Jump to content

Left Back

Gold Members
  • Posts

    6,039
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Left Back

  1. 5 minutes ago, strichener said:

    That assumption is irrelevant, there is nothing in legislation that states that pension are paid on that assumption.  Quite clearly there is an liability created at the point NI is collected as shown in my previous post.

    The only reason that you are astonished is that you completely misunderstand the contract between the state and the worker in relation to pensions.  Here is my current pension record - 

    image.png.e85b4a5676105beabdb803ac8e612b3c.png

    This is sufficient to collect a full state pension in the UK.  I can stop working tomorrow and when I turn 67, get my full pension from the UK without contributing another bean to the treasury.  Why would the SG suddenly become liable for that if I happened to live in Scotland.  I see that you ignored the earlier scenarios in regards to who pays.

    If I decide to move to England when I am 66 years and 364 days old having not paid a single pound in NI to the SG government, who pays my pension?
    If I decide to move to England when I am 67 years and 1 day old having not paid a single pound in NI to the SG government, who pays my pension?
    If I decide to move to England now having not paid a single pound in NI to the SG government, who pays my pension?

    If your answer to all 3 is not the UK government then I despair.

    I'm out of this conversation.  A whole bunch of people are clearly in denial about what would happen in the real world and looks like deliberately confusing paying with funding.  I'm not repeating myself any more.

     

  2. 2 minutes ago, strichener said:

    No, and neither am I suggesting that the Scottish Government would have no liability for future entitlement.  The question of where liability rests for existing entitlement is clearly with the entity that has received the payment that has created the liability in the first place. 

    I can't even believe that this needs explained.  I'm not even sure that the UK government disputed this in the lead up to the 2014 referendum.  In the days of fear mongering, I am sure that the pension minister stated that the UK would continue to pay pensions for those that had accumulated entitlement.

    So the UK gov builds up a pension liability, part of which is to pay Scottish pensioners, on the assumption they’ll be receiving tax receipts from Scotland to help fund that liability.

    Those tax receipts are taken away but the liability still remains and the Scottish taxpayer contributes nothing towards paying the pensions of Scottish people.  In the meantime SG are laughing all the way to the bank for decades because they’ll have a trivial amount to pay out in pensions for that long?

    People are kidding themselves if they think thats even a reasonable stance let alone something that had the remotest chance of happening.

    I really am astonished at the views on this.  The only scenario I could imagine that’s more ridiculous than this would be if someone suggested Barnett consequentials should remain in place post independence.

  3. 23 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

    Have genuinely no idea how good Ajax are going to be. Interesting.

    A long night if Goldson continues his rich seam of being an absolute airhead tho.

    Do you ever see a bad Ajax side?  Pretty sure they usually progress quite deep in the CL.

    Would be extremely surprised if Rangers don’t get a bigger hiding than Celtic got last night.

  4. 3 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

    ....swap it around a little bit...... "Those people were employed by the UK, who promised to pay them a pension so the liability is all theirs." .......and you may  have finally got to the point.

    The UK owns a future liability to current contributors.

    The exact nature and sum of those liabilities to people in Scotland will be the subject of a trade.

     

    I think it’s you thats missing the point.  In the example above replace the EU with the UK and replace the UK with Scotland.

    Scotland votes to leave then Scotland funds its share of the pension liabilities the UK accrued while Scotland was part of the UK, in the same way the UK funded its share of the pension liabilities the EU accrued while the UK was part of the EU.

  5. 4 minutes ago, strichener said:

    I'll have whatever you're smoking.  Why would Scotland pay out significant sums from revenues for liabilities accrued by the UK?  You appear to keep missing the point that the UK already have these liabilities regardless of what happens with Independence.

    So to go back to the EU point someone made earlier.  Are you suggesting the UK should have just walked away and not contributed towards future EU pension liability.  Those people were employed by the EU, who promised to pay them a pension so the liability is all theirs.

  6. 11 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

    Exactly this. 

    In much the same way that the pensions of ex-UK MEPs and ex-UK employees of the European Institutions were ring-fenced as part of the Brexit negotiation. 

    That's the exact opposite scenario.  the EU's pension liability was an amount of money.  Lots of that was accrued while the UK was part of the EU so it's only right that the EU contributed a sum towards future pension liability.

