strichener Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I think there's an arguable case that public sector pensions would be more expensive in an independent Scotland, as the risk of investment with a smaller pot would be higher and less spread out. That would probably have an indirect effect on investment decisions and could mean that the payouts were less generous. Whether this would have a significant impact I don't pretend to know. There are too many variables for a layperson like me to have a firm view on this. It isn't just about public sector pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loondave1 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 No one can guarantee you anything.I started in 1979 with the "promise" of a pension at 65 and its been on shifting sands for years.Id expect no different in an independent Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I think there's an arguable case that public sector pensions would be more expensive in an independent Scotland, as the risk of investment with a smaller pot would be higher and less spread out. That would probably have an indirect effect on investment decisions and could mean that the payouts were less generous. Whether this would have a significant impact I don't pretend to know. There are too many variables for a layperson like me to have a firm view on this. I'm not sure what you're referring to here, as 5 of the 6 public sector schemes in Scotland are unfunded (Teachers, Civil Service, NHS, Police & Firefighters) As they are unfunded, there are no investment decisions to make. The only funded scheme is Local Government. 11 lead councils run the individual schemes - I'm currently in the Strathclyde scheme, having transferred from Tayside many moons ago. Why do you consider that these 11 schemes will have a smaller pot in an independent Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 No one can guarantee you anything.I started in 1979 with the "promise" of a pension at 65 and its been on shifting sands for years.Id expect no different in an independent Scotland. But Better Together implied that pensions would be worse in an independent Scotland. All you appear to be saying is that each side are as bad as each other. How is this worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Hmrc to pay off lots and close most of its buildings in Scotland http://www.cumbernauld-media.com/news/politics/1206-labour-claims-cumbernauld-tax-office-jobs-are-under-threat-from-indyref-yes-vote That is fucking tremendous. Let's hope it's rammed down the fucker's throats in perpetuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 It isn't just about public sector pensions. I didn't say it was. The question of affordability seems to me primarily to be a question of public sector pensions, unless we are talking about private sector cross border schemes. I'm not sure what you're referring to here, as 5 of the 6 public sector schemes in Scotland are unfunded (Teachers, Civil Service, NHS, Police & Firefighters) As they are unfunded, there are no investment decisions to make. The only funded scheme is Local Government. 11 lead councils run the individual schemes - I'm currently in the Strathclyde scheme, having transferred from Tayside many moons ago. Why do you consider that these 11 schemes will have a smaller pot in an independent Scotland? Really? That's surprising. I thought public sector pension schemes were generally funded ones. If that's the case then obviously there's probably very little effect, if any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Really? That's surprising. I thought public sector pension schemes were generally funded ones. If that's the case then obviously there's probably very little effect, if any. If you recall, your incorrect assumptions about Public Sector pensions in Scotland were in response to Fide's question below Do you agree or disagree with the claim that "an independent Scotland would not be able to be as generous as the UK would in the equivalent position"? Would you like to have another attempt at answering him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 If you recall, your incorrect assumptions about Public Sector pensions in Scotland were in response to Fide's question below Do you agree or disagree with the claim that "an independent Scotland would not be able to be as generous as the UK would in the equivalent position"? Would you like to have another attempt at answering him? I'm reasonably sure that the final sentence of my last post answers this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I'm reasonably sure that the final sentence of my last post answers this. So, given that you now appear to agree that voting "Yes" would have "very little effect, if any" on the affordability of pensions in Scotland, can I pose a further question? Would you also now agree that someone who voted "No" purely to protect their pension could now claim to have been misled by the Better Together campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 So, given that you now appear to agree that voting "Yes" would have "very little effect, if any" on the affordability of pensions in Scotland, can I pose a further question? Would you also now agree that someone who voted "No" purely to protect their pension could now claim to have been misled by the Better Together campaign? In my judgment it would have little effect. I'm not a pensions expert. There may be aspects of pension schemes or the general macroeconomic position that could otherwise directly or indirectly influence how generous the pension schemes would have been. I merely identified one possible argument I said might have merit. You have provided good evidence that its impact is minimal.I do not believe that, simply because one argument of a specific aspect of pensions is of negligible effect that we can therefore say BT misled anyone. There is room for reasonable disagreement. I was very careful from the outset on this thread to say: "Whether this would have a significant impact I don't pretend to know. There are too many variables for a layperson like me to have a firm view on this." