The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland


What they expect you to believe

Posted on November 25, 2016 by

For some reason the Unionist community has this week been turning the bullhorn up to maximum on the subject of pensions. Most likely provoked by the publication of Dr Craig Dalzell’s fascinating “Beyond GERS”, the usual suspects have returned to the scaremongering tactics deployed during the indyref, attempting to terrorise the elderly with blood-curdling threats of destitution once again.

mcdougallpensions

It’s a bewildering approach, given that the situation regarding pensions is one of the few around independence about which there is known certainty. The UK government already pays the state pension to millions of people outside the UK, under rules which would apply in exactly the same way if Scotland became a “foreign” country.

But just for fun, let’s look at exactly what the situation would be in the monumentally implausible event that Blair McDougall was telling the truth for once.

The claim being made, remember, is that an independent Scotland would have to fund the pensions of all existing pensioners in Scotland – that is, at the moment of independence the rUK would instantly abandon all responsibility for people who have paid their National Insurance contributions to the UK Treasury for their whole lives, and expect the Scottish Government to pick up the tab.

So what would that mean in practice?

(1) There are currently approximately 900,000 pensioners in Scotland. They are all UK citizens, and would remain so after independence. The UK government’s own “Scotland Analysis” paper on the subject in January 2014 said:

citizenshipsa

(Additionally, there are people of working age who have already paid enough contributions to be entitled to their pension, but aren’t yet actually in receipt of it.)

The legal difficulties in suddenly depriving a million-plus UK citizens of their fully-paid-up pensions – which would almost certainly ultimately involve having to strip them of their citizenship against their will, even though most of them would very likely have voted No and all of them would still be living exactly where they had been before – would be unimaginably immense, and in reality impossible.

(2) To have even a chance of successfully doing so, the rUK government would also have to take away the pensions of all UK expat pensioners living elsewhere in the world. There are currently around 5.5 million UK expats entitled to vote, and while few of them currently exercise that right, any government proposing to take their pensions away might find a sudden spectacular spike in democratic engagement that was not to its advantage. It would be political suicide.

(3) Otherwise, a situation would arise where, say, a 75-year-old woman born and raised in Kent for her entire life who wanted to emigrate and spend her twilight years with family elsewhere would be allowed to retire to Spain or France or Canada or Australia or anywhere else on the face of the planet without losing her pension, but uniquely be forbidden from moving to Scotland on pain of being made penniless overnight.

(4) This would be extra-stupid because governments LOVE it when pensioners retire abroad. They might have to keep paying their pensions, but once someone reaches pension age they’re usually a net fiscal drain on society in countless other ways, especially health, and the cold harsh truth is that governments are glad to be rid of them. As such, anything that discourages them from leaving the country is economically idiotic.

(5) Indeed, it would be likely to create a huge surge in what would effectively if not technically be immigration, as thousands of expensive-to-service UK citizens were forced to flood back into the country because their source of income had been taken away and they could no longer afford to live elsewhere.

It’s an idea so farcical it pains us to even have to be spelling it out. And it should be noted that the UK government has made absolutely clear that it has no intentions of trying to do any of this, because it’s not completely out of its mind.

A couple of weeks before the indyref, an article on the BBC website noted:

bbcpensions

Panicking Unionists have tried to focus on the words immediately after the ones we’ve highlighted in that image, claiming that “it might be dished out via the Scottish Pensions System rather than the UK one”, means the Scottish Government would be paying for the pensions rather than just handling the admin of delivering them.

But that’s a self-evidently ludicrous interpretation – the UK government plainly has no power to “agree” to that on the Scottish Government’s behalf. It can only assert that pensions will be honoured if IT is going to honour them, which means paying for them.

(The subsequent paragraph makes that even clearer by saying that the funding will be more complex for “split entitlement” pensioners whose contributions straddle the date of independence than for those already entitled to or in receipt of a state pension.)

