SNP to launch fresh Scottish independence campaign

[DynamicSpirit]

So referenda are one-time only things? The question has been asked and answered for all time, the end?

I would say the point is more about respecting the terms under which a referendum is held. At the time of the 2014 referendum, there was a clear understanding, promoted by both sides, that that referendum had a timespan of 'a generation', and people would have therefore voted on that basis. It's not reasonable, respectful to the electorate, or ethical, to throw away that understanding after the result is declared because you lost. And actually, I would say that, even aside from that understanding, 'a generation' (In other words, something like 20-25 years) is a reasonable timeframe for a referendum on a major constitutional issue, bearing in mind the how divisive and disruptive the action of holding a referendum is: You can't sensibly run a country by holding a repeat referendum on the same issue every few years.

The SNP and Greens made manifesto promises to hold a referendum in this parliament. If the electorate was opposed to another referendum then they would have voted for parties who weren't intent on holding one and we would have a different government.

That logic doesn't really hold because elections are not conducted on single issues. Parties usually put dozens of major policies in their manifesto, and hundreds of minor policies, and you cannot therefore logically infer that a vote for a party implies definite support for any particular policy.

 

[Yew]

So why did Wales, England, NI, and Gibraltar all get what they voted for, or specific compromises? Why is Scotland the only part not catered for? If it was one big vote then surely every single bit of the UK should have been treated the same?

The main theme of the anti-independence members in this, and probably every other outlet seems to be "Scotland is not good enough" to go it alone. If We are deemed "not good enough" while in this apparently beneficial union, why on Earth should we keep the status quo? Why can't Scotland aim for better and be fully in charge of its own affairs? Maybe, just maybe, we may make a better job of it?

Another tired line trotted out is "Nicola should respect the result of 2014! We voted No!". Correct. We did vote no. In 2014. Scotland did not declare independence in 2014. That result has been and will always be respected forevermore. If, however, we have another vote in say, 2023, and the result is Yes, we will become independent. That still means the 2014 result is respected. If Scotland ever becomes independent, it will never be as a result of the 2014 referendum.

Quite simply, we've seen from Brexit that the party proposing change has no duty to present a picture that has any basis in reality, they can present a crackpot dream, and hand wave all the inconvenient things away.

Whenever someone the asks difficult questions about the reality of the situation, they're met with a barrage of bluster about how they're 'negging' Scotland and how they just need to believe harder and the highlands will magically be converted to the Elysian Fields.

 

[najaB]

At the time of the 2014 referendum, there was a clear understanding, promoted by both sides, that that referendum had a timespan of 'a generation'. It's not reasonable, respectful to the electorate, or ethical, to throw away that understanding after the result is declared because you lost. And actually, I would say that, even aside from that understanding, 'a generation' (In others, something like 20-25 years) is a reasonable timeframe for a referendum, bearing in mind the how divisive and disruptive the action of holding a referendum is

There's a clear and popular understanding that Captain Kirk said "Beam me up, Scotty" all the time in Star Trek, that Darth Vader said "Luke, I am your father" and that Rick said "Play it again, Sam" in Casablanca. Yet none of these are true.

Which is a rather flippant way to say that while people were of that understanding, it was never a official thing and didn't form any part of the agreement to hold the referendum.

Less flippantly, there was also a clear understanding that remaining part of the Union was the only way to guarantee Scotland's place in Europe. It was one of the main reasons that I voted "No" in the 2014 referendum.

That logic doesn't really hold because elections are not conducted on single issues. Parties usually put dozens of major policies in their manifesto, and hundreds of minor policies, and you cannot therefore logically infer that a vote for a party implies definite support for any particular policy.

I didn't say that voting for the Greens or SNP was expressing support for a referendum. What I said was that if people were opposed to a referendum they would have supported other parties. The fact that they are won enough support to form the government means that the electorate is, at the very most, apathetic to the idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So referenda are one-time only things? The question has been asked and answered for all time, the end?

The SNP and Greens made manifesto promises to hold a referendum in this parliament. If the electorate was opposed to another referendum then they would have voted for parties who weren't intent on holding one and we would have a different government.

I don't think that's guaranteed to be true. People vote for the SNP for lots of reasons, not just one - that they're a left-of-centre social democratic party without Union involvement will absolutely be one. Though Sturgeon's speech has now turned them into a single-issue party, and as such it is very likely they will lose at least some votes.

