Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Trust matters. – politicalbetting.com

1246

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,785
    Just reading up on the Russell murders. I don’t think Bellfield was the perpetrator.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,698
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    Facebook shutting down in Europe would be an enormous win for Europe.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,367
    maaarsh said:

    Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.

    Tbf a lot of Scotland's financial services industry has spent the last decade quietly doing just as you say, at least in terms of where the decision maker and registered addresses are concerned.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963
    tlg86 said:

    Just reading up on the Russell murders. I don’t think Bellfield was the perpetrator.

    As I recall he was fingered before but his then girlfriend - who shopped him for the killing of at least one of his victims - is adamant they were together on that day. So it does seem improbable. More likely he's attention seeking in the hope of getting a payment from a newspaper to improve his prison cell.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916
    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144
    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.

    As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
    Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
    And ultimately that is because the SNP don't care about the facts. The current government doesn't want a referendum. Creative tension between a pair of disgraced liars under police investigation suits both Sturgeon and Johnson rather well. It lets them play to their galleries and ignore the actual problems we have.

    I think we all know that the worst imaginable outcome for the SNP would be a further referendum with a narrow 'yes' vote. They'll pull every trick in the book to avoid that. If a referendum block in Downing Street fails, by promising the unicorns they are trying to make any winning margin as wide as possible.

    And even if that's never needed, it's nice red meat to their dafter supporters and deflects awkward questions about the politicisation of the judiciary, the weakness of Scotland's education system and exactly where that £600k has gone.
    It's baffling that you could actually convince yourself that the SNP's nightmare scenario is a vote for independence. You are obviously wrong and I find it strange that someone even needs to tell you that.
    Voting for Indy by a narrow margin? You think that would be easy? It would be a case of 'be careful what you wish for.' Brexit on acid by a tiny majority could easily be disastrous for Scotland.

    Whichever side wins the next referendum if it's not to cause endless trouble it needs to be decisive.
    It only needs 50%+1 of those voting.
    Ah, so the 2014 referendum was decisive after all.

    So why are we even talking about this?
    They are scared as they know another one is on its way and they are shi**ing their pants that teh result will be different.
    I personally don't care at present but will not just accept blatant lies and stupidity on the topic by half witted frothing unionists who know nothing of Scotland.
    Because only your side is allowed to lie.
    I fail to understand who "your side" is, I have no side other than I personally want Scotland to be independent. The clowns on here are spouting lies, I merely state that no-one especially not the crooked UK government have any clue of the real numbers and what the budgets etc would look like after independence. At this point everything is decided by Westminster so no-one has any idea whatsoever of what a Scottish budget would comprise.
    I take a slightly optimistic view that it would not be as bad as dim saddo's pretend it would be.
    Share with us your great economic credentials please? You throw around offensive words about everyone else who disagrees with you, but, sorry, you really are easily seen as the most stupid poster on here with the least evidence of having any indepth knowledge of anything. You throw around words like moron and cretin without understanding what they mean, but it is apparent to everyone here that if these offensive words apply to anyone they apply to you most.

    You have never once engaged with another poster and beaten them on argument that I have seen, because you are fundamentally incapable of doing so. In the absence of being able to do so you are just rude. You are a silly angry little man and everyone on here thinks you are a bigger laughing stock than Boris Johnson and Alex Salmond put together. I imagine there are quite a few people who are in favour of Scottish Independence who cringe every time you post.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,698
    edited February 6
    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963
    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    We haven't got a pot to piss in right now.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,785
    edited February 6
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Just reading up on the Russell murders. I don’t think Bellfield was the perpetrator.

    As I recall he was fingered before but his then girlfriend - who shopped him for the killing of at least one of his victims - is adamant they were together on that day. So it does seem improbable. More likely he's attention seeking in the hope of getting a payment from a newspaper to improve his prison cell.
    Yes, and I don’t think Lin Russell was his type. He went for blondes (or at least, not brunettes).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916
    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Of course, a large part of what is called Scotland's economy in the current figures, would move over the border in the event of independance. All those nice financial services jobs are entirely dependant on BoE oversight, and any rUK Prime Minister not immediately withdrawing support for foreign FS firms would be insane.

    Of course, it's entirely possible for Scotland to create its own central bank. There would certainly be the incentive for it.
    Of course, they definitely won't want anything to do with the Bank of ENGLAND.

    The Problem is FS is 7% of their economy and every single institution domiciled there will move away instantly or face a capital flight from investors, as the new central bank will have no credibility after years of claiming they'll just use the £.
    I don't think Scotland will go for the UK pound post-independence, and I don't think there will be capital flight. I think the only thing that would scare off big financial firms would be if they felt there would be no more market for insurance, banking, investments, private pensions. I really don't see anything in any of the mainstream political parties that presages such a turn away from capitalism. Perhaps you think TUSC will suddenly rise up from 2,500 votes to seizing power? I suspect they probably won't.
    You think investors would leave funds in ABRDN when it overnight switched regulatory oversight from the Bank of England, so a new Scottish Bank entirely in the control of a government which will be facing a massive deficit with a new currency desperately trying to find a level and viewing all options as on the table in such a crisis.

    Yeah, sounds super stable, I'd definitely leave my cash there and keep my fingers crossed.
    Let's drill down into what you mean by "overnight". The actual day of independence wouldn't happen for some years after a vote. The immediate post-vote landscape would be very much a case of "plan for every eventuality, and watch how things unfold". Which means that yes, of course any sensible firm would make plans to leave. Not as a decision, but as a precaution. And such plans would be good pressure on negotiators to get things right.
    It's a strange thing to imagine that the views of large employers wouldn't be central in the planning for what Day 1 would look like. The kind of capital flight you imagine would be a massive failure of all parties, not just the governments involved. I think there would be a number of parties that would regard this as a huge opportunity.

    That's the truth that nobody wants to admit to on either side. Risk and opportunity come hand in hand.
    The opportunity would all be on the rUK side - they would be mad to not entice as much business across as possible, and given more or less the only reason there is an FS industy in Scotland is because it falls under the trusted BoE regulatory regime, the average investor in said firms (who is not Scottish) would be voting with their feet.

    The people running those firms know this and will act accordingly to avoid it. The idea that there's some magic negotiating path which makes everyone feel super calm leaving their cash where a new government controled Bank of Scotland can forcibly convert them to independance bonds is just childish.
    Imagine being in the room to help design a new financial services regulatory regime. You could push to copy the bits of the BoE you like, discard the bits you don't like. I don't know about you, but that smells like opportunity.
    I don't doubt for a minute that some won't like the risk, you're right there. But there's really nothing stopping the likes of NatWest having a presence in both countries, like they already do. Big companies don't flee from a decent market, they make the most of it. Private enterprise is really good at this sort of thing, which is why the big thing that would worry me is if this was a big socialist project, to turn Scotland into a Corbyn paradise. It clearly isn't anything like that, which is why I tend to side with the nationalists on this issue in thinking of it as largely an exercise in stoking fear.
    The Scottish people would still need retail banking - the day-to-day of current accounts, loans and mortgages - and that business would indeed remain in Scotland. The investment sector though, that would disappear to somewhere regulated by the BoE almost overnight. Maybe some Scots might like the higher interest rates on savings that would be available in local currency.
    Regulatory regimes can be copied. But something that is less mobile is the expertise in things like asset servicing and investment management. Scotland has experience and excellence in these areas, which isn't going to all just up sticks and leave. People don't just move from Edinburgh to London en masse just because the senior management want it. If they were minded to abandon their talent then those companies that want to stay or move into Scotland would have an easy time with recruitment.
    There's a big disincentive to firms just moving hundreds of miles like that, which I believe Remainers failed to take account of when they made their most doomy predictions about everything moving to Frankfurt.
    The EU thought they could regulate London out of existence. What the Brexit experience has shown, is that London’s financial centre is unique, massive, and isn’t going anywhere, if anything it’s getting bigger as EU banks expand London offices.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    Aslan said:

    Facebook shutting down in Europe would be an enormous win for Europe.

