Scottish independence

Archi_Bald

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Maybe you would like to consider the following publication

Pensions in an Independent Scotland

Quoting from the above document :

Occupational and personal pension rights and accrued benefits would not be affected by Scotland becoming independent. An individual’s occupational or personal pension will already set out the retirement benefits which will be granted under the particular scheme and under which conditions.

This is a sweeping statement which clearly has not considered rUK pension investments held by scottish financial institutions. May be there aren't many, as most of the platforms are registered south of the border. But there certainly will be some, and it would be foolish to assume the investors will want to hold their pension pots with firms that are outside rUK jurisdiction.

ColdIron

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Maybe you would like to consider the following publication

Pensions in an Independent Scotland

Would you say that it has more or that it has less credibility than the risible White Paper produced at about the same time?

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I think the pensions query has already been answered.

For one, There are many UK residents who live abroad and receive a UK pension

Maybe you would like to consider the following publication

Pensions in an Independent Scotland

The document is a straight forward political rant.
It makes no pretence of providing real information to the Scottish people and is about as reliable as wings over Scotland.

Independence


also offers Scots the chance, for the first time, to reject the poor stewardship that has


characterised the UK Government’s management of the pensions system over many


years and to establish pensions, squarely, as a Scottish responsibility.

and

– a choice between the pensions crisis brought about by successive






UK Governments and the competence demonstrated by the Scottish




Government.

this should be about the factual matters affecting everyone in Scotland; instead it's just vote YES propaganda.


NO surprise there of course because, any half truth that gets the YES vote in, is OK.

Archi_Bald

CLAPTON wrote: »

NO surprise there of course because, any half truth that gets the YES vote in, is OK.

The scary thing is that so many people appear to believe the half truths. I often wonder why so many people in Scotland don't seem to have heard that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true.

colsten

Borrowedtune wrote: »

If the Scots vote yes and a Labour Govt takes over from May 2015 that is dependent for its majority on Scottish MPs, are they in a position to negotiate satisfactorily on behalf of the rUK ? .

One good reason to vote Con in the next general election.

Sometimes you have to accept that you need to support the least worst political party in order to get the best possible government.

scott_lithgows

Archi_Bald wrote: »

The scary thing is that so many people appear to believe the half truths. I often wonder why so many people in Scotland don't seem to have heard that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true.

Fair enough but no one believes the promises from London based parties re further devolution powers.
Devo max was the answer,75% of Scots would have settled for this but it was never offered,leaving just the yes/no option
England,of course would receive this as well stopping Scots Labour MPs voting on English matters.
Defence,currency and foreign affairs would be joint(seems to work for Usa States)

Still think it will be a No vote however close,hopefully peace will break out after it.A referendum on EU membership in 2017 would be a very interesting debate up here.

colsten

scott_lithgows wrote: »

Still think it will be a No vote however close,hopefully peace will break out after it.A referendum on EU membership in 2017 would be a very interesting debate up here.

On current opinion polls, it seems Scotland is essentially a divided nation and I can't see that changing after the Referendum, whatever the outcome. Sad state of affairs, really.

As to EU membership, I think the UK would be bonkers to leave the EU, as bonkers as Scotland would be to leave the UK. Bottom line, it will always be easier to p*** out of the tent than into it. As long as the tent is big enough for everybody in it, that is.

Chadsman

scott_lithgows wrote: »

Fair enough but no one believes the promises from London based parties re further devolution powers.

If the vote is a very narrow margin for 'no' as the polls currently predict and bearing in mind the promises made by the Unionist parties regarding further devolution it would be a big own goal for them to renege on those promises.

zeupater

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

.... Maybe you would like to consider the following publication

Pensions in an Independent Scotland

Hi

As previously mentioned, I've no say, but have a general interest on what's being said by both sides of the campaign ... as such I've just read the above-referenced document.

So, what's my opinion .... well it reads like an insurance or guaranty policy which has no backing. What do I mean?, well, where's the backing to all of the assertions .... firstly you'd need the government to place the current & future wealth & earnings of the nation & it's population behind a central bank, then the central bank and regulators to stand behind the financial institutions, which in turn would form the support mechanism for whatever the national currency would be .... and there stands the elephant ..... without the institutions and currency questions first being answered satisfactorily, there's absolutely no way that the referenced document is worth the effort of reading past the first letter .....

.... am I content that my home latitude insulates me from a decision to invest (/gamble) absolutely everything in a house of cards with no underwritten guaranty which, from the outside, looks to be sold by dodgy double glazing salesmen with the tempting offer of free 'snake oil' and rose tinted glasses ?? ..... :think: ... well, somewhere between almost surely and certainly ...

Z

.string.

scott_lithgows wrote: »

Fair enough but no one believes the promises from London based parties re further devolution powers.
Devo max was the answer,75% of Scots would have settled for this but it was never offered,leaving just the yes/no option
England,of course would receive this as well stopping Scots Labour MPs voting on English matters.
Defence,currency and foreign affairs would be joint(seems to work for Usa States)

Still think it will be a No vote however close,hopefully peace will break out after it.A referendum on EU membership in 2017 would be a very interesting debate up here.

I believe it. It would happen, and quickly. The only thing I see delaying it slightly is if the arrangements from Wales & NI are to be taken into account as well. Discussion should be between the UK Central Government and all political parties in Scotland but not just the SNP who would not have a mandate to discuss it alone.

But I would not agree to what many call some think is Devo Max which amounts to "Give us all our money we'll just contribute to defence and foregin affairs". That's just free-loading, pure and simple.The role of the Union is ignored in that and income is needed by the Union to provide general infrastructure and pensions and financial underpinning, coordination/funding of R&D - in fact all sorts.

For such an offer the whole of the UK would have to agree to it and I for one would expect a UK-wide referendum on that even if I'm not habilutally in favour of Referenda: Additional devolution OK.

On the Europe thing it would indeed be interesting; there the argument is much the same - why change a strong financial link up with a major trading partner in which one has a privileged position just for some misplaced jingoism. But there are U-KIP nutters on both sides of "the border" I'm afraid.