 

[Acfb]

So referenda are one-time only things? The question has been asked and answered for all time, the end?

The SNP and Greens made manifesto promises to hold a referendum in this parliament. If the electorate was opposed to another referendum then they would have voted for parties who weren't intent on holding one and we would have a different government.

I think a lot of Green voters who support independence are relaxed about kicking the can down road TBH and also people who trust Sturgeon regardless. I'm pretty conflicted on this although I'm sure this is just ruse to increase SNP seats in 2024 as there is no time for a 'legal' referendum in October next year.

I'm pretty conflicted about the issue of another referendum in general, I'm mainly uneasy about the SNP dictating the terms of a 2nd ref. TBH.

It would have perhaps been better if Theresa May had called the SNP's bluff in 2017 but the Conservatives dictated the terms of a 2nd ref instead of the SNP IMO.

On the issue of timescale there is also an argument that Quebec is a more reasonable benchmark i.e. 15 years so it could still happen 2028-2030 under Starmer.


I have no idea how this will play out electorally for the SNP though which is the main point of this exercise as I doubt there will be any referendum next year as we're out of time.

 

[Yew]

Can't speak for the UK government, but the SNP were always clear that Scottish citizenship would be given to anyone that was a UK citizen with a connection to Scotland. I can't see the UK government stripping people of citizenship as well.



Lunatic? These are liabilities incurred by the UK government. You should check the ECHR decison relating to Serbian pensions being paid to Kosovars - in general, if these pensions were paid into the UK system, then the UK system is responsible for paying them. In the event of divorce, I'd expect Scotland to pay a proportional amount, so around 1/10th of the liability.

Even after the Yugoslav Wars, with the exception of Serbia/Kosovo, the others all agreed to honour pensions paid into their respective systems. A Bosniak who paid social insurance in the SR Serbia will receive a pension from the current Serbia, for instance.

Scotland will not have to assume pension liabilities completely, because that's simply not how it works.

I fear you misunderstand the reality of how state pensions work, they are not like a private pension, where money is placed into a pot and invested on your behalf. The money we are paying in is being drawn by the pensioners today.

 

[najaB]

I fear you misunderstand the reality of how state pensions work, they are not like a private pension, where money is placed into a pot and invested on your behalf. The money we are paying in is being drawn by the pensioners today.

I think most people understand that. However, the 'deal' made between the Government and the worker is basically "You pay tax and NI while you are working to fund the pensions being paid today, in return we will pay your pension when you retire". So, while there isn't an actual pot of money, the concept is the same is if there was.

So the question that will need to be answered is how to split the liability for that promise. To me it seems the most sensible way would be by splitting the liability for existing pensioners based on the relative income tax takes of Scotland and rUK, and use a sliding scale for future pensioners based on how much of their working life was pre-independence, so that over time the rUK contribution is reduced to zero.

 

[Yew]

I think most people understand that. However, the 'deal' made between the Government and the worker is basically "You pay tax and NI while you are working to fund the pensions being paid today, in return we will pay your pension when you retire". So, while there isn't an actual pot of money, the concept is the same is if there was.

So the question that will need to be answered is how to split the liability for that promise. To me it seems the most sensible way would be by splitting the liability for existing pensioners based on the relative income tax takes of Scotland and rUK, and use a sliding scale for future pensioners based on how much of their working life was pre-independence, so that over time the rUK contribution is reduced to zero.

Scotland can pay for Scottish pensions, like an independent country.

What money has came in from Scottish workers has largely gone out to Scottish pensioners.

 

[Acfb]

I don't think that's guaranteed to be true. People vote for the SNP for lots of reasons, not just one - that they're a left-of-centre social democratic party without Union involvement will absolutely be one. Though Sturgeon's speech has now turned them into a single-issue party, and as such it is very likely they will lose at least some votes.

I'm not sure about this, I think they've calculated the voters they gain will cancel out the voters they lose. So they could still get say 45 seats on ~40% of the vote.

I was surprised quite how well the SNP did on the Holyrood constituency vote last year even though they list lost votes to the Greens and to a much lesser extent ALBA.


What is also an interesting question that has just come to my mind is will there be a pact with the two ALBA MPs Neale Hanvey and Kenny MacAskill?

 

[Wynd]

A lot of thrashing, but the facts are self evident.

The SNP did win the election on an explicit manifesto commitment. Democratic principle means they get to enact that manifesto. As yet, that has not happened and so off to the courts it goes.

