being spouted by Sturgeon because she isn't serious.
And as kle4 adroitly noted, I'm a fan of Scottish Independence. I think Scotland and England would make better neighbours than the current constitutional mess and that Scottish politics in particular would be more mature and responsible post independence (even if it's a mess for a few years like Brexit).
So when I'm criticising this I am, like malcolmg should be, doing so from frustration that this bollocks is hindering any potential independence referendum. Not out of fear that this bollocks will be believed.
With both Russia and China talking about it feels impossible that they could be so stupid as to not see current moves encourage expansion. Not in Ukraine, too much a mess, but elsewhere. So is it actually what they want for some weird reason?
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
Given in laws etc Scotland would easily meet requirements I assume, and people joining looks good, I imagine a good deal on finances could be had pretty quickly.
The issue with Scotland joining the EU, would be what the border looks like between Scotland and England. We already know what the EU thinks of its external border.
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since.
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
There was a significant battle between the English and the Danes in 894 about 30 miles away from where I believe you are. Part of a major war.
Morning, OKC: hope all well. Just popped in from a morning out replacing a dud new alarm in my dad's house which wouldn't interconnect with the others - now singing in tune, all of them - and a walk in the snow flurries and doing some baling out in the garden.
I see it's all about indyref2 but have to go to deal with other stuff. But for now - I see someone is using the pronoun "we". "We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since." As Tonto famously said, who's this 'we'? Notably in view of the Battle of Largs 1263, Scotland vs Denmark, a fixture comprehensively won by the home side. Not to mention Clontarf 1214 in which the Nirish should get some credit in view of the participation of Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill and his army, I would think.
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since.
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
There was a significant battle between the English and the Danes in 894 about 30 miles away from where I believe you are. Part of a major war.
Which still does not change the point Scotland and France were England's longest enemies until the Act of Union. England fought more wars against them than any other nation, including Denmark
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
I have no clue how any of that rather feable rant relates to anything I said about the pathetic attempts to ensure independence is never viable by the SNP under Sturgeon.
Salmond was deadly serious about seeking Scottish independence which is why he was unequivocal that Scottish pensions would be paid by Scotland, because that's a serious policy.
Sturgeon's cake and eat it desire to be independent but have England still pay all the liabilities is just a bad joke.
What's worse, is that you know it too. Why can't you just admit that the only reason the SNP are now coming out with this ridiculous bullshit that Salmond when he was in charge ran a mile from is because Sturgeon has no desire to actually make independence viable. She's far more interested in feathering her own nest than winning a referendum and you know it.
Malcolm, in fairness, has said as much on many occasions.
Yes he's prepared to criticise Sturgeon in abstract but when it comes to specifics like this ridiculous pensions own goal he's not prepared to admit or criticise it as garbage only being spouted by Sturgeon because she isn't serious.
And as kle4 adroitly noted, I'm a fan of Scottish Independence. I think Scotland and England would make better neighbours than the current constitutional mess and that Scottish politics in particular would be more mature and responsible post independence (even if it's a mess for a few years like Brexit).
So when I'm criticising this I am, like malcolmg should be, doing so from frustration that this bollocks is hindering any potential independence referendum. Not out of fear that this bollocks will be believed.
The main problem I have with the idea of Scottish independence is you'd get the same politicians running it despite what Stuart Dickson and Malcolmg claim. I would stop short of saying Sturgeon doesn't want independence at all as ALBA claims but she's been quite relaxed with the status quo since 2017 and seems less concerned about it not happening as long as the SNP retains power at Holyrood.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since.
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
There was a significant battle between the English and the Danes in 894 about 30 miles away from where I believe you are. Part of a major war.
Which still does not change the point Scotland and France were England's longest enemies until the Act of Union. England fought more wars against them than any other nation, including Denmark
Scotland and France longer than England? Now were getting to the psychological nub (ho ho) of the matter.
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since.
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
There was a significant battle between the English and the Danes in 894 about 30 miles away from where I believe you are. Part of a major war.
Morning, OKC: hope all well. Just popped in from a morning out replacing a dud new alarm in my dad's house which wouldn't interconnect with the others - now singing in tune, all of them - and a walk in the snow flurries and doing some baling out in the garden.
I see it's all about indyref2 but have to go to deal with other stuff. But for now - I see someone is using the pronoun "we". "We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since." As Tonto famously said, who's this 'we'? Notably in view of the Battle of Largs 1263, Scotland vs Denmark, a fixture comprehensively won by the home side. Not to mention Clontarf 1214 in which the Nirish should get some credit in view of the participation of Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill and his army, I would think.
Scotland and Ireland were they from an English perspective then.
Scotland only became we at the Act of Union in 1707 and Ireland at the Act of Union in 1800 (then only Northern Ireland in Ireland was we after 1921)
They use this old Soviet type of negotiation tactics,” said Kallas, who became Estonia's first female prime minister last year. “First, demand the maximum, demand something that has never belonged to you. Then second, present ultimatums. And third: [They] do not give one inch in the negotiations, because there will always be people in the West who will negotiate and give you something that you didn't have before.”
“They have asked that NATO goes back to its 1997 borders. Well, this is outrageous. It means that half of the members in NATO shouldn't be in NATO,” Kallas said.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since.
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
There was a significant battle between the English and the Danes in 894 about 30 miles away from where I believe you are. Part of a major war.
Which still does not change the point Scotland and France were England's longest enemies until the Act of Union. England fought more wars against them than any other nation, including Denmark
Because we border them! They've equally, at times, been some of our oldest friends, just not continuously.
