When will indyref2 happen?

[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.

[gaz5]

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

Yeah, that was my point.

If the SNP could actually deliver one, it wouldn't be every 4 years, they wouldn't have it in their manifesto as a pledge unless they were sure they were going to win.

Just now, they can have it in for every election because they know it's not on their gift alone to deliver and they can point at the Tories being undemocratic.

If that blocker were removed, there's no way they'd have one every 4 years.

My only argument was that it was their right to do so if the electorate voted on that as a policy put forward at an election, however I'll advised that may or may not be at that specific point in time.

[strichener]

9 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

Well, yeah. But that's not my point at all. We can all just sit here and come up with potential scenarios about what voters might actually have wanted or we can accept that in a parliamentary democracy, if the parliament contains a majority of members elected on a manifesto to do X, it is a mandate from the voters to do X.

But not an obligation.  Almost as if they can actually just do what they want.

[Scary Bear]

Interesting poll. 35% were a bit optimistic saying it would be before 2020. Chances of before 2025 happening?

[gaz5]

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.

Again, I don't disagree.

My point (which I feel has been confused somewhat [emoji846]), is that if a party is elected to government in a country, by the electorate of that country, based on their manifesto promises, then they have a mandate to deliver those promises and it's for us, the electorate, to hold them to account when they do or don't do that, not the government of another country.

Whether that be a referendum, tax policy, health policy, whatever. Obviously there's nuances there because of the devolved setup (we can't realistically vote on nuclear weapons for example).

Let me frame it another way: Do you think the SNP would have had that policy in their manifesto at every election if it was completely within their gift to deliver it, in any parliament?

I don't.

I think if Westminster said "yeah, crack on, whenever you fancy in future", then we'd find it not make it's way into the manifesto every election, only when the SNP actually thought they could win, at which point the weight of public opinion would already be there, otherwise there would be no majority for the SNP/greens coalition.

[lichtgilphead]

42 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

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

Only entitlement was agreed in 2014, yes.

However, I have paid my NI contributions to date to the UK government, and expect them to honour their obligation to pay me a state pension. After independence, I will pay NI contributions to the Scottish Government, who will pay a pension based upon my remaining working years.

Are you seriously suggesting that my brother (who has spent his entire working life in England) would have to have his pension paid by the Scottish Government if he returned home on retirement, but that the rUK gowernment would pay it if he remained in England or retired outside the UK? In both our cases, we have paid NI to the UK government, and will be entitled to a UK pension.

Similarly, my partner has an American aunt. She paid 40 years of NI in the UK. Her state pension is paid by the UK government, not the US government. That pension would continue to be paid if she relocated from tha UK. Why do you think that citizens of an independent Scotland would be treated differently from citizens of any other country?

[Gordon EF]

43 minutes ago, strichener said:

But not an obligation. 

Correct.

[HTG]

I'll tell you what's ripping my knitting - "divisive referendum". The referendum is not divisive. "Divisive" is the state of the country. It won't become something different by telling over half of Scotland to eat its cereal. The UK govt created the division by not following up on the promises made in the run up to the 2014 referendum and since then have gone out of their way to ignore Scotland.  

Anyway, not having a referendum will do nothing to deal with "divisive". 

[BFTD]

1 hour ago, Scary Bear said:

Interesting poll. 35% were a bit optimistic saying it would be before 2020. Chances of before 2025 happening?

I swear there were a couple of folk who voted for the first option in 2020, which implied they thought they were going to invent a time machine and do something to change history. However, those votes appear to have disappeared.

...maybe they went back in time and told themselves not to vote?  

[Dawson Park Boy]

42 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Only entitlement was agreed in 2014, yes.

However, I have paid my NI contributions to date to the UK government, and expect them to honour their obligation to pay me a state pension. After independence, I will pay NI contributions to the Scottish Government, who will pay a pension based upon my remaining working years.

Are you seriously suggesting that my brother (who has spent his entire working life in England) would have to have his pension paid by the Scottish Government if he returned home on retirement, but that the rUK gowernment would pay it if he remained in England or retired outside the UK? In both our cases, we have paid NI to the UK government, and will be entitled to a UK pension.