    Shutting down in Europe != Blocking those with European IPs from accessing the service
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,677
    edited February 6
    Hey - if rUK are going to continue funding Scottish pensions, we should all probably have a say in “independence”, right?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Just reading up on the Russell murders. I don’t think Bellfield was the perpetrator.

    As I recall he was fingered before but his then girlfriend - who shopped him for the killing of at least one of his victims - is adamant they were together on that day. So it does seem improbable. More likely he's attention seeking in the hope of getting a payment from a newspaper to improve his prison cell.
    Yes, and I don’t think Lin Russell was his type. He went for blondes (or at least, not brunettes).
    Hasn't he also confessed to a series of other crimes he transparently didn't commit?

    I'm not sure why this is getting so much media prominence, tbh. Doesn't say much about the integrity of our media.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,168
    The SNP explanation for why their pensions policy hasn’t changed is basically ‘when I said I’d get you a round of drinks I didn’t mean I’d pay for them, I only meant I’d go to the bar.’ It’s embarrassing.

    https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1490324359021568000?s=20&t=3CIWHX3EJzMi9vZ-m197aQ
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    Meatballs

    - A bunch of spring onions
    - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
    - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
    - 2 big garlic cloves
    - A tablespoon of salt
    - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.

    1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
    2) Add the paste to

    - 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
    - 500g beef mince meat

    3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
    4) Oven to 200c.
    5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
    6) Given them 25 minute
    7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
    8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside

    Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,410
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Just reading up on the Russell murders. I don’t think Bellfield was the perpetrator.

    As I recall he was fingered before but his then girlfriend - who shopped him for the killing of at least one of his victims - is adamant they were together on that day. So it does seem improbable. More likely he's attention seeking in the hope of getting a payment from a newspaper to improve his prison cell.
    Yes, and I don’t think Lin Russell was his type. He went for blondes (or at least, not brunettes).
    Hasn't he also confessed to a series of other crimes he transparently didn't commit?

    I'm not sure why this is getting so much media prominence, tbh. Doesn't say much about the integrity of our media.
    First, it isn't getting so much media prominence. The biggest story seems to be that the person we thought for the last 15 years will be Charles's queen consort will be. Second, it is news.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047

    IshmaelZ said:

    Just caught up with Kwarteng telling Phillips that Steve Barclay is "one of the most honest ministers we have." You'd hope he would pretend to think they were all level pegging at the top of the scale. I mean, "one of the most honest solicitors I know" doesn't really sound right.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures. Extremely bizarrely, William Glenn has got me in the mood for listening to more Sheena Easton numbers today, and this is another thing Sheena tells us in another of her songs.
    My wife wrote one of Sheena Easton's top 40 songs.....
    An '80s belter ? I wonder if Queen Shena came back in the '90s.
    Early 80s.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,168
    edited February 6

    Meatballs

    - A bunch of spring onions
    - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
    - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
    - 2 big garlic cloves
    - A tablespoon of salt
    - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.

    1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
    2) Add the paste to

    - 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
    - 500g beef mince meat

    3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
    4) Oven to 200c.
    5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
    6) Given them 25 minute
    7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
    8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside

    Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.

    Looks delicious - but a tablespoon of salt?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO FUND

    Ask yourself: if your bank sues you to recover your overdraft, how far would you expect to get with a defence that, yes, the money is owing but I have no fund set aside to pay you?

    Then ask yourself: as pension funds typically invest in gilts what would be the point in swapping a promise by the government to pay, for a promise by the government to pay?

    Take your time.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,765
    rcs1000 said:

    Aslan said:

    Facebook shutting down in Europe would be an enormous win for Europe.

    Shutting down in Europe != Blocking those with European IPs from accessing the service
    Hey @rcs1000, if you speak to your dad could you get him to check his PB messages please? I have PM'ed him a question about the gathering on the 2nd March and I don't know how else to get an answer.

    Thanks!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278

    Meatballs

    - A bunch of spring onions
    - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
    - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
    - 2 big garlic cloves
    - A tablespoon of salt
    - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.

    1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
    2) Add the paste to

    - 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
    - 500g beef mince meat

    3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
    4) Oven to 200c.
    5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
    6) Given them 25 minute
    7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
    8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside

    Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.

    Looks delicious - but a tablespoon of salt?
    In half a kilo of meat.

    The weird belief that salt is so ultra toxic is entertaining.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,001
    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO FUND

    Ask yourself: if your bank sues you to recover your overdraft, how far would you expect to get with a defence that, yes, the money is owing but I have no fund set aside to pay you?

    Then ask yourself: as pension funds typically invest in gilts what would be the point in swapping a promise by the government to pay, for a promise by the government to pay?

    Take your time.
    You probably signed a contract saying you would repay that money. No such thing exists with pensions. They could be cancelled tomorrow and those aged 64 would be out of luck.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,437

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    or you go for the sane approach and Scotland pay 100% of all their pensioners and E&W pay 100% of the pension for those in England and Wales.

    As I've pointed out before, any other solution that results in rUK tax payers sending money to Scottish Pensioners would last as far as the next election and then disappear in a Landslide.
    Sure, in practice you'd do all the sums and make a one off payment rUK to iScot, after which iScot would be in charge of payment. But that in no way affects the sheer muddleheaded wrongness of the "no fund therefore no liability" claim.
    And ultimately that is because the SNP don't care about the facts. The current government doesn't want a referendum. Creative tension between a pair of disgraced liars under police investigation suits both Sturgeon and Johnson rather well. It lets them play to their galleries and ignore the actual problems we have.

    I think we all know that the worst imaginable outcome for the SNP would be a further referendum with a narrow 'yes' vote. They'll pull every trick in the book to avoid that. If a referendum block in Downing Street fails, by promising the unicorns they are trying to make any winning margin as wide as possible.

    And even if that's never needed, it's nice red meat to their dafter supporters and deflects awkward questions about the politicisation of the judiciary, the weakness of Scotland's education system and exactly where that £600k has gone.
    It's baffling that you could actually convince yourself that the SNP's nightmare scenario is a vote for independence. You are obviously wrong and I find it strange that someone even needs to tell you that.
    Look at the £26bn that goes on welfare payments in Scotland and ask where the money for that will come from let alone everything else the Government would need to spend money on.

    Remember that there seems to be only 2,526,000 tax payers https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/scottish-income-tax-outturn-statistics-2019-to-2020/scottish-income-tax-outturn-statistics-2019-to-2020#:~:text=the total number of Scottish,0.1% compared to 2018-29

    It's awkward to say this as MalcolmG and others will attack me but it's very hard to see how any Independent Scotland works without massive reductions in Government Expenditure.
    Awkward my arse, it will come out of Scotland's money that is currently used by Westminster to apy all these things. We don't get any freebies and supposedly we borrow all the money. You claim to be intelligent but cannot grasp that we have a GDP and could live on that and borrow a small amount like every other country. You surely are not deluded enough to think that you are funding Scotland.
    People woul donly comment ( not attack) because it is such obvious hogwash.
    Ask yourself , how do all other countries pay their welfare budgets, how will England do it after independence. Try to think.
    For someone who is “robust” in argumentation, but generally quite sensible in underlying thinking, you have an enormous blind spot when it comes to Sindy


    The fact is, absent the oil, indy Scotland would be fiscally fucked for about ten years (during which time you would be, maybe, awkwardly trying to negotiate EU membership, from a position of great weakness). You don’t know what currency you’d be using, you wouldn’t have a central bank, you’d be cut adrift by the markets, it would be a nightmare, even as you dispute a painful divorce from England, the much larger partner (and those of us who are Brexiteers can vouch for the punitive and vengeful power of the stronger partner)

    There is no way around it. Indy Scotland would face a decade or even two decades of horrible economics, and poorer lives. I am sure in the end you would prosper, but in the short-medium term it would be pretty awful

    Denying this is futile. It is no better than the mad Brexiteers who said “Brexit will be the easiest negotiation in history” or some such bollocks. They were either lying or they were mad. Brexit was always going to be as traumatic as, say, having a baby. Scots who claim similarly hopeful nonsense about Scexit - it will be a breeze - are fucking idiots

    By all means espouse indy. It is an entirely just and noble cause. But don’t lie about it
    On here, we mapped out the big issues before the 2014 referendum that the SNP needed to have answers about.