No matter what side you find yourself on, or neither, its worth celebrating the fact that some legal clarity will be brought to this discussion.

Either Holyrood does have the power to consult, or Scotland is effectively not a democracy and the act of Union no longer applies in spirit, that its an equal partnership.

Such an outcome would preclude the question of when, or if, Scotland was subsumed. If that holds true, the question becomes, when did that happen and what consent was given to it by the people of Scotland.

The signing of the Act of Union 1707 was not a democratic exercise. Many signatories who were bought off by the King were more than a little upset when payment was presented in bills and not gold, as promised. There was significant rebellion at the signing, and significant turmoil in the decades that followed where it was very nearly repealed. Therein may lay the answer to the above question.

2014 represents one possible answer to the question, but the Smith Commission states, that nothing here agreed prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future, so that wouldn't hold up well either.

I have my doubts that we would be having this conversation if Brexit had not happened.

I also have my doubts that a statement in the Scotland Act 1998 is going to hold up well either. Just declaring that the constitution is reserved isnt the watertight legal position that some may think it is. It might be in other places and times, but there are a number of other Acts that factor in to the decision, not to mention 800 years of being an independent nation.

I hope the court decides reasonably soon, and that this wrangling is put to rest. Scotland is either a democracy or it isnt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have my doubts that we would be having this conversation if Brexit had not happened.

I think it is fair to say that Brexit is a "material change" which does justify a new referendum.

Scotland is either a democracy or it isnt.

I'm not so sure about that statement. Scotland has rights to control those things that are devolved to it and not others. The constitutional makeup of the larger UK isn't a devolved matter.

That may mean to you that it isn't democratic, of course, in which case the answer to the above question is quite clearly that it isn't.

I don't see why an advisory referendum (which has no legal force) won't be proven legal. It's little more, legally, than a survey.

 

[Flying Snail]

It is highly amusing that all the anti-independence people are laser focused on stopping a referendum happening rather than convincing the public to vote their way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is highly amusing that all the anti-independence people are laser focused on stopping a referendum happening rather than convincing the public to vote their way.

It is damaging to Scotland's place in the Union (and by extension the UK's place in the EU, if we still had one) to keep asking the same question over and over again. People need to be able to plan for the future.

I would agree that Brexit was a material change justifying another referendum, but this referendum should really come with a rider that, if "no" is the answer, the question will not be put again for another N years (10 or 20 perhaps) unless there is another material change of that sort of gravity.

 

[najaB]

It is highly amusing that all the anti-independence people are laser focused on stopping a referendum happening rather than convincing the public to vote their way.

I guess it's easier to not ask the question than it is to convince people that your answer is the correct one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess it's easier to not ask the question than it is to convince people that your answer is the correct one.

Don't forget that the primary Remainer view is that the question asked in 2016 shouldn't have been asked, so be careful of potential hypocrisy.

Any Scot who believed that a Brexit vote should not have occurred is a hypocrite if they then believe a Scottish independence vote should occur, in some measure at least...

 

[najaB]

I would agree that Brexit was a material change justifying another referendum, but this referendum should really come with a rider that, if "no" is the answer, the question will not be put again for another N years (10 or 20 perhaps) unless there is another material change of that sort of gravity.

But then you have the issue of defining what constitutes a "material change".

Don't forget that the primary Remainer view is that the question asked in 2016 shouldn't have been asked, so be careful of potential hypocrisy.

Any Scot who believed that a Brexit vote should not have occurred is a hypocrite if they then believe a Scottish independence vote should occur, in some measure at least...

Speaking for myself, as a Rejoiner, my objections to the 2016 referendum are neither that the matter was put to the electorate nor with the specific question that was asked.

My first issue with the Brexit referendum is exactly the same as with the 2014 independence referendum - the side proposing change didn't make it clear what their plans were for the post-change period. In the 2014 case it didn't matter as the vote was for no-change.

In the 2016 case it became apparent almost as soon as the result was in that they had no plan - nobody could even agree exactly what Brexit meant - other than, of course, that "Brexit means Brexit". This meant that many people voted for a version of Brexit that was significantly different to that which they ended up getting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But then you have the issue of defining what constitutes a "material change".

I think it is necessary to do that. Repeatedly asking the question is not helpful to Scotland's stable future. If the decision is "no", that needs to stick at least until certain clearly defined criteria are met. ("Yes" will obviously stick permanently or as good as).