And the White Paper (p144) confirms that the Scottish Government will only take over the administration of existing UK state pension entitlements:

wppensions

The document clearly differentiates between the “UK State Pension” and the “Scottish State Pension” as separate entities, the latter of which people will only accrue entitlements to after independence.

pensionswp2

But the White Paper – a policy proposal, not a binding legal document – is really neither here nor there. The finer technical points of split-entitlement pensions will be something for the two governments to thrash out in negotiations, but the arithmetic is straightforward and the international mechanisms for doing so are already in place.

eupensions1

The idea, however, that the UK government could – or plans to – simply walk away from its responsibility to hundreds of thousands of UK citizens to whom it’s already non-negotiably obligated to pay a pension for life is the sort of madness that no sane person would give a moment’s credence to. There’s a good reason that no UK minister has ever actually said any such thing – they’d be torn limb from limb.

pensionabroad

That Unionists have now taken it from something that was previously only whispered quietly off the record to frightened old folk on their doorsteps to a public threat is a mark of the terrified desperation that has seized them ever since the Brexit vote. If you thought you’d seen Project Fear last time, readers, batten down the hatches.

Print Friendly

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 25 11 16 11:56

    What they expect you to believe | speymouth

308 to “What they expect you to believe”

  1. Daisy Walker says:

    Project Fear 2… You’z’ll huv tae keep the Pound. That’ll teach yiz… and the squirrel.

  2. MajorBloodnok says:

    Hang on, I thought Unionists claimed that the White Paper was all lies: particularly those Unionists that hadn’t actually read it (i.e. almost all of them).

  3. Dan Huil says:

    Again, unionist desperation is palpable. The lies just keep coming and coming. Project Fear 2: it’s all they have. This so-called united kingdom is built on fear; that’s why it is doomed.

  4. It is all very well us all knowing about the continuous lying of Better Together and Better Togethercontinued. We have to get the word out to a wider general public by a continuous campaign on some particular lie.

    Once it has been established that that Better together wilfully and deliberately lied on some significant issue everything else loses validity.

  5. Phil Robertson says:

    The first mistake in this article is to suggest that NI insurance are one’s savings towards a state pension. They are not. NI goes into the current year’s income pot and pensions are paid from the current year’s taxation. The NI contributions simply determine what fraction of the state pension one is entitled to.

    But more alarming is the omission of Scotland’s obligation to rUK if your description of the system is correct. A Scottish government would have a pro-rata responsibility for the UK pensions of those whose entitlement was built up pre-independence. (Nice to see you using the BBC website as the authoritative source on this one).

    In practice, the SG will have to assume responsibility for either all the cost of Scottish pensions or of its pro-rata share of UK pensions. The numbers are probably not that different.

    To suggest that, post-independence, the rUK will have to take on the current pension cost for the whole of the UK is incorrect.

  6. Macart says:

    OFFS!

    Perhaps some help for Mr McDougall.

    https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-if-you-retire-abroad

    ‘There has been no change to the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK, and UK nationals in the EU, as a result of the referendum.

    You can claim State Pension abroad if you’ve paid enough UK National Insurance contributions to qualify.’

    On the other hand I’m struggling to give a flying… about anything that McDougall fella has to say. A serial *SPAD whose promised better togetherness has not, was never intended to and never will be delivered.

    *should tell you all you need to know about his honesty creds

  7. Pete says:

    I take the points made here BUT
    The payment to existing pensioners is made from the contributions of current taxpayers.
    For Scottish pensioners, the Scottish taxpayers will no longer be paying in to the Ruk therefore it will be a huge WIN for the SG.
    Using the example of UK pensioners who had emigrated and still receive UK pensions, the difference is that the pool of Taxpayers is still within the UK which is the same as pensioners residing in the U.K. Therefore no difference.
    I therefore find it hard to believe that the UK will continue to pay for pensioners when the tax paying pool has removed to a new country?

  8. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “A Scottish government would have a pro-rata responsibility for the UK pensions of those whose entitlement was built up pre-independence. (Nice to see you using the BBC website as the authoritative source on this one).”

    Don’t be stupid. Those people are also UK citizens who paid their contributions to the UK government. The Scottish Government’s obligations only begin accruing after independence, and only to people making those contributions in Scotland.

  9. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Using the example of UK pensioners who had emigrated and still receive UK pensions, the difference is that the pool of Taxpayers is still within the UK which is the same as pensioners residing in the U.K. Therefore no difference.”

    No, that’s rubbish. Current emigrants are no longer part of the UK tax pool.

    And it doesn’t matter what you “believe”. What matters is the hard legal fact of UK citizens with paid-for entitlements.

  10. Dan Huil says:

    @Pete 11:56am

    The uk governmeny is “…already non-negotiably obligated to pay a pension for life…”

    If Westminster says otherwise Scotland will not be obligated to pay any of Westminster’s massive debts.

