The Scottish Politics Thread

[Biffer]

Anyone heard from Douglas Ross, Murdo Fraser or other Scottish tories today after they were howling at the Scottish government to replicate the tax cuts in England?

Hypocritical lap dogs that they are, they'll now be talking about having listened to the public and some such bullshit, when anyone who has half an ounce of sense would have known it was nonsense in so many ways.

Wouldn't hold your breath.

I'm not, but it's always necessary to point out their hypocrisy incompetence and inadequacy

[Slick]

Anyone heard from Douglas Ross, Murdo Fraser or other Scottish tories today after they were howling at the Scottish government to replicate the tax cuts in England?

Hypocritical lap dogs that they are, they'll now be talking about having listened to the public and some such bullshit, when anyone who has half an ounce of sense would have known it was nonsense in so many ways.

Wouldn't hold your breath.

I'm not, but it's always necessary to point out their hypocrisy incompetence and inadequacy

I made the mistake of thinking Ross had a tiny bit about him way back, utterly shite.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Wouldn't hold your breath.

I'm not, but it's always necessary to point out their hypocrisy incompetence and inadequacy

I made the mistake of thinking Ross had a tiny bit about him way back, utterly shite.

He's been flip-flopping around desperately trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing so he can keep his job. I don't think it's going down well with Scottish voters - clearly the conservatives are going to get wiped out in Scotland at the next GE (hopefully to a significant degree in England too), and while Boris and the idiot Truss are the bigger causes of that, Ross has definitely not helped.

Contrast that with Davidson, who must have been one of the most successful Scottish Conservatives leaders in the last while. Okay, she didn't get anywhere near to doing any real damage to the SNP, but given the feeling in Scotland towards the Westminster Conservatives at the time, she didn't do too badly.

I think there's a lesson there for the Labour party. If they want to seriously turn around their fortunes in Scotland, they need a proper, credible, heavyweight leader up here. Unfortunately, no-one springs to mind. Of course, they may benefit from having a Labour government in Westminster, which will probably been seen up here as less abhorrent than the recent incarnations of Conservative governments, but I don't know if that will be enough on its own to improve their fortunes in Scotland.

[Biffer]

I'm not, but it's always necessary to point out their hypocrisy incompetence and inadequacy

I made the mistake of thinking Ross had a tiny bit about him way back, utterly shite.

He's been flip-flopping around desperately trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing so he can keep his job. I don't think it's going down well with Scottish voters - clearly the conservatives are going to get wiped out in Scotland at the next GE (hopefully to a significant degree in England too), and while Boris and the idiot Truss are the bigger causes of that, Ross has definitely not helped.

Contrast that with Davidson, who must have been one of the most successful Scottish Conservatives leaders in the last while. Okay, she didn't get anywhere near to doing any real damage to the SNP, but given the feeling in Scotland towards the Westminster Conservatives at the time, she didn't do too badly.

I think there's a lesson there for the Labour party. If they want to seriously turn around their fortunes in Scotland, they need a proper, credible, heavyweight leader up here. Unfortunately, no-one springs to mind. Of course, they may benefit from having a Labour government in Westminster, which will probably been seen up here as less abhorrent than the recent incarnations of Conservative governments, but I don't know if that will be enough on its own to improve their fortunes in Scotland.

Davidson was capable of independent thought. That doesn't go down well in the Tory party. She was allowed to get as high as leading the Scottish party because that's an irrelevance to the party as a whole. As soon as there was tall of her going to Westminster she was squeezed out. They have hardly any capable politician s left, as we all saw during the leadership election.

They know they're fucked in Scotland and itse not taken seriously by the party down south, that's why Gove, Costa and various others stand in English seats.

A right of centre indy party would gain votes, I think that's what Salmond wanted with Alba but it was taken over by the blood and soil loonies. Thankfully it demonstrated how few of them there are.

[Biffer]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

I seem to remember during the referendum campaign we were told the oil and gas would run out in five years.

[Tichtheid]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

I seem to remember during the referendum campaign we were told the oil and gas would run out in five years.