They use this old Soviet type of negotiation tactics,” said Kallas, who became Estonia's first female prime minister last year. “First, demand the maximum, demand something that has never belonged to you. Then second, present ultimatums. And third: [They] do not give one inch in the negotiations, because there will always be people in the West who will negotiate and give you something that you didn't have before.”
“They have asked that NATO goes back to its 1997 borders. Well, this is outrageous. It means that half of the members in NATO shouldn't be in NATO,” Kallas said.
Even for an intentionally unresaonable demand that one is pretty hilarious. 'Turn back time 25 years' is obviously not serious, so meeting him halfway on something else is itself not reasonable.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Since Putin is potentially willing to do something really dumb like invade Ukraine (at least no one seems willing to rule it out) more than the West is willing or able to get truly stuck in (very few seem to think that is a good idea), it's presumably true some kind of face saving concession might be needed, as a matter of practical realities.
What I struggle to see is what sort of concession would work, since the main demands are insane, and don't really lend themselves to half measures to be offered in their place.
I'm on the verge of betting on Boris Johnson staying until 2024. 4/1 on Ladbrokes.
I think he's an out-and-out turd but I'm unconvinced about this legend of the ruthless tory party. He's only had half a term in office and that was covid-ridden.
Are the tory MPs ready to see the writing on the wall? I'm not convinced.
Note the election may be 2023 rather than 2024.
It could also be 2025 once DACOP becomes law (see section 4).
January 2025 - it would be a very foolish Government who wanted an election then.
I think February, maybe even March might be possible. The current 17(?) working day timetable between dissolution and election is, I believe, only laid down in FTPA, and therefore will fall away under section 1 of DACOP when passed.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
I have no clue how any of that rather feable rant relates to anything I said about the pathetic attempts to ensure independence is never viable by the SNP under Sturgeon.
Salmond was deadly serious about seeking Scottish independence which is why he was unequivocal that Scottish pensions would be paid by Scotland, because that's a serious policy.
Sturgeon's cake and eat it desire to be independent but have England still pay all the liabilities is just a bad joke.
What's worse, is that you know it too. Why can't you just admit that the only reason the SNP are now coming out with this ridiculous bullshit that Salmond when he was in charge ran a mile from is because Sturgeon has no desire to actually make independence viable. She's far more interested in feathering her own nest than winning a referendum and you know it.
Malcolm, in fairness, has said as much on many occasions.
Yes he's prepared to criticise Sturgeon in abstract but when it comes to specifics like this ridiculous pensions own goal he's not prepared to admit or criticise it as garbage only being spouted by Sturgeon because she isn't serious.
And as kle4 adroitly noted, I'm a fan of Scottish Independence. I think Scotland and England would make better neighbours than the current constitutional mess and that Scottish politics in particular would be more mature and responsible post independence (even if it's a mess for a few years like Brexit).
So when I'm criticising this I am, like malcolmg should be, doing so from frustration that this bollocks is hindering any potential independence referendum. Not out of fear that this bollocks will be believed.
The main problem I have with the idea of Scottish independence is you'd get the same politicians running it despite what Stuart Dickson and Malcolmg claim. I would stop short of saying Sturgeon doesn't want independence at all as ALBA claims but she's been quite relaxed with the status quo since 2017 and seems less concerned about it not happening as long as the SNP retains power at Holyrood.
In a democracy you're only going to get limited politicians, but that doesn't stop democratic accountability being the number one form of government the world has so far discovered.
Politics would change post independence, quite dramatically. The problem is the independence issue has now poisoned the well so that issues of tax and spend, healthcare, education, law and order etc aren't shaping votes in the way they should instead people are voting on constitutional matters.
Resolve the constitutional questions and people become accountable. Same reasons I ended up backing Brexit.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since.
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
Only if you ignore:
The Second Anglo-Dutch War 1665 - 1667 The Third Anglo-Dutch War 1672 - 1674 The Franco-Dutch War 1675 - 1678 The Great Northern War 1700 - 1720 (although in fairness we fought both with and against the Danes at times in that one)
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since.
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
There was a significant battle between the English and the Danes in 894 about 30 miles away from where I believe you are. Part of a major war.
Which still does not change the point Scotland and France were England's longest enemies until the Act of Union. England fought more wars against them than any other nation, including Denmark
Wouldn't disagree. However, in a rather poorly constructed sentence you implied that England (and as Mr Carmyx points out, 'we' is inaccurate) only fought the Danes in 'Nelson's time'. I'm sure you are also aware that the battle to which I referred was but one in a long drawn out war from 865 or thereabouts until after the Conquest in 1066.
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Ukraine have now been stuck at the 'Intensified Dialogue' stage of NATO enlargement for 17 years so it's pretty fucking obvious that they are never going to be allowed to join. We might as make that official and wipe our collective arses on their application form.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
Given in laws etc Scotland would easily meet requirements I assume, and people joining looks good, I imagine a good deal on finances could be had pretty quickly.
Yes - some clearly tricky things such as the Euro.
What's not clear though is the degree to which the EU is actually happy with the idea. I can easily imagine that a 'not for a few years' message might be being conveyed behind the scenes. Brexit was clearly a massive distraction for the EU, and there are big issues ahead for it without opening up a new can of worms.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
Perhaps instead the ex Soviet satellites and the nominally neutral countries in Scandi should all announce a new Eastern European Defence Pact.
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
Thank God it isn't trans or comedians "cancelled".
