When will indyref2 happen?

[SandyCromarty]

15 hours ago, gaz5 said:

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.

On Scotland gaining Independence, Scotland and the uk government will then enter a separation process and negotiations of who is responsible for what, part of that process will be negotiations on the future of pensions, obviously the uk government will still have to pay pensions to Scottish residents according to their NI contributions, Scotland as a former uk country will also be liable and will have to contribute financially to the uk government pension structure after Independence, this will be  based on the Scottish head of population in Scotland who were paying NI contribution prior to Independence.

I would say that once an agreement has been reached that bills will be introduced in both parliaments passing the agreements into law in both countries.  

[SandyCromarty]

11 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

It amazes me how often we have this debate.  I cannot see there being an SNP once we become Independent.

There would undoubtedly be a transitional period and during that time interests will split between ‘conventional’ political lines.

I would agree with that, new parties will emerge.

[Baxter Parp]

Record View says EU can accept Brexit has happened, but no one agreed to a devolution power grab as a result

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/record-view-bojo-must-back-23631726.amp?__twitter_impression=true

A sleepy Daily Record suddenly figures out that something's up.

[BFTD]

Tell you what, the Daily Mail headlines would be tremendous when they realised that the UK government would be paying out for the pensions of Scots in an independent Scotland.

Jesus...just years of frothing Mail invective in general, can you imagine? There's an additional incentive for independence right there.

[gaz5]

On Scotland gaining Independence, Scotland and the uk government will then enter a separation process and negotiations of who is responsible for what, part of that process will be negotiations on the future of pensions, obviously the uk government will still have to pay pensions to Scottish residents according to their NI contributions, Scotland as a former uk country will also be liable and will have to contribute financially to the uk government pension structure after Independence, this will be  based on the Scottish head of population in Scotland who were paying NI contribution prior to Independence.
I would say that once an agreement has been reached that bills will be introduced in both parliaments passing the agreements into law in both countries.  

That's one possible outcome, sure. 100% agree It would be part of the negotiations and I would expect those already to be drawing a state pension at that point in time to absolutely continue to receive it at that point. Whether that be from UK, with iScot posting a proportion to the treasury, or paid from iScot with no liability to Westminster, or a mix of both (for resident Scots and UK ex pats) would have to be decided.

But alternatively, playing devils advocate, both countries could also take the opportunity during those negotiations, given the scale of change already required and the undoubted political posturing that will be in play (see Brexit), that it's the time to finally abort the state pension in its current form as it isn't fit for purpose and can't be sustained fiyt much more than another generation, maybe two, anyway.

Perhaps they decide those currently receiving it, plus those over x age at y date, signal the closure of the current "scheme".

The negotiations could just as easily propose a new roadmap like that for a state pension, one that looks very different in each nation, going forward and that represents a write off of liability for both Governments in the process.

FWIW in that scenario I think you'd be more likely to see an improvement in the terms in iScot and a deterioration (probably through further increase to pensionable starting age, which has already reduced the benefit in our lifetimes at least once, depending on how old everyone is) in rUK.

I'm not saying your suggestion that the pension continues as is in both countries after negotiations isn't plausible, I'm simply saying that the state pension needs to change, everyone knows it needs to change and few better opportunities to change it, politically, would present themselves than independence (because both sides could easily blame the other for something they know is fucked already anyway and that changing after would have long lasting political implications), so that is also plausible.

But all of those words, really, are just opinions on possible outcomes, that's all we really have at the moment.

The only thing that's absolutely certain, which I've said before, is that if anyone is relying on a state pension for retirement and they're 40/45 or under, they're aiming the 12 gauge at their own foot regardless of whether it's iScot or rUK. That's why I don't think the scaremongering over pensions is any different to "the only way you can stay in the EU is to vote no". Look how that turned out less than a political cycle later. [emoji846]

State pension is going to have to change either way. The only important thing as part of the Indy debate is ensuring that current pensioners dont lose their pensions and that those without time to sort things out aren't hung out to dry. And given that there's no fund to lose, they're paid currently from ongoing NI contributions, that's not and never will be an issue.

