SNP to launch fresh Scottish independence campaign

[AlterEgo]

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

Small, new countries want to be part of something larger because it's much more difficult to go it alone.

See Ireland, an agrarian, priest-ridden backwater from independence, which used its EC and then EU membership to become a much wealthier and successful pseudo-vassal state, unable to unilaterally set its own income taxes but with a far higher standard of living for everyone.

A reanimated Michael Collins would ask to be killed again. It's fine to wish for EU membership but don't confuse it with retaining all of your sovereign powers. EU membership necessarily involves abdicating some important powers, or trading them. People should be clear about that and be informed of the trade-off. FWIW, Ireland being in the EU is a good idea.

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

That there isn't some pot of money stashed away isn't really relevant; people have still contributed to a scheme through National Insurance.

When you or I pay National Insurance, that doesn't go into a magic "pension pot" for ourselves. My NI, paid this year, is paying people who are currently pensioners.

The actual details of how this works out will be subject to negotiation in the event of a Yes vote.

So whether you'll foot the bill or not for your own pensioners - something pretty massive - is going to be left to post-referendum negotiations. Where have we seen that before? It'll never not be intellectually dishonest to advocate this model of sorting stuff out while opposing Brexit for its obvious hamfistedness.

"We will vote to leave, and then we will work out the details".

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

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

The UK has not directly paid Irish pensions since 1922, about one year after it recognised Ireland as an independent country. The Anglo-Irish Treaty made provision for the Irish Free State to service a relevant proportion of the UK's national debt and enter discussions for pension funding, but I am not privy to the full details!

It would actually be very interesting to see the papers on how the money was divided!

A good university-level essay question would be "Was the Irish Free State until 1949 a fully independent country?"

 

[Falcon1200]

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

Indeed, and when I reach state pensionable age I will be an English pensioner living in Scotland. However of my 38 year tax-paying career, 32 years were spent in Scotland; So perhaps post-independence Westminster should pay 6/38ths of my pension and Scotland 32/38ths ?

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

Slight problem there, those pension contributions have already been paid out.

Ongoing payment of pensions is unacceptable.

Yes.

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.

UK-raised tax and national insurance is spent just as much, if not more, in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. As mentioned several times already, there is no huge pot of pension money waiting, should Scotland become an independent country the only source of funds to pay the state pension will be the money Scotland raises itself. The SNP and others might like to argue otherwise, but no matter what they think, the UK will not be paying an independent Scotland's pensioners; Leave means leave, not leave but continue suckling at the UK's breast.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Slight problem there, those pension contributions have already been paid out.

Not only that, but Scotland isn't a third country in that sense, it's a former component of the UK, and thus it has received those contributions in its role as part of the UK, unless the financial agreement explicitly included a sum for those.

As mentioned above if Scotland wishes to consider itself a new state in that matter (like, say Kosovo from Serbia) then it doesn't get anything at all from RUK financially (because it's a new state, not a former part of RUK separated off) and the pensioners can have their pensions paid the same as if they moved to Spain. I doubt Scotland would want that.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Question: does Czechia pay Slovakian state pensions or vice versa?

From what I understand, it was done in a way that the location of pension payments mattered. So, the Czechs took responsibility for paying Slovaks their pension if the work was carried out in the Czech (Socialist) Republic within Czechoslovakia, and likewise Slovakia took responsibility for pensions if the work was carried out in the Slovak (Socialist) Republic. However, there is a 'but' here. The Czechoslovak pension system was based upon the idea that the employers paid towards the general pension fund, there was no concept of contributions at all. Therefore, there was no other way to deal with it than for the individual republics to take the responsibility, based on the location of the work performed. If someone worked in both republics, then they have pensions paid proportionally.

However, because there were no contributions, the situation differs from the UK system where you build up entitlement to a pension based on your working history. It's also worth bearing in mind that the UK government pays pensions to people living abroad, so Scotland would be no different to Spain in this context. Assuming the UK doesn't strip Scots of British citizenship, it would also be very very dangerous for any government to say "we're not paying", as it would mean several million people would vote as a bloc in the next rUK election against the government of the day. The liability has been incurred by the UK government, not the Scottish Government, and so it's the UK government's obligation to pay.

