When will indyref2 happen?

[Dawson Park Boy]

10 minutes ago, Pato said:

What kind of a number would that have been?

15 to 20 % would have been a big hit but, at the end of the day, maybe any price is worth it for independence either from the EU or the UK.

That’s for every individual to decide.

All I’m saying is that some reasonable projections  should be given to voters which should be easier to do in the case of Scottish independence as against leaving the EU as we are currently within the same country and fiscal and monetary framework. 
On leaving,the SNP need to spell out currency, tariffs with RUK, EU membership, nuclear subs, defence, borrowing costs, payment of pensions/benefits, likely interest rates for mortgages. Just a few of the tasks awaiting, but no doubt you have the answers?

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, Pato said:

Quite a lot odd actually now I've read that back.

It's almost as if it's actually got nothing to do with finances.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

It's almost as if it's actually got nothing to do with finances.

It's almost as if he's making the whole thing up [emoji23]

[Dawson Park Boy]

35 minutes ago, Pato said:

Something I think I've mentioned before is how folk who probably just don't like foreigners all speak, even on an anonymous online forum, in this really circumspect way where they take great pains to couch their language in such a way that it's always possible to wriggle out of any accusation. I find it fascinating and can never decide if formulating this oblique coded language is something they enjoy, or something that grinds their gears as they pine for the day when they can finally let rip with what they really want to say.

There is some truth in that, let’s be honest.

On a personal level, I’m a fair age and quite well off so finance doesn’t matter too much. However I do  have a large family and worry about their future.

Its impossible not to hanker after a bit of ‘the good old days’ but, in reality, they weren’t all that good.

Funnily enough, my wife and I were discussing that very point the other night and remembered how, in our first jobs, we were both sexually abused by our respective bosses. We both just made our position clear (on your bike) and got on with our lives with a bit more awareness. Nowadays, quite correctly, this behaviour would not be tolerated and the perpetrators would be severely dealt with. Excellent progress! The age of deferring to position has well and truly passed.

Anyway, apologies for rambling.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

There is some truth in that, let’s be honest.

On a personal level, I’m a fair age and quite well off so finance doesn’t matter too much. However I do  have a large family and worry about their future.

sexual abuse

ronburgundyboythatescalatedquickly.jpg.gif.png

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

3 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

 

I do recall you saying it had about £2bn capital which, of course, is petty cash.

Anyway, tell us more.

What is it investing in and how big a staff does it have?

Do you believe an independent Scotland should have to take on a share of the rUK’s debt? 

[SandyCromarty]

2 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Do you believe an independent Scotland should have to take on a share of the rUK’s debt? 

Of course Scotland will have to pay it's share, that and other areas will be addressed during the Independence negotiations process.

Defence will be a major issue as an Independent Scotland will want the removal of the Trident missile base at Faslane, as a westminster paper already revealed the relocation will be very costly for the remainder of the UK. Faslane will revert to a traditional Scottish naval base eventually.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

3 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Of course Scotland will have to pay it's share, that and other areas will be addressed during the Independence negotiations process.

Defence will be a major issue as an Independent Scotland will want the removal of the Trident missile base at Faslane, as a westminster paper already revealed the relocation will be very costly for the remainder of the UK. Faslane will revert to a traditional Scottish naval base eventually.

Aye thats my point, if they expect an indy Scotland to take a share of the debts then it’s equally entitled to a share of all the assets. Which wherever it’s impossible to divide up then a cash settlement could be made, all of which.. guess what... could go into reserves to create a central bank and other apparatus needed like buying buildings for embassies abroad etc. 

[Dawson Park Boy]

2 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Do you believe an independent Scotland should have to take on a share of the rUK’s debt? 

Yes

[SandyCromarty]

5 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

 

I do recall you saying it had about £2bn capital which, of course, is petty cash.

Anyway, tell us more.

What is it investing in and how big a staff does it have?

A poor attempt at trolling as you obviously have read my earlier post re the Bank but deliberately avoid mentioning that the Bank was set up to act as a Central Bank in line with an Independent Scotland's EU membership application process.

The fact is that the establishment of the Bank has pre-empted the better together currency question which the unionists revelled in in 2014.

The problem the Better Together will have will be on the next Referendum platform desperately trying to defend Brexit.

You won last time with the currency thing but that's now resolved now and we will hammer home the fiasco that Brexit has become.

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

4 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Yes

Then you’d agree they are equally entitled to a share of the UK’s assets? 

[Dawson Park Boy]

A share of the assets will be publicly owned assets situated in Scotland I would imagine plus some warships, etc.

At the end of the day, I would rather think that the Scottish government will be due the UK government but, hey, I don’t know.

Regarding state pensions, remember there is no fund but they need to be paid out of current contributions made by taxpayers.

Maybe someone with more knowledge can enlighten us?

[gaz5]

A share of the assets will be publicly owned assets situated in Scotland I would imagine plus some warships, etc.
At the end of the day, I would rather think that the Scottish government will be due the UK government but, hey, I don’t know.
Regarding state pensions, remember there is no fund but they need to be paid out of current contributions made by taxpayers.
Maybe someone with more knowledge can enlighten us?