There's still plenty of time for others to take matters into their own hands and save themselves a decent provision for retirement versus the the state pension, even in current form.

[SandyCromarty]

43 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

 

 

That's one possible outcome, sure. 100% agree It would be part of the negotiations and I would expect those already to be drawing a state pension at that point in time to absolutely continue to receive it at that point. Whether that be from UK, with iScot posting a proportion to the treasury, or paid from iScot with no liability to Westminster, or a mix of both (for resident Scots and UK ex pats) would have to be decided.

But alternatively, playing devils advocate, both countries could also take the opportunity during those negotiations, given the scale of change already required and the undoubted political posturing that will be in play (see Brexit), that it's the time to finally abort the state pension in its current form as it isn't fit for purpose and can't be sustained fiyt much more than another generation, maybe two, anyway.

Perhaps they decide those currently receiving it, plus those over x age at y date, signal the closure of the current "scheme".

The negotiations could just as easily propose a new roadmap like that for a state pension, one that looks very different in each nation, going forward and that represents a write off of liability for both Governments in the process.

FWIW in that scenario I think you'd be more likely to see an improvement in the terms in iScot and a deterioration (probably through further increase to pensionable starting age, which has already reduced the benefit in our lifetimes at least once, depending on how old everyone is) in rUK.

I'm not saying your suggestion that the pension continues as is in both countries after negotiations isn't plausible, I'm simply saying that the state pension needs to change, everyone knows it needs to change and few better opportunities to change it, politically, would present themselves than independence (because both sides could easily blame the other for something they know is fucked already anyway and that changing after would have long lasting political implications), so that is also plausible.

But all of those words, really, are just opinions on possible outcomes, that's all we really have at the moment.

The only thing that's absolutely certain, which I've said before, is that if anyone is relying on a state pension for retirement and they're 40/45 or under, they're aiming the 12 gauge at their own foot regardless of whether it's iScot or rUK. That's why I don't think the scaremongering over pensions is any different to "the only way you can stay in the EU is to vote no". Look how that turned out less than a political cycle later.

State pension is going to have to change either way. The only important thing as part of the Indy debate is ensuring that current pensioners dont lose their pensions and that those without time to sort things out aren't hung out to dry. And given that there's no fund to lose, they're paid currently from ongoing NI contributions, that's not and never will be an issue.

There's still plenty of time for others to take matters into their own hands and save themselves a decent provision for retirement versus the the state pension, even in current form.
 

 

You really have to look at the pension article in INDYFAQ's.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

That's one possible outcome, sure. 100% agree It would be part of the negotiations and I would expect those already to be drawing a state pension at that point in time to absolutely continue to receive it at that point. Whether that be from UK, with iScot posting a proportion to the treasury, or paid from iScot with no liability to Westminster, or a mix of both (for resident Scots and UK ex pats) would have to be decided.

But alternatively, playing devils advocate, both countries could also take the opportunity during those negotiations, given the scale of change already required and the undoubted political posturing that will be in play (see Brexit), that it's the time to finally abort the state pension in its current form as it isn't fit for purpose and can't be sustained fiyt much more than another generation, maybe two, anyway.

Perhaps they decide those currently receiving it, plus those over x age at y date, signal the closure of the current "scheme".

The negotiations could just as easily propose a new roadmap like that for a state pension, one that looks very different in each nation, going forward and that represents a write off of liability for both Governments in the process.

FWIW in that scenario I think you'd be more likely to see an improvement in the terms in iScot and a deterioration (probably through further increase to pensionable starting age, which has already reduced the benefit in our lifetimes at least once, depending on how old everyone is) in rUK.

