DMCs

Stepped it up last few minutes and got the goal. Some finish not long after a great save from Marciano.

Our pitch looks miles better.

Some goal!

Harsh on Scott Wright imo. I suppose Roofe does need some more game time as he's not got up to speed yet since his injury.

I mean that's a very complex analysis but since there are about 1m pensioners in Scotland it's unlikely that any increase would be huge per pensioner so not enough for them to start businesses and the like. So the extra money would only really be spent in the consumer economy. Which is the same as if that money was given to single parents or school leavers who tend to need the extra money more than pensioners do. Fixing the housing market in Edinburgh would go a long way to increasing it's growth as it's a city that many in the whole UK and beyond have a desire to live in. I mean two of my sisters recently bought a flat each in Edinburgh while I bought in East Renfrewshire. The difference in size and quality of what I got compared to them despite not paying much more is staggering.

The currency issue shows a big problem with the SNP's approach to laying out the post independence plans. The only reason they said for so long that we would use pound sterling after independence was because it polled well. That's despite it being clearly a terrible idea! Essentially their instinct is following the polls rather than to be bold. Compared to improving infrastructure or building housing? It's clear as day which is preferable there and neither is it needed. Ultimately pension policy should be focused on the much bigger issue that young people aren't saving enough. "How do we get young people to save more?" should be the policy question. What we could do is lower their crazy housing costs by building loads of houses and liberalising planning laws. A serious plan for Scottish independence would want Edinburgh to be at least 3 times the size it is.

Balogun's new deal and Simpson being here must mean if we are signing another CB that means one of Goldson or Helander is away.

Anyone have an idea of which vaccines they are getting?

I'm in an interesting position because I voted no in 2014 and I'm still against independence for a number of reasons relating to family and finances. However I think it's got a greater than a 50% chance of happening within the next decade so my position is that engagement and discussion on what that future state looks like is vital. Which is where the pension issue comes in. The last thing we want to do is double the state pension just because someone wanted to get more votes from the elderly. I'd much rather we spent money on something that would have a productive and multiplicative effect on our GDP growth.

Alright pal I needed some time to gather the evidence. In 2013 the SNP Scottish Government said that after independence the Scottish government would take full control of all pensions both current and future. This is actually more than what I've been arguing! I've attached the report. In 2016 you can see that the coalition government pensions minister confirmed what I was saying in this quote: "In the event of a yes vote there would be negotiations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, in line with the Edinburgh Agreement. One area these negotiations would need to focus on is who would take on the liabilities associated with paying the state pension. While there are to be no pre-negotiations, I would think the Scottish people would expect their Government to take on full responsibility for paying pensions to people in Scotland including where liabilities had arisen before independence. Similarly people in the rest of the UK would not be expecting to guarantee or underwrite the pensions of those living in what would then have become a separate country. The security and sustainability of pensions being paid to people in Scotland would, therefore, depend on the ability of Scottish tax payers to fund them." Now that isn't as strong as the 2013 promise of the SNP as it does say subject to negotiations. Link for that is here - http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/scottish-affairs-committee/the-referendum-on-separation-for-scotland/written/10449.html Also see pages 11-14 of the attached 2014 DWP report. Pensions in an Independent Scotland.pdf scotland-analysis-work-and-pensions.pdf

The statements from UK government and DWP pension sources have been very clear on this that new pensions would automatically become the responsibility of the Scottish state after independence. I suspect it's quite likely what we are arguing about will be tested within 10-20 years and I believe I will be proven correct. Could an independent Scottish state afford the current state pension? Maybe but it would require at least one of three things to happen for it affordable long term as Scotland has the oldest population of any of the UK nations and is aging quickest. 1 - strong above average economic growth and for pensions to not be increased above the triple lock. 2 - the aging effect to be slowed or reversed. More immigration would help a lot here but it's a bit of a plaster temporary fix that doesn't solve the problem correctly. What we need is higher birth rates and especially for emigration to be reduced (through incentives rather than any Berlin Wall type coercion I hope) as that could be a big issue for an independent Scotland. For birth rates a big problem is our housing market. 3 - Increasing taxes to pay for increasing state pension costs. I believe this would be a terrible policy but it is one way of dealing with it.