    They didn't - and consequently lost the referendum.

    Eight years on, they still have no answers to those points. But layered onto this, they are blocking the development of the Cambo oil field. They now aren't even pretending oil's there to underpin the economy as they did in 2014.



    That makes sense

    As soon as it generated oil it’s a shared asset which can be split. While it’s underground it’s still “Scotland’s oil”
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    I think it was the lawyer for Sonny "The Bull" Gravano, who said "My client has a complex relationship with the law"

    Some would have said it was really quite simple.....
  • ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
  • TresTres Posts: 1,367
    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO FUND

    Ask yourself: if your bank sues you to recover your overdraft, how far would you expect to get with a defence that, yes, the money is owing but I have no fund set aside to pay you?

    Then ask yourself: as pension funds typically invest in gilts what would be the point in swapping a promise by the government to pay, for a promise by the government to pay?

    Take your time.
    You probably signed a contract saying you would repay that money. No such thing exists with pensions. They could be cancelled tomorrow and those aged 64 would be out of luck.
    And we would have a new government the day afterwards.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712
    edited February 6

    Meatballs

    - A bunch of spring onions
    - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
    - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
    - 2 big garlic cloves
    - A tablespoon of salt
    - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.

    1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
    2) Add the paste to

    - 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
    - 500g beef mince meat

    3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
    4) Oven to 200c.
    5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
    6) Given them 25 minute
    7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
    8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside

    Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.

    Looks delicious - but a tablespoon of salt?
    In half a kilo of meat.

    The weird belief that salt is so ultra toxic is entertaining.
    That’s a lot of salt. How many are you feeding with this? Two? I’d suggest half a tablespoon is way too much.
    There are issues with salt in diet. To some extent homeostasis helps to regulate, but there is no need to over salt food. We don’t salt veg, pasta etc. Don’t miss it. Really notice it in restaurant food. As I’ve seen said, the most part of why restaurant food tastes so good is salt and sugar...

    Numbers. One tablespoon is 17g. Adult daily recommended salt is 6g.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    You'd presuamably have yourself as fav to spot that it seemed an odd path along the way?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,168

    Meatballs

    - A bunch of spring onions
    - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
    - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
    - 2 big garlic cloves
    - A tablespoon of salt
    - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.

    1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
    2) Add the paste to

    - 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
    - 500g beef mince meat

    3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
    4) Oven to 200c.
    5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
    6) Given them 25 minute
    7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
    8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside

    Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.

    Looks delicious - but a tablespoon of salt?
    In half a kilo of meat.

    The weird belief that salt is so ultra toxic is entertaining.
    In food labelling “High” salt levels start at 1.5g/100g - so 7.5g in half a kilo. A tablespoon of salt is about 17g. I’m sure it tastes delicious but some of us have to watch our salt intake!
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    The UK Government spent the money on the whole of the UK, including Scotland. So if we're going to decide all of a sudden that we want a fund to be set up after all, retrospectively, over a century after the NI system first started, then let's do it properly: create one *before* Scotland has the chance to go and pump eleventeen billion squillion quid into it, so that all the vast benefit liabilities are covered. Then if Scotland or some other piece of the UK drops off a proportionate share of the fund can be parcelled out.

    The problem, of course, is that there isn't enough money in the land to spontaneously create a backdated national insurance fund, but that's also the only fair way to parcel off a gigantic chunk of money with which to pay off Scottish pensioners in the fashion which you describe. Your alternative suggestion - namely, that Scotland should be rewarded for buggering off by having much of its social security budget covered for most of the rest of the century by foreign taxpayers - is absolutely cuckoo.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO FUND

    Ask yourself: if your bank sues you to recover your overdraft, how far would you expect to get with a defence that, yes, the money is owing but I have no fund set aside to pay you?

    Then ask yourself: as pension funds typically invest in gilts what would be the point in swapping a promise by the government to pay, for a promise by the government to pay?

    Take your time.
    You probably signed a contract saying you would repay that money. No such thing exists with pensions. They could be cancelled tomorrow and those aged 64 would be out of luck.
    Yes. What puzzles me is your joyous celebration of the extent to which your insect overlords can screw you over with impunity.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    You'd presuamably have yourself as fav to spot that it seemed an odd path along the way?

    Depends. If I was in need of an eye test, I might not...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    Ashcroft: Boris’s campaign team in 2019 leadership contest, would send Carrie on errands and tell the driver to go the long way around, to keep her out of their meetings.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10482523/Carrie-Johnson-sent-long-taxi-journeys-stop-meddling-Boriss-2019-campaign.html
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,437
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Scottish taxpayers have made contributions to funding current UK pensions. Uk taxpayers have paid pensions to current Scottish residents.

    It’s a pay as you go system.

    Post independence current pensions will continue to be paid by current taxpayers but on an iScot/rUK basis.

    There’s no welshing on obligations here, no angles being played.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,456

    malcolmg said:

    John Swinney here with a pension guarantee, making it clear that if Scotland was independent, the Scottish Government would be responsible for paying Scottish pensions.

    https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1490333633185464328?s=20&t=UZUiMCuOdP33Mqj7yxzcaw

    You really are obsessing bout something that is not happening, you been looking at the private polling numbers again. Have a sherry and lie down for a while.
    Was Swinney lying then or is Sturgeon lying now?

    They can’t both be telling the truth.
    Both cheeks of teh same arse
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,839
    edited February 6

    Meatballs

    - A bunch of spring onions
    - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
    - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
    - 2 big garlic cloves
    - A tablespoon of salt
    - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.

    1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
    2) Add the paste to

    - 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
    - 500g beef mince meat

    3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
    4) Oven to 200c.
    5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
    6) Given them 25 minute
    7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
    8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside

    Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.

    Looks delicious - but a tablespoon of salt?
    In half a kilo of meat.

    The weird belief that salt is so ultra toxic is entertaining.
    That’s a lot of salt. How many are you feeding with this? Two? I’d suggest half a tablespoon is way too much.
    There are issues with salt in diet. To some extent homeostasis helps to regulate, but there is no need to over salt food. We don’t salt veg, pasta etc. Don’t miss it. Really notice it in restaurant food. As I’ve seen said, the most part of why restaurant food tastes so good is salt and sugar...

    Numbers. One tablespoon is 17g. Adult daily recommended salt is 6g.
    A half teaspoon per 250g of meat or fish is a good rule of thumb. Hence I suspect this recipe should be a teaspoon of salt. Unless the meatballs are heart attack specials?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    pigeon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    The UK Government spent the money on the whole of the UK, including Scotland. So if we're going to decide all of a sudden that we want a fund to be set up after all, retrospectively, over a century after the NI system first started, then let's do it properly: create one *before* Scotland has the chance to go and pump eleventeen billion squillion quid into it, so that all the vast benefit liabilities are covered. Then if Scotland or some other piece of the UK drops off a proportionate share of the fund can be parcelled out.