I'm not saying your suggestion that the pension continues as is in both countries after negotiations isn't plausible, I'm simply saying that the state pension needs to change, everyone knows it needs to change and few better opportunities to change it, politically, would present themselves than independence (because both sides could easily blame the other for something they know is fucked already anyway and that changing after would have long lasting political implications), so that is also plausible.

But all of those words, really, are just opinions on possible outcomes, that's all we really have at the moment.

The only thing that's absolutely certain, which I've said before, is that if anyone is relying on a state pension for retirement and they're 40/45 or under, they're aiming the 12 gauge at their own foot regardless of whether it's iScot or rUK. That's why I don't think the scaremongering over pensions is any different to "the only way you can stay in the EU is to vote no". Look how that turned out less than a political cycle later. [emoji846]

State pension is going to have to change either way. The only important thing as part of the Indy debate is ensuring that current pensioners dont lose their pensions and that those without time to sort things out aren't hung out to dry. And given that there's no fund to lose, they're paid currently from ongoing NI contributions, that's not and never will be an issue.

There's still plenty of time for others to take matters into their own hands and save themselves a decent provision for retirement versus the the state pension, even in current form.

The one thing that has not been covered in the pensions debate is ring-fenced public sector pensions - there will be funds in those pension schemes.

And before anyone dives in, I am aware that some of them too have a shortfall in terms of funding.

[SandyCromarty]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

Tell you what, the Daily Mail headlines would be tremendous when they realised that the UK government would be paying out for the pensions of Scots in an independent Scotland.

Jesus...just years of frothing Mail invective in general, can you imagine? There's an additional incentive for independence right there.

Two older friends of our, keen on Independence, voted No in 2014 based on Gordon Brown'.s scare mongering on the pension, they were convinced that they would lose their pensions on Independence.

The Better Together campaign broke 17 promises after the referendum, Ill give you a couple.

The NO campaign stated that if the winning vote was YES then they claimed Scottish based HMRC tax offices would have to close with the loss of  all jobs, since the Referendum 2,500 HMRC jobs were lost.

It was announced that 13 Type 26 Frigates were to be built but it was conditional only if the Scots voted NO, after the Referendum the 13 was cut to 8.

And so forth, all fuckin lies treating us Scots like Mugs.

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Two older friends of our, keen on Independence, voted No in 2014 based on Gordon Brown'.s scare mongering on the pension, they were convinced that they would lose their pensions on Independence.

The Better Together campaign broke 17 promises after the referendum, Ill give you a couple.

The NO campaign stated that if the winning vote was YES then they claimed Scottish based HMRC tax offices would have to close with the loss of  all jobs, since the Referendum 2,500 HMRC jobs were lost.

It was announced that 13 Type 26 Frigates were to be built but it was conditional only if the Scots voted NO, after the Referendum the 13 was cut to 8.

And so forth, all fuckin lies treating us Scots like Mugs.

Anyone with half a brain would surely have realised what was coming when the Prime Minister used his victory speech not to celebrate the survival of the union, but to announce that he was going to take away the right of Scottish MPs to vote on issues superficially affecting England only.

The message was, "thanks for the mandate not to consider you ever again", and they've been pretty consistent on that TBF.

[gaz5]

You really have to look at the pension article in INDYFAQ's.

I have, among many other things.

In terms of how the state pension is currently funded, it says exactly what I'm saying:

"The UK pensions system is a pay-as-you-go system whereby national insurance contributions (NICs) paid by those in work one month pay the state pension the next month. The system relies on the working population being larger and contributing more than the amount of state pension that is taken out."

It's a pyramid scheme with an ageing population.

That the state pension shouldn't be relied on by anyone, they should make provision themselves that page says:

"The UK’s pension system is fundamentally unfair for older people and pensions are far from safe by staying in the UK. The UK state pension system is failing older people and is unsustainable for future generations. It is inadequate to help pensioners live a life free from worrying about financial security."