That depends entirely on if there are enough publicly owned assets is Scotland of a high enough value to match the percentage we should (rightly) take off the national debt.

I think that's essentially what ICR was getting and and I agree with him. It's right we should take a share of the debt, but whatever that share is agreed to be (presumably a per capita split) will be consistent across debt and assets. i.e. if we take 8% of the debt, we get 8% of the value (and "of the value" is the main point) of the assets.

If there's not the same % value of assets in Scotland, which is highly likely, then it could be a cash payment or a reduction in the debt share to balance that out. As ICR says, the cash payment would probably be preferable to have a central reserve initially, as the debt could be serviced over a longer term.

The pensions question is a non question, as far as independence goes. The UK is insolvent by every measure (as is the US and pretty much every country in the Western world with the exception of Norway). The UK can't afford to sustain the public pension, it's just a big game of chicken because no one in official office wants to be the one to confirm that. They know that probably kills their party for generations.

If you're 40/45 or under at the moment you're highly unlikely to get any sort of meaningful public pension regardless of Indy Scotland or UK. It's why everyone should be saving privately (through an ISA, SIPP or workplace pension) to make sure they are ok in retirement.

Roughly, you need a £500k pot by retirement for a £25k annual pension.

The average private pension pot in the UK at present is ~£50k. It's quite scary.

Retirement and pension provision, public or private, is a ticking timebomb that not enough people are talking about/are aware of, regardless of whether Scotland is Independent or part of the UK.

People's best course of action is very much to take matters into their own hands, not rely on the state. Given enough time, most people could save more than enough through investing a modest amount on a regular basis.

[lichtgilphead]

56 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

A share of the assets will be publicly owned assets situated in Scotland I would imagine plus some warships, etc.

At the end of the day, I would rather think that the Scottish government will be due the UK government but, hey, I don’t know.

Regarding state pensions, remember there is no fund but they need to be paid out of current contributions made by taxpayers.

Maybe someone with more knowledge can enlighten us?

It was confirmed during the last referendum that entitlement to a UK pension would be based on NI contributions paid to the UK Government by individuals whilst Scotland was part of the UK. I don't believe that the situation has changed.

[Dawson Park Boy]

37 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

That depends entirely on if there are enough publicly owned assets is Scotland of a high enough value to match the percentage we should (rightly) take off the national debt.

I think that's essentially what ICR was getting and and I agree with him. It's right we should take a share of the debt, but whatever that share is agreed to be (presumably a per capita split) will be consistent across debt and assets. i.e. if we take 8% of the debt, we get 8% of the value (and "of the value" is the main point) of the assets.

If there's not the same % value of assets in Scotland, which is highly likely, then it could be a cash payment or a reduction in the debt share to balance that out. As ICR says, the cash payment would probably be preferable to have a central reserve initially, as the debt could be serviced over a longer term.

The pensions question is a non question, as far as independence goes. The UK is insolvent by every measure (as is the US and pretty much every country in the Western world with the exception of Norway). The UK can't afford to sustain the public pension, it's just a big game of chicken because no one in official office wants to be the one to confirm that. They know that probably kills their party for generations.

If you're 40/45 or under at the moment you're highly unlikely to get any sort of meaningful public pension regardless of Indy Scotland or UK. It's why everyone should be saving privately (through an ISA, SIPP or workplace pension) to make sure they are ok in retirement.

Roughly, you need a £500k pot by retirement for a £25k annual pension.

The average private pension pot in the UK at present is ~£50k. It's quite scary.

Retirement and pension provision, public or private, is a ticking timebomb that not enough people are talking about/are aware of, regardless of whether Scotland is Independent or part of the UK.

People's best course of action is very much to take matters into their own hands, not rely on the state. Given enough time, most people could save more than enough through investing a modest amount on a regular basis.

I think I agree with you.

The point I was making regards state pensions is that there isn’t a big fund sitting there to pay out pensioners.

Pensions are paid out of current contributions.

I think the earlier poster was suggesting that the new Scotland would get a wedge of dosh to pay out pensioners which I don’t think would be the case.

Scotland would need to pay pensioners out of contributions taken from date of independence.

[Dawson Park Boy]

25 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

It was confirmed during the last referendum that entitlement to a UK pension would be based on NI contributions paid to the UK Government by individuals whilst Scotland was part of the UK. I don't believe that the situation has changed.

Correct regarding entitlement but not, I think paid for by RUK.

[ayrmad]

9 hours ago, gaz5 said:

I think like most political parties they're cute enough to give themselves wiggle room.

I've not read it recently, but from memory I believe it is "seek to" or words to that effect, as they know they can't deliver it on their own and it gives them someone to point at when they "seek to" but can't and their base gets annoyed (another drawback of the dual parlimentary setup, each has someone else to blame and never take accountability themselves!).

Do I think it would be wise to have one every 4 years? No, I don't. I think there's a case at the moment because of the fundamental change caused by Brexit.

But having one every 4 years isn't my argument/stance and I don't think it would happen every 4 years if the SG had the ability to do it because they'd actually need to think about it.