    The problem, of course, is that there isn't enough money in the land to spontaneously create a backdated national insurance fund, but that's also the only fair way to parcel off a gigantic chunk of money with which to pay off Scottish pensioners in the fashion which you describe. Your alternative suggestion - namely, that Scotland should be rewarded for buggering off by having much of its social security budget covered for most of the rest of the century by foreign taxpayers - is absolutely cuckoo.
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    More likely R'lyeh......
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,168
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    John Swinney here with a pension guarantee, making it clear that if Scotland was independent, the Scottish Government would be responsible for paying Scottish pensions.

    https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1490333633185464328?s=20&t=UZUiMCuOdP33Mqj7yxzcaw

    You really are obsessing bout something that is not happening, you been looking at the private polling numbers again. Have a sherry and lie down for a while.
    Was Swinney lying then or is Sturgeon lying now?

    They can’t both be telling the truth.
    Both cheeks of teh same arse
    It was Salmond who backed the Swinney version (Scotland pays).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278

    Meatballs

    - A bunch of spring onions
    - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
    - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
    - 2 big garlic cloves
    - A tablespoon of salt
    - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.

    1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
    2) Add the paste to

    - 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
    - 500g beef mince meat

    3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
    4) Oven to 200c.
    5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
    6) Given them 25 minute
    7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
    8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside

    Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.

    Looks delicious - but a tablespoon of salt?
    In half a kilo of meat.

    The weird belief that salt is so ultra toxic is entertaining.
    That’s a lot of salt. How many are you feeding with this? Two? I’d suggest half a tablespoon is way too much.
    There are issues with salt in diet. To some extent homeostasis helps to regulate, but there is no need to over salt food. We don’t salt veg, pasta etc. Don’t miss it. Really notice it in restaurant food. As I’ve seen said, the most part of why restaurant food tastes so good is salt and sugar...

    Numbers. One tablespoon is 17g. Adult daily recommended salt is 6g.
    I would suggest that eating more than 1/2 kilo of meatballs for one person might be more of an issue.

    Unless you are Bulgarian, maybe.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    More likely R'lyeh......
    Now you're just Dublin down.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,456

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    Her accusation that bitter ex-officials are trying to discredit her can be true without making their claims untrue, though one would hope there is more than rumour or hearsay to substantiate it.
    Quite.

    I think the Sunday times said (but can't find it) that they had THREE sources saying Carrie has now decided enough is enough and wants to throw in the towel. What with that and pressure on MPs to get letters in before the 10 day recess starting Thursday I expect next week to be interesting
    Sorry, but before I get my hopes up I'll remind you that people have been saying "the next few days!" for many weeks.
    Nigel Foremain says he's resigning week of 21 Feb - inside info!
    Oh, I hope not. I'd miss Nigel and Malcolm's arguments.
    Someone would need to explain what an argument was to that utter cretinous imbecilic moron.
    I think any impartial observer would note that I do put together cogent arguments whereas you just spout pathetic insults that would be deemed too unintellectual for the average 8 year old. I really shouldn't engage with you because you are the PB pub bore, but every time you tap one of your pathetic attempts at repost you simply remind everyone on here that not only are you a silly angry little man, but that you clearly have a brain that is of such low capacity that an amoeba would look like a Nobel prize winner. Most people on here are interesting in some way. If anyone ever needed evidence of the type of small brained prejudiced unpleasant fuckwit that follows Alex Salmond they only need look at some of your posts.
    Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, jog on Loser
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712

    Meatballs

    - A bunch of spring onions
    - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
    - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
    - 2 big garlic cloves
    - A tablespoon of salt
    - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.

    1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
    2) Add the paste to

    - 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
    - 500g beef mince meat

    3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
    4) Oven to 200c.
    5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
    6) Given them 25 minute
    7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
    8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside

    Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.

    Looks delicious - but a tablespoon of salt?
    In half a kilo of meat.

    The weird belief that salt is so ultra toxic is entertaining.
    That’s a lot of salt. How many are you feeding with this? Two? I’d suggest half a tablespoon is way too much.
    There are issues with salt in diet. To some extent homeostasis helps to regulate, but there is no need to over salt food. We don’t salt veg, pasta etc. Don’t miss it. Really notice it in restaurant food. As I’ve seen said, the most part of why restaurant food tastes so good is salt and sugar...

    Numbers. One tablespoon is 17g. Adult daily recommended salt is 6g.
    I would suggest that eating more than 1/2 kilo of meatballs for one person might be more of an issue.

    Unless you are Bulgarian, maybe.
    To be clear I think 250g, i,e serves two, gives 8.5 g of salt, ignoring any other source ( or sauce). So still loads. Even if you are frugal and serving four, it’s still over half your salt in one hit.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,698
    A
    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO FUND

    Ask yourself: if your bank sues you to recover your overdraft, how far would you expect to get with a defence that, yes, the money is owing but I have no fund set aside to pay you?

    Then ask yourself: as pension funds typically invest in gilts what would be the point in swapping a promise by the government to pay, for a promise by the government to pay?

    Take your time.
    I haven't signed any contract about my NICs/income tax going towards my State pension.

    I think you live in a world where everything is fair and proper. You can't accept a harsh political reality.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,839
    Tres said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO FUND

    Ask yourself: if your bank sues you to recover your overdraft, how far would you expect to get with a defence that, yes, the money is owing but I have no fund set aside to pay you?

    Then ask yourself: as pension funds typically invest in gilts what would be the point in swapping a promise by the government to pay, for a promise by the government to pay?

    Take your time.
    You probably signed a contract saying you would repay that money. No such thing exists with pensions. They could be cancelled tomorrow and those aged 64 would be out of luck.
    And we would have a new government the day afterwards.
    Well, four or five years later, tbf
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,888
    edited February 6
    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    You'd presuamably have yourself as fav to spot that it seemed an odd path along the way?

    Depends. If I was in need of an eye test, I might not...
    I think PB expects you not necessarily to be on top from, but at least on form without imagined handicaps.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    You'd presuamably have yourself as fav to spot that it seemed an odd path along the way?

    Depends. If I was in need of an eye test, I might not...
    I think PB expects you not necessarily to be on top from, but at least on form without imagined handicaps.
    Flesh wounds are of course excepted.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,456
    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Aslan said:

    Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP
    UK deficit: 14% of GDP

    Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
    Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
    The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either.
    You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
    There you go again... It is not the case that any of the CEE states has yet acheived economic numbers anywhere close to the UK, and I have been involved in this region for over 40 years in one way or another. Slovenia, the wealthiest CEE economy per capita had in 2020 a GDP/capita of USD 25,459 and the UK USD 40, 428. Bulgaria´s 2020 GDP/capita was only USD 10,006. These by the way are pretty good numbers and reflect nearly 3 decades of economic restructuring and growth.

    So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
    I am not sure who these "Nats" you speak of , however on CEE you need to get a grip, what does GDP have to do with it , why did you omit standard of living. One little example, in Bulgaria you can have 3 years maternity leave, full pay yaer 1 , minimum wage year 2 , self funded year 3. Poor indeed compared to our wonderful UK deal. Your other mince re how I am going to deal with tehm, hint , I am not and never will be in teh Government running Scotland. The government running Scotland after independence will publish their plans which you will be able to read. Not wild swivelled eyed ramblings of half witted numpties who think they are experts on the world, but teh real peole enacting it.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712
    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    You'd presuamably have yourself as fav to spot that it seemed an odd path along the way?

    Depends. If I was in need of an eye test, I might not...
    I think PB expects you not necessarily to be on top from, but at least on form without imagined handicaps.
    Well, TBF there has never yet been a serious problem with my eyes except sometimes I get severe migraines.

    Hearing now, that's different.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,556
    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    I'm boycotting the Genocide Games.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,839
    Eabhal said:

    A

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO FUND

    Ask yourself: if your bank sues you to recover your overdraft, how far would you expect to get with a defence that, yes, the money is owing but I have no fund set aside to pay you?

    Then ask yourself: as pension funds typically invest in gilts what would be the point in swapping a promise by the government to pay, for a promise by the government to pay?

    Take your time.
    I haven't signed any contract about my NICs/income tax going towards my State pension.