  11. Clootie says:

    Even the unionists don’t believe this crap on pensions. It only gets rolled out to target the oldest members of society…those who still trust the media, those who still trust Westminster. Who still believe in the Empire, a strong military and the Royal Family.

    Unionists pin their hopes once again on an alliance of bigots, the elderly and those who share the little Englander view of the world

  12. woosie says:

    Thatcher – sorry, Blair – McDougall (so easy to get those two mixed up!) is clearly preaching to the converted; no independent thinker can surely believe a word he says.

    But at least he’s trying to get involved; I caught a fair bit of Scottish Questions on BBC Parliament the other day. Despite copious questions delivered directly by Scottish MPs to Secretary of State against Scotland, David Balliol – sorry, Mundell (there I go again) didn’t answer one. Some unknown man and woman either side fielded these, generally by obfuscation. If that was an episode of Yes Prime Minister, such a situation would not be credible!

    Surely his constituents are horrified to have such pathetic representation!

  13. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “If Westminster says otherwise Scotland will not be obligated to pay any of Westminster’s massive debts.”

    Scotland isn’t obligated to pay those anyway.

  14. Brian Powell says:

    Phil Robertson

    Not for existing pensioners or for those years people becoming pensioners paid to support pensioners.

  15. Cath says:

    “The first mistake in this article is to suggest that NI insurance are one’s savings towards a state pension. They are not. NI goes into the current year’s income pot and pensions are paid from the current year’s taxation.”

    Yes, that is true. NI is – and has been for a long time, a complete lie, a con and an utterly regressive form of taxation. it should have been abolished and simply made a part of taxes long since.

    However, given it hasn’t, the upshot is that the pensions *owed* to all those who’ve been paying in over all these years are a very large part of the UK government’s debt obligation. So if the UK government were to – as stated eloquently in the article – be as spectacularly bonkers and idiotic as to try and say they no longer had that obligation, the Scottish government’s solution would be fairly obvious and simple: to remove all pensions obligations from “UK debt” when calculating what portion it should take.

  16. ScottishPsyche says:

    I think by now we are all aware that our working children are currently paying for the pensions of our elderly parents and that there is no pension pot as such.

    However, if you have paid into a scheme and let’s call the scheme UK pensions, then are they not responsible for the pension payout? Who administers it is another thing. Like I said on another thread, I have made pension contributions in 2 other countries, I expect them to honour those contributions as I expect the UK to.

    If they do not what are the rights of people like me who have paid for pensioners elsewhere in the UK?

  17. Arbroath1320 says:

    Oh dearie me.

    Methinks I smell a great big dollup of FEAR emanating from Better Together Central Office. They know WE had them on the ropes in 2014 and it was only their threats about pensions and Broon the Loon’s LIE sorry VOW that saved the day for them.

    We all knew in 2014 that if UK pensioners across the world were receiving their pensions from UK then quite obviously pensioners in an independent Scotland would do so as as well. It really was, and is, quite extraordinary for any sane individual to expect people to believe that pensioners living in Scotland would be turned into paupers begging on the streets of Scottish towns and cities. Sadly though this is indeed the case due to the insane individuals from Better Together #1 still spouting their shite from 2014.

    Despite all the rhetoric being spouted in 2014 and on into 2016 and beyond WE all know that come the day of Scottish independence sanity will indeed return to the negotiating table as the rUK and Scottish governments sit down to thrash out the breaking up of all the British institutions from tax and revenue all the way to pensions and everything else that needs divvied up between Scotland and rUK.

  18. Phil Robertson at 11.51

    It would simplify matter for you if you just actually read the UK Government’s statement on the matter.

  19. Johnny says:

    You do often see comments to the effect that ‘the pensions do not come from contributions, but from general taxation of workers at the present’.

    The above may well be true but that’s not the deal your ordinary person thought they were striking and perception is all. They believed that some money from their own tax and contributions was effectively set aside for their old age but instead it was blown on things they did not necessarily assent to.

    It’s the nature of things that tax might not go to what we imagine but people thought it was safe. It’s the UK government’s own fault if they get angry upon finding out how this is not exactly how things are after all – you might have made the nature of things clearer to people, to ensure one and all had some understanding of exactly what they were agreeing to.