Not exactly. You could theoretically go your entire live without paying a penny of NI and still get a full state pension.

Is that you John Kennedy?

For up to 3 months only and Brexit will have an effect here with no FoM now.

Very indirectly based is what I've been saying. Which is true.

The worrying thing is he seems to be old enough to know better.

This is absurd. Obviously after independence all unemployment benefits would be the responsibility of the Scottish government. No government in the world pays unemployment benefits to those outside of it's jurisdiction. My point was that NI contributions are not directly linked to whether you get benefits like state pension or JSA. Ultimately a policy for Scottish pensions after independence needs to be a realistic one and the idea that we could "double the state pension" (without significant tax rises) as some MSPs have misleading said is incorrect. The state pension already costs 5.5% of GDP and that will only grow if the triple lock is maintained and our demographic trends don't change.

Maybe our makeshift right back will score an own goal otherwise the worst I can see for us is a 0-0 draw.

Staunch. Can only see Sunday going one way now. Hibs lying down to their cousins as usual.

This here illustrates the issue essentially. I haven't contradicted myself as pensions currently made out to pensioners and pensions that could come in the future are totally legally different! One is actually the property of the recipient and if the government failed to pay him what he was due then he could sue and win damages. The other is a promise in the future to give you a benefit which isn't at all legally binding and can be changed by parliament at any time. Which is what has happened in numerous occasions with state pension age increases. It's not like a defined contribution (DC) pension that you get in the private sector where you pay 5% of your salary a month and your employer matches that and that all goes into a pot which is invested in financial instruments hopefully increasing in value over time to beat price inflation. Because there are many people who pay far more in NI than they would ever get in a state pension and vice versa. It's essentially like JSA which is why if/when Scottish independence happened all new pensions would instantly become the responsibility of the new Scottish Government. Maybe there would be a transition period like there was with Brexit so all citizen data could be handed over and the new Scottish DWP all set up and ready but that's how it would work. Why? Because state pensions are paid out of current NI contributions. Imagine someone was employed in UK for 40 years then had to claim JSA in a indy Scotland. Would that person be right in saying that "why isn't the UK gov paying for this as MY taxes were going to them all these years"? No, the responsibility would be entirely on the Scottish government at that point and his previous contributions are totally irrelevant.

He's bricking it from the Champions. Great to see.

If you look at our squad he's actually our youngest first team mainstay by a decent distance. 2 years younger than Morelos, Kent and Aribo. I think he's been excellent but question is whether it's better to wait to sell and see if a season or two of Hagi in the CL groups can make a big difference to his value and development.

An interesting rumour... https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ianis-hagi-rangers-transfer-link-20334693.amp Would you sell Hagi for £9m? £12m?

One Alliance for Unity seat at the expense of many unionist votes nationally essentially being wasted. That's a terrible outcome for Alliance for Unity's stated purpose but maybe their only real purpose is getting Galloway a new salary.

OK let's disambiguate two things here. According to UK law it is illegal to change the terms of current pensions i.e. once a pensioner has reached State Pension Age that pension actually does become his property which he is legally entitled to. For those people, I believe it's quite a large number up to maybe 1m Scots, we can safely assume that their pensions would not be reduced or stopped BUT we don't really know who would pay it and that would be down to negotiations between Scotland and rUK. Ultimately it could be anywhere from 100% ScotGov paid to 100% UKGov paid. In terms of current workers you're still making the mistake of using terms such as "pension rights" which is not the way to think about it. You don't have a "right" to a state pension until you get it i.e. by reaching SPA. Before then it can be changed, improved, removed, etc. by Parliament at will. The same would likely be the case for Scottish government pensions in the event of independence. This has been confirmed legally on quite a few occasions including in the 2002 "Frozen Pensions case" and also by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008. I've attached the ECHR judgement. In light of this it's clear that those future pensions would be the sole responsibility of an independent Scottish government. There is no reason why they could not count up the years working and in either UK or an indy Scotland for their final payout. Ultimately that would be up to the Scottish Parliament. They could have a much simpler system or a system more similar to Germany (where contributions matter much more) that they would potentially phase in. Chamber judgment Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom 04.11.08.pdf