    I think you live in a world where everything is fair and proper. You can't accept a harsh political reality.
    I’m a member of one of the largest pension schemes in the country - the Royal Mail scheme, and we had a very big fund, built up over many decades of investing the contributions from Royal Mail and post office employees.

    Sadly Osborne thought it would be a jolly wheeze to nick the fund to contribute toward balancing his austerity books, and henceforth our pensions could be paid for by future taxpayers. So the fund has long since disappeared and those of you who are taxpayers will shortly be paying my pension, for which I am most grateful.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,698
    Why the hell are the SNP bringing up pensions, one of the few issues that genuinely scares older (voting) Scots, in the middle of a crisis for a UK PM?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    More likely R'lyeh......
    Now you're just Dublin down.
    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    You'd presuamably have yourself as fav to spot that it seemed an odd path along the way?

    Depends. If I was in need of an eye test, I might not...
    I think PB expects you not necessarily to be on top from, but at least on form without imagined handicaps.
    Flesh wounds are of course excepted.
    You don't have to.... Black Knight anyone on this forum....
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Eabhal said:

    A

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO FUND

    Ask yourself: if your bank sues you to recover your overdraft, how far would you expect to get with a defence that, yes, the money is owing but I have no fund set aside to pay you?

    Then ask yourself: as pension funds typically invest in gilts what would be the point in swapping a promise by the government to pay, for a promise by the government to pay?

    Take your time.
    I haven't signed any contract about my NICs/income tax going towards my State pension.

    I think you live in a world where everything is fair and proper. You can't accept a harsh political reality.
    Whereas you live in a world where the harder your insect overlords give it to you the better you like it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,631

    Meatballs

    - A bunch of spring onions
    - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
    - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
    - 2 big garlic cloves
    - A tablespoon of salt
    - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.

    1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
    2) Add the paste to

    - 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
    - 500g beef mince meat

    3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
    4) Oven to 200c.
    5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
    6) Given them 25 minute
    7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
    8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside

    Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.

    Looks delicious - but a tablespoon of salt?
    In half a kilo of meat.

    The weird belief that salt is so ultra toxic is entertaining.
    That’s a lot of salt. How many are you feeding with this? Two? I’d suggest half a tablespoon is way too much.
    There are issues with salt in diet. To some extent homeostasis helps to regulate, but there is no need to over salt food. We don’t salt veg, pasta etc. Don’t miss it. Really notice it in restaurant food. As I’ve seen said, the most part of why restaurant food tastes so good is salt and sugar...

    Numbers. One tablespoon is 17g. Adult daily recommended salt is 6g.
    I would suggest that eating more than 1/2 kilo of meatballs for one person might be more of an issue.

    Unless you are Bulgarian, maybe.
    Have you spent time in the States Malmesbury? Their tablespoons are our dessert spoons. Sounds nice though. I am all for salt. Not table salt though. No trace minerals and has horrid anti-caking agents.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916

    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
    The Olympic motto is “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, not “Impress The Judges”.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712
    edited February 6
    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
    The Olympic motto is “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, not “Impress The Judges”.
    Also slightly harder to rig things if someone, say, crosses a line first...
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,698
    malcolmg said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Aslan said:

    Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP
    UK deficit: 14% of GDP

    Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
    Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
    The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either.
    You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
    There you go again... It is not the case that any of the CEE states has yet acheived economic numbers anywhere close to the UK, and I have been involved in this region for over 40 years in one way or another. Slovenia, the wealthiest CEE economy per capita had in 2020 a GDP/capita of USD 25,459 and the UK USD 40, 428. Bulgaria´s 2020 GDP/capita was only USD 10,006. These by the way are pretty good numbers and reflect nearly 3 decades of economic restructuring and growth.

    So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
    I am not sure who these "Nats" you speak of , however on CEE you need to get a grip, what does GDP have to do with it , why did you omit standard of living. One little example, in Bulgaria you can have 3 years maternity leave, full pay yaer 1 , minimum wage year 2 , self funded year 3. Poor indeed compared to our wonderful UK deal. Your other mince re how I am going to deal with tehm, hint , I am not and never will be in teh Government running Scotland. The government running Scotland after independence will publish their plans which you will be able to read. Not wild swivelled eyed ramblings of half witted numpties who think they are experts on the world, but teh real peole enacting it.
    So we'll only find out what the plan is after independence?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Polruan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    I'm not sure I understand this. If she's not meddling in Government then surely she has no role in her husband's premiership so can't really be discredited; if she is then it's OK to critique the impact of her involvement.

    There's no question that Johnson (Mr) is responsible for how he does his job, but it's no secret that Johnson (Mrs) continues to see herself as a legitimate participant in Conservative politics.
    Mrs Johnson is being really silly wading into this herself. Lord Ashcroft and Dominic Cummings both have a pile of evidence with regard to her behaviour in the Court of Boris.

    She can’t say she isn’t a political operator, given she was on the party’s communications team, running it for one election, and is now out today briefing the press.
    Lord Ashcroft has had to withdraw material from previous published biographies due to the material in question being based on some-bike-said-he'd-heard-that-some-other-bloke-had-seen-a-photo. And then one of the people in that chain denying that he'd ever said anything of the kind.

    Dominic Cummings has a complicated relationship with the truth.

    I'm not sure who I'd believe out of the 3.
    Dominic Cummings doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth.

    As for 'who I'd believe,' I think that's a false premise. I would generally assume all of them are lying unless I had hard evidence to the contrary.
    That's an interesting conundrum. If all three gave you different directions to Dublin which way would you go?
    Easy. I'd check a map instead.

    Now, it might be that the route I worked out coincided with what one of them said. Which would be hard evidence that they were not lying.

    But I wouldn't be comfortable without checking. I'd be worried about ending up in N'Djamena instead.
    You'd presuamably have yourself as fav to spot that it seemed an odd path along the way?

    Depends. If I was in need of an eye test, I might not...
    I think PB expects you not necessarily to be on top from, but at least on form without imagined handicaps.
    Flesh wounds are of course excepted.
    You don't have to.... Black Knight anyone on this forum....
    I'd not risk a fight for my money. Hell not even for my life.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278

    Meatballs

    - A bunch of spring onions
    - A piece of ginger the size of your little finger
    - One red chilli - slice it down the middle, get the seeds out with a spoon.
    - 2 big garlic cloves
    - A tablespoon of salt
    - 2 tablespoons sesame oil.

    1) Put the above in the blender and blend until a smoothish paste
    2) Add the paste to

    - 1 tablespoon full of sesame seeds.
    - 500g beef mince meat

    3) Kneed it into the meat until an even mix. Make into a small balls, 2cm or so across.
    4) Oven to 200c.
    5) Put the meatballs on flat tray, towards the top of the oven.
    6) Given them 25 minute
    7) turn the oven to grill and back it up to 240
    8) Give it 7-8 minutes to brown the outside

    Serve with anything you feel like cooking to go with meatballs.

    Looks delicious - but a tablespoon of salt?
    In half a kilo of meat.

    The weird belief that salt is so ultra toxic is entertaining.
    That’s a lot of salt. How many are you feeding with this? Two? I’d suggest half a tablespoon is way too much.
    There are issues with salt in diet. To some extent homeostasis helps to regulate, but there is no need to over salt food. We don’t salt veg, pasta etc. Don’t miss it. Really notice it in restaurant food. As I’ve seen said, the most part of why restaurant food tastes so good is salt and sugar...

    Numbers. One tablespoon is 17g. Adult daily recommended salt is 6g.
    I would suggest that eating more than 1/2 kilo of meatballs for one person might be more of an issue.

    Unless you are Bulgarian, maybe.
    Have you spent time in the States Malmesbury? Their tablespoons are our dessert spoons. Sounds nice though. I am all for salt. Not table salt though. No trace minerals and has horrid anti-caking agents.
    American low end food ingredients are utter, utter shit.

