Scotland, Brexit & IndyRef2: Implications, considerations and similar (including impact on rail).

[Wynd]

How would such a settlement, City-State capital, manifest in votes within the federated parliament?

Would it not hand London an effective veto?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would such a settlement, City-State capital, manifest in votes within the federated parliament?

Would it not hand London an effective veto?

That entirely depends on how such votes are allocated.

Anyway, this is looking for perfection, arguably we just need "better than now"? The UK already sort of is federal, there's just no English parliament.

 

[quantinghome]

Can you? Historically that has only very rarely been the case.

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.

But taking a very long historical view, Britain has tended to move in the right direction when Scotland combines with progressive elements in England and Wales to overcome a reactionary / pro status quo establishment (e.g. formation of the Labour party, even the 17th century Solemn League and Covenant). Scotland has played a crucial role in this, disproportionate to its population, which should not be downplayed.

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.

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.

 

[Wynd]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

For all I'm happy with independence if they want it, it would not be as an equal partner. England's economy would be many times larger.

It's of a similar size, population and demographic to the Republic of Ireland and would be very much like that, and we'd relate to it very similarly.

 

[Wynd]

Equal in terms of, ability to set its own policy free from Whitehall/Westminster agendas etc. England would of course be a larger economic entity as you rightly say.

That aspect is whats driving much of this whole discussion. UK GDP, how unequally it is spread, and the use of national resources. Those subjects permeate every aspect of politics within the UK and are a large part of today's issues.

Waged have barely risen since 2008, inflation comes along, and people suffer. The Treasury have a lot to answer for in their austerity economics.

 

[quantinghome]

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.

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.

The chances of popular support are now much enhanced due to the evident failures of central government over the last decade or so, and the popularity of the devolved governments and authorities in Scotland, Wales and London. Wales in particular is a good example where people were fairly ambivalent about devolution at first, but now no-one would dream of reversing it.

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.

Have you been to Yorkshire recently? Regional devolution is gaining traction and is only opposed by Westminster.

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.

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.

Ireland is often put forward as an example of how Scotland could develop economic independence, but that ignores the very different levels of economic integration. At independence Ireland was essentially an agrarian economy. Economic ties to Britain were mostly agricultural exports and remittances. It managed, after the best part of a century, to turn into an advanced knowledge/service economy (partly through some questionable beggar-thy-neighbour tax policies). It could do this relatively painlessly because it was essentially starting with a clean slate as far as advanced economic activity was concerned. By contrast Scotland already has a fully developed modern economy which is thoroughly integrated with the rest of the UK. Changing that would be much more difficult.

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.

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.

 

[oldman]

The fact still remains that the new state pension is, notionally, funded by contributions.

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 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.

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.

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.

 

[najaB]

You can not base policy on the fiction that this is a funded pension system.

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.

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?

As an existing pension, yes. That's one way it could be worked out.

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.

No. This would apply to people reaching pension age in the ten years post-independence.

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.

 

[Falcon1200]

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.

Did Scotland not receive its share of that Government spending ? I don't see any way that Westminster will be paying Scottish pensions post independence; The Nationalists may think it should (although I don't agree) but getting Westminster to agree is another thing, just another of the Great Unknowns.

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.

As above, I think Scotland has received plenty from the contributions of UK (not just Scottish) taxpayers !

Nobody is going to lose their citizenship.

Probably, 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.

 

[najaB]

Did Scotland not receive its share of that Government spending ?

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.

 

[102 fan]

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.

If they want to be connected to a party connected to a terrorist organisation who were quite happy bombing UK citizens and UK service men and women, that's up to them.

 

[68000]

Probably, 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.

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

But 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.

This is exactly why it is self determination first and then the people in Scotland can decide what path they want

 

[Noddy]

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.

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?

This is exactly why it is self determination first and then the people in Scotland can decide what path they want

That is completely and utterly nonsensical.

 

[68000]

That is completely and utterly nonsensical.

In what way exactly?

 

[najaB]

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?

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.

 

[JamesT]

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 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.
Both old and new UK state pensions are based around number of years of NI contributions (or credits in lieu). But there is no direct linkage from how much NI you've paid in (in pounds sterling) to how much comes out. But they still count as contributory.
The Canadian Pension Plan is effectively an average salary pension scheme run by the government instead of your employer. What you get out is directly related to what you've paid in. So if you've had crappy jobs all your life, you'll get a crappy pension out of the CPP.

 

[najaB]

But there is no direct linkage from how much NI you've paid in (in pounds sterling) to how much comes out.

I'm not sure that is the case. Looking at my pension forecast on gov.uk I get:

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

Edit: Ah, wait. I get what you mean - it's based on the number of contributions rather than the amount of each one. It's still contributory though in that only people who have paid in (any amount) can get anything out.

 

[JamesT]

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

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.
But to get that year of contributions, this year you need to be paid at least £123 each week, the NI Lower Earnings Limit. I suspect you are probably paid far more than that, but that doesn't affect what you get in the end.

 

[Noddy]

In what way exactly?

You cannot as an individual (or business) make an informed decision. If in a debate with the SNP the brexiteers had tried to claim that, the SNP (quite rightly) would have absolutely destroyed the brexiteers.

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.

My understanding is that Nest operates in a very similar way to the CPP/QPP and it was heavily influenced by them-the only difference being you are mandated to join the CCP/QPP by Federal law, where as you can opt in/out of Nest.

While the Old Age Security system is non-contributory there is a qualification criteria. It is also likely that you would be eligible for this payment (rather than the CPP) if you were the national/resident of another country and had made contributions to that country’s system (ie UK national insurance) and vice versa. If that make sense?

 

[MattRat]

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.

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?

 

[HarryL]

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 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.

 

[Falcon1200]

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

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.

 

[najaB]

Will I ?

Yes. As long as the UK allows it.

What is your source of information for that assertion ?

The Scottish Government:

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.

Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/pages/11/

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 ?

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.

 

[MattRat]

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.

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.

 

[Falcon1200]

Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/pages/11/

Thanks for the reply and the link najaB, although I note that it dates from the SNP's prospectus for the 2014 Referendum; Things have changed since then. It seems I would become a Scottish citizen (as opposed to a UK citizen living in Scotland) whether I like it or not, although I would certainly opt for dual citizenship. I await the prospectus for Indyref 2 (and 3, and 4, until they get what they want) with interest !

 

[68000]

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? The only way you can have your UK citizenship removed is if you remove it yourself or the UK govt removes it? Is there a statement from Patel that I have missed or something?

 

[Falcon1200]

Where are you getting your information from?

I don't have any information, that is the problem (although najaB has assisted as above).

 

[68000]

Do you not look at norms?

 

[Noddy]

Do you not look at norms?

Are there any norms? The last country to vote to establish its independence was South Sudan which as I understand it has an extremely complex nationality arrangement. Before that Kosovo which isn’t recognised by half the countries in the world. Before that Montenegro which voted to dissolve its relationship with Serbia and you ended up with either Montenegrin(?) or Serbian citizenship depending on where you were resident.

However, I have no doubt that anyone who want to keep their British citizenship will be able to. The UK isn’t going to strip anything so this is a red herring. But it is why you need to know what you are voting for before you vote rather than the ridiculous assertion that you decide afterwards.