With both Russia and China talking about it feels impossible that they could be so stupid as to not see current moves encourage expansion. Not in Ukraine, too much a mess, but elsewhere. So is it actually what they want for some weird reason?
In my opinion, the best thing for Finland to do would be to invest in its own armed forces. They still have national service but it has gone very soft. What they need to do is actually to prepare the country again to fight a guerilla war with Russia, as was the case during the cold war. That is the only thing that the Russians will understand and respect.
Trying to outsource national security by joining NATO is a risky project. It is a massive border to patrol and NATO are not exactly strong and reliable. Furthermore, Finland would be in a weak position in NATO, contributing little, and asking for a lot in return. I think that Putin would see Finland joining NATO as a sign of weakness and lack of confidence. All in all, abandoning the 70 plus year old current policy of neutrality would amount to an expression of weakness and not strength.
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
Thank God it isn't trans or comedians "cancelled".
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
But is it more nuanced than that? What is left after Scotland leaves? If it is England, Wales and Northern Ireland, then they will not want to pay Scotland's bills. But if what remains is the United Kingdom (minus the bit on top) then it might be more amenable because the UK will want to retain its position in the United Nations, NATO and various other bodies, and if that means paying ten grand a year to pensioners who have paid the right number of stamps, then that might be a price worth paying.
Russia lost a lot more in land area and population when the USSR dissolved and kept its seat at the UN. rUK would do the same, with no need for their tax payers to fund the state pensions of a foreign country.
THat was a more complicated case as Russia declared independence from the USSR, and had no legal continuity with it, but was recognised as its successor state by the UN with the agreement of the 13 other republics.
If Scotland left the UK, the UK government would carry right on. There would be no legal way of changing that status, whatever the SNP claimed.
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
EU membership would indeed be a big issue. I personally think they'd regain it fairly speedily. And, yep, on the state pension, that sounds right - Scotland assume liability with a (partially) compensating amount the other way to reflect contributions. I'd expect this to be done via a one-off 'clean break' adjustment in the divorce settlement rather than an ongoing financial commitment.
The post independence relationship between Scotland and Ingerland is probably going to end up like Ukraine/Russia.
Until the Act of Union Scotland was of course England's oldest enemy after France.
Though if Scotland was ever allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence and Westminster implemented that result, while it would not be an amicable divorce assuming Scotland and rUK were in NATO it would not be comparable to Russia and Ukraine
Denmark says hi. The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut, and he took the country off the Saxons. Scotland was still mostly just pissing around with itself at that point.
We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since.
We fought plenty of wars with Scotland in the Middle Ages, in Henry VIII's time and Elizabeth of course fought Mary Queen of Scots.
Though perhaps better to say France and Scotland were England's longest not oldest enemies until the Act of Union
Only if you ignore:
The Second Anglo-Dutch War 1665 - 1667 The Third Anglo-Dutch War 1672 - 1674 The Franco-Dutch War 1675 - 1678 The Great Northern War 1700 - 1720 (although in fairness we fought both with and against the Danes at times in that one)
The Danes were only involved against us in the second Anglo Dutch War and Franco Dutch War
Even also combining all the Anglo Dutch Wars, England still fought fewer wars against the Danes and Dutch than against the French and Scots
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
I wanted to retain my EU passport after Brexit, but I'm told I can't!
No, you can't, because there wasn't ever really an "EU passport" at all. Your passport was a UK one. The passport situation would be very different under Scottish independence. I cannot imagine for a moment that the UK would revoke en masse the passports of English-born residents of Scotland upon independence. They might require people to choose one way or the other, but for those who retain a UK one, it's as near as equivalent as emigration. I think.
I would suspect that there would be an arrangement that anyone living in Scotland would be able to get a Scottish passport or retain their UK passport (or have both). Scots living outside Scotland would also be able to get a Scottish passport or retain their UK passport (or have both). This is similar to the position in Northern Ireland.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
This was a question I was pondering last night. As an advocate of a harmonious and good will split between Scotland and England this is one of those issues that I think could cause more serious problems. How can a new country of 5 million people operate if, for example 1 or 2 million of its population choose to retain citizenship of another country? Can a country effectively operate with up to 40% of its population made up of non-nationals? I know that is probably at the extreme end of the likely number but it was something that got me thinking last night.
With both Russia and China talking about it feels impossible that they could be so stupid as to not see current moves encourage expansion. Not in Ukraine, too much a mess, but elsewhere. So is it actually what they want for some weird reason?
Well, it would be in China's interests to have the US preoccupied with Russia in Europe, NATO expansion, stationing US troops in Eastern Europe, as that would presumably imply less US attention and resources to be directed to the Pacific, leaving China a freer hand to act as it wishes.
Whether NI or Scotland leave the UK is anybody's guess but in the meantime you have a situation where half of Scotland don't want to be in the UK, half of NI don't want to be in the UK and on top of that half of the UK still thinks it was a mistake to leave the EU.
Probably about time we dropped the "United" from our name before someone makes a complaint to the ASA! We are as bitterly divided a nation as the USA and, like them, all the weaker for it.
With both Russia and China talking about it feels impossible that they could be so stupid as to not see current moves encourage expansion. Not in Ukraine, too much a mess, but elsewhere. So is it actually what they want for some weird reason?
Well, it would be in China's interests to have the US preoccupied with Russia in Europe, NATO expansion, stationing US troops in Eastern Europe, as that would presumably imply less US attention and resources to be directed to the Pacific, leaving China a freer hand to act as it wishes.