It's always just about to run out when indy comes up as a topic.

The oil and gas are far too expensive to get out of the ground, that's why they get huge tax breaks compared to the Norwegian fields a couple of miles away. The oil companies are doing us a favour, really.

It's obvious to any sensible person that moving the border out over the sea to make English waters appear just off St Andrews, against international law, was just the right thing to do.

[Slick]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

I seem to remember during the referendum campaign we were told the oil and gas would run out in five years.

It's always just about to run out when indy comes up as a topic.

The oil and gas are far too expensive to get out of the ground, that's why they get huge tax breaks compared to the Norwegian fields a couple of miles away. The oil companies are doing us a favour, really.

It's obvious to any sensible person that moving the border out over the sea to make English waters appear just off St Andrews, against international law, was just the right thing to do.

Isn't it all a bit of a moot argument anyway since SG don't want anything to do with hydrocarbons any longer?

[robmatic]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

I seem to remember during the referendum campaign we were told the oil and gas would run out in five years.

It's always just about to run out when indy comes up as a topic.

The oil and gas are far too expensive to get out of the ground, that's why they get huge tax breaks compared to the Norwegian fields a couple of miles away. The oil companies are doing us a favour, really.

It's obvious to any sensible person that moving the border out over the sea to make English waters appear just off St Andrews, against international law, was just the right thing to do.

Isn't it all a bit of a moot argument anyway since SG don't want anything to do with hydrocarbons any longer?

I think you'll find they want to pump out both oil and green platitudes.

[Tichtheid]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

I seem to remember during the referendum campaign we were told the oil and gas would run out in five years.

It's always just about to run out when indy comes up as a topic.

The oil and gas are far too expensive to get out of the ground, that's why they get huge tax breaks compared to the Norwegian fields a couple of miles away. The oil companies are doing us a favour, really.

It's obvious to any sensible person that moving the border out over the sea to make English waters appear just off St Andrews, against international law, was just the right thing to do.

Isn't it all a bit of a moot argument anyway since SG don't want anything to do with hydrocarbons any longer?

I don't know to be honest, they don't want anything to do with nuclear energy but there are gaps that need filled.
Renewables can provide something like 97% of Scotland's needs, but at the moment that can only happen on peak output, so around a few days per year. This will improve.

I'm being deliberately vague here, to save me looking up actual numbers because I should be studying

[Slick]

It's always just about to run out when indy comes up as a topic.

The oil and gas are far too expensive to get out of the ground, that's why they get huge tax breaks compared to the Norwegian fields a couple of miles away. The oil companies are doing us a favour, really.

It's obvious to any sensible person that moving the border out over the sea to make English waters appear just off St Andrews, against international law, was just the right thing to do.

Isn't it all a bit of a moot argument anyway since SG don't want anything to do with hydrocarbons any longer?

I don't know to be honest, they don't want anything to do with nuclear energy but there are gaps that need filled.
Renewables can provide something like 97% of Scotland's needs, but at the moment that can only happen on peak output, so around a few days per year. This will improve.

I'm being deliberately vague here, to save me looking up actual numbers because I should be studying

SG and UKG withdrew any support for hydrocarbons (except decom and training), UKG have now reversed that, to an extent, but SG have said they still don't want anything to do with it. So, I think it is, as usual, enormously disingenuous for Indy types to start moaning about this. Unless it's an environmental point of course, but that's not what the outrage is about this morning,

[Tichtheid]

Isn't it all a bit of a moot argument anyway since SG don't want anything to do with hydrocarbons any longer?

I don't know to be honest, they don't want anything to do with nuclear energy but there are gaps that need filled.
Renewables can provide something like 97% of Scotland's needs, but at the moment that can only happen on peak output, so around a few days per year. This will improve.

I'm being deliberately vague here, to save me looking up actual numbers because I should be studying

SG and UKG withdrew any support for hydrocarbons (except decom and training), UKG have now reversed that, to an extent, but SG have said they still don't want anything to do with it. So, I think it is, as usual, enormously disingenuous for Indy types to start moaning about this. Unless it's an environmental point of course, but that's not what the outrage is about this morning,

I'd call it more disgruntlement than outrage, but whatever, the point is really about the disingenuity, hypocrisy and underhanded way the conversation goes every time the question of who is best suited to determine Scotland's future is brought up.