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Hmrc to pay off lots and close most of its buildings in Scotland http://www.cumbernauld-media.com/news/politics/1206-labour-claims-cumbernauld-tax-office-jobs-are-under-threat-from-indyref-yes-vote Something else that was supposed to be protected by the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Scottish LabourVerified account @scottishlabour 22 Jul 2014 3200 jobs at HMRC, just one of the reasons that being part of the UK is best for Scottish jobs. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scotlands-3200-tax-office-jobs-dividend.24812038 … #LabourNo #Indyref Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Scottish LabourVerified account @scottishlabour 22 Jul 2014 3200 jobs at HMRC, just one of the reasons that being part of the UK is best for Scottish jobs. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scotlands-3200-tax-office-jobs-dividend.24812038 … #LabourNo #Indyref And as the HMRC jobs go in Cumbernauld, look what happens in Greater London http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/localnews/14028005.HMRC_to_create_2_800_jobs_at_Croydon_tax__super_centre_/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob the tank Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 And as the HMRC jobs go in Cumbernauld, look what happens in Greater London http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/localnews/14028005.HMRC_to_create_2_800_jobs_at_Croydon_tax__super_centre_/ I just get angrier every day. Sign deals with China and India but f@#% the Jockistanis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 It was pretty clear to me pre referendum that the risks to pensions and public sector jobs were pretty similar whether Scotland was independent or not. The No argument clearly focused on the threat that these risks were unique to an independent Scotland. A ridiculous argument which has unravelled before the date we would've even been independent anyway. A yes vote would've given Scotland democratic accountability. Would we have seen the same job losses? Who knows. Would we have been in a better place to make sovereign democratic decisions to affect it? Absolutely. Anyway 75% of 18-34's intend to vote SNP. Tick tock.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDuffman Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 From todays Cumbernauld News HM Revenue and Customs in Cumbernauld is to close after decades in the town- when it emerged that that the operation will be moved to Glasgow city centre. The news was broken to staff an 11am meeting in the tax office, who learned that HMRC’s Scottish operation will be conducted from two new regional centres, the other being in Edinburgh. We can confirm that the Cumbernauld closure is estimated to come into play in 2019 or 2020. It is unclear at this early stage about the scale of job losses involved. Staff were told 18 months ago that changes were set to be made as the aim is to reduce estate savings of £100 million a year by 2025. Lin Homer, HMRC’s Chief Executive said: “The new regional centres will bring our staff together in a more modern cost-effective buildings with lower rents. “The changes will enable HMRC to give the customers the modern services they now expect at a lower cost to the taxpayer, meeting the Government’s challenge to do more with less.’’ So staff were told 18 months ago - that's 4 months before the wee demo outside the Tax offices. McClymont, Murphy and Anus Sarwar must have known about this - and guess what they still lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I feel for those losing their jobs as they've been used as pawns by worthless cretinous politicians and sold down the river. Happens to the best of us. I do think though that this will be a huge asset to a future yes campaign. No scaremongering will ever stand up to scrutiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I feel for those losing their jobs as they've been used as pawns by worthless cretinous politicians and sold down the river. Happens to the best of us. I do think though that this will be a huge asset to a future yes campaign. No scaremongering will ever stand up to scrutiny If only that were true. People were directed to all the dire warnings that were given as reasons to reject devolution and stick with Westminster (which then came true without devolution) and still voted in accordance with the wishes of Lord Darling. The pro-UK "security and safety" arguments have been proven false before, and yet people lapped them up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Bojangles Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 People didn't believe the devolution scaremongering in 97 because they remembered the previous scaremongering, lies and promises from the 79 referendum. They'll remember next time, and everything anyone has said is recorded now. It's a lot easier to provide examples today because we aren't relying so much on memory and the impartiality of news corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 People didn't believe the devolution scaremongering in 97 because they remembered the previous scaremongering, lies and promises from the 79 referendum. They'll remember next time, and everything anyone has said is recorded now. It's a lot easier to provide examples today because we aren't relying so much on memory and the impartiality of news corporations. I bloody hope so. Any 'Yes' campaign needs to forget the hardcore British Nationalists and convince the softer "No" voters who rejected independence because they thought the UK provided "security" after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.