    It might also have gotten people to understand that they would *need* policies aimed at ensuring young people always had good jobs, so as they would be able to pay for towards current pensions. Instead, of course, they set pensioners and young people against each other (in voting terms, through the policy alternatives proffered) so as the wages are depressed, less is taken in in tax, lest there be any chance that the pensions offered to today’s pensioners could in fact be more attractive than they are.

  20. Bob Mack says:

    This is not rocket science. This is simply a contractual obligation that was made by the UK government. Pensions differ significantly from other issues of welfare in that you are paying the government a sum of money over 30 odd years for investment towards your retirement. Is it obligatory ? Well yes it is. They do not give you options about opting out of the basic state pension. When you work you contribute.

    At this current moment in time the obligation lies with Westminster ,as they are the body who collected contributions towards the pension. There is no doubt that an independent Scotland would have a cut off date where all pensions after that date were entirely their responsibility,but until that time or until all contributions made by Scottish pensioners over the last few decades are returned then the responsibility rests with Westminster.

    Scotland is asking for nothing more than its contributions from Scottish pensioners are handed over.

    There would be a pretty solid legal basis to that argument.

  21. Adrian B says:

    Pre-paid Pension contributions would be moved from the UK treasury to the Scottish Government Treasury instead of the department for work and pensions as is done at present.

    The Scottish treasury/Government will then hold the responsibility of distributing this pension money as well as picking up the collection of ongoing pension contributions within Scotland. It is all much simpler than than furious unionists would ideally wish. 😀

  22. Pete says:

    Okay, I here all this and it sounds fine and dandy.
    Let’s look at it from a different angle.
    From Independence Day onwards, the SG will be collecting tax and NI from taxpayers but will NOT be paying out to existing pensioners. This is a huge gain which just seems incomprehensible???
    Or will they start FUNDING future pensions.
    I’m confused.

  23. Albert Herring says:

    Pensions are paid from general taxation.

    So Scottish pensions are paid from general Scottish taxation.

    If the UK govt were to renege on its obligations, Scottish taxpayers would continue to fund Scottish pensions, as at present.

    No need for workhouses after all.

  24. Andrew McLean says:

    Does Blair McDougall think by being Judas he will receive a commission to the house of lords? Honours and wealth are waiting for him, within the open arms of Westminster?
    Did he think they will name a flute band after him, the true blue sons of Blairs?

    Is that how cheap he is bought? Is that his worth?

    I notice on his timeline that he has wet his pants with joy because what Esteban Gonzalez Pons, a Spanish member of the European parliament conservative group has said, “It’s impossible Scotland, while it is part of the United Kingdom, has to be the same as the UK.

    But this can also be read as “Scotland while part of the UK”, But if you leave its great come and join us!

    Funny Simon Johnson the telegraphs Scottish political editor left out this next part of the MEP’s statement that Blair was so keen to promote.
    “If Spain agrees a special deal for Scotland after Brexit, Spain has to negotiate a special position for Gibraltar and we accept that Gibraltar could be part of the single market.”

    And again read between the lines what he says, he is Spanish so he wants Gibraltar back, so he mentions Gibraltar, this statement is nothing to do with Scotland, but everything to do with Gibraltar, quite frankly Spain doesn’t give a flying f if Scotland is in or out, but if it can legitimately close the border between Spain and Gibraltar because not only will it be out of Europe but out of the trading area, they can legitimately make it very difficult to cross, full passport control, full vehicle checks, then force a vote on for Gib, to acceded to Spain, then job done.

    But the likes of Blair cannot see that, anything bad for Scotland is great for “Judas” McDougall. lies misquotes and threats all ok in the defence of the vile union.

  25. Johnny says:

    It might seem like a bit of a ‘lucky break’, but then the SG isn’t the body which collected 30 years of contributions from people. If you look at it the other way, wouldn’t it be a lovely gain for the rUK to get away with saying ‘we had 30 years of contributions from you, which you got through, but now we won’t pay your pension. Bugger off’?

    Don’t be blinded by it being ‘too good to be true’ for Scotland, it’d be ‘too good to be true’ for the rUK if it went the other way.

  26. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “From Independence Day onwards, the SG will be collecting tax and NI from taxpayers but will NOT be paying out to existing pensioners. This is a huge gain which just seems incomprehensible???”M

    Sigh. No it’s not. Scottish pensioners already paid for their pensions. It’s not a gain, it’s the avoidance of a massive and unfair loss.