[Tichtheid]

btw, regarding something I mentioned earlier, about the border, this video explains what happened, and it also talks about the "bad faith" which the Scottish electorate is faced with, this is just one example of it.

[Wylie Coyote]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

I seem to remember during the referendum campaign we were told the oil and gas would run out in five years.

I don't recall that but I do recall Yes campaign leaders saying the North Sea tax takes would be £41-57 Billion pounds in 2017 when it ended up as £1.3 Billion.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar ... d-oil-boom

[Tichtheid]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

I seem to remember during the referendum campaign we were told the oil and gas would run out in five years.

I don't recall that but I do recall Yes campaign leaders saying the North Sea tax takes would be £41-57 Billion pounds in 2017 when it ended up as £1.3 Billion.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar ... d-oil-boom

"WHILE there is an overwhelming case for a windfall tax on the obscene profits made by oil and gas companies like Shell and BP, it is merely a sticking plaster over the disastrous UK Government decision to slash taxes on oil and gas production in 2015.

Norway kept taxation on oil and gas at 78% and during the two years of record low prices, Shell paid £4.589bn to Norway while in the UK, the company was awarded £179m in tax rebates.

High taxation didn’t stop investment in the Norwegian half of the North Sea and in 2021 Norway earned almost £25 billion from oil and gas taxes whereas the latest GERS report attributed a notional deficit of £250 million as Scotland’s share of UK petroleum tax. With Brent Crude at $90 and record gas prices, Norway will earn much more this year.

Tuesday’s Channel Four News programme pointed out that in 2019, for each barrel of oil the UK received $1.72 in tax while Norway received to $21.35 In 2017 for each barrel of oil the UK received $1.86 in tax while Norway received $13.53.

Shell paid $1.8 billion in tax to Norway in 2020 but received £99.1 million in tax back in from the UK gov. The UK was the only country where Shell operates where it didn’t pay tax, according to the company’s annual report on payments to governments. In 2019, BP paid no tax on its UK North Sea oil and gas business. BP’s effective corporation tax rate was minus 54%, compared to UK’s corporation tax rate of 19%. Source (BP’s 2019 tax report, page 47)."

[Wylie Coyote]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

I seem to remember during the referendum campaign we were told the oil and gas would run out in five years.

I don't recall that but I do recall Yes campaign leaders saying the North Sea tax takes would be £41-57 Billion pounds in 2017 when it ended up as £1.3 Billion.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar ... d-oil-boom

"WHILE there is an overwhelming case for a windfall tax on the obscene profits made by oil and gas companies like Shell and BP, it is merely a sticking plaster over the disastrous UK Government decision to slash taxes on oil and gas production in 2015.

Norway kept taxation on oil and gas at 78% and during the two years of record low prices, Shell paid £4.589bn to Norway while in the UK, the company was awarded £179m in tax rebates.

High taxation didn’t stop investment in the Norwegian half of the North Sea and in 2021 Norway earned almost £25 billion from oil and gas taxes whereas the latest GERS report attributed a notional deficit of £250 million as Scotland’s share of UK petroleum tax. With Brent Crude at $90 and record gas prices, Norway will earn much more this year.

Tuesday’s Channel Four News programme pointed out that in 2019, for each barrel of oil the UK received $1.72 in tax while Norway received to $21.35 In 2017 for each barrel of oil the UK received $1.86 in tax while Norway received $13.53.

Shell paid $1.8 billion in tax to Norway in 2020 but received £99.1 million in tax back in from the UK gov. The UK was the only country where Shell operates where it didn’t pay tax, according to the company’s annual report on payments to governments. In 2019, BP paid no tax on its UK North Sea oil and gas business. BP’s effective corporation tax rate was minus 54%, compared to UK’s corporation tax rate of 19%. Source (BP’s 2019 tax report, page 47)."