    What people seem to be saying here is the exact opposite of that.  They're basically saying that Scotland should not contribute towards future pension liability and the UK should take it all.

  7. 6 minutes ago, strichener said:

    You are continuing to ignore the current precedent.  If you have contributed NI you accrue pension entitlement regardless of where you reside in the world.  Are you seriously suggesting that the aUK would put special rules in place that say "but not for Scotland".  It is completely unworkable.

    If you were to take the hypothetical scenarios where Scotland gains Independence in 2025 and John, living in Scotland reaches pension age in 2024.  Who pays?  If he reaches pension age in 2026, who pays?  If he is actually English but living in Scotland, who pays?  Or if he moves to England before reaching pension age, who pays?

    The only logical and workable solution is that the UK will be liable for the pension based on contributions to date and then the Scottish government will pick up the liability for any contributions made post Independence to the Scottish Exchequer.  Nothing else is either workable or sensible.

    If SG refused to contribute a reasonable sum out of their own revenues that is exactly what I can see happening.  As I’ve said we’re talking hundreds of billions of pounds.  I can’t see any scenario where UK gov will agree to pay pensions to people in Scotland without SG reimbursing the money.

    If the scenario is that payments are still handle by the UK for a period of time then a figure will be agreed that the SG have to provide every month out of taxation to cover the share of pensions paid to people in Scotland.  I can’t imagine such a scenario lasting long though before responsibility for paying direct to Scottish pensioners is passed back to SG.

  8. 11 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:
    32 minutes ago, Left Back said:
    The newly formed Scottish government will pay for it out of tax receipts raised, in exactly the same way UK pensions are paid for and the liability will be passed to them.  There are roughly a million people of pension age in Scotland.  The state pension is approximately £10k per year so that would be roughly £10bn that has to be funded every year.  Do you really think the UK gov are going to fund that for the next few decades (given that over time it will decline).  We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds.  Do you really believe UK gov is going to subsidise an independent Scotland to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds?
    What settlement in lieu of the pre-indy contributions?  The pre-indy contributions have been spent on previous generations of pensioners.  There is no pot of money to claim a share of.  Pensions are paid for on a month to month basis by the tax receipts.  If there was a pot of money I'd agree Scotland would be entitled to a share but that's not how state pensions work in the UK.

    You are misinterpreting or not understanding what I posted. Of course the SG will pay it from day 1 (would seem an obvious solution but who knows) but the settlement in lieu of contributions already made to the UKG will be go towards the funding of it. No one is saying the UKG will fully fund it or pay it for years. There will be a settlement figure the terms of which (one off or ongoing instalments from UKG) will be decided during the negotiations.

    That seems to be exactly what some people are saying.

    Again, contributions you, I and the rest of us have made have been used to fund the pensions of people that are currently drawing their pension.  That money is gone.  That's how the state pension in the UK works.

  9. 2 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:
    16 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:
    You are just so wrong.
    Every penny collected from UK(ruk plus Scots taxpayers) prior to independence will have been spent for the benefit of all UK citizens. There is NO fund as in private pensions.
    As I said earlier, it’s time you clarified this with your SNP politicians.

    So how are pensions funded just now. Are you telling us the UK treasury is quite literally living month to month on a hand to mouth basis spending every penny it receives each month ?

    When it comes to pensions pretty much yes. 

    I can't remember the name of it but there's basically a buffer account that holds roughly two months or so of payments that is drawn from and topped up on a monthly basis.  This account or fund or whatever exists to ensure that there is enough money to pay out if contributions for that month aren't as much as needs to be paid out.

    Current NI contributions aren't put into a ring fenced fund or invested.  They are used to pay the pensions of existing pensioners.

  10. 26 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

    It's deluded and simple thinking to think they won't.

    How do you distinguish the state pension entitlement of the retiree who moved from Farnham to Fife, from someone who has lived and worked in Dunfermline all their days? What about the Scot who worked in London and paid NI contributions for years but has returned home......what is their entitlement? What of the Welshman who worked in the Aberdeen oil industry and is now back in Cardiff.  

    The mod pension of Tongan veteran living in Tonga continues getting paid but the Scots veteran in Scotland doesn't?

    Nonsense.

    These commitments will at least in part be met by rUK gov as part of a negotiated settlement. 