The rational argument I've seen on the topic says that there's really no precedent for this. I would expect Scotland to make some contribution, but there's no way that Scotland would agree to shouldering the entire burden when Scottish taxpayers have had substantial amounts of their money spent on English pensions. As I mentioned above, pensioners are a powerful electoral bloc, and the rUK government of the day would likely want to avoid a very large and very angry group of British citizens who have the right to vote in a general election.

 

[najaB]

'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.

Obviously the SNP and pro-Independence campaigners didn't like the result, but there have been just a few minor changes since 2014. :roll:

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

A non thing, a good thing and a meh thing.

Indeed, and when I reach state pensionable age I will be an English pensioner living in Scotland. However of my 38 year tax-paying career, 32 years were spent in Scotland; So perhaps post-independence Westminster should pay 6/38ths of my pension and Scotland 32/38ths ?

That's not entirely without merit. Though it would probably have to have a modifier for the recency of the payments - that's the kind of thing that would be subject to negotiation.

And for those who are firmly opposed to the idea of rUK paying any component of Scottish pensions post-independence (if it happens). I get where you're coming from, and I would be more likely to agree with your position if pensions were a completely devolved matter and had been for an extended period of time. But as it stands, Scotland was never presented with an opportunity to do anything different on pensions - we have only had full control over income tax rates for four years and I'm pretty sure that NI is still set nationally. Scotland has no control over pensions - age, rate or contributions.

It's worth noting that most everything that's been posted seems to imply that it would be a case of Scotland taking English treasure, but it's worth noting that it's not all one way. The future rUK pension liability will also be frozen at the point of separation - you would pay out no more in pensions than you had already expected to, while having a higher average tax income.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The rational argument I've seen on the topic says that there's really no precedent for this. I would expect Scotland to make some contribution, but there's no way that Scotland would agree to shouldering the entire burden when Scottish taxpayers have had substantial amounts of their money spent on English pensions.

In what way has that been the case? Are there substantially more pensioners in England than Scotland? If the ratio is about the same then Scottish money is effectively going to Scottish pensioners.

Contributions are not relevant in that sense because the money has not been invested. Today's workers pay today's pensions. The basis of contributions is more along the lines of "if you contribute to today's pensions with your NI, tomorrow's workers will contribute to yours". NI is to all intents and purposes a tax, not a pension investment or an insurance policy. Think of it more this way: "you can have a state pension if you've paid tax for a minimum period".

 

[najaB]

In what way has that been the case? Are there substantially more pensioners in England than Scotland?

Life expectancy in England is about three to four years longer than in Scotland, and the population is about ten times higher - so, logically, there should be more pensioners in England than Scotland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Life expectancy in England is about three to four years longer than in Scotland

This may make a difference which should be covered in any financial settlement with regard to existing pensioners.

and the population is about ten times higher - so, logically, there should be more pensioners in England than Scotland.

The actual number isn't relevant, more the proportion. Because there are also likely to be 10 times more tax paying workers, too.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Scotland has no control over pensions

I strongly believe that this is why there should be full fiscal devolution at this point. Scottish pension contributions would therefore stay in Scotland, and Scotland would also be free to move to a pension system that meets its needs.

In what way has that been the case? Are there substantially more pensioners in England than Scotland? If the ratio is about the same then Scottish money is effectively going to Scottish pensioners.

Oil money. It's not a big secret that the oil money was used to cut taxes in the UK. I know this argument is overplayed, but it's not a big secret that the combination of oil/gas money and privatisations are what paid for the Thatcher-era tax cuts after the obscenely high taxation of the 70s.

That's why the argument is very difficult, because if the rUK claims not to have any liabilities, then Scotland can point at the huge amount of wealth that was transferred out of Scotland. It's not just oil money, of course, there were plenty of other publicly owned companies which were sold and the proceeds allocated to the UK budget.

IMO, this is why a new Scottish State Pension under fiscal devolution should be moved strictly to a contributions-based system. It would mean Scotland is responsible for Scottish pensions, and end any argument about who is responsible for what.

 

[Bletchleyite]

IMO, this is why a new Scottish State Pension under fiscal devolution should be moved strictly to a contributions-based system. It would mean Scotland is responsible for Scottish pensions, and end any argument about who is responsible for what.

