Wynd
Member
How would such a settlement, City-State capital, manifest in votes within the federated parliament?
Would it not hand London an effective veto?
Would it not hand London an effective veto?
How would such a settlement, City-State capital, manifest in votes within the federated parliament?
Would it not hand London an effective veto?
It's certainly the case at the moment and would be in any election where the polls are tight. Where there's a big disparity in the English vote then fair enough, the Scottish vote wouldn't affect the overall outcome of the election. But it would affect the composition of the HoC and that's significant.Can you? Historically that has only very rarely been the case.
I'd agree with that. Although ultimately I think this is part of a Westminster vs rest of Britain problem, rather than an England vs Scotland problem.That's true (and I don't think many would disagree) but that doesn't mean Scotland can't or shouldn't seek to redefine that relationship. Total autonomy clearly isn't possible, but that doesn't mean seeking more autonomy isn't worth doing.
In practical terms that leaves Scottish voters with a choice of A. Sticking with the UK and all its well discussed issues, Or, B. take the whole kit and kaboodle in to their own hands and deal with England et al as an equal partner, not a subordinate as is presently the case.
English regions are the solution. It's not a new idea - Churchill advocated for it in 1912, it was recommended in the 1969 Redcliffe-Maud report and New Labour gave it a bit of a go.Isn't that why people suggest you'd not have an English state but rather break it up into a few bits? Counties are too small, but TOC areas might genuinely give you a vague idea as to the right size! London, like Berlin, would be a federal capital city state.
Have you been to Yorkshire recently? Regional devolution is gaining traction and is only opposed by Westminster.And this is the issue. Voters in Scotland within a theoretical federated space are aware that England would be required to make drastic changes to its governance, in order to get a more balanced UK.
More than a few citizens north of the Border are skeptical on such a thing occurring. Many of those south of it don't see the point or need.
Even as an independent country, Scotland would remain massively reliant on trade with England, and the relative economic size would dictate how that relationship would develop. Equal status would be achieved on paper but not in practice, as was the case prior to 1707.In practical terms that leaves Scottish voters with a choice of A. Sticking with the UK and all its well discussed issues, Or, B. take the whole kit and kaboodle in to their own hands and deal with England et al as an equal partner, not a subordinate as is presently the case.
Certainly the way the Tories managed Brexit has energised the cause of Scottish independence (I suspect this was deliberate Tory policy), but it makes independence far more difficult in practice as it would force an independent Scotland to make some very difficult decisions. By contrast, had Remain won, independence would be far easier in practical terms.Had Brexit not happened, or had Scotland been treated as the valued equal partner we heard so much about in 2014, I doubt we would be discussing this at all.
Sure you would still have the issue of Westminster and its near 10-1 ratio of votes, but the impetus would be reduced.
Actually, however, it is not. Eligibility is based on contributions but those taxes have been spent. Future pensions are paid from future taxation. You can not base policy on the fiction that this is a funded pension system.The fact still remains that the new state pension is, notionally, funded by contributions.
What does 'the proportion of the qualifying years that were contributed to by each country' mean? I worked about 10 years in England and 30 in Scotland - the contributions came from me and my employers. If you want to divide things up by contributions, surely Scotland should pay 75% of my pension? Pensions earned by work after separation would of course be separate.The only fair solution would be for both governments to pay a percentage of new pensions based on the proportion of the qualifying years that were contributed to by each country. This would mean that the r-UK would pay 100% of any new pensions in year one, falling to zero percent by year ten.
It is a fiction that the government chose. They chose to have a contributory pension scheme but spend the contributions. Other countries ring-fence NI contributions and invest them. For example, the Canadian pension scheme has over $500B in assets under management.You can not base policy on the fiction that this is a funded pension system.
As an existing pension, yes. That's one way it could be worked out.I worked about 10 years in England and 30 in Scotland - the contributions came from me and my employers. If you want to divide things up by contributions, surely Scotland should pay 75% of my pension?
No. This would apply to people reaching pension age in the ten years post-independence.Scottish taxpayers, including me, would pay nothing in year one towards my pension, with English taxpayers footing the bill. You have a strange definition of fairness.
It's fair in that it gives the Scottish government time to build a pension scheme of their own, rather than being landed with a massive liability because the Westminster government chose to spend the NI contributions.
The problem with the "Scotland will have to pay" argument is that they would be asked to pay a contributory pension having received none of the contributions.
Nobody is going to lose their citizenship.
That is a very good question, one that's impossible to answer since we mix NI contributions in with general revenue and spend it as if they were taxes.Did Scotland not receive its share of that Government spending ?
You can find English people in Sinn Fein too, it says nothing about the character of the party.
Just because some members of a minority join an organisation, does not mean the organisation is insulated from criticism about how it perceives the same minorities.
I don't why you are finding it hard to understand. You are a UK citizen today and if you so choose, you will remain a UK citizen in an independent ScotlandProbably, although we do not know what options will be open to those living in Scotland on Day 1 of Independence; I am not, never have been, and do not ever want to be a Scot, so what will be my status as a non-Scottish and therefore eventually non-EU citizen living in Scotland ? No-one knows.
This is exactly why it is self determination first and then the people in Scotland can decide what path they wantBut when the pro-independence parties are promising two different contradictory results of independence that is not a realistic position to take, especially given that either way it likely to be by a few percentage points (or even votes). This hardly represents the settled will of the people, especially if people don’t know what they are voting for. Just look at the Brexit debate.
An independent Scotland will be able to have full open access to the ‘UK single market’, or the EU single market, but it can not have both at the same time. Nationalist politicians need to be honest about that just as unionists need to shut up about all this citizenship claptrap.