They've essentially said exactly what I have, it's not fit for purpose as it stands so the risk is no greater in independence than it is staying in the UK.

The rest of what they say is essentially the same as I've said consistently: the pensions debate is a non debate as far as Indy is concerned, as they will continue to be paid regardless, until the systems change.

So it's noise, as far as Indy is concerned.

Where my interpretation is perhaps different to yours is in this, rather nuanced quote within that page from a UK "spokesperson":

"Yes, they have accumulated rights into the UK system, under the UK system’s rules.”

The pertinent bit for me in that is "under the UK systems rules". Those rules can, and have already in our lifetimes as I said above and was also referenced in INDYFAQs (pensionable age), change.

Those rules don't exist in perpetuity.

I'd also point out that the bits about the SNP and what they decided at their conference is equally as much noise as the trash that came from better together in 2014. There's no guarantee the SNP would govern an independent Scotland. As we've discussed above, it's more likely they don't exist after independence. So the SNP view on it is only that, a view, until they put it forward and are elected to deliver it post Indy.

But yeah, I'm happy in my position on pensions relating to the Indy debate, in that it's a complete non issue because the state pension a. Shouldn't be relied on by anyone b. Needs to change anyway, regardless of iScot/rUK future and c. Would continue to be paid to pensioners during any transition.

[Dawson Park Boy]

46 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

You really have to look at the pension article in INDYFAQ's.

Sandy- you’re not listening to him.

What he’s saying has nothing to do with independence.

Its a much bigger problem.

Maybe further expansion of the auto enrolment system is the answer?

[gaz5]

Sandy- you’re not listening to him.
What he’s saying has nothing to do with independence.
Its a much bigger problem.
Maybe further expansion of the auto enrolment system is the answer?

We're straying off the independence debate, but for me auto enrollment has been a token gesture that won't, in its current guise, make much of a difference so expanding it wouldn't achieve much, without people understanding what it's for.

I say that because the minimum contribution being made under auto enrollment would, with a reasonable planning return of around 5% annually, be likely to return only a marginally better pension than the current state pension does, at the average Scottish salary, if paying in between 20 & 65.

(Average Salary: £31,356, minimum contribution = 8%, annual contribution = £2,508.48, monthly contribution = ~£210. Over 45 years, at 5% growth that would be equivalent to £312,446 in your pension pot at 65 equating to a pension of around £10,936 per year in today's money*)

*That is already adjusted for inflation at 2%.

In my view, that is why it was started. It is the beginning of phasing out/drawing back the state pension, to address a problem everyone knows is coming, through legislating that people must have a different source of retirement income.

Once we've been through a few generations and auto enrollment has caught enough people, a logical next step to reduce the exposure to the public pension shortfall liability is to reduce the state pension for those with an equivalent auto enrollment pension.

You can decide for yourself if that might be the long term plan, but you can see from the above that it's nowhere near enough, at the average Scottish salary.

Having implemented it, in the way it has been, for me it also just adds to the problem because now we have people thinking they are OK because they have an auto enrollment pension or even worse opting out, for a few beer tokens extra, not realising what that means.

We just (in general) don't know enough about wealth generation and we're mass sleep walking into a retirement disaster as a result.

The answer, in my opinion, isn't any one system and forcing everyone into that system. The answer is educating people at a young age, from primary school through to secondary school, how money actually works in practice. People need to be given the tools to both understand their position and to help themselves, financially.

Our relationship with debt as a society has always been unhealthy and there are obviously large social issues with too many people living hand to mouth, or worse, so not able to spare anything to plan for their futures.

But there are also large swathes of society who would be in a decent position to help themselves in the long run, removing part of the burden on the state so that any available state pension funding could become a system that could truly help those who never had an opportunity to help themselves towards retirement.

But we'd rather spend all of what we have than think about the future. How many times have you heard people justify something with "you can't take it with you"? Well, no, you can't, but unless you're planning on being dead tomorrow, spending everything you have today and not planning for tomorrow, or the day after, is daft.