Similarly, my partner has an American aunt. She paid 40 years of NI in the UK. Her state pension is paid by the UK government, not the US government. That pension would continue to be paid if she relocated from tha UK. Why do you think that citizens of an independent Scotland would be treated differently from citizens of any other country?

Interesting!

Im no expert but I would have thought that your pension, when you retire will be wholly paid by the SG, as mentioned earlier, there is NO fund.

In the scenario regarding your brother, if he moved back to Scotland, I would think the UK would pay just like people who emigrate get theirs from the UK.

Maybe our friend Gaz will have a more informed take on this.

As you say, it was clarified in 2014 and presumably the same rules would apply in the future.

[ayrmad]

19 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Interesting!

Im no expert but I would have thought that your pension, when you retire will be wholly paid by the SG, as mentioned earlier, there is NO fund.

In the scenario regarding your brother, if he moved back to Scotland, I would think the UK would pay just like people who emigrate get theirs from the UK.

Maybe our friend Gaz will have a more informed take on this.

As you say, it was clarified in 2014 and presumably the same rules would apply in the future.

It was clarified that UK would pay pensions. 

[Antlion]

39 minutes ago, HTG said:

I'll tell you what's ripping my knitting - "divisive referendum". The referendum is not divisive. "Divisive" is the state of the country. It won't become something different by telling over half of Scotland to eat its cereal. The UK govt created the division by not following up on the promises made in the run up to the 2014 referendum and since then have gone out of their way to ignore Scotland.  

Anyway, not having a referendum will do nothing to deal with "divisive". 

It’s insidious rhetoric from the UK generally. Politics by its nature is divisive. If they seek unified belief, they’re seeming one-party-voting homogenous subjects who subscribe and conform uncritically to their wishes. As has been pointed out, referendums are the norm in some countries. The UK has decided that division is welcome as long as it’s in charge of it (e.g. Brexit) but unacceptable and to be demonised if they disapprove. It should be worrying to anyone when a state and its rulers starts trying to discourage political questioning as “divisive”. 

[lichtgilphead]

13 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Interesting!

Im no expert but I would have thought that your pension, when you retire will be wholly paid by the SG, as mentioned earlier, there is NO fund.

In the scenario regarding your brother, if he moved back to Scotland, I would think the UK would pay just like people who emigrate get theirs from the UK.

Maybe our friend Gaz will have a more informed take on this.

As you say, it was clarified in 2014 and presumably the same rules would apply in the future.

It was clarified that pension entitlements would be upheld, but who would pay them could be up for negotiation. That does not mean that they would automatically be paid by the SG - the UK government could choose to pay a lump sum to the SG to use to pay future pension liabilities. However, I would like to think that the UK Government would not ignore their obligations, and would hope to spread their payments over future years rather than pay it all upfront.

The fact that there is no fund is immaterial. The current obligation is that the UK government pay pensions if you pay enough NI. My pension contributions have (to date) been paid to the UK government. Accordingly, I expect them to keep to their side of the contract.

Are you not even slightly concerned that under the terms you set out that the UK Government may decide to ignore their obligations to residents of Scotland (including residents from rUK) that have paid their pension contributions for up to 40 years? It's hardly a recommendation for the 'British sense of fair play'!

[Dawson Park Boy]

7 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

It was clarified that UK would pay pensions. 

To whom and from where?

As there is no fund for anyone, I find it hard to believe.

I thought Gaz5 had clarified this?

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

To whom and from where?

As there is no fund for anyone, I find it hard to believe.

I thought Gaz5 had clarified this?

The UK Government's choice to use unfunded pension arrangemments does not relieve them from their obligation to pay pensions to pensioners who have contributed via NI pension contributions. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Indy question.

[Saltire]

5 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

To whom and from where?

As there is no fund for anyone, I find it hard to believe.

I thought Gaz5 had clarified this?

You are correct, there is no fund but there is a liability for pensions which we have earned through our NI contributions. That goes for people globally who have paid contributions. That would remain in place.

[BFTD]

You'd like to think that an independent Scotland might try to gradually build up an actual pension fund, instead of just expecting the kids to pay for their parents' stipend.

Of course, that's unlikely to happen because we won't have any money (citation: multiple P&B posters), but I'd suggest that the UK state pension is likely to be rolled up within a generation or two anyway, so nothing to lose there.

[jakedee]

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?

Will the DWP do?