When will indyref2 happen?

[Baxter Parp]

https://scotlandspeaks.com/a-maritime-vision-for-an-independent-scotland

A Maritime Vision for an Independent Scotland

Interesting read.

[gaz5]

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.

Correct.

As I said above, in the short term the state pension is paid by the money taken in by current NI contributions.

There's no state pension fund, the UK government is for all intents and purposes insolvent (like most, I'm not picking on them!).

But it is very much a pyramid scheme where those paying in at the bottom are funding those cashing out at the top, with an ageing population.

The state pension, for anyone under 40-45, wont exist when you get to retirement age, out of it does the retirement age will have raised so much it'll be useless to you anyway, because the UK can't afford to keep paying it.

So as far as independence goes, it's a moot point.

It'll keep getting paid right up until it doesn't, whether you're in rUK or iScot. Decades of reckless money management by every sitting government in our lifetimes has seen to that.

As above, my preference would be people are taught in school how to look after their own finances (I wish I was, but I was lucky enough to end up in financial services so learned along the way) as there's no one better placed to do it than us, as individuals. Governments don't like that idea, because they tend to be wealthy themselves and you can't have the plebs getting in on your action. But I digress.

From an Independence standpoint, the pensions debate is a political one, not a practical one, as state pensions are fucked either way.

[Baxter Parp]

#Matchettgate: The story of how unionist newspaper Scotland on Sunday attempted to deceive the nation with a fake poll

https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/03/matchettgate-story-of-how-unionist.html

Yoonery.

[SANTAN]

9 hours ago, Antlion said:

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”. 

Some of you people are parody accounts for sure. 

[Dawson Park Boy]

8 hours ago, gaz5 said:

Correct.

As I said above, in the short term the state pension is paid by the money taken in by current NI contributions.

There's no state pension fund, the UK government is for all intents and purposes insolvent (like most, I'm not picking on them!).

But it is very much a pyramid scheme where those paying in at the bottom are funding those cashing out at the top, with an ageing population.

The state pension, for anyone under 40-45, wont exist when you get to retirement age, out of it does the retirement age will have raised so much it'll be useless to you anyway, because the UK can't afford to keep paying it.

So as far as independence goes, it's a moot point.

It'll keep getting paid right up until it doesn't, whether you're in rUK or iScot. Decades of reckless money management by every sitting government in our lifetimes has seen to that.

As above, my preference would be people are taught in school how to look after their own finances (I wish I was, but I was lucky enough to end up in financial services so learned along the way) as there's no one better placed to do it than us, as individuals. Governments don't like that idea, because they tend to be wealthy themselves and you can't have the plebs getting in on your action. But I digress.

From an Independence standpoint, the pensions debate is a political one, not a practical one, as state pensions are fucked either way.

Thanks for that.

Probably the best explanation to date.

What I was thinking about was, in the case of a continuing working individual, the new SG will be getting his contributions but, as, according to most on here, the UK will be paying pensioners, something seems wrong??

Anyway, the poster is correct in that everyone will get their pension but the question is obviously a political one as to which government pays? Gaz5 is correct that relying on the state for a pension, or for anything else, is a foolish game.

[Dawson Park Boy]

9 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

https://scotlandspeaks.com/a-maritime-vision-for-an-independent-scotland

A Maritime Vision for an Independent Scotland

Interesting read.

It would be great if we learned how to build  ferries !

[SandyCromarty]

11 hours 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?

There is plentiful information on the internet regarding a state pension in an Independent Scotland, unfortunately the unionist scaremongers will only provide scare stories as it suits their agenda, the Better Together used this pension scare in their agenda in the 2014 Referendum, it is expected they will use it again but will have less value.

On Independence you will still receive your full state pension as a Scottish Resident from the uk government, as the pension is a  pay as you go based on your NI contributions, that cannot be denied, for example British citizens, (inluding Scots), at present resident overseas still receive their pension based on the amount they paid in.

The uk government has a legal obligation to pay pensions to all those who have paid into the system.

As most of us know the uk state pension is the worst in Europe based on a rate of 29% of average earnings compared to the EU 70% of average earnings.

The 2019 SNP Confernece voted that in an Independent Scotland The Scottish Government should plan to increase the Scottish State Pension to the EU average, now realistically that could be long after initially going Independent, but as I have mentioned you will still be receiving your uk government pension.

Any questions on pensions or any other matter regarding Independence can be found in the INDYFAQS document online.

[gaz5]

Thanks for that.
Probably the best explanation to date.
What I was thinking about was, in the case of a continuing working individual, the new SG will be getting his contributions but, as, according to most on here, the UK will be paying pensioners, something seems wrong??
Anyway, the poster is correct in that everyone will get their pension but the question is obviously a political one as to which government pays? Gaz5 is correct that relying on the state for a pension, or for anything else, is a foolish game.