I certainly think, in the light of declining working population, it would be a very good idea to move all state pensions, including those in RUK, to a contributory model. Obviously this would require a fairly large one-off hit on national debt (or some one-off taxation) to create those pots for the existing adult population.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I certainly think, in the light of declining working population, it would be a very good idea to move all state pensions, including those in RUK, to a contributory model. Obviously this would require a fairly large one-off hit on national debt (or some one-off taxation) to create those pots for the existing adult population.

The way that it was done in Poland is perhaps a good model. Each person was credited (virtually) with a set amount of money for each year's contribution prior to the date of reform, based on their income in that year. It has led to large inequality with existing pensioners vs new ones, but new ones have/had the chance to earn much more.

Unfortunately, at least in the Polish case, the pension system is effectively on its knees. We need to wait and see what impact Covid had on the overall pension deficit, but these 'virtual' (pre-1999) pensions contributions are a huge drain on the system.

I do think that there's a need to discuss the pension system as a whole, and devolving pensions would be a logical first step. However, I believe that the current State Pension system is very beneficial for the government(s), because there's no link between contributions and the pension.

 

[Enthusiast]

I think that's missing the point a bit.

So what exactly is the point?

I can see no resemblance whatsoever between the ROI and an independent Scotland. There is very unlikely to be any part of Scotland that remains in the UK (hence my flippancy when mentioning Caithness and Sutherland). Scotland is not an EU member and is unlikely to be admitted very quickly after its independence, if it is ever admitted at all. It runs quite an annual deficit and has no particular means of reducing it, especially when the funds provided by the rest of the UK (principally England) dry up. If they should join, the EU will insist on a hard border along Hadrian’s Wall to protect its precious Single Market from contamination by English contraband (perhaps the wall can be renovated). There is no Good McFriday agreement to force England into imposing a customs border somewhere between Blackpool and Bridlington. More than 60% of all Scotland’s exports go to the rest of the UK, which is three times as much as goes to the EU. An even greater percentage (around 68%) of Scotland’s imports originate from the rest of the UK. Once the EU decides to make the Anglo Scottish border as big an issue as it has the Irish border it Is difficult to see how Scotland’s trade will cope.

There is no real similarity between the ROI and an independent Scotland.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Scotland is not an EU member and is unlikely to be admitted very quickly after its independence,

That is simply not true. All the signs from the EU point at Scotland being in the same position as Iceland, Switzerland and Norway: membership will be approved quickly and without much delay. Even Spain signalled that they have no problem with Scotland joining the EU as long as the referendum is done with the consent of the UK government. They oppose UDI, but they don't oppose a negotiated independence process.

If they should join, the EU will insist on a hard border along Hadrian’s Wall to protect its precious Single Market from contamination by English contraband

Have you seen the Swiss or Norwegian borders? Neither of them are hard borders by any definition of the word.

I still cannot understand why many smaller countries thrive as part of the EU, yet Scotland is somehow too poor and too small. In fact, should Scotland join the EU as an independent country, it would be very much mid-tier in terms of size.

 

[WAB]

Have you seen the Swiss or Norwegian borders? Neither of them are hard borders by any definition of the word.

I still cannot understand why many smaller countries thrive as part of the EU, yet Scotland is somehow too poor and too small. In fact, should Scotland join the EU as an independent country, it would be very much mid-tier in terms of size.

Switzerland is in Schengen and partially in the single market. Norway is fully in Schengen and in the single market.

To have a similar situation with a Scotland-rUK border, you would need either:

• rUK to agree to Schengen and the Single Market (and accept the imposition of EU laws as a result), or
• The EU to forfeit their requirements for rUK to follow the rules and regulations of the EU when joining the single market and allow Scotland not to join Schengen (replacing it with incorporation into the common travel area as with Ireland), or
• UK to rejoin the EU

It may happen, but would require significant compromise from one or both sides.

 

[najaB]

Switzerland is in Schengen and partially in the single market. Norway is fully in Schengen and in the single market.

To have a similar situation with a Scotland-rUK border, you would need either:

• rUK to agree to Schengen and the Single Market (and accept the imposition of EU laws as a result), or
• The EU to forfeit their requirements for rUK to follow the rules and regulations of the EU when joining the single market and allow Scotland not to join Schengen (replacing it with incorporation into the common travel area as with Ireland), or
• UK to rejoin the EU

It may happen, but would require significant compromise from one or both sides.

Of those, the second is most likely. The EU can be surprisingly accommodating - they would likely only require Scotland to have a commitment joining the Schengen agreement "at the earliest possible date" or some similar wording.