Interestingly, in the early 1990's there was talk of Finland buying back Karjala (a territory historically part of Finland) from Russia. It was a very wise decision not to proceed, as it would have made Finland responsible for a significant population of Russians, which it is not at present. As such, Finland does not have the same vulnerability to Russian territorial claims that other Baltic states have.
If Scotland chooses to become a foreign country, then working English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers should not pay for a foreign country's pension liabilities. GUY OPPERMAN U.K. Pensions Minister
The SNPs desperation to claim that English taxpayers would be liable for Scottish pensions is truly absurd and means there's not a chance of Scottish independence ever coming about now.
In the campaign it's going to be a case of SNP ministers and campaigners insisting the English will pay the pensions, the English will clearly say "no we won't" and quite right too. At which point pensioners and potential pensioners, will think quite reasonably "this is too risky" and vote No.
If the SNP were serious about independence they'd have serious answers. Not "the English will pay our liabilities for us".
Moronic Little Englanders for Dummies guidance. Unionists on here sh***ing their pants at the thought that they are not a "real" world power but rather a sad has been desperate not to be left on their own. Only one colony away from banana republic status.
That may well be the case.
However, we are talking about what happens in a referendum vote and which way people will vote. You don't have to disagree with the line the English are sh1tting their pants to also thinking that worries about pensions are likely to influence people's votes.
Only for the ill educated MrEd. If they have enough braincells to take part then they will see that our pathetic UK pension is among the worst in the developed world and a banana republic could afford to continue to pay it.
10% of the global population earn less than $700 a year, or a cumulative $30,000 approx over their expected lifetime.
The UK state pension would cost £200k+ to buy privately, for some much more.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
With hindsight, the acceptance of the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Romania etc as members of NATO was a strategic mistake. Are we really willing to risk thermonuculear war to protect Lithuiania, a country most of the population could not even find on the map and with a significant Russian minority? I rather think not but we have made those promises and have to honour them. I really do not think that we should be making any more. It would have been better to let their incorporation into the west be a matter for the EU.
With both Russia and China talking about it feels impossible that they could be so stupid as to not see current moves encourage expansion. Not in Ukraine, too much a mess, but elsewhere. So is it actually what they want for some weird reason?
Well, it would be in China's interests to have the US preoccupied with Russia in Europe, NATO expansion, stationing US troops in Eastern Europe, as that would presumably imply less US attention and resources to be directed to the Pacific, leaving China a freer hand to act as it wishes.
Not sure what is in it for Russia.
They get Ukraine, China get Taiwan.
Hence the AUKUS deal needs to be expanded to create a NATO of the Pacific including Japan, Singapore and South Korea, maybe even India too
Whether NI or Scotland leave the UK is anybody's guess but in the meantime you have a situation where half of Scotland don't want to be in the UK, half of NI don't want to be in the UK and on top of that half of the UK still thinks it was a mistake to leave the EU.
Probably about time we dropped the "United" from our name before someone makes a complaint to the ASA! We are as bitterly divided a nation as the USA and, like them, all the weaker for it.
There's a fair few 'republics' and 'democratic' places that need getting to first.
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
With hindsight, the acceptance of the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Romania etc as members of NATO was a strategic mistake. Are we really willing to risk thermonuculear war to protect Lithuiania, a country most of the population could not even find on the map and with a significant Russian minority? I rather think not but we have made those promises and have to honour them. I really do not think that we should be making any more. It would have been better to let their incorporation into the west be a matter for the EU.
That wasn't the strategic mistake. That was inevitable given the suspicion they held Russia in and the arrogance of the Americans as the world's hegemonic power.
The strategic mistake - and it was a big one - was not offering NATO membership to Russia. Even EU membership. That might have made a very considerable difference both to the attitude of Yeltsin and the course of his government.
My Dad was a British citizen. He moved to NZ aged 40-something. He now draws a NZ pension. There is no contribution from the UK. He remains a British citizen.
If he paid NI for at least 10 years when in the UK (no matter how long ago), then I think that if he applies he'll find he is entitled to a modest UK pension too. Worth enquiring.
If you’ve paid at least three years’ of NI from working in the UK you can carry on paying voluntary Class 2 NICs after you’ve left. It’s about £3 a week, an absolute bargain.
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
EU membership would indeed be a big issue. I personally think they'd regain it fairly speedily.
How quickly do you think they would meet the Copenhagen Criteria? Specifically the economic ones?
Mr. Farooq, "The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut..."
Debatable, contingent upon one's view of Alfred.
I've also never heard that appellation attached to Canute before. Wikipedia suggests it is something said of him, but Alfred's far better known as an English king called the Great.
Alfred was not king of England. I chose my words carefully!
My Dad was a British citizen. He moved to NZ aged 40-something. He now draws a NZ pension. There is no contribution from the UK. He remains a British citizen.
If he paid NI for at least 10 years when in the UK (no matter how long ago), then I think that if he applies he'll find he is entitled to a modest UK pension too. Worth enquiring.
If you’ve paid at least three years’ of NI from working in the UK you can carry on paying voluntary Class 2 NICs after you’ve left. It’s about £3 a week, an absolute bargain.
We should be closing such loopholes or pricing it differently for expats. State pension should be more correlated to living/contributing in the UK.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
With hindsight, the acceptance of the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Romania etc as members of NATO was a strategic mistake. Are we really willing to risk thermonuculear war to protect Lithuiania, a country most of the population could not even find on the map and with a significant Russian minority? I rather think not but we have made those promises and have to honour them. I really do not think that we should be making any more. It would have been better to let their incorporation into the west be a matter for the EU.