It is a fiction that the government chose. They chose to have a contributory pension scheme but spend the contributions. Other countries ring-fence NI contributions and invest them. For example, the Canadian pension scheme has over $500B in assets under management.
As an existing pension, yes. That's one way it could be worked out.
This is exactly why it is self determination first and then the people in Scotland can decide what path they want
In what way exactly?That is completely and utterly nonsensical.
As I understand it, the old UK state pension was non-contributory and so like the Old Age Security payment, while the new state pension is contributory and so like the Canadian pension plan.Isn’t the Canadian (and Quebec) Pension Plan(s) more analogous to the UK government National Employment Savings Trust (nest) pension, while the UK state pension is more similar to the Canadian ‘Old Age Security’ payment?
I think there may be a misunderstanding around the term contributory. In this context, it is that payments out have a relation to having made payments in, rather than being universal based on age etc.As I understand it, the old UK state pension was non-contributory and so like the Old Age Security payment, while the new state pension is contributory and so like the Canadian pension plan.
I'm not sure that is the case. Looking at my pension forecast on gov.uk I get:But there is no direct linkage from how much NI you've paid in (in pounds sterling) to how much comes out.
You need to continue to contribute National Insurance to reach your forecast
- Estimate based on your National Insurance record up to 5 April 2021 - £114.72 a week
- Forecast if you contribute another 13 years before 5 April 2042 - £179.60 a week
Yes, that's based on number of years of contributions. You need to make 35 years to get the 'full' state pension which currently stands at that £179.60/week.I'm not sure that is the case. Looking at my pension forecast on gov.uk I get:
- Estimate based on your National Insurance record up to 5 April 2021 - £114.72 a week
- Forecast if you contribute another 13 years before 5 April 2042 - £179.60 a week
In what way exactly?
As I understand it, the old UK state pension was non-contributory and so like the Old Age Security payment, while the new state pension is contributory and so like the Canadian Pension Plan.
Well the solution is Labour to become electable, whatever that ends up meaning. You might say the voters are stupid for not voting Labour, but we live in a democracy, and if you want power, you have to get the votes. Take it or leave it. Unless of course, you are suggesting we should live in a dictatorship instead?But that's where independence voters would say the UK fails. We have a voting system that allows England to pick from either the Tories or Labour to lead the government. The result is usually a Tory government that has no care to cooperate and means Scotland ends up having to fight to keep its devolved powers or are ignored when it comes to what they want. The big example is obviously Brexit, where Scotland rejected it yet still had it forced on them, despite promises from Better Together during the 2014 Indy vote that the only way to remain was to say no.
I don't say voters are stupid for not voting Labour, I myself am a member of a smaller party and would prefer the UK to join the rest of Europe in introducing proportionate representation but that's a debate that could stretch into a whole thread of its own.Well the solution is Labour to become electable, whatever that ends up meaning. You might say the voters are stupid for not voting Labour, but we live in a democracy, and if you want power, you have to get the votes. Take it or leave it. Unless of course, you are suggesting we should live in a dictatorship instead?
I don't why you are finding it hard to understand. You are a UK citizen today and if you so choose, you will remain a UK citizen in an independent Scotland
Yes. As long as the UK allows it.Will I ?
The Scottish Government:What is your source of information for that assertion ?
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/pages/11/At the point of independence, this Government proposes an inclusive model of citizenship for people whether or not they define themselves as primarily or exclusively Scottish or wish to become a Scottish passport holder. People in Scotland are accustomed to multiple identities, be they national, regional, ethnic, linguistic or religious, and a commitment to a multi-cultural Scotland will be a cornerstone of the nation on independence.
We plan that British citizens habitually resident in Scotland on independence will be considered Scottish citizens. This will include British citizens who hold dual citizenship with another country. Scottish born British citizens currently living outside of Scotland will also be considered Scottish citizens.
Following independence, other people will be able to apply for Scottish citizenship. For example, citizenship by descent will be available to those who have a parent or grandparent who qualifies for Scottish citizenship. Those who have a demonstrable connection to Scotland and have spent at least ten years living here at some stage, whether as a child or an adult, will also have the opportunity to apply for citizenship. Migrants on qualifying visas will also have the option of applying for naturalisation as a Scottish citizen.
The UK allows dual or multiple citizenship for British citizens. If a British citizen acquires citizenship and a passport of another country, this does not affect their British citizenship, right to hold a British passport or right to live in the UK. The Scottish Government will also allow dual citizenship. It will be for the rest of the UK to decide whether it allows dual UK/Scottish citizenship, but we expect the normal rules to extend to Scottish citizens.
That depends on if you are automatically granted (or choose to apply for) Scottish citizenship. If you are are a Scottish citizen and Scotland joins the EU then you would have all the rights of a citizen of an EU country. If you do not have Scottish citizenship then you would have exactly the same rights as a UK citizen in any other EU country.What will my status be, as I have repeatedly asked, if I am indeed able to remain a UK citizen and therefore become a non-EU citizen living in an EU country ?
I agree with that, but your OP only mentioned 2 options, and said 1 of them was bad. I simply assumed you preferred Labour based on that information, and then proceeded to make other assumptions. Apologies if I was wrong.I don't say voters are stupid for not voting Labour, I myself am a member of a smaller party and would prefer the UK to join the rest of Europe in introducing proportionate representation but that's a debate that could stretch into a whole thread of its own.
Will I ? What is your source of information for that assertion ? What will my status be, as I have repeatedly asked, if I am indeed able to remain a UK citizen and therefore become a non-EU citizen living in an EU country ? Perhaps I am finding it hard to understand because the parties desperate for the glory of independence, the SNP and their little Green helpers, have not spelled it out, or, more likely, have not considered it and don't know.
Where are you getting your information from?
Do you not look at norms?