Sigh.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... th-sea-oil

[Tichtheid]

In the last few years the UK Gov has lowered the three taxes oil and gas extraction companies pay in the UK. Corporation tax has gone from 24% to 19%, supplementary charge has gone from 35% to 10% and the petroleum revenue tax has plummeted from 50% to 0 (zero).
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... s/sn00341/

Big oil’s quarterly profits hit £50bn as UK braces for even higher energy bills
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ndfall-tax

[Tichtheid]

I don't recall that but I do recall Yes campaign leaders saying the North Sea tax takes would be £41-57 Billion pounds in 2017 when it ended up as £1.3 Billion.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar ... d-oil-boom

"WHILE there is an overwhelming case for a windfall tax on the obscene profits made by oil and gas companies like Shell and BP, it is merely a sticking plaster over the disastrous UK Government decision to slash taxes on oil and gas production in 2015.

Norway kept taxation on oil and gas at 78% and during the two years of record low prices, Shell paid £4.589bn to Norway while in the UK, the company was awarded £179m in tax rebates.

High taxation didn’t stop investment in the Norwegian half of the North Sea and in 2021 Norway earned almost £25 billion from oil and gas taxes whereas the latest GERS report attributed a notional deficit of £250 million as Scotland’s share of UK petroleum tax. With Brent Crude at $90 and record gas prices, Norway will earn much more this year.

Tuesday’s Channel Four News programme pointed out that in 2019, for each barrel of oil the UK received $1.72 in tax while Norway received to $21.35 In 2017 for each barrel of oil the UK received $1.86 in tax while Norway received $13.53.

Shell paid $1.8 billion in tax to Norway in 2020 but received £99.1 million in tax back in from the UK gov. The UK was the only country where Shell operates where it didn’t pay tax, according to the company’s annual report on payments to governments. In 2019, BP paid no tax on its UK North Sea oil and gas business. BP’s effective corporation tax rate was minus 54%, compared to UK’s corporation tax rate of 19%. Source (BP’s 2019 tax report, page 47)."

Sigh.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... th-sea-oil

You seem to be mistaking the argument for taxing oil companies for something else.

[Biffer]

Isn't it all a bit of a moot argument anyway since SG don't want anything to do with hydrocarbons any longer?

I don't know to be honest, they don't want anything to do with nuclear energy but there are gaps that need filled.
Renewables can provide something like 97% of Scotland's needs, but at the moment that can only happen on peak output, so around a few days per year. This will improve.

I'm being deliberately vague here, to save me looking up actual numbers because I should be studying

SG and UKG withdrew any support for hydrocarbons (except decom and training), UKG have now reversed that, to an extent, but SG have said they still don't want anything to do with it. So, I think it is, as usual, enormously disingenuous for Indy types to start moaning about this. Unless it's an environmental point of course, but that's not what the outrage is about this morning,

The point I was making here is the straight up laying from the unionist side. Whether we choose to use them or not is a matter of policy.

We can discuss the policy if people want, but an acknowledgement of the habitual lying in the No campaign would be needed alongside it, otherwise we’re discussing resources which the unionists apparently believe don’t actually exist.

So we can either have the discussion about whether to use the oil, alongside an admission that it exists and the unionist side was lying about it, or we can not have the discussion. Which do people want?

[Biffer]

I don't recall that but I do recall Yes campaign leaders saying the North Sea tax takes would be £41-57 Billion pounds in 2017 when it ended up as £1.3 Billion.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar ... d-oil-boom

"WHILE there is an overwhelming case for a windfall tax on the obscene profits made by oil and gas companies like Shell and BP, it is merely a sticking plaster over the disastrous UK Government decision to slash taxes on oil and gas production in 2015.

Norway kept taxation on oil and gas at 78% and during the two years of record low prices, Shell paid £4.589bn to Norway while in the UK, the company was awarded £179m in tax rebates.