    It also stands to reason that the commitment will diminish over time.

     

    What will likely happen there is there will be a reciprocal arrangement in place between Scotland and rUK entitling you to certain benefits, so an English person that lives in Scotland will be entitled to things like free healthcare, social security etc and the reverse will apply.   Therefore whichever country you're in your pension benefits will still accrue but when it's time to receive your state pension it will be funded by whichever country you happen to be living in at the time.  If you then happen to move country after you start receiving your pension it will still continue to be paid by whichever country you originally claimed it from (similar to a current UK citizen retiring abroad)

  11. 18 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

    The notion that the rUK govt would simply keep every penny paid in NI contributions by every working Scot towards their state pension in the event of a yes vote with a newly formed Scottish govt then having to pay that pension without any form of settlement in lieu of the pre indy contributions is as far fetched as it is pathetic. An old trope that simply won't happen and how clearly intelligent people can be convinced such as scenario is even remotely likely is beyond my comprehension. There will be a settlement reached in post Indy negotiations.

    The newly formed Scottish government will pay for it out of tax receipts raised, in exactly the same way UK pensions are paid for and the liability will be passed to them.  There are roughly a million people of pension age in Scotland.  The state pension is approximately £10k per year so that would be roughly £10bn that has to be funded every year.  Do you really think the UK gov are going to fund that for the next few decades (given that over time it will decline).  We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds.  Do you really believe UK gov is going to subsidise an independent Scotland to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds?

    What settlement in lieu of the pre-indy contributions?  The pre-indy contributions have been spent on previous generations of pensioners.  There is no pot of money to claim a share of.  Pensions are paid for on a month to month basis by the tax receipts.  If there was a pot of money I'd agree Scotland would be entitled to a share but that's not how state pensions work in the UK.

  12. 3 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

    Obviously they can......they could tell you and I we were to work until we are 100 before we draw.......an given the direction of recent UK governments who knows.

     This doesn't take away from the fact that the UK gov is currently liable for our state and gov pensions. It will  continue to hold liability and therefore pay a large part of, if not all, of the pension to those with the required entitlement post independence. 

    For the reasons now repeatedly provided, any other scenario is unworkable for both governments. How would they decide who is entitled and who is not?

    ...folk can read that particular FOA paper (and the many others available) and draw their own conclusions to be honest.

    The more info folk have the less likely they are to fall for the scaremongering rubbish.

    We'll we'll see if and when it happens.  Personally I believe there's absolutely zero chance of rUK funding Scottish pensions and therefore subsidising an independent Scotland.  Anyone who thinks there is is deluded imo.

  13. 25 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

    The article points in that direction. The footnote makes it very clear.

    A negotiated settlement wherebye rUK assumes liability for those with pension entitlement in exchange for some yet to be determined trade is the only sensible scenario.

    It really doesn't.  You probably need to read and understand the entire article.  It isn't leaning one way or another and discussing various positions that could be taken.

    I've already pointed out to you where the article clearly says the footnote is not set in stone.  Just in case you can't find it it's here.

    "Since individuals have no ownership rights over their past contributions, the UK Government can change the qualifying rules for state pensions as its sees fit."

  14. 8 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

    It is a bit more complicated than that.

    Who will fund rUK citizens living in Scotland and vice versa? How would you determine entitlement?

    After reading the excellent FOA summary, it is pretty clear the rUK will assume liability (therefore funding) of pensions of those living in Scotland with current entitlement but expect some trade off in return. (Perhaps debt allocation)

    I know it doesn't sit well with the Daily Mail type crowd but that is the reality.

     

     

     

    I assume you're talking about the footnote rather than the summary.  If you are that simply sets out the current pension rules.  The article explains that those rules can be easily changed and even describes recent changes to them.

    That article in no way claims that rUK will assume the liability and funding.

  15. 32 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

    Surely an oven is a fixture rather than a content.

    Assuming it was already in the flat and listed on the schedule it doesn't matter what it is.  If it's broken due to normal wear and tear then the landlord surely must be liable for repair/replacement.  If it's not normal wear and tear probably not.  If it's not actually listed on the schedule then things could be interesting.

  16. 9 minutes ago, BFTD said:

    Oh God, not the pensions again. Fully expect to be picking up my pension in an independent Scotland in 2050, with people telling me that I'm imagining it happening.