Speaking for myself, as a Rejoiner, my objections to the 2016 referendum are neither that the matter was put to the electorate nor with the specific question that was asked.

My first issue with the Brexit referendum is exactly the same as with the 2014 independence referendum - the side proposing change didn't make it clear what their plans were for the post-change period. In the 2014 case it didn't matter as the vote was for no-change.

In the 2016 case it became apparent almost as soon as the result was in that they had no plan - nobody could even agree exactly what Brexit meant - other than, of course, that "Brexit means Brexit".

Presumably then you would only support the Scottish referendum if it includes a clear definition of at least aspirations for all key areas, noting that "we will keep the Pound and stay involved in the decisions relating to it" might be desired but will not be offered, for instance, nor will a customs union if Scotland joins the EU (so a hard customs border is certain), and nor will freedom of movement be offered if Scotland joins Schengen (so a fully hard border).

With regard to the issue of pensions noted above, how did this occur on Irish independence, or was there no state pension back then? I think Irish independence is a reasonable "template" - and that an independent Scotland would look very much like the RoI in just about every way.

 

[duncanp]

I think most people understand that. However, the 'deal' made between the Government and the worker is basically "You pay tax and NI while you are working to fund the pensions being paid today, in return we will pay your pension when you retire". So, while there isn't an actual pot of money, the concept is the same is if there was.

So the question that will need to be answered is how to split the liability for that promise. To me it seems the most sensible way would be by splitting the liability for existing pensioners based on the relative income tax takes of Scotland and rUK, and use a sliding scale for future pensioners based on how much of their working life was pre-independence, so that over time the rUK contribution is reduced to zero.

The problem with splitting the liability for paying existing pensioners (in Scotland) between the UK and Scottish governments, is that those pensioners would be paying 100% of their taxes to the Scottish government.

So the Scottish government would receive the benefit of the tax revenue, but the UK government has to shoulder the liability for their pensions.

I think the best way forward is to get an independent actuarial valuation of future pension liabilities of both current and future pensioners, split between Scotland and the rest of the UK. You could then compare the results with the proportion of UK tax revenues arising from Scottish taxpayers.

The only workable solution would be for Scotland to pay existing and future pensioners from an agreed date post independence. (probably a couple of years after independence to allow the Scottish government to set up its own computer systems and admin processes) It may be that the UK government would pay the Scottish government an agreed sum of money for taking on these liabilities. Exactly how much that sum should be, if it is paid at all, is a matter for debate.

In many respects it is like a married couple getting divorced and having to sell the marital home, on which there is an outstanding mortgage.

You could choose that the proceeds of the sale of the house are split 50/50, but that one party pays the whole of the outstanding mortgage from their share of the sale. Or you could choose that the proceeds of the sale are split 50/50, and that both parties have half the outstanding mortgage deducted from their share of the sale proceeds. Or some other arrangement could be negotiated.

What is disingenuous is for the SNP to pretend that the Scottish government will only be responsible for pension liabilities accrued after independence, and that everything else is the responsibility of the UK government.

As has been said, there will have to be negotiations between the UK and Scottish governments in the event of a yes vote in a future referendum.

The successful conclusion of these negotiations depends on the willingness of both parties to compromise and accept a fair division of assets and liabilities.

Independent arbitration can be used to help both governments come to an agreement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think most people understand that. However, the 'deal' made between the Government and the worker is basically "You pay tax and NI while you are working to fund the pensions being paid today, in return we will pay your pension when you retire". So, while there isn't an actual pot of money, the concept is the same is if there was.

It's not. They are paid by the current taxpayer. As such this is something rUK must not concede.

The deal made with the worker is irrelevant; it's just a mechanism to ensure they cough up and to avoid paying pensions to people who don't work (though to be honest I personally would pay them to everyone of the specified age and bin all this off).

As I've said many times, if you want independence, you can have independence. If you want financial assistance from England or any form of financial union with it, you remain part of the Union with it.

Far too many Scots seem to want the best of both worlds, and this will not be offered.

 

[najaB]

The problem with splitting the liability for paying existing pensioners (in Scotland) between the UK and Scottish governments, is that those pensioners would be paying 100% of their taxes to the Scottish government.

So the Scottish government would receive the benefit of the tax revenue, but the UK government has to shoulder the liability for their pensions.