On the contrary, if you compare the relative economic and political stability of the Baltic States, and compare that to Ukraine, you can see how beneficial membership of NATO has been in assuring the Baltic States of their security, and it's been a worthwhile investment on our part.
Had Ukraine's political leadership had a similar orientation to the West in the years after the break-up of the USSR, then I am sure that it would also be in a much better place now.
There is no security for anyone, if there is not security for everyone. The more people we can include in collective security the better for ourselves.
I see that Duncan-Smith is very amusingly spinning the new line that Johnson has to stay on "to deal with the big crises, such as the parties scandal and the cost of living crisis".
An almost comically transparent attempt to adapt the previous spin, on Boris being a "prime minister for the big calls", to the unavoidably obvious crises that are staring everyone in the face. It won't achieve much, though, because the instant preposterousness of the prime minister being the man to tackle the big crises he himself created defeats it even before he's begun.
Mr. Farooq, "The only King of England to be dubbed "the Great" was Cnut..."
Debatable, contingent upon one's view of Alfred.
I've also never heard that appellation attached to Canute before. Wikipedia suggests it is something said of him, but Alfred's far better known as an English king called the Great.
Alfred was not king of England. I chose my words carefully!
Oh, the perils of pedantry oneupmanship. We've all been there, but I spotted the trap this time.
My Dad was a British citizen. He moved to NZ aged 40-something. He now draws a NZ pension. There is no contribution from the UK. He remains a British citizen.
If he paid NI for at least 10 years when in the UK (no matter how long ago), then I think that if he applies he'll find he is entitled to a modest UK pension too. Worth enquiring.
If you’ve paid at least three years’ of NI from working in the UK you can carry on paying voluntary Class 2 NICs after you’ve left. It’s about £3 a week, an absolute bargain.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
With hindsight, the acceptance of the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Romania etc as members of NATO was a strategic mistake. Are we really willing to risk thermonuculear war to protect Lithuiania, a country most of the population could not even find on the map and with a significant Russian minority? I rather think not but we have made those promises and have to honour them. I really do not think that we should be making any more. It would have been better to let their incorporation into the west be a matter for the EU.
The US wanted the Visegrad and Vilnius groups in NATO because they were concerned that otherwise the EU would develop an enhanced military and security structure. Which is ironically the complete opposite of the current US strategy.
My Dad was a British citizen. He moved to NZ aged 40-something. He now draws a NZ pension. There is no contribution from the UK. He remains a British citizen.
If he paid NI for at least 10 years when in the UK (no matter how long ago), then I think that if he applies he'll find he is entitled to a modest UK pension too. Worth enquiring.
If you’ve paid at least three years’ of NI from working in the UK you can carry on paying voluntary Class 2 NICs after you’ve left. It’s about £3 a week, an absolute bargain.
Yep, you can backdate it something like 10 years too. An absolute must-do for anyone British living abroad.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
I wanted to retain my EU passport after Brexit, but I'm told I can't!
Well you can. Go live in the EU.....
Or find an Irish relative.
That reads very much like "suck it up losers".
Your first statement is also factually incorrect. More fake news from the Leave side.
Looking for offence where none was intended.
For example, you can get citizenship in France in just two years, if you complete a postgraduate course at a French university. That will return you the rights within the EU foregone by Brexit as a UK citizen.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
With hindsight, the acceptance of the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Romania etc as members of NATO was a strategic mistake. Are we really willing to risk thermonuculear war to protect Lithuiania, a country most of the population could not even find on the map and with a significant Russian minority? I rather think not but we have made those promises and have to honour them. I really do not think that we should be making any more. It would have been better to let their incorporation into the west be a matter for the EU.
That wasn't the strategic mistake. That was inevitable given the suspicion they held Russia in and the arrogance of the Americans as the world's hegemonic power.
The strategic mistake - and it was a big one - was not offering NATO membership to Russia. Even EU membership. That might have made a very considerable difference both to the attitude of Yeltsin and the course of his government.
We have massively over extended ourselves in our promises and sending a few hundred troops or even half a dozen planes to eastern Europe simply demonstrates the point.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
With hindsight, the acceptance of the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Romania etc as members of NATO was a strategic mistake. Are we really willing to risk thermonuculear war to protect Lithuiania, a country most of the population could not even find on the map and with a significant Russian minority? I rather think not but we have made those promises and have to honour them. I really do not think that we should be making any more. It would have been better to let their incorporation into the west be a matter for the EU.
I don't know why people always talk about us risking nuclear war to protect our democratic allies when the same question isn't posed to Russia. Why would Russia risk nuclear war invading a country that doesn't want to be ruled by Russia?
And if you think the line shouldn't be drawn at Lithuania, where DO you think the line should be drawn? Should we help defend Finland from Russian aggression? Poland? England's oldest enemy, Denmark? Belgium? Jersey? Kent? You have to admit that the line has to be drawn somewhere. I think that line should not be "wherever Russia feels like stopping... for now", and it should be instead "sovereign democratic states who actively seek our help". I await with interest a better idea, but given those two choices I will always advocate for the latter.
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
EU membership would indeed be a big issue. I personally think they'd regain it fairly speedily.
How quickly do you think they would meet the Copenhagen Criteria? Specifically the economic ones?
They would be changed or ignored for Scotland. Do you think Greece actually met the accession criteria when they joined? There was a romantic notion, primarily pushed by Mitterrand, that Europe was incomplete without Greece. Scotland would be accommodated for similar sentimental reasons.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Gas - because Germany cannot survive without Russian Gas at the moment.