High taxation didn’t stop investment in the Norwegian half of the North Sea and in 2021 Norway earned almost £25 billion from oil and gas taxes whereas the latest GERS report attributed a notional deficit of £250 million as Scotland’s share of UK petroleum tax. With Brent Crude at $90 and record gas prices, Norway will earn much more this year.

Tuesday’s Channel Four News programme pointed out that in 2019, for each barrel of oil the UK received $1.72 in tax while Norway received to $21.35 In 2017 for each barrel of oil the UK received $1.86 in tax while Norway received $13.53.

Shell paid $1.8 billion in tax to Norway in 2020 but received £99.1 million in tax back in from the UK gov. The UK was the only country where Shell operates where it didn’t pay tax, according to the company’s annual report on payments to governments. In 2019, BP paid no tax on its UK North Sea oil and gas business. BP’s effective corporation tax rate was minus 54%, compared to UK’s corporation tax rate of 19%. Source (BP’s 2019 tax report, page 47)."

Sigh.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... th-sea-oil

Wait, your argument against taxing oil and gas companies like they do in Norway is an article where Sturgeon urges the Uk govt to tax oil companies like they do in Norway?

Well done, killer argument.

[Tichtheid]

and the laughable suggestion that the rUK government will pay pensions.

Just on this one item, I was under the impression (from reading the government website a few years ago) that the UK paid pensions for those people who had worked here but had emigrated on their retirement.

Why would an Indy Scotland be different from that scenario?

edit, in fact

Claim State Pension abroad
You can claim State Pension abroad if you’ve paid enough UK National Insurance contributions to qualify.

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-if-you ... 0may%20get.

It is not the same. As a supporter of independence I'd love it if the rUK kept responsibility for pensions, but it would not.

The critical difference to UK citizens going abroad, is that an independent Scotland would be replacing the functions of the current UK Govt. As part of this it would take over responsibilities for pensions.

If the pensions were funded, then rUk would retain the responsibility by either continuing to pay them, of by making a lump sum transfer. But they are not funded, they are paid out of current revenue as a current expense, so the the responsibility passes to the Scottish Govt.

At its simplest, UK (including Scotland) current taxes currently pay all UK pensions as they fall, including Scotland's. After independence, rUK (not including Scotland) current taxes pay all rUK pensions as they fall due, Scotland's current taxes pay Scotland's pensions as they fall due.

I’ll bring this over here.

I’m not suggesting that rUK gov remains liable for Scottish pension forever, rather that pensions are part of the assets and liabilities which are negotiated after the vote is won.

I imagine responsibility for Scottish pensions gradually shifting fully to the Scottish government over time, but at first there should be shared contributions from rUK and Scot gov.

Don’t ask me about ratios, I haven’t a clue, I’m not under any illusions that it’s an easy negotiation


edit, this article puts a similar case

https://fraserofallander.org/who-pays-t ... -scotland/

[Biffer]

Just on this one item, I was under the impression (from reading the government website a few years ago) that the UK paid pensions for those people who had worked here but had emigrated on their retirement.

Why would an Indy Scotland be different from that scenario?

edit, in fact

Claim State Pension abroad
You can claim State Pension abroad if you’ve paid enough UK National Insurance contributions to qualify.

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-if-you ... 0may%20get.

It is not the same. As a supporter of independence I'd love it if the rUK kept responsibility for pensions, but it would not.

The critical difference to UK citizens going abroad, is that an independent Scotland would be replacing the functions of the current UK Govt. As part of this it would take over responsibilities for pensions.

If the pensions were funded, then rUk would retain the responsibility by either continuing to pay them, of by making a lump sum transfer. But they are not funded, they are paid out of current revenue as a current expense, so the the responsibility passes to the Scottish Govt.

At its simplest, UK (including Scotland) current taxes currently pay all UK pensions as they fall, including Scotland's. After independence, rUK (not including Scotland) current taxes pay all rUK pensions as they fall due, Scotland's current taxes pay Scotland's pensions as they fall due.

I’ll bring this over here.

I’m not suggesting that rUK gov remains liable for Scottish pension forever, rather that pensions are part of the assets and liabilities which are negotiated after the vote is won.