I'm in no way an expert, plenty in here will know way more than me, but I feel like I know enough now to have given myself a chance.

My advice to anyone on pensions, retirement and financial planning general would be:

Educate yourself, take it into your own hands and the earlier you start the better chance you will have of getting the outcomes you want.

Don't rely on anyone else, state included.

[DA Baracus]

18 hours ago, ICTJohnboy said:

Seems to be polls coming out every 5 minutes showing a small majority now in favour of remaining in the union. Reasons given for this are entirely due to the Sturgeon/Salmond conflict. I just don't see why this should make any difference. Either you want an independent Scotland or you don't.

Anyone on here changed their mind in light of recent developments?

What I don't get is the logic.

Sturgeon might have done something wrong = Scotland absolutely shouldn't be independent

whereas

Decades of corruption from Westminster, including many very recently, over which there was no doubt = Fine and the type of folk who we want to be in charge

[Stellaboz]

8 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

What I don't get is the logic.

Sturgeon might have done something wrong = Scotland absolutely shouldn't be independent

whereas

Decades of corruption from Westminster, including many very recently, over which there was no doubt = Fine and the type of folk who we want to be in charge

There is no logic, only hypocrisy. 

[Stellaboz]

4 hours ago, BFTD said:

Anyone with half a brain would surely have realised what was coming when the Prime Minister used his victory speech not to celebrate the survival of the union, but to announce that he was going to take away the right of Scottish MPs to vote on issues superficially affecting England only.

The message was, "thanks for the mandate not to consider you ever again", and they've been pretty consistent on that TBF.

If anyone actually believed anything "Better Together" said then they're an absolute fucking mug and an idiot for taking them at face value. Absolutely astounding idiocy. 

[BFTD]

56 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

If anyone actually believed anything "Better Together" said then they're an absolute fucking mug and an idiot for taking them at face value. Absolutely astounding idiocy. 

I was still taken aback by the balls of that ham-faced p***k standing up and giving it "GIRUY Jocks!" in the immediate aftermath.

He was clearly pretty confident that we were well under the thumb and he was back to only giving a shit about the opinion of voters in England.

[BFTD]

5 minutes ago, Pato said:

This is genuinely shocking. I'll just post this link any time anyone says we couldn't hack it as a country.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/m0rytj/mods_this_heart_breaking_and_shameful_video_is/

That's not due to incompetence, or economic hardship, however. It's a deliberate choice by government to cut away at the income of the most vulnerable and impoverished until they're reliant on the charity of those with a conscience. They could change this at any time, and choose not to.

40%+ of the voting public will say, "they're probably spending all their benefits/wage on fags and booze, so you'll get no sympathy here!"

Four more years of cuts to come, and there's no way they're losing the next election either. Worst of all, more and more people are realising Her Majesty's Opposition have no real desire to change anything themselves.

[Granny Danger]

3 hours ago, gaz5 said:

 

 

We're straying off the independence debate, but for me auto enrollment has been a token gesture that won't, in its current guise, make much of a difference so expanding it wouldn't achieve much, without people understanding what it's for.

I say that because the minimum contribution being made under auto enrollment would, with a reasonable planning return of around 5% annually, be likely to return only a marginally better pension than the current state pension does, at the average Scottish salary, if paying in between 20 & 65.

(Average Salary: £31,356, minimum contribution = 8%, annual contribution = £2,508.48, monthly contribution = ~£210. Over 45 years, at 5% growth that would be equivalent to £312,446 in your pension pot at 65 equating to a pension of around £10,936 per year in today's money*)

*That is already adjusted for inflation at 2%.

In my view, that is why it was started. It is the beginning of phasing out/drawing back the state pension, to address a problem everyone knows is coming, through legislating that people must have a different source of retirement income.