Also Western Europe isn't stoked about the prospect of 2m+ Ukranian refugees fleeing a Russian invasion. From a French/German perspective's certainly worth giving Putin something to avoid that.
You may be right, but what is that something?
Russia's main demand is that the Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. America's response is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can apply to join what it likes. To which the answer surely has to be, well, yes but NATO does not have to agree. If NATO confimed that any such application would not be approved for, say, the next 20 years Putin may have his face saver.
I'm sure I read years ago there was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO precisely because its territorial integrity had already been compromised by Russia re Crimea, and if they were a member questions would arise on why that situation was acceptable, so it seems an unnecessary concession, but easy to make.
With hindsight, the acceptance of the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Romania etc as members of NATO was a strategic mistake. Are we really willing to risk thermonuculear war to protect Lithuiania, a country most of the population could not even find on the map and with a significant Russian minority? I rather think not but we have made those promises and have to honour them. I really do not think that we should be making any more. It would have been better to let their incorporation into the west be a matter for the EU.
The US wanted the Visegrad and Vilnius groups in NATO because they were concerned that otherwise the EU would develop an enhanced military and security structure. Which is ironically the complete opposite of the current US strategy.
Indeed, but now that the US has lost all interest in Europe we are left with promises to keep that are well beyond us.
Yes there were bad things done by Britain and the other colonial powers, but plenty of good too, including the spread of the rule of law and the growth of the British Empire, paradoxically led the way to liberally minded parliamentarians banning the slave trade.
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
Time we discussed proportional representation, don't you think?
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
The Sunday Times reckons it could be as high as 45 or 50.
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
Time we discussed proportional representation, don't you think?
We had a vote on what to discuss. The results were: Scotland 6 Brexit 5 PR 5 Pineapple 5 Doxxing 5 Kier/Keir 5 Boris 5
So that makes Scotland the clear winner and deserving of a parliamentary majority.
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
EU membership would indeed be a big issue. I personally think they'd regain it fairly speedily.
How quickly do you think they would meet the Copenhagen Criteria? Specifically the economic ones?
They would be changed or ignored for Scotland. Do you think Greece actually met the accession criteria when they joined? There was a romantic notion, primarily pushed by Mitterrand, that Europe was incomplete without Greece. Scotland would be accommodated for similar sentimental reasons.
Unworthily one might think there would also be the fandabeedozi bonus of annoying England. I'm sure that wouldn't figure in calculations though.
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
We went with non-alcoholic beer....
From discussing non-alcoholic beer to discussing small beer...
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
EU membership would indeed be a big issue. I personally think they'd regain it fairly speedily.
How quickly do you think they would meet the Copenhagen Criteria? Specifically the economic ones?
They would be changed or ignored for Scotland. Do you think Greece actually met the accession criteria when they joined? There was a romantic notion, primarily pushed by Mitterrand, that Europe was incomplete without Greece. Scotland would be accommodated for similar sentimental reasons.
Unworthily one might think there would also be the fandabeedozi bonus of annoying England. I'm sure that wouldn't figure in calculations though.
Popped in for a mo ... also the not so small matter that many of us in Scotland have been pukka Europeans for decades, the current annoying interruption aside.
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
The Sunday Times reckons it could be as high as 45 or 50.
Seeing as no-one knows, or will ever know, what sells more papers? 45-50 or 20-30? Not that I am cynical at all.....
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
EU membership would indeed be a big issue. I personally think they'd regain it fairly speedily.
How quickly do you think they would meet the Copenhagen Criteria? Specifically the economic ones?
They would be changed or ignored for Scotland. Do you think Greece actually met the accession criteria when they joined? There was a romantic notion, primarily pushed by Mitterrand, that Europe was incomplete without Greece. Scotland would be accommodated for similar sentimental reasons.
Unworthily one might think there would also be the fandabeedozi bonus of annoying England. I'm sure that wouldn't figure in calculations though.
Popped in for a mo ... also the not so small matter that many of us in Scotland have been pukka Europeans for decades, the current annoying interruption aside.
Indeed. Even the red, white, blue and orange brigade seem to identify strongly with a Dutchman.
A quiet news day, I take it. The PM is still in place, we are nowhere nearer the 54 letters, and Russia still hasn't invaded Ukraine.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
Thank God it isn't trans or comedians "cancelled".
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
EU membership would indeed be a big issue. I personally think they'd regain it fairly speedily.
How quickly do you think they would meet the Copenhagen Criteria? Specifically the economic ones?
They would be changed or ignored for Scotland. Do you think Greece actually met the accession criteria when they joined? There was a romantic notion, primarily pushed by Mitterrand, that Europe was incomplete without Greece. Scotland would be accommodated for similar sentimental reasons.
Unworthily one might think there would also be the fandabeedozi bonus of annoying England. I'm sure that wouldn't figure in calculations though.
Popped in for a mo ... also the not so small matter that many of us in Scotland have been pukka Europeans for decades, the current annoying interruption aside.
Indeed. Even the red, white, blue and orange brigade seem to identify strongly with a Dutchman.
There's that too, and also, somewhat more recently, the voters in Scotland collectively voted very firmly for Europe.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
I wanted to retain my EU passport after Brexit, but I'm told I can't!
Well you can. Go live in the EU.....
Or find an Irish relative.
That reads very much like "suck it up losers".
Your first statement is also factually incorrect. More fake news from the Leave side.
Looking for offence where none was intended.