Equally, the Scottish government will be paying for English pensioners living in Scotland.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I fear you misunderstand the reality of how state pensions work, they are not like a private pension, where money is placed into a pot and invested on your behalf. The money we are paying in is being drawn by the pensioners today.

It doesn't matter. International law on this is quite settled: the country that received the pension contributions is responsible for paying out.

The idea that the rUK can simply refuse to pay is a non-starter, and there are ECHR judgments confirming this.

If you want financial assistance from England or any form of financial union with it, you remain part of the Union with it.

Pensions aren't financial assistance. They are a commitment made by the UK government, and so they must pay. Scotland does have a share of pensions liabilities of around 1/10th, but the rUK will be on the hook for the rest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2022 ==

Equally, the Scottish government will be paying for English pensioners living in Scotland.

Indeed. Nationality is irrelevant here, what matters is who received the pensions contributions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pensions aren't financial assistance. They are a commitment made by the UK government, and so they must pay.

What will happen is a financial settlement splitting the country's wealth with Scotland. Once paid, that's the end of it. Then you're on your own - as, you know, an independent country like you seem not to want to be.

Ongoing payment of pensions is unacceptable.

Question: does Czechia pay Slovakian state pensions or vice versa? Does the UK pay Irish ones or did it ever do so?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2022 ==

Indeed. Nationality is irrelevant here, what matters is who received the pensions contributions.

No, what matters is who is paying them now. After independence, they will be paid to Scotland.

 

[GusB]

It's not. They are paid by the current taxpayer. As such this is something rUK must not concede.

The deal made with the worker is irrelevant; it's just a mechanism to ensure they cough up and to avoid paying pensions to people who don't work (though to be honest I personally would pay them to everyone of the specified age and bin all this off).

As I've said many times, if you want independence, you can have independence. If you want financial assistance from England or any form of financial union with it, you remain part of the Union with it.

Far too many Scots seem to want the best of both worlds, and this will not be offered.

It's not about waiting the best of both worlds - it's about the rUK meeting its existing obligations.

I think it's fairly sensible that existing pensioners, who have paid UK tax and national insurance, should have the country that they were working in at the time, ie the UK, fund their pensions. This is what happens when people retire to the Costa del Sol now.

There would obviously have to be agreement on how the pensions of those who have paid into both systems will be funded, but this is something that will be negotiated, along with a share of the national debt (which Scotland would be under no obligation to take on). Anyone who starts their working life in an independent Scotland will obviously be starting under a brand new system. Why on earth wouldn't a compromise be reached?

Just because the current system is funded by taxation does not change the fact that people pay contributions and have a right to expect that system to pay out when the time comes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not about waiting the best of both worlds - it's about the rUK meeting its existing obligations.

I think it's fairly sensible that existing pensioners, who have paid UK tax and national insurance, should have the country that they were working in at the time, ie the UK, fund their pensions. This is what happens when people retire to the Costa del Sol now.

It's different from that. They're not moving to another country, effectively two new countries are being created - Scotland and rUK - which are both parts of the UK and share in its assets and liabilities.

If you do wish to consider it that way, then the logical extension is that none of RUK's "bank balance" goes to Scotland, because you're just running off and founding a new country then moving the population to there.

RUK will have fewer taxpayers after independence, and thus it taking on liability for the related pensioners is nonsensical and cannot happen.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It is highly amusing that all the anti-independence people are laser focused on stopping a referendum happening rather than convincing the public to vote their way.

Referenda are not free. As we have seen with both the Brexit and the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, they are highly divisive: They polarise society, lead to a certain amount of hatred between people of opposing views. In both previous referenda, there were a few reports of violence. Then there's all the business uncertainty, the fact that normal politics and the normal business of Governing the country get largely pushed to the sidelines for something like 6 months around the referendum, plus the actual money spent on running the referendum, which therefore can't be spent on other Government programs. That all means that you need a pretty good reason to have a referendum. 'Let's re-run the referendum we had a few years ago because we didn't like the result' is NOT a good reason for having a referendum, so there's really nothing odd about people being focused on arguing that it shouldn't happen.

 

[matacaster]

But then you have the issue of defining what constitutes a "material change".

Speaking for myself, as a Rejoiner, my objections to the 2016 referendum are neither that the matter was put to the electorate nor with the specific question that was asked.