      Reveal hidden contents

    lol not really, we'll still be in the UK, there'll be no worthwhile state pension, and I'll be waving my wrinkly willy on OnlyFans to make ends meet.

     

     

    8 minutes ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

    I see the old "ye'll no get a pension if you vote for independence" has raised its head again. Scotland, the only country that won't offer a pension.

    No-one is saying that at all.  Of course there will be a pension (that may be actually paid to you by the UK, I believe it's more likely to be paid to you by SG).  This discussion is about who will be funding that pension.  There seems to be a belief among certain posters that the UK taxpayer will merrily fund Scottish pensions for the decades it takes until all Scots that have accrued entitlements under the UK are deceased.  It's an insane position to take that SG will have no liability for funding pensions.  It's monumentally naive at best and downright stupidity at worst.

  17. 25 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

    See link above.

    It will not be subsidizing anything, because it will be part of a larger negotiated settlement over asset and liability .

    However the likely reality is rUK will be paying a good proportion of our pensions for a long time.

    Any other scenario is ludicrous and unworkable.

     

    18 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

    .... this then suggests that rUK will in fact assume liability for our pensions but expect Scotland to contribute an amount subject to negotiation.

     

     

    You seem to be confused between funding and paying.  Funding is liability.  Paying is just the conduit.  It may be the case that UK will continue to facilitate the actual payment but now way would they to fund it.

  18. 4 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

    This article from FOA sums it up quite well:

    https://fraserofallander.org/who-pays-the-state-pension-in-an-independent-scotland/

    The reality is that there will be a trade.

    UK gov will continue pension liability in exchange for reciprocal arrangements. As happens with the EU, Australia etc at the moment.

    You seemingly failed to see this part which deals with funding so no the UK government wouldn't just blanket continue liability.

    "It would expect the Scottish government to make a reasonable contribution to the costs of the State Pension in Scotland"

  19. 1 minute ago, Clown Job said:

    You’re right it is getting a bit unreal 

    A UK citizen living in Spain is entitled to the pension 

    A UK citizen living in Scotland wouldn’t be entitled to the pension

    Doesn't really make sense 

    So you really think the Scottish government will assume no liabilities for state pensions and rUK would be effectively subsidising an independent Scotland on this?

    That really is never going to happen.

  20. 1 minute ago, Clown Job said:

    Who says people willing be losing their UK Citizenship after independence?

    The Irish didn’t after all. 

    This is getting surreal.

    Whether we'd be entitled to dual citizenship or not rUK would not be funding state pensions for Scottish pensioners post independence.

  21. 10 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

    Please tell me you're joking with this?  

    Going by your logic, Brits who live in an independent Spain don't get their state pension from the UK govt?

    No I'm not joking and a UK citizen who retires abroad and is still entitled to their UK state pension is an entirely different scenario.

    29 minutes ago, steelmen said:

    Scotland will pay your state pension but it is up to the SG, as part of the divorce settlement, to get X amount of millions of our pension contributions from the UK goverment.

    There are no pension contributions.  Those have been spent on current state pensions.  They aren't invested or held in a fund (well actually a tiny amount is held in a buffer account to smooth out any discrepanices between that months income and expenditure.  Around 2 months worth of payments or something along those lines).

    What you guys are basically saying is that an independent Scotland will only assume pension liabilities from the moment of independence so all the years of entitlement built up while part of the UK will continue to be paid by the UK.  Do you realise how ludicrous that sounds?

    State pensions would likely be one of the least contentious parts of the negotiations but it absolutely will not happen that the UK taxpayer will be funding Scottish state pensions for decades until everyone that is pensionable age in Scotland has only ever accrued entitlements (or whatever system Scotland would use) under an independent Scotland.

    What will happen is the SG will assume liability for the entitlements (and existing pensions) of Scots that were built up as part of the UK and the SG would fund those pensions out of SG tax revenue post independence.

  22. 3 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

    Better question. Why should an independent Scotland be concerned with how rUK funds its liabilities? 

    To be clear here.

    Lets assume I turn 67 and become entitled to my state pension on the day Scotland becomes independent.  Are people really saying they'd expect the UK to fund my state pension and not an independent Scotland?

×
×
  • Create New...