 

[AlterEgo]

Switzerland is in Schengen and partially in the single market. Norway is fully in Schengen and in the single market.

To have a similar situation with a Scotland-rUK border, you would need either:

• rUK to agree to Schengen and the Single Market (and accept the imposition of EU laws as a result), or
• The EU to forfeit their requirements for rUK to follow the rules and regulations of the EU when joining the single market and allow Scotland not to join Schengen (replacing it with incorporation into the common travel area as with Ireland), or
• UK to rejoin the EU

It may happen, but would require significant compromise from one or both sides.

iScotland won't be a Schengen country, I'm sure. A similar arrangement will prevail as did with the RoI. But that has to be sorted out *first*, and guarantees secured, before a vote.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of those, the second is most likely. The EU can be surprisingly accommodating - they would likely only require Scotland to have a commitment joining the Schengen agreement "at the earliest possible date" or some similar wording.

I'd expect the second. The rUK is unlikely to ever join Schengen (nor would I think it sensible for it to do so), whereas I don't think I'd rule out it rejoining the Single Market (i.e. EEA or EFTA) in the sort of timescale likely between a "yes" vote and actual independence and EU membership for Scotland.

 

[WAB]

Of those, the second is most likely. The EU can be surprisingly accommodating - they would likely only require Scotland to have a commitment joining the Schengen agreement "at the earliest possible date" or some similar wording.

That sounds like the best solution really. The only sticking points really is the border - we effectively have border checks at all entry-points to the UK mainland, so we'd need an information-sharing agreement with Scotland, and a robust system for dealing with anyone using Scotland as a backdoor for entering rUK.

And of course this all needs to be set as policy before Scotland becomes independent, not improvised after.

 

[AlterEgo]

That sounds like the best solution really. The only sticking points really is the border - we effectively have border checks at all entry-points to the UK mainland, so we'd need an information-sharing agreement with Scotland, and a robust system for dealing with anyone using Scotland as a backdoor for entering rUK.

Or just share a mostly-common immigration policy. Ireland does.

 

[THC]

Small, new countries want to be part of something larger because it's much more difficult to go it alone.

See Ireland, an agrarian, priest-ridden backwater from independence, which used its EC and then EU membership to become a much wealthier and successful pseudo-vassal state, unable to unilaterally set its own income taxes but with a far higher standard of living for everyone.

If you can be simplistic, so can I. What did for the economy of 32-county Ireland between 1920 and 1970 was partition. The industrial base in the north lost not only its major market to a border but access to cheaper finance from the domestic banking sector. The benighted northern economy lasted ten months before Andrew Bonar Law bailed out the Craig government with an annual subvention, one that is still being paid by Westminster today. It took the southern state the first fifty years to find its feet and the GFA to allow an all-island economy to emerge again. De Valera, the central role of the Catholic church and Irish neutrality during WWII were part of a strategy of differentiation that he considered necessary to building the story of the new state. However, it was joining the Common Market that paved the way for Ireland to develop to anything like its economic potential, a potential that necessitated further differentiation from the former occupier.

A reanimated Michael Collins would ask to be killed again.

Put down whatever you're smoking.

It's fine to wish for EU membership but don't confuse it with retaining all of your sovereign powers. EU membership necessarily involves abdicating some important powers, or trading them. People should be clear about that and be informed of the trade-off. FWIW, Ireland being in the EU is a good idea.

EU membership does not involve abdicating sovereignty but pooling it and that is an important distinction. Any changes required to the Constitution in order to enact European regulations or directives are put to the Irish electorate for ratification, no one else.

The UK has not directly paid Irish pensions since 1922, about one year after it recognised Ireland as an independent country. The Anglo-Irish Treaty made provision for the Irish Free State to service a relevant proportion of the UK's national debt and enter discussions for pension funding, but I am not privy to the full details!

Which was written off as part of the agreement that saw the 1925 Boundary Commission cancelled and the border harden around the six counties, notwithstanding that two of them had nationalist majorities at the time of partition and whose county councils each passed motions pledging their loyalty to the new Free State administration.

It would actually be very interesting to see the papers on how the money was divided!

A good university-level essay question would be "Was the Irish Free State until 1949 a fully independent country?"

It really wouldn't, as the Irish Free State was dissolved on 29 December 1937.

Anyway, I digress. Saor Alba!