Once we've been through a few generations and auto enrollment has caught enough people, a logical next step to reduce the exposure to the public pension shortfall liability is to reduce the state pension for those with an equivalent auto enrollment pension.

You can decide for yourself if that might be the long term plan, but you can see from the above that it's nowhere near enough, at the average Scottish salary.

Having implemented it, in the way it has been, for me it also just adds to the problem because now we have people thinking they are OK because they have an auto enrollment pension or even worse opting out, for a few beer tokens extra, not realising what that means.

We just (in general) don't know enough about wealth generation and we're mass sleep walking into a retirement disaster as a result.

The answer, in my opinion, isn't any one system and forcing everyone into that system. The answer is educating people at a young age, from primary school through to secondary school, how money actually works in practice. People need to be given the tools to both understand their position and to help themselves, financially.

Our relationship with debt as a society has always been unhealthy and there are obviously large social issues with too many people living hand to mouth, or worse, so not able to spare anything to plan for their futures.

But there are also large swathes of society who would be in a decent position to help themselves in the long run, removing part of the burden on the state so that any available state pension funding could become a system that could truly help those who never had an opportunity to help themselves towards retirement.

But we'd rather spend all of what we have than think about the future. How many times have you heard people justify something with "you can't take it with you"? Well, no, you can't, but unless you're planning on being dead tomorrow, spending everything you have today and not planning for tomorrow, or the day after, is daft.

I'm in no way an expert, plenty in here will know way more than me, but I feel like I know enough now to have given myself a chance.

My advice to anyone on pensions, retirement and financial planning general would be:

Educate yourself, take it into your own hands and the earlier you start the better chance you will have of getting the outcomes you want.

Don't rely on anyone else, state included.

 

I agree with all of that, but there will be hundreds of thousands of people who will go through their whole lives earning far less than the average wage.  As always certain groups, such as women, will also miss out on earnings for part of their working age life.  For such people a pot of £300k, whilst in itself is not huge, will not realistically be achievable.

 

[gaz5]

I agree with all of that, but there will be hundreds of thousands of people who will go through their whole lives earning far less than the average wage.  As always certain groups, such as women, will also miss out on earnings for part of their working age life.  For such people a pot of £300k, whilst in itself is not huge, will not realistically be achievable.
 

Yep, I agree.

Those are the people I think the state should have pension funding to help.

I know it won't be a popular opinion and I'm certainly no "buckled lefty", far from it, my financial stance would generally be a little right of centre, but if it were to to me I wouldn't pursue a flat rate state pension like we have now.

Obviously I still have a ways to go before retirement, but I was fortunate enough to end up in an industry where I got good advice early enough that I have a chance of building a decent pot (even though I missed out on the final salary pension by 3 weeks, not that it still annoys me after 20 years!).

But I'll be eligible for the same state pension as someone who has nothing saved.

And there are people far wealthier than I'll ever be who will get the same as me.

For some, that's a self inflicted positions through a lifetime of uneducated financial choices (and that's not a criticism, I'd have been exactly the same had I not fallen into a career that forced me to learn about it, which is why I'm big on promoting education. If an idiot like me can figure enough out to have a chance, anyone can!).

But for others, as you are absolutely correct to point out, for various reasons, they never had a chance to build a pot in line with the calculations in my last post.

It's it right that someone with a personal pot of close to the maximum allowed is eligible for the same state pension as someone with nothing, because they never had that opportunity?

I'd say no.

I'm into thinking out loud territory here, but in an iScot I think I'd like to see a state pension that operates on a sliding scale based on an individual's average lifetime earnings, or something of that nature.

Until we have a pot the size of Norway that is, when everyone will be golden. [emoji1787]

[gaz5]

Right wing libertarian politicians love it when people start saying this kind of thing about universal benefits.

I've no idea what you mean, can you elaborate? Is this a bad thing or a good thing? [emoji1787]

ETA: googled it, I think I'm on the right side of this one. [emoji102][emoji102]