Ultimately, my stance is a democratic one. I think that the Scottish Parliament (any elected government) SHOULD be able to do whatever the electorate votes (obviously within reason, which a referendum is) for a party that has that policy.

And that puts the onus on the party proposing it to ensure appropriate timescales.

At the moment we are in a position where the SNP can have it in their manifesto in perpetuity, without thinking about whether it is appropriate or not, because let's face it they know Westminster isn't going to agree. They don't need to *think about it*.

If it was in their power to do it, given your correct assertion that continually losing would harm the cause overall, they would need to be more selective about when they put that in as a manifesto pledge as they couldn't blame anyone else for not delivering it.

I think if the SG had the ability to call that referendum, rather than be able to point at Westminster, it would be discussed less and we would only have one when they are pretty sure they are going to win. At the moment, it's always a topic of discussion because it is been made a political football.

As I said, my stance is a democratic one. If a party is voted into government by the electorate, who are the only people that matter, on a policy of a referendum, that government should be able to hold that referendum.

But the trade off for that party if they are able to have it is that they then have to follow through, meaning they actually have to think about the timing and they'd be stupid to then put it in their manifesto every election cycle only to know they will lose X times.

RE: Maggie - She said Scotland didn't need a referendum for independence, all we need to do was return a majority of Scottish MP's to Westminster from the SNP, which would signify a vote for independence. At the time, 50+ SNP MP's was seen as fantasy.

She basically said Scotland could choose independence at a general election.

Every 4 years, this will be the last shot at a YES majority for a considerable time period. 

[gaz5]

I think I agree with you.
The point I was making regards state pensions is that there isn’t a big fund sitting there to pay out pensioners.
Pensions are paid out of current contributions.
I think the earlier poster was suggesting that the new Scotland would get a wedge of dosh to pay out pensioners which I don’t think would be the case.
Scotland would need to pay pensioners out of contributions taken from date of independence.

Sorry, I'd missed that.

Yes, I'd agree. I can't see there being any share of a fund that is set aside to pay pensions, as you're right that doesn't exist to pay the pensions, never mind split.

I think we need to be honest about pensions though. Neither country, the UK or an iScotland can continue to pay a state pension into the future because there's no money there to do it.

People need to be educated at a younger age about managing their own wealth, so that a kind in the sand can be drawn somewhere. I wish I knew coming out of school what I've picked up over the years.

£175 a month invested between 20 & 65 at a modest return of 6% a year would provide just under half a million quid at 65, with compounding. Make it tax and NI deductable and it's less than that net.

But we don't teach that in school.

That's for another forum/thread though. [emoji846]

[strichener]

21 hours ago, gaz5 said:

 

 

Ok, I'll shorten it sightly, but I'm only sending the asked question.

An electorate votes every 5 years based on the policies of those putting themselves forward to be voted on.

If the people of Scotland don't want an independence referendum, they wouldn't continue to vote into a majority a party with that as their flagship policy.

That they do, democratically, should be enough to see it happen. Arguing otherwise, because you don't like that outcome, is arguing against democracy, regardless of your view on any policy, independence included (we could be taking about anything).

It's literally how democracy works.

What the result of that referendum might be is irrelevant, as is what the result of any vote might be before it happens.

But the fact remains, if an electorate returns an independence supporting majority IN ANY ELECTION that is a mandate for a referendum IN THAT PARLIAMENTARY TERM.

The electorate have decided that, as is their right. It IS NOT the right of an incumbent government, SG included, to decide that for them.

We can argue that electorates are stupid, that's a different discussion. But ultimately that's how we decide things, so we shouldn't be able to choose to just not do the things we don't like. That's how Brexit happened. Stupid idea, but the electorate voted for a party who said they'd do it, then voted to do it. Lots of people don't like it, but they have to suck it up, that's how democracy works.

If you think it was OK the Tories having the Brexit referendum IN THAT PARLIAMENT having been voted in on that mandate and you think any different for any other elected government, regardless of parliament or timescale, thats not a democratic position. It's objection based on a like or dislike of the policy.

 

If voting for a party that supports independence allows them tonhave a referendum in that parliamentary term, I look forward to our referendum before the May elections.  It is literally what the manifesto promised.

Of course parties consistently fail to deliver everything in their manifestos and voters don't necessarily agree to everything that a party stands for.  It is one of the great failings of a party based political system.

[Dawson Park Boy]

1 minute ago, gaz5 said:

Sorry, I'd missed that.

Yes, I'd agree. I can't see there being any share of a fund that is set aside to pay pensions, as you're right that doesn't exist to pay the pensions, never mind split.

I think we need to be honest about pensions though. Neither country, the UK or an iScotland can continue to pay a state pension into the future because there's no money there to do it.

People need to be educated at a younger age about managing their own wealth, so that a kind in the sand can be drawn somewhere. I wish I knew coming out of school what I've picked up over the years.

£175 a month invested between 20 & 65 at a modest return of 6% a year would provide just under half a million quid at 65, with compounding. Make it tax and NI deductable and it's less than that net.

But we don't teach that in school.

That's for another forum/thread though.

Thanks 

I totally agree.

Strange for this forum.