    If you go look for quality, it can be a bit hard to find, but often not that much more expensive.

    There are a few paces, New York, and San. Fran. among them, which have the costs-more-than-heroin-by-weight type delis/food ingredients places that you find in London.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,677
    As much as I value and respect the Queen, this seems to be quite a large privacy breach?

    https://twitter.com/amateuradam/status/1490394034900197388?s=21
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,698
    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    A

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO FUND

    Ask yourself: if your bank sues you to recover your overdraft, how far would you expect to get with a defence that, yes, the money is owing but I have no fund set aside to pay you?

    Then ask yourself: as pension funds typically invest in gilts what would be the point in swapping a promise by the government to pay, for a promise by the government to pay?

    Take your time.
    I haven't signed any contract about my NICs/income tax going towards my State pension.

    I think you live in a world where everything is fair and proper. You can't accept a harsh political reality.
    Whereas you live in a world where the harder your insect overlords give it to you the better you like it.
    You think our insect overlords will show mercy and contrition after independence?

    The English, private school, colonial ego will be badly bruised. They'll revert to type: divide and conquer.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,888
    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
    The Olympic motto is “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, not “Impress The Judges”.
    What an idiot
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
    The Olympic motto is “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, not “Impress The Judges”.
    Also slightly harder to rig things if someone, say, crosses a line first...
    Formula 1 had a pretty good go at it, a couple of months back.

    But yes, sporting results should be decided with a stopwatch or a tape measure.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 470
    The principle of independence should be splitting assets and liabilities, with some special cases (e.g. geographical location of assets).

    That should in theory leave both sides with proportionate national debt, pension obligations and assets. It's unfortunate that state pensions are a liability with no associated asset, but that's the reality. Scotland will need to pay pensions out of day to day taxation and borrowing in the same way rUK does.

    These things can go both ways, such as if rUK wants to continue to house nuclear submarines in Scotland then it will need to negotiate for the rights and likely pay handsomely if it was agreed at all.

    I don't think the payment of pensions would be contentious in reality, it's just a way to play politics.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,888
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
    The Olympic motto is “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, not “Impress The Judges”.
    Also slightly harder to rig things if someone, say, crosses a line first...
    Formula 1 had a pretty good go at it, a couple of months back.

    But yes, sporting results should be decided with a stopwatch or a tape measure.
    You really are being an utter dick

    So ... erm cricket?

    Figure skating has a huge technical merit component.

    But you know what ... I can't be bothered to sit here in a pointless argument with an old bit of gammon who knows nothing about culture and aesthetic beauty, creativity and human endeavour, sport and achievement.

    Or indeed very much about anything in the world beyond their computer screen.

    It really is quite bizarre how some old gammons just sit on here for a fight. Get a life.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,252
    Checks in - you lot are still banging on about pensions - checks out.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278

    As much as I value and respect the Queen, this seems to be quite a large privacy breach?

    https://twitter.com/amateuradam/status/1490394034900197388?s=21

    You didn't read till the end.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,345
    Tres said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    Reposting FPT, because this exquisite example of begging the question, in the traditional sense, deserves better than being left on the tail end of a dead thread.

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm really struggling to understand the viewpoint of those who think rump UK would retain a liability to pay Scottish State Pensions. Another poster made the point quite simply when they asked: "Who would set the rate at which the Scottish State Pension was paid?"

    Suppose that inflation was higher in Scotland than in the rump UK - would Scottish politicians really be happy with seeing pension payments to Scottish pensioners decline in real terms? What if Scottish politicians didn't want to increase the State Pension Retirement age as quickly as in the rump UK - would they really cede this area of policy-making to the rump UK Parliament?

    And there's no way that rump UK could sign a blank cheque to pay any level of increase to a Scottish State Pension - what if Scottish politicians wanted to increase it towards the Western European average?

    Scottish politicians would have to find the money for Scottish state pensions in the Scottish budget if they wanted the independence to make Scottish political decisions over what the level of the pension should be. That's the essence of the Nationalist argument for Independence anyway, so strange for them to try to argue otherwise.

    In what currency would the Scottish State Pension be paid?
    The currency of Scotland Doh!
    Well done, Malc!
    It is hard to believe how stupid these unionists get at times, makes you wonder if they are as bad as they make out or if they just get red rage when Scotland leaving is mentioned. They lose all sense of reality.
    Question from an emigrant as well who has no part to play in it.
    I don't see why the UK would get out of funding the Scot's partial entitlements to our state pension - but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Because there isn’t a “fund” of National Insurance money like there is for a private pension (not strictly true, there’s enough to cover 2 weeks worth of pensions, but that’s it) so state pensions are paid out of current taxation.

    So the SNP are arguing that English tax payers would be paying for Scottish pensions.

    Why?
    The fund issue is a red herring. If I owe you money I owe you money, and it makes not the slightest difference whether I have a pot set aside to pay you or have to make the payment out of income. The one situation where it makes all the difference in the world is if I go bankrupt, because a simple debt gets pro rated down along with other debts whereas a specific fund may be earmarked for you in is entirety. Governments with their own currency cannot go bankrupt.

    Here is how absurd the fund argument is: you say there is no fund, only an unsecured promise by the government to pay. But if you have a pension fund which you want to be as secure as possible where do you invest it? You invest it in gilts. What are gilts? They are unsecured promises by the government to pay.

    Additionally it is misleading to say English taxpayers would be paying Scottish pensions. The government would be paying. The money might originate from English taxpayers, but so what? If I pay you a debt out of earned income the money originates with my employers. That doesn't mean they are paying you. I am.
    Why shouldn't the Scottish Taxpayers take responsibility to pay the state pensions of Scottish Pensioners.

    Would MalcolmG and co deem it fair if we offered the reverse terms to Scotland - you can have a referendum if you accept that on separation you pay the state pension of all rUK pensioners.
    Because Scottish pensioners had a bargain with the UK government: they paid ni contributions in exchange for a future pension. If the UK splits and the obligation is split pro rata to size of country 95% of the obligation stays with rUK, and conversely iS is liable for 5% of e and w pensions.
    It’s not a legal obligation, it’s a political commitment. It can be changed by legislation.

    There is no way the rUK government will accept a binding commitment in treaty to pay pensions in iScotland - if only because it makes it politically impossible to reduce/increase age qualifications in future.
    That's a boring point because anything can be changed by legislation

    2 questions: would you feel good about living in a country which evaded obligations because it could? And how would you feel about your own NI contributions being disregarded in this way? Say there's a movement in 10 years time which says defining countries geographically is very last century, we are going to split the country into youngistan vs oldistan and your nationality depends on your date of birth. Youngistan will keep the vast majority of assets, if oldistan wants to pay itself pensions that is its business. Happy?
    Why wouldn't an independent Scotland be able to honour state pension commitments itself?
    Mmmm, great defence to a debt claim: I may technically owe the money but the Plaintiff has got more than enough already.
    Let's suppose that the UK continues to pay for Scottish State Pensions - why then shouldn't the UK continue to tax Scottish citizens to pay for Scottish pensions?
    Because UK has already had the money, and if it spent it all instead of putting it in a fund that makes NO DIFFERENCE. See above, passim.
    There is no pot!

    The state pension is provided at the whim of HM Government, out of current expenditure. It's there, in the accounts.

    And it would be up to rUK what they want to do with it post indy. They would be under immense public pressure to cease payments to the rebellious Scots.
    I think I have explained 5 times now why "there is no pot" is abject nonsense.
    Show me the pot.

    Show me the massive pension fund. Shouldn't be hard to find.
    I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO FUND

    Ask yourself: if your bank sues you to recover your overdraft, how far would you expect to get with a defence that, yes, the money is owing but I have no fund set aside to pay you?

    Then ask yourself: as pension funds typically invest in gilts what would be the point in swapping a promise by the government to pay, for a promise by the government to pay?