Individuals don't really matter, only the overall pension liability at the time that liability needs to be transferred to an iScot, given that the money doesn't actually "exist".

Ultimately who pays what to what treasury and when is irrelevant, because pensioners are not being paid back using the money they contributed over the years sitting in a fund somewhere. Those contributions are long since spent.

They are being paid with new contributions coming in.

As those contributions for pensioners based in iScot would now be getting collected within iScot, there's an argument to say that the pension liability for Scottish based pensions (the vast majority) would pass to iScot as they are now running the pyramid scheme that's covering the liability, while any expat liability could be retained by rUK as those people would still be "British" ex pats rather than Scottish.

But that's just an idea, it would be part of any negotiation involving the overall national asset and debt position.

The pertinent point is that they would still be paid, till the whole thing collapses, which it eventually will.

[SandyCromarty]

Fact is that presently all those working in the UK pay towards their pension with NI contributions, the fact that that particular fund was spent some time ago is immaterial as the uk government are legally obliged to pay the state pension.

When Scotland achieves Independence the uk government is still bound to pay the state pension to Scots resident in Scotland up until their UK NI contributions run out, take a man in his thirties presently working and paying uk NI contributions, on Independence and providing he was still working in Scotland he would then pay into a Scottish state pension, on pension age  he would then receive his uk pension plus his Scottish state pension both pensions paid would be according to his contributions.

Consider a Pole working in Milton Keynes and duly paying his UK NI contributions, at the age of 50 he moves back to Poland and continues working there and paying into his state pension, (which btw is better than the uk pension), then that chap on retirement would receive the uk pension and his Polish one. Similarly Scots would be in the same position.

For clarification on pensions go to INDYFAQS.

[Dawson Park Boy]

14 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Fact is that presently all those working in the UK pay towards their pension with NI contributions, the fact that that particular fund was spent some time ago is immaterial as the uk government are legally obliged to pay the state pension.

When Scotland achieves Independence the uk government is still bound to pay the state pension to Scots resident in Scotland up until their UK NI contributions run out, take a man in his thirties presently working and paying uk NI contributions, on Independence and providing he was still working in Scotland he would then pay into a Scottish state pension, on pension age  he would then receive his uk pension plus his Scottish state pension both pensions paid would be according to his contributions.

Consider a Pole working in Milton Keynes and duly paying his UK NI contributions, at the age of 50 he moves back to Poland and continues working there and paying into his state pension, (which btw is better than the uk pension), then that chap on retirement would receive the uk pension and his Polish one. Similarly Scots would be in the same position.

For clarification on pensions go to INDYFAQS.

Sandy- I think I can agree, for once.

However, the main point is made by Gaz5 about the unreliability of a state unfounded pension.

Do your own thing.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

my pension plan amounts to crossing my fingers and hoping for full blown nuclear annihilation across the globe before I'm at state pension age tbh

[gaz5]

Fact is that presently all those working in the UK pay towards their pension with NI contributions, the fact that that particular fund was spent some time ago is immaterial as the uk government are legally obliged to pay the state pension.
When Scotland achieves Independence the uk government is still bound to pay the state pension to Scots resident in Scotland up until their UK NI contributions run out, take a man in his thirties presently working and paying uk NI contributions, on Independence and providing he was still working in Scotland he would then pay into a Scottish state pension, on pension age  he would then receive his uk pension plus his Scottish state pension both pensions paid would be according to his contributions.
Consider a Pole working in Milton Keynes and duly paying his UK NI contributions, at the age of 50 he moves back to Poland and continues working there and paying into his state pension, (which btw is better than the uk pension), then that chap on retirement would receive the uk pension and his Polish one. Similarly Scots would be in the same position.
For clarification on pensions go to INDYFAQS.

The UK government are legally obliged to pay the state pension under the current laws, yes, but the UK government are also the lawmakers who can change those laws.

That liability can (and will, because it has to eventually) change.

I've no expectation that my NI contributions will pay me a state pension by the time I get to retirement.

But that's an aside really, my main point (as an independence supporter) was that the pension issue is just noise in an independence debate, because independence won't impact anyones state pension any more than staying in the UK would in the long run.

[gaz5]

my pension plan amounts to crossing my fingers and hoping for full blown nuclear annihilation across the globe before I'm at state pension age tbh

As good a strategy as relying on the state pension to be honest. [emoji1787][emoji1787]

In all seriousness, that made me laugh. [emoji1787]

[Aufc]

As good a strategy as relying on the state pension to be honest. [emoji1787][emoji1787]

In all seriousness, that made me laugh. [emoji1787]

Enjoyed your last few posts in here mate.