My first issue with the Brexit referendum is exactly the same as with the 2014 independence referendum - the side proposing change didn't make it clear what their plans were for the post-change period. In the 2014 case it didn't matter as the vote was for no-change.

In the 2016 case it became apparent almost as soon as the result was in that they had no plan - nobody could even agree exactly what Brexit meant - other than, of course, that "Brexit means Brexit". This meant that many people voted for a version of Brexit that was significantly different to that which they ended up getting.

The remain side were of course entirely clear as to
-European defence force
-qualified majority voting
-implications on our contributions should new members join EU
Whether in Europe or without, future change is unpredictictable, although there would likely have been less change than if still in EU.
What galled many older people is that Heath and Major in particular rode roughshod over electorates clear views at the time and were even more opaque about the consequences of joining EU than this more recent brexit vote .

 

[Enthusiast]

Apart from the fact that we would be a fully independent country?

I suppose that depends on whether you view being an EU member as being “a fully independent country.” Personally I don’t and I don’t think I’m alone.

Other small countries recently independent from a huge, imperialist neighbour consider EU membership as very important. The Baltic States.

So Scottish desire for EU membership is entirely consistent with that.

And that depends on whether you place membership of the USSR on par with being part of the “imperialist” United Kingdom. If my history hasn’t entirely evaded me, I seem to recall that Scotland formed the United Kingdom voluntarily when its landed gentry went skint, having lost most of their money in a speculative foreign venture. The Baltic States, by contrast, were divvied up by Germany and Russia in the prelude to WW2 enabling both to establish military operations within those countries. All three were occupied by either the Germans or the Russians for the duration of the war with Russia subsuming them into the USSR until its collapse in 1991.

So the apparent comfort of a mother figure in the EU that was sought by the Baltic States following the collapse of the USSR is perhaps understandable. But quite why Scotland would seek the same is a little puzzling. Despite the protestations from a chunk of its population Scotland has fared quite well by being part of the UK – far better than it could ever have done alone. By contrast the Baltic States were largely oppressed from 1940 to 1991, even to the extent that the USSR made attempts to outlaw, or at the very least sideline, their native tongues. I don’t recall anything like that being foisted on Scotland.

So how do you explain why recently independent countries want to be in the EU?

For the same reason that I wouldn’t mind opening a joint bank account with Elon Musk.

I think Irish independence is a reasonable "template" - and that an independent Scotland would look very much like the RoI in just about every way.

One can only hope that it doesn’t. That would mean keeping (say) Caithness, Sutherland and Ross & Cromarty within the UK and leaving the rest of Scotland to form the “Republic of Scotland.”

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose that depends on whether you view being an EU member as being “a fully independent country.” Personally I don’t and I don’t think I’m alone.

But the predominant view in Scotland is pro-EU, so the English primarily-anti-EU view isn't relevant.

One can only hope that it doesn’t. That would mean keeping (say) Caithness, Sutherland and Ross & Cromarty within the UK and leaving the rest of Scotland to form the “Republic of Scotland.”

I think that's missing the point a bit.

 

[WAB]

Well the SNP is now officially a single issue party, so at least we no longer have to deal with their claims that they are simultaneously a vote for independence and not a vote for independence.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2022 ==

It's not about waiting the best of both worlds - it's about the rUK meeting its existing obligations.

I think it's fairly sensible that existing pensioners, who have paid UK tax and national insurance, should have the country that they were working in at the time, ie the UK, fund their pensions. This is what happens when people retire to the Costa del Sol now.

There would obviously have to be agreement on how the pensions of those who have paid into both systems will be funded, but this is something that will be negotiated, along with a share of the national debt (which Scotland would be under no obligation to take on). Anyone who starts their working life in an independent Scotland will obviously be starting under a brand new system. Why on earth wouldn't a compromise be reached?

Just because the current system is funded by taxation does not change the fact that people pay contributions and have a right to expect that system to pay out when the time comes.

The NI income from Scottish workers was put into a pot which funded Scotland as well as rUK; Scotland cannot double-dip. Of course, if the Scottish Government wants the rUK to pay for the pensions of Scottish pensioners, they're more than welcome to pay their share.

 

[Yew]

Just because the current system is funded by taxation does not change the fact that people pay contributions and have a right to expect that system to pay out when the time comes.

Where is this right enshrined in law?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2022 ==

The remain side were of course entirely clear as to
-European defence force
-qualified majority voting
-implications on our contributions should new members join EU

All of which we would have a veto on.