    Take your time.
    You probably signed a contract saying you would repay that money. No such thing exists with pensions. They could be cancelled tomorrow and those aged 64 would be out of luck.
    And we would have a new government the day afterwards.
    That sounds like a plan! Yes, please!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,651

    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
    At least it's not as boring as fucking Cricket!

    Standing around in a field for five days on the trot is NOT a REAL SPORT :lol:
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,470
    edited February 6
    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Aslan said:

    Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP
    UK deficit: 14% of GDP

    Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
    Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
    The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either.
    You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
    There you go again... It is not the case that any of the CEE states has yet acheived economic numbers anywhere close to the UK, and I have been involved in this region for over 40 years in one way or another. Slovenia, the wealthiest CEE economy per capita had in 2020 a GDP/capita of USD 25,459 and the UK USD 40, 428. Bulgaria´s 2020 GDP/capita was only USD 10,006. These by the way are pretty good numbers and reflect nearly 3 decades of economic restructuring and growth.

    So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
    A very persuasive and fact filled argument by Cicero but being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of a vast majority of their countrymen is not acceptable in 2022. If 'sovereignty' trumps the damage Brexit does to the rest of the UK why shouldn't it in Scotland?

    Brexit is screwing all of us. Scotland unlike the rest of the UK have a slim window to avoid the self serving decision made by Johnson and his cronies. If I was Scottish I'd certainly take it. It's got to be worth the risks
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    MaxPB said:

    Checks in - you lot are still banging on about pensions - checks out.

    No we are having an argument about salt in meatballs. And whether following Dominic Cummings road directions would lead you to hell. Literally.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712
    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
    The Olympic motto is “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, not “Impress The Judges”.
    Also slightly harder to rig things if someone, say, crosses a line first...
    Formula 1 had a pretty good go at it, a couple of months back.

    But yes, sporting results should be decided with a stopwatch or a tape measure.
    You really are being an utter dick

    So ... erm cricket?

    Figure skating has a huge technical merit component.

    But you know what ... I can't be bothered to sit here in a pointless argument with an old bit of gammon who knows nothing about culture and aesthetic beauty, creativity and human endeavour, sport and achievement.

    Or indeed very much about anything in the world beyond their computer screen.

    It really is quite bizarre how some old gammons just sit on here for a fight. Get a life.
    Cricket is based on runs scored. Yes there is an umpire involved but he/she doesn’t award runs for how nicely a shot was played. It’s a personal view, but sports that are basically performing arts to me, are not sports.
    You are entitled to think me a gammon if it helps.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712
    MaxPB said:

    Checks in - you lot are still banging on about pensions - checks out.

    Did you score?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,556
    edited February 6
    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
    The Olympic motto is “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, not “Impress The Judges”.
    Also slightly harder to rig things if someone, say, crosses a line first...
    Formula 1 had a pretty good go at it, a couple of months back.

    But yes, sporting results should be decided with a stopwatch or a tape measure.
    You really are being an utter dick

    So ... erm cricket?

    Figure skating has a huge technical merit component.

    But you know what ... I can't be bothered to sit here in a pointless argument with an old bit of gammon who knows nothing about culture and aesthetic beauty, creativity and human endeavour, sport and achievement.

    Or indeed very much about anything in the world beyond their computer screen.

    It really is quite bizarre how some old gammons just sit on here for a fight. Get a life.
    There are lines all over the place in cricket - the boundary, the popping crease, three great big sticks of wood stuck into the ground. It's all lines, so that it's all categorical judgements rather than qualitative ones.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,888
    Anyway, for those of you who aren't sad old lumps of white male gammon, here it is again.

    A quite wonderful piece of technical brilliance and artistic aesthetic merit:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135


    p.s. The subtext behind the criticism of the performance is (of course) racism. The sad old gammon Brexiteers have demeaned themselves and this country.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,327
    Some fabulous Scottish pensions action! Will the agreed value on separation of past contributions be sufficient to fund the liability? No. But will it be zero? No. That's about as far as we can confidently go, I think.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,765
    Eabhal said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Aslan said:

    Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP
    UK deficit: 14% of GDP

    Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
    Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
    The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either.
    You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
    There you go again... It is not the case that any of the CEE states has yet acheived economic numbers anywhere close to the UK, and I have been involved in this region for over 40 years in one way or another. Slovenia, the wealthiest CEE economy per capita had in 2020 a GDP/capita of USD 25,459 and the UK USD 40, 428. Bulgaria´s 2020 GDP/capita was only USD 10,006. These by the way are pretty good numbers and reflect nearly 3 decades of economic restructuring and growth.

    So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
    I am not sure who these "Nats" you speak of , however on CEE you need to get a grip, what does GDP have to do with it , why did you omit standard of living. One little example, in Bulgaria you can have 3 years maternity leave, full pay yaer 1 , minimum wage year 2 , self funded year 3. Poor indeed compared to our wonderful UK deal. Your other mince re how I am going to deal with tehm, hint , I am not and never will be in teh Government running Scotland. The government running Scotland after independence will publish their plans which you will be able to read. Not wild swivelled eyed ramblings of half witted numpties who think they are experts on the world, but teh real peole enacting it.
    So we'll only find out what the plan is after independence?
    They're following the Brexit playbook.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712

    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
    At least it's not as boring as fucking Cricket!

    Standing around in a field for five days on the trot is NOT a REAL SPORT :lol:
    Now, now, only some of the players are standing around at any time. Some are sat down, and not doing anything at all...
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,336
    Roger said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Aslan said:

    Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP
    UK deficit: 14% of GDP

    Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
    Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
    The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either.
    You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
    There you go again... It is not the case that any of the CEE states has yet acheived economic numbers anywhere close to the UK, and I have been involved in this region for over 40 years in one way or another. Slovenia, the wealthiest CEE economy per capita had in 2020 a GDP/capita of USD 25,459 and the UK USD 40, 428. Bulgaria´s 2020 GDP/capita was only USD 10,006. These by the way are pretty good numbers and reflect nearly 3 decades of economic restructuring and growth.

    So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
    A very persuasive and fact filled argument by Cicero but being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of a vast majority of their countrymen is not acceptable in 2022. If 'sovereignty' trumps the damage Brexit does to the rest of the UK why shouldn't it in Scotland?

    Brexit is screwing all of us. Scotland unlike the rest of the UK have a slim window to avoid the self serving decision made by Johnson and his cronies. If I was Scottish I'd certainly take it
    If 62-38 is a “vast majority” I’d love to know what words you would use to describe a 70-30 or 80-20 or 90-10 vote.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,001
    Heathener said:

    Anyway, for those of you who aren't sad old lumps of white male gammon, here it is again.

    A quite wonderful piece of technical brilliance and artistic aesthetic merit:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135


    p.s. The subtext behind the criticism of the performance is (of course) racism. The sad old gammon Brexiteers have demeaned themselves and this country.

    Ah, of course, it was racism.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,651

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Been watching the team figure skating.

    Oh my oh my Kamila Valieva is just astonishing. If you get a chance, do watch her performance today. At 15 she's the second youngest competitor at Beijing and the youngest figure skater but she has such presence on the ice and, as Robin Cousins said, such a believable honest performance. It's breathtaking to watch.

    If you need a filip and escape from the arguing and a reaffirmation about human creativity ... watch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135

    Sadly not a real sport. If you need judges to tell you who won, it doesn’t count.
    The Olympic motto is “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, not “Impress The Judges”.
    Also slightly harder to rig things if someone, say, crosses a line first...
    Formula 1 had a pretty good go at it, a couple of months back.

    But yes, sporting results should be decided with a stopwatch or a tape measure.
    You really are being an utter dick

    So ... erm cricket?

    Figure skating has a huge technical merit component.

    But you know what ... I can't be bothered to sit here in a pointless argument with an old bit of gammon who knows nothing about culture and aesthetic beauty, creativity and human endeavour, sport and achievement.