I imagine responsibility for Scottish pensions gradually shifting fully to the Scottish government over time, but at first there should be shared contributions from rUK and Scot gov.

Don’t ask me about ratios, I haven’t a clue, I’m not under any illusions that it’s an easy negotiation


edit, this article puts a similar case

https://fraserofallander.org/who-pays-t ... -scotland/

Yeah, there are all sorts of complicated corners in this. I’m a civil servant working for a UK govt department in Scotland. Does my civil service pension get paid by the RUK govt or the Scottish govt? (The work I’m doing isn’t predominantly Scottish, it’s UK wide).

What if someone’s retires to Scotland? Or vice versa? And that’s complicated by the fact that in terms of international definitions, the UK won’t be splitting to create two new states, instead it’ll be an area splitting off to form a new state and the rest being the continuing state - that retains the UK’s status in international organisations etc but also means that all the UK’s liabilities (and non fixed assets) would land with the remaining state, if there isn’t an agreement. Obviously that’s not going to be the end point, but it means you can’t assume a particular asset or liability goes to one side just because it’s logical. It all depends on the negotiation. And there are significant cards to play on both sides.

[weegie01]

I am familiar with Fraser of Allander's position on this, and I think they are being overly optimistic.

Civil Service pensions are either funded or pay as you go. In either case there is a contractual obligation on the employer to pay those pensions creating a future liability. After independence the proportion related to service pre independence would be paid by the rUK Govt, either as a pension or a transfer to the new Scottish scheme. (Edited too slowly for Biffer's post).

The state pension is fundamentally different from funded pensions. As FoA point out, it is pay as you go, and paying NICs creates no obligation on the Govt to pay a pension. Pensions are not therefore not part of the assets and liabilities of the state. They are wholly a current revenue cost. It would in fact be better to stop calling it a pension as it is a current account payment in the same way as unemployment benefits and other social security payments are.

The UK government is likely to argue that succession – and the transfer of a significant share of the UK’s tax base to the Scottish government – constitutes an unprecedented change in circumstances that renders comparisons with the treatment of individuals under current state pension policy irrelevant. It would expect the Scottish government to make a reasonable contribution to the costs of the State Pension in Scotland.

This is the key part of the linked article. Whilst the article makes much of the agreements with other states, it does acknowledge that independence is different. Reciprocal agreements with other existing states are fundamentally different from a new state taking over the role of the current UK Govt in paying benefits. Reciprocal agreements with existing states are on a 'swings and roundabouts' basis, i.e. that they roughly even out. With Scottish independence everything is one way.

This is of course simplistic, and there are details to be agreed, negotiations and trade offs made. But broadly an independent Scotland is taking part of the UK tax base with it. Scotland gets the tax income, it takes over the associated outgoings. Those expecting the rUK to continue paying pensions are expecting them to lose part of the current account income, but still meet all the current account costs.

All the points raised about residents moving abroad, reciprocal agreements etc will kick in post independence when Scotland is a fully functioning separate state. They start at the date of independence and go forward from there.

[Biffer]

I am familiar with Fraser of Allander's position on this, and I think they are being overly optimistic.

Civil Service pensions are (as far as I am aware) funded. After independence the proportion related to service pre independence would be paid by the rUK Govt, either as a pension or a transfer to the new Scottish scheme.

The state pension is fundamentally different from funded pensions. As FoA point out, it is pay as you go, and paying NICs creates no obligation on the Govt to pay a pension. Pensions are not therefore not part of the assets and liabilities of the state. They are wholly a current revenue cost. It would in fact be better to stop calling it a pension as it is a current account payment in the same way as unemployment benefits and other social security payments are.

The UK government is likely to argue that succession – and the transfer of a significant share of the UK’s tax base to the Scottish government – constitutes an unprecedented change in circumstances that renders comparisons with the treatment of individuals under current state pension policy irrelevant. It would expect the Scottish government to make a reasonable contribution to the costs of the State Pension in Scotland.