For example, you can get citizenship in France in just two years, if you complete a postgraduate course at a French university. That will return you the rights within the EU foregone by Brexit as a UK citizen.
As a British citizen I get my state pension from the British government. If I move to another country I continue to get my British state pension from the British government.
I assume I'd continue to get it if I changed my nationality to that of the country I was now living in. Yes?
If so, what is the difference to a person with Scottish nationality living in an independent Scotland getting their British pension from the British state?
I'm not seeking to make a point. It's a genuine question.
What is the legal obligation on the British state to pay a state pension to its citizens? Is it based on nationality or residence (we know that's not the case) or what?
Because you don't cease to be a British citizen. Though it may be time to revisit those rules as well any pensioner who has the means to live overseas probably doesn't need the state pension benefit.
The question shifts then to who living in Scotland would become a Scottish citizen upon independence. Doubtless anyone from the UK living in Scotland would be offered a passport, but I'll bet a significant number would choose to retain a UK passport. In those cases, who pays?
I wanted to retain my EU passport after Brexit, but I'm told I can't!
Well you can. Go live in the EU.....
Or find an Irish relative.
That reads very much like "suck it up losers".
Your first statement is also factually incorrect. More fake news from the Leave side.
Looking for offence where none was intended.
For example, you can get citizenship in France in just two years, if you complete a postgraduate course at a French university. That will return you the rights within the EU foregone by Brexit as a UK citizen.
Fake news?
That's a bit of a streach for most of us.
Also, getting a totally new passport is a little way away from the idea of "retaining" your EU passport.
Pensions should be one of the easier areas to sort out. Clearly it won't be quite the way the SNP predicts, but I imagine rUK will pay something towards pensions for a little while - somewhat more state pensioners, and (I think) somewhat more civil service etc pensions in Scotland.
Scotland's finances will be tricky - and could get more or less so depending on more matters evolve after Independence. The big issue in my view is whether they can get readmitted to the EU on good terms (i.e free money).
EU membership would indeed be a big issue. I personally think they'd regain it fairly speedily.
How quickly do you think they would meet the Copenhagen Criteria? Specifically the economic ones?
They would be changed or ignored for Scotland. Do you think Greece actually met the accession criteria when they joined? There was a romantic notion, primarily pushed by Mitterrand, that Europe was incomplete without Greece. Scotland would be accommodated for similar sentimental reasons.
That was also simultaneously the beginning of the European Community's strategic expansion, though. Spain and Portugal were similarly unprepared six years later, at that time emerging very similarly from dictatorship with poverty and weak institutions.
It would certainly be strategically good for the EU to have multiple EU nations bordering an England outside the EU.
With both Russia and China talking about it feels impossible that they could be so stupid as to not see current moves encourage expansion. Not in Ukraine, too much a mess, but elsewhere. So is it actually what they want for some weird reason?
Well, it would be in China's interests to have the US preoccupied with Russia in Europe, NATO expansion, stationing US troops in Eastern Europe, as that would presumably imply less US attention and resources to be directed to the Pacific, leaving China a freer hand to act as it wishes.
Not sure what is in it for Russia.
A big deal for oil and gas, perhaps?
If Russia offered a 50% reduction in gas prices in exchange for Ukraine, would we accept it?
Comments
It’s definitely worth doing though if you want to make life more complex and less peaceful.
The only question is if those enthusiastically backing the EU taking an uncompromising stance toward the UK, or vice versa, mysteriously adopt the alternative view. Suddenly the larger entity should adopt flexibility to be reasonable etc. Suddenly cherry picking is not ok for the smaller one etc.
"If President and Government were in favor of #Finland's #NATO membership, I would also be ready to accept it."
YES 63%
NO 27%
#Turpo
https://toivoajatuspaja.fi/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Kyselyraportti_1.2022.pdf
https://twitter.com/eskelinen_antti/status/1489708252325715977?s=20&t=TlUaI8UYmjg4_VyXe6ffag
That is £26bn of income that needs to be raised just to keep the current welfare system going. For a population of 5million that's £5,000 per head that needs to be raised before the number increases as pensioners and children are excluded.
Even his spin doctor only gives him six months.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1490300061682913280
https://twitter.com/peston/status/1490267691193712645
Personally, as someone else pointed out below, Alex Salmond (and you) have a credible answer i.e. we will pay it ourselves. Ok, questions over revenues but that is for Scotland to sort and the same question applied to Ireland posr-1922. I think where the annoyance with Sturgeon is coming from is she knows her answer hasn't got a hope in hell's chance of being adopted and so she is taking everyone for a ride (including Scots who want independence).
As head of state, Queen Elizabeth II must rise above the political fray, playing a largely ceremonial role by formally appointing ministers despite having no say over who gets the jobs, and unquestioningly setting out her elected government’s legislative agenda.
But that doesn’t mean the British monarch doesn’t want to know Westminster’s hottest gossip.
https://www.politico.eu/article/how-queen-elizabeth-gets-her-own-london-playbook-political-gossip/
And as kle4 adroitly noted, I'm a fan of Scottish Independence. I think Scotland and England would make better neighbours than the current constitutional mess and that Scottish politics in particular would be more mature and responsible post independence (even if it's a mess for a few years like Brexit).
So when I'm criticising this I am, like malcolmg should be, doing so from frustration that this bollocks is hindering any potential independence referendum. Not out of fear that this bollocks will be believed.