    Or indeed very much about anything in the world beyond their computer screen.

    It really is quite bizarre how some old gammons just sit on here for a fight. Get a life.
    There are lines all over the place in cricket - the boundary, the popping crease, three great big sticks of wood stuck into the ground. It's all lines, so that it's all categorical judgements rather than qualitative ones.
    LBW?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,252

    MaxPB said:

    Checks in - you lot are still banging on about pensions - checks out.

    Did you score?
    I did, plus an assist, we won! It speaks to how bad the other team was because I'm not very good and out of shape.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Heathener said:

    Anyway, for those of you who aren't sad old lumps of white male gammon, here it is again.

    A quite wonderful piece of technical brilliance and artistic aesthetic merit:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135


    p.s. The subtext behind the criticism of the performance is (of course) racism. The sad old gammon Brexiteers have demeaned themselves and this country.

    Well it didn't take you long to play the racism card, did it?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,556
    carnforth said:

    Roger said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Aslan said:

    Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP
    UK deficit: 14% of GDP

    Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
    Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
    The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either.
    You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
    There you go again... It is not the case that any of the CEE states has yet acheived economic numbers anywhere close to the UK, and I have been involved in this region for over 40 years in one way or another. Slovenia, the wealthiest CEE economy per capita had in 2020 a GDP/capita of USD 25,459 and the UK USD 40, 428. Bulgaria´s 2020 GDP/capita was only USD 10,006. These by the way are pretty good numbers and reflect nearly 3 decades of economic restructuring and growth.

    So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
    A very persuasive and fact filled argument by Cicero but being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of a vast majority of their countrymen is not acceptable in 2022. If 'sovereignty' trumps the damage Brexit does to the rest of the UK why shouldn't it in Scotland?

    Brexit is screwing all of us. Scotland unlike the rest of the UK have a slim window to avoid the self serving decision made by Johnson and his cronies. If I was Scottish I'd certainly take it
    If 62-38 is a “vast majority” I’d love to know what words you would use to describe a 70-30 or 80-20 or 90-10 vote.
    3:2 is a much larger majority than 13:12. What word would you use to describe it?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,001

    carnforth said:

    Roger said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Aslan said:

    Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP
    UK deficit: 14% of GDP

    Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
    Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
    The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either.
    You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
    There you go again... It is not the case that any of the CEE states has yet acheived economic numbers anywhere close to the UK, and I have been involved in this region for over 40 years in one way or another. Slovenia, the wealthiest CEE economy per capita had in 2020 a GDP/capita of USD 25,459 and the UK USD 40, 428. Bulgaria´s 2020 GDP/capita was only USD 10,006. These by the way are pretty good numbers and reflect nearly 3 decades of economic restructuring and growth.

    So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
    A very persuasive and fact filled argument by Cicero but being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of a vast majority of their countrymen is not acceptable in 2022. If 'sovereignty' trumps the damage Brexit does to the rest of the UK why shouldn't it in Scotland?

    Brexit is screwing all of us. Scotland unlike the rest of the UK have a slim window to avoid the self serving decision made by Johnson and his cronies. If I was Scottish I'd certainly take it
    If 62-38 is a “vast majority” I’d love to know what words you would use to describe a 70-30 or 80-20 or 90-10 vote.
    3:2 is a much larger majority than 13:12. What word would you use to describe it?
    To me vast majority would be 9 out of 10, or higher.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,336

    carnforth said:

    Roger said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cicero said:

    malcolmg said:

    Aslan said:

    Scottish deficit: 22% of GDP
    UK deficit: 14% of GDP

    Nobody knows the real numbers, certainly not the crooks running teh show. They use fag packets to work it out. Anyone thinking otherwise is not right in the head.
    Well, you can work out quite a lot from OECD, IMF and World Bank numbers and they are pretty consistent. So, while you might not like the numbers, the reality is that Scotland would need to go through at least 2 decades of restructuring which would be difficult and painful and you can´t just wish that away. You may think it is worth the pain and that is fair enough, but too many Nats just pretend that its unicorns and rainbows all the way from the day we go it alone, and the "RUK will pay our pensions at no cost to the Scottish government" is just the latest example of wildly wishful thinking. I´d respect the Nat position a lot more if they were honest: "it will be hard, but worth it" rather than "we are so fantastic that it will be easy and the gold rolls in from day one", which is nonsense on stilts and as dishonest as the Tories over Brexit.
    The wishful thinking on pensions here is all by unionists, no Scottish person has said anything of the sort.I am happy to go with the fact that all small countries are doing very well with far less resources than Scotland and as you say given we have been ripped off for so long in UK , it will take a while to build up infrastructure, however again I look at all th eeastern European countries who started from scratch not so long ago and nearly all have better livin standards than the UK, so no real issue there either.
    You lot should be more concerned how rump UK will survive and be able to pay its debts once all the services are gone abroad and there is little left other than flipping burgers or civil service/council jobs.
    There you go again... It is not the case that any of the CEE states has yet acheived economic numbers anywhere close to the UK, and I have been involved in this region for over 40 years in one way or another. Slovenia, the wealthiest CEE economy per capita had in 2020 a GDP/capita of USD 25,459 and the UK USD 40, 428. Bulgaria´s 2020 GDP/capita was only USD 10,006. These by the way are pretty good numbers and reflect nearly 3 decades of economic restructuring and growth.

    So nice try, but provably untrue. Scotland and the rest of the UK may have significant structural issues, but the UK economy remains large, diverse and, depending on your source, is between the fifth and seventh largest economy in the world. Again I´d have a bit more respect for the Nat position if they did not keep spouting such mince. Bad tempered bollocks is not a credible economic or political argument. Sure Scotland "could" be an independent country, but the price is high and in my view is not worth it. If, instead of dismissing the facts, you admitted them and told us how you were going to deal with them then maybe you could make a case, but the truth is that pretending these serious problems don´t exist destroys the credibility of any other arguement you make.
    A very persuasive and fact filled argument by Cicero but being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of a vast majority of their countrymen is not acceptable in 2022. If 'sovereignty' trumps the damage Brexit does to the rest of the UK why shouldn't it in Scotland?

    Brexit is screwing all of us. Scotland unlike the rest of the UK have a slim window to avoid the self serving decision made by Johnson and his cronies. If I was Scottish I'd certainly take it
    If 62-38 is a “vast majority” I’d love to know what words you would use to describe a 70-30 or 80-20 or 90-10 vote.
    3:2 is a much larger majority than 13:12. What word would you use to describe it?
    Healthy. Significant. Clear.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,252
    Heathener said:

    Anyway, for those of you who aren't sad old lumps of white male gammon, here it is again.

    A quite wonderful piece of technical brilliance and artistic aesthetic merit:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60277135


    p.s. The subtext behind the criticism of the performance is (of course) racism. The sad old gammon Brexiteers have demeaned themselves and this country.

    What criticism? I read the same article and couldn't see any. Are you seeing things that don't exist?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,631
    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    The Sunday Times
    @thesundaytimes
    NEW: Carrie Johnson has accused “bitter ex-officials” of trying to discredit her with explosive claims that her meddling in government has contributed to the chaos engulfing her husband’s premiership

    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1490358250902016010

    Her accusation that bitter ex-officials are trying to discredit her can be true without making their claims untrue, though one would hope there is more than rumour or hearsay to substantiate it.
    Quite.

    I think the Sunday times said (but can't find it) that they had THREE sources saying Carrie has now decided enough is enough and wants to throw in the towel. What with that and pressure on MPs to get letters in before the 10 day recess starting Thursday I expect next week to be interesting
    Sorry, but before I get my hopes up I'll remind you that people have been saying "the next few days!" for many weeks.
    That is a pretty exciting rumour though. If Carrie has decided, that's it. Dignified resignation imminent. No point in waiting till he gets fined or Cummings reveals more scandals.
This discussion has been closed.