This is the key part of the linked article. Whilst the article makes much of the agreements with other states, it does acknowledge that independence is different. Reciprocal agreements with other existing states are fundamentally different from a new state taking over the role of the current UK Govt in paying benefits. Reciprocal agreements with existing states are on a 'swings and roundabouts' basis, i.e. that they roughly even out. With Scottish independence everything is one way.

This is of course simplistic, and there are details to be agreed, negotiations and trade offs made. But broadly an independent Scotland is taking part of the UK tax base with it. Scotland gets the tax income, it takes over the associated outgoings. Those expecting the rUK to continue paying pensions are expecting them to lose part of the current account income, but still meet all the current account costs.

All the points raised about residents moving abroad, reciprocal agreements etc will kick in post independence when Scotland is a fully functioning separate state. They start at the date of independence and go forward from there.

They’re not funded

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... nsions.pdf

My point here, is that saying ‘this is the way it will be’ is nonsense as all of this will be part of the negotiation. You kind of acknowledge this towards the end of your post, but you start by making a statement about how it will be.

[weegie01]

They’re not funded

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... nsions.pdf

My point here, is that saying ‘this is the way it will be’ is nonsense as all of this will be part of the negotiation. You kind of acknowledge this towards the end of your post, but you start by making a statement about how it will be.

My edit crossed your post.

What I am not saying 'this is how it will be', I am saying that these are the principles that will apply.

Edit
And yes I am taking a fairly purist approach, but there is a fundamental issue that far too many people are thinking of state pensions in same way as occupational or other pensions where contributions 'buy' an entitlement to an amount of future pension. UK state pensions just do not work like that.

[Biffer]

Probably a good time to remind people that the Tories haven’t won an election in Scotland since 1955 but we still have to put up with this shite.

[Big D]

Hugely controversial and emotionally charged bill being voted on tonight. One of the things I find a little uncomfortable with is this being a whipped vote by the SNP.

We know the SNP are famous for mostly allowing no public disagreement on policy matters, but this feels like something where there shouldn't be forced agreement.

[Slick]

Hugely controversial and emotionally charged bill being voted on tonight. One of the things I find a little uncomfortable with is this being a whipped vote by the SNP.

We know the SNP are famous for mostly allowing no public disagreement on policy matters, but this feels like something where there shouldn't be forced agreement.

Yes, does feel wrong and something I think will come back to bite them

Edit: I wrote this before realising that a Minister had resigned and 9 didn’t vote for it (7 against, 2 abstain). Well down to them, biggest rebellion ever for the SNP

They’ve also told the EU they are wrong about their currency, so a totally normal day really

[Big D]

Hugely controversial and emotionally charged bill being voted on tonight. One of the things I find a little uncomfortable with is this being a whipped vote by the SNP.

We know the SNP are famous for mostly allowing no public disagreement on policy matters, but this feels like something where there shouldn't be forced agreement.

Yes, does feel wrong and something I think will come back to bite them

Edit: I wrote this before realising that a Minister had resigned and 9 didn’t vote for it (7 against, 2 abstain). Well down to them, biggest rebellion ever for the SNP

They’ve also told the EU they are wrong about their currency, so a totally normal day really

Katie Forbes is probably relieved to be well out of this one too.

I find the idea of whipping a bit strange in so much as it means an MP/MSP may have to vote against their constituents views. I hadn't realised Labour also apparently whipped the vote. Don't agree with that either. It can also descend into farce like the fracking vote the other night.

I think it is slightly off putting that the SNP never have public dissention, in fact they specifically forbid it, or at least used to. Kudos for being a well-oiled machine, but I don't think politicians within a party openly querying direction is all that bad at times so long as it isn't an attempt to cause chaos.

[vball]

The way the SNP handle their internal critics, is a little like Stalin's Great Purge.

[tc27]

Quick note - taxpayers in the rest of the UK will not pay pensions or other state benefits for an independent Scotland - the fact this still gets floated IMO shows how unserious those advocating Independence are about the economic consequences.

I am puzzled by the GRA legislation - could be someone looking for a legacy? I cannot see how it works in a UK sense unless a self IDed trans women suddenly reverts back to being a man when they travel to a different part of the UK? Would not surprise me if it ends up being challenged in the Supreme Court.