I see it's all about indyref2 but have to go to deal with other stuff. But for now - I see someone is using the pronoun "we". "We did not fight a war with Denmark until Nelson's time since." As Tonto famously said, who's this 'we'? Notably in view of the Battle of Largs 1263, Scotland vs Denmark, a fixture comprehensively won by the home side. Not to mention Clontarf 1214 in which the Nirish should get some credit in view of the participation of Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill and his army, I would think.
Macron hints that the West has to make concessions to Putin. “We have to be very realistic. We will not obtain unilateral moves, but it is essential to avoid a deterioration of the situation before building mechanisms and reciprocal gestures of trust.” 1/2
https://twitter.com/StuartKLau/status/1490298491855380482?s=20&t=TlUaI8UYmjg4_VyXe6ffag
Since Russia has ignored or broken every agreement it has made with Ukraine, why?
Scotland only became we at the Act of Union in 1707 and Ireland at the Act of Union in 1800 (then only Northern Ireland in Ireland was we after 1921)
“They have asked that NATO goes back to its 1997 borders. Well, this is outrageous. It means that half of the members in NATO shouldn't be in NATO,” Kallas said.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/01/estonia-prime-minister-sanctions-moscow-00004082
Basically saying, 'It is not helpful when people focus on the PM and the government cock up'. Gods forbid people should feel that is relevant.
We know where the Ukrainian refugees can stay when Russia invades…
What I struggle to see is what sort of concession would work, since the main demands are insane, and don't really lend themselves to half measures to be offered in their place.
Politics would change post independence, quite dramatically. The problem is the independence issue has now poisoned the well so that issues of tax and spend, healthcare, education, law and order etc aren't shaping votes in the way they should instead people are voting on constitutional matters.
Resolve the constitutional questions and people become accountable. Same reasons I ended up backing Brexit.
The Second Anglo-Dutch War 1665 - 1667
The Third Anglo-Dutch War 1672 - 1674
The Franco-Dutch War 1675 - 1678
The Great Northern War 1700 - 1720 (although in fairness we fought both with and against the Danes at times in that one)
You mean 100,000 soldiers on the border? Because as someone living very close to it I'm wondering what the Air BnB possibilities might be...
I'm sure you are also aware that the battle to which I referred was but one in a long drawn out war from 865 or thereabouts until after the Conquest in 1066.
On such days, PB usually reverts to either a) Brexit, or b) Scotland. I see today is Scotland, featuring the entirely hypothetical "what if....pensions" debate. Preferable to Brexit though, in my opinion, even if roughly as pointless this far ahead of a referendum.
What's not clear though is the degree to which the EU is actually happy with the idea. I can easily imagine that a 'not for a few years' message might be being conveyed behind the scenes. Brexit was clearly a massive distraction for the EU, and there are big issues ahead for it without opening up a new can of worms.
Trying to outsource national security by joining NATO is a risky project. It is a massive border to patrol and NATO are not exactly strong and reliable. Furthermore, Finland would be in a weak position in NATO, contributing little, and asking for a lot in return. I think that Putin would see Finland joining NATO as a sign of weakness and lack of confidence. All in all, abandoning the 70 plus year old current policy of neutrality would amount to an expression of weakness and not strength.
If Scotland left the UK, the UK government would carry right on. There would be no legal way of changing that status, whatever the SNP claimed.
Even also combining all the Anglo Dutch Wars, England still fought fewer wars against the Danes and Dutch than against the French and Scots
Not sure what is in it for Russia.
Probably about time we dropped the "United" from our name before someone makes a complaint to the ASA! We are as bitterly divided a nation as the USA and, like them, all the weaker for it.
Amazing how much has changed in 30 years.
The UK state pension would cost £200k+ to buy privately, for some much more.
Hence the AUKUS deal needs to be expanded to create a NATO of the Pacific including Japan, Singapore and South Korea, maybe even India too
The strategic mistake - and it was a big one - was not offering NATO membership to Russia. Even EU membership. That might have made a very considerable difference both to the attitude of Yeltsin and the course of his government.
Had Ukraine's political leadership had a similar orientation to the West in the years after the break-up of the USSR, then I am sure that it would also be in a much better place now.
There is no security for anyone, if there is not security for everyone. The more people we can include in collective security the better for ourselves.
An almost comically transparent attempt to adapt the previous spin, on Boris being a "prime minister for the big calls", to the unavoidably obvious crises that are staring everyone in the face. It won't achieve much, though, because the instant preposterousness of the prime minister being the man to tackle the big crises he himself created defeats it even before he's begun.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/06/give-boris-johnson-time-to-fix-his-crises-says-iain-duncan-smith
https://www.gov.uk/voluntary-national-insurance-contributions
For example, you can get citizenship in France in just two years, if you complete a postgraduate course at a French university. That will return you the rights within the EU foregone by Brexit as a UK citizen.
Fake news?
And if you think the line shouldn't be drawn at Lithuania, where DO you think the line should be drawn? Should we help defend Finland from Russian aggression? Poland? England's oldest enemy, Denmark? Belgium? Jersey? Kent?
You have to admit that the line has to be drawn somewhere. I think that line should not be "wherever Russia feels like stopping... for now", and it should be instead "sovereign democratic states who actively seek our help". I await with interest a better idea, but given those two choices I will always advocate for the latter.
Scotland 6
Brexit 5
PR 5
Pineapple 5
Doxxing 5
Kier/Keir 5
Boris 5
So that makes Scotland the clear winner and deserving of a parliamentary majority.
Anyway have to go again ...
It would certainly be strategically good for the EU to have multiple EU nations bordering an England outside the EU.