THC

 

[najaB]

Or just share a mostly-common immigration policy. Ireland does.

Is the most likely outcome. Any internal (GB) border would be for goods, not people.

 

[WAB]

Or just share a mostly-common immigration policy. Ireland does.

My understanding is that Scotland wants to increase immigration rates, so either you sign a treaty locking in rUK-style immigration levels or you need to find a solution to Scotland being used as a back-door.

 

[AlterEgo]

My understanding is that Scotland wants to increase immigration rates, so either you sign a treaty locking in rUK-style immigration levels or you need to find a solution to Scotland being used as a back-door.

Why? Ireland has had mass immigration for a very long time. I don't see this as an issue.

 

[THC]

Why? Ireland has had mass immigration for a very long time. I don't see this as an issue.

Not really. Ireland has exported its people for generations - certainly since the 1840s for reasons that should be obvious - but in-migration is a newer phenomenon. While Dublin and to a lesser extent Belfast have supported ethnic minority populations for a long time, it wasn't really until the A8 accession states joined the EU in 2004 that rural in-migration became more than a trickle. Many towns have been transformed in the years since by new communities setting up home. More power to them all.

THC

 

[WAB]

Why? Ireland has had mass immigration for a very long time. I don't see this as an issue.

But they're not exactly on the same island as us. And even then, Ireland is the fourth most common place of birth for UK residents outside of the UK.

 

[AlterEgo]

But they're not exactly on the same island as us. And even then, Ireland is the fourth most common place of birth for UK residents outside of the UK.

I think you will find the Republic of Ireland is on the same island as the United Kingdom.

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

Not really. Ireland has exported its people for generations - certainly since the 1840s for reasons that should be obvious - but in-migration is a newer phenomenon. While Dublin and to a lesser extent Belfast have supported ethnic minority populations for a long time, it wasn't really until the A8 accession states joined the EU in 2004 that rural in-migration became more than a trickle. Many towns have been transformed in the years since by new communities setting up home. More power to them all.

THC

20 years is a long time to this 35-year-old!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Scotland has no control over pensions - age, rate or contributions.

I realise you mean that specifically the Scottish Government has had no control over pensions, but surely that's irrelevant: What is relevant is that Scotland (as a whole) has had exactly the same control over pensions that the rest of the UK has: They have over the years voted in MPs to Westminster proportionate to the population of Scotland (actually, for many years until relatively recently, more MPs than was proportionate to their population), and therefore had a proportionate ability to vote in Parliament on matters related to pensions, as well as - at times - had ministers and at least one recent Prime Minister representing a Scottish constituency.

 

[najaB]

I realise you mean that specifically the Scottish Government has had no control over pensions, but surely that's irrelevant: What is relevant is that Scotland (as a whole) has had exactly the same control over pensions that the rest of the UK has: They have over the years voted in MPs to Westminster proportionate to the population of Scotland (actually, for many years until relatively recently, more MPs than was proportionate to their population), and therefore had a proportionate ability to vote in Parliament on matters related to pensions, as well as - at times - had ministers and at least one recent Prime Minister representing a Scottish constituency.

Yes, I did mean specifically the Scottish Government. Prior to 1999, of course, there was no Scottish Government and so mechanism by which different pension arrangements could have been put into effect north of the border. From 1999 until 2018, while the Scottish Government had tax income it's only really since 2018 that we've had the powers that would allow us to vary pension arrangements - so a little more than a year then into pandemic.

 

[Falcon1200]

Scottish taxpayers have had substantial amounts of their money spent on English pensions.

Seriously - 5 million Scots (not all of who pay tax) are subsidising the pensioners of England's 50 million population; More likely the exact opposite is true, given that public spending per head is higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK.

The liability has been incurred by the UK government, not the Scottish Government, and so it's the UK government's obligation to pay.

The liability has indeed been incurred by the UK, which includes Scotland, and has been, and will until the Last Day of Union, be paid by the UK Government, to all the UK including Scotland. After independence, all obligations from the rest of the UK to Scotland cease - That is what being independent means !

Life expectancy in England is about three to four years longer than in Scotland, and the population is about ten times higher - so, logically, there should be more pensioners in England than Scotland.

And also of course more, far far more, taxpayers in England than Scotland.

 

[najaB]

And also of course more, far far more, taxpayers in England than Scotland.

True. Point?