[Biffer]

Quick note - taxpayers in the rest of the UK will not pay pensions or other state benefits for an independent Scotland - the fact this still gets floated IMO shows how unserious those advocating Independence are about the economic consequences.

I am puzzled by the GRA legislation - could be someone looking for a legacy? I cannot see how it works in a UK sense unless a self IDed trans women suddenly reverts back to being a man when they travel to a different part of the UK? Would not surprise me if it ends up being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Anything to back that up other than tc27 thinks so, so it must be right? We all have views and n what the settlement would/could/should be but stating any of it as definite is just dumb.

[Tichtheid]

Quick note - taxpayers in the rest of the UK will not pay pensions or other state benefits for an independent Scotland - the fact this still gets floated IMO shows how unserious those advocating Independence are about the economic consequences.

Just in case you're interested, the SNP's position is that the government of an independent Scotland would be responsible for state pensions from day one.

However, there are negotiations to be had, and it would obviously depend on how the assets and liabilities are assigned.

[shaggy]

Quick note - taxpayers in the rest of the UK will not pay pensions or other state benefits for an independent Scotland - the fact this still gets floated IMO shows how unserious those advocating Independence are about the economic consequences.

Just in case you're interested, the SNP's position is that the government of an independent Scotland would be responsible for state pensions from day one.

However, there are negotiations to be had, and it would obviously depend on how the assets and liabilities are assigned.

Are the Scottish Government in a position to estimate this potential cost? I would suspect they need an analyse from UK Gov/HMRC to give any figure real credence and I don’t see that forthcoming.

[Tichtheid]

Quick note - taxpayers in the rest of the UK will not pay pensions or other state benefits for an independent Scotland - the fact this still gets floated IMO shows how unserious those advocating Independence are about the economic consequences.

Just in case you're interested, the SNP's position is that the government of an independent Scotland would be responsible for state pensions from day one.

However, there are negotiations to be had, and it would obviously depend on how the assets and liabilities are assigned.

Are the Scottish Government in a position to estimate this potential cost? I would suspect they need an analyse from UK Gov/HMRC to give any figure real credence and I don’t see that forthcoming.

Actuaries do this every day.

It's probably more complicated than this, but isn't it the number of people of pension age x the state pension, then adjusted for projections on how many people are likely to be of that age/die off in future years?

One of the problems facing Scotland (and the UK) is that the country needs immigration to keep up the proportion of working people to pensioners

[shaggy]

I think whatever data the Scottish Gov can create on this would need validation from UK Gov and I don’t see the figures matching or even being provided under the current misalignment on sovereignty.

Even the first step of the many required has yet to be sized up, let alone completed.

[shaggy]

Also agree on the immigration piece, which makes that hard border vs free movement topic rather prickly.

[Jockaline]

Nice to see the youth of our country standing up against fascism.

[Tichtheid]

Nice to see the youth of our country standing up against fascism.

Brilliant.

"Yer talkin shite, mate"

[Biffer]

That's fucking class.

[tc27]

Quick note - taxpayers in the rest of the UK will not pay pensions or other state benefits for an independent Scotland - the fact this still gets floated IMO shows how unserious those advocating Independence are about the economic consequences.

I am puzzled by the GRA legislation - could be someone looking for a legacy? I cannot see how it works in a UK sense unless a self IDed trans women suddenly reverts back to being a man when they travel to a different part of the UK? Would not surprise me if it ends up being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Anything to back that up other than tc27 thinks so, so it must be right? We all have views and n what the settlement would/could/should be but stating any of it as definite is just dumb.

1. As pointed out by Ticht the position of the Scottish government in its 2014 white paper

2. This is also the position of UK government ministers when asked subsequently

3. Simple common sense is that if you take 9% of the tax base you also take the obligation to pay that 9% state benefits.

Suggesting it might happen because of negations is fantasy - its a £9 billion PA obligation in negotiations where the rUK would have almost all the leverage.