Out of interest, how would you vote in the independence referendum?

[gaz5]

Enjoyed your last few posts in here mate.

Out of interest, how would you vote in the independence referendum?

I'm an independence supporter. Voted yes last time and would vote yes again next time.

I know different people have different views, which is totally fine, but for me I consider Scotland a country within a Union of 4 countries, I don't consider the UK 1 big country.

I think countries should be self governing in the best interests of their electorate and their government should be accountable to that electorate, first and foremost.

As such, the democratic deficit that has existed my entire life, as part of a Scottish electorate within the Union, given how lopsided it is, doesn't sit right with me.

I think the UK, 4 very different countries with an ever growing divergence in terms of overall outlook, would overall be far healthier as it's constituent parts, governing themselves, accountable to their own electorates and working together through choice when suitable, rather than 3 countries being held over a barrel by 1.

Everything else for me is just noise or logistics and history tells us that there's no problem, logistically, that can't be overcome.

[BFTD]

2 hours ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

my pension plan amounts to crossing my fingers and hoping for full blown nuclear annihilation across the globe before I'm at state pension age tbh

Bit selfish. I'm sure they'll have implemented suicide booths by then, for those of us without adequate provision.

[Dawson Park Boy]

2 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

I'm an independence supporter. Voted yes last time and would vote yes again next time.

I know different people have different views, which is totally fine, but for me I consider Scotland a country within a Union of 4 countries, I don't consider the UK 1 big country.

I think countries should be self governing in the best interests of their electorate and their government should be accountable to that electorate, first and foremost.

As such, the democratic deficit that has existed my entire life, as part of a Scottish electorate within the Union, given how lopsided it is, doesn't sit right with me.

I think the UK, 4 very different countries with an ever growing divergence in terms of overall outlook, would overall be far healthier as it's constituent parts, governing themselves, accountable to their own electorates and working together through choice when suitable, rather than 3 countries being held over a barrel by 1.

Everything else for me is just noise or logistics and history tells us that there's no problem, logistically, that can't be overcome.


 

I can follow your logic.

Out of interest how do feel about being in the EU and joining the euro where you would lose Political,monetary and fiscal independence

[gaz5]

I can follow your logic.
Out of interest how do feel about being in the EU and joining the euro where you would lose Political,monetary and fiscal independence

It's a valid question.

The short answer is that being an independent country as part of the EU is still self government and still accountable to your electorate.

The longer answer is that the "gaining independence only to give it back to the EU" argument is a nonsense one, pushed by those opposed to independence in the first place deliberately seeking to correlate two completely different things.

It's perpetuating Stockholm syndrome. A bit like Fritzel trying to convince his victims that the only other option is a different cellar dungeon so they'd be no better off, might as well stay in the cellar dungeon they know.

I saw a really good study at some point about differing levels of control for Scotland in the UK as part of the EU, in the UK but out of EU and an iScot in the EU.

The headline figures were something like:

- In UK & EU: 10% control of our own affairs with the EU having around a 15% say in overall UK policy. 90% of policy controlled from elsewhere

- in UK & out of EU: 10% control of our own affairs with the EU having around a 15% say in overall UK policy. 90% of policy controlled from elsewhere

- iScot & in EU, the EU having around the same 15% say in overall iScot policy. 15% of policy controlled from elsewhere

So the comparison is hugely disanalogous. Being in the EU brings undoubted benefits that a 15% trade off is worth. Being in the UK doesn't bring about benefits worth the 90% trade off.

Being independent and in the EU would mean we're masters of our own destiny, with 85% more control than we have in Union.

And up until we were dragged out of the EU, we were subject to those same 15% of policy controls anyway so no one would likely notice.

I think there are plenty of successful small countries, who would be considered self governing by any measure, within the EU, certainly more successful and more self governing than Scotland is within the UK.

ETA: Joining the Euro is not a requirement. That's another false argument. I wouldn't be in favour of that. For me I think it needs to be our own currency.

I vote Bitcoin. [emoji1787][emoji1787]

[Dawson Park Boy]

Fair enough, although I note you are against the euro which some of your fellow supporters favour.

Oh well, interesting times ahead.

[gaz5]

Fair enough, although I note you are against the euro which some of your fellow supporters favour.
Oh well, interesting times ahead.

TBH I'm open to being convinced on the Euro. I don't favour that approach at the moment because, as you rightly pointed out, you lose some control over fiscal policy that way.

My preference would be the Scandi approach for that reason.

But I'm open to listening to those more learned than me when the time for that discussion comes. That falls under the logistics category in my post above. [emoji846]