  27. Rob says:

    A couple of Englishmen I know are utterly clear about their and their spouse’s intentions come the next indyref; they’ll vote No and they’ll move south in the event of independence entirely because they don’t trust the UK to honour increments on their pensions. Yes, they accept the UK will continue to pay their pensions, but they fully expect the UK to freeze them. Increments payed to UK pensioners abroad elsewhere are, in their fixed opinion, no guide.

    Nothing will change their voting intentions (there will always be other reasons) but does anyone know a cast iron reference answering the increments question?

  28. Bob Mack says:

    @Pete,

    Simply, Westminster has used over £40 billion that was in the communal pension pot for other things, a bit like Robert Maxwell. Nowadays pensions are primarily paid from the contributions of those still working.

    That however does not detract from the fact that Westminster collected those contributions from previous generations towards pensions. They are still obliged to pay.

    At some future date an independent Scotland would assume full responsibility for collecting contributions and paying pensions. This with an expanding economy would also allow the build up of a pension pot.

    Meanwhile until that cut off date is reached Westminster is undoubtedly legally obliged to meet the pension requirements of those who contributed.

  29. Andrew McLean says:

    Pete,
    It has been explained, if I lived in France, the contributions I paid whilst working in Scotland would be paid at retirement by UK DWP, any French contributions I made would also be paid at retirement by the french equivalent, because France is not the UK.

    So and this is what is likely either the rUK would give the funds directly to the Scottish department, or it would pay directly into the payees bank account, but only the pension amounts paid in, any pension payments after independence would be paid by the Scottish government, because after that all NI in Scotland would be payable to them by you and me.

  30. Mungo says:

    Why would is it “a mark of the terrified desperation that has seized them ever since the Brexit vote?” There appears to have been no movement whatsoever in the polls towards a pro Indy majority.

  31. Bob Mack says:

    @Rob,

    Better tell your pensioner friends Westminster is on the verge of severing the Triple lock. Pensions are most definitely going to lose value in any event no matter where you live

  32. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Nothing will change their voting intentions (there will always be other reasons) but does anyone know a cast iron reference answering the increments question?”

    Increments are voluntary, reciprocal and negotiated arrangements dependent on which specific country you emigrate to, so there can be no definitive answer on that.

  33. Mungo says:

    Should have read, why would it be a ….

  34. liz says:

    Blair McDougall is a serial liar.
    I’ve had the exact same convo with in on twitter.

    No matter how much evidence you provide he still scaremongers.

    @Rob – during indyref1 I was always very polite to folk like the guys you mention but I have to say this makes my blood boil.

    How dare they come up here accept all the benefits going and then say they will be voting NO.
    The gloves need to come off before we get screwed again
    I would be telling the to piss off now.

  35. Robert Graham says:

    While most will appreciate the work done on this spurious pish from tubby boy , it’s in the same bracket as us having to use the Euro total unmitigated pish , we know it and this arsewipe knows it as well , I Am surprised the Rev wasted his time with this obvious idiot .

  36. Adrian B says:

    The triple lock on pensions was a temporary PR position.

  37. Dan Huil says:

    @Mungo 12:36pm

    Jings, Mungo, brexit hasn’t even started. Wait till its consequences become obvious to the populace; wait till IndyRef2 kicks in; watch the polls move in Indy’s favour. Britnats are getting their Project Fear 2 started early because it’s all they have.

  38. Iain Macrae says:

    I’m recently retired and when I received my pension it was based on the contributions I’d made over the years. Those years I’d worked abroad and didn’t make contributions didn’t count towards the pension. In other words there is a direct link between contributions made and the pension. It may be that I don’t have a pension pot but it that doesn’t mean that I don’t have entitlement.

  39. Robert Kerr says:

    Pension increases to expats are not automatic.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-pensions-annual-increases-if-you-live-abroad/countries-where-we-pay-an-annual-increase-in-the-state-pension.

    Includes EEA countries for now. But after Brexit?

    iScotland could well be excluded out of spite. But if iScotland is an EEA country what then?

  40. Giesabrek says:

    I know someone who moved from Northern Ireland to the Republic 30-odd years ago with his parents.
    As both parents worked in N. Ireland for a number of years before moving to the Republic, they’re entitled to and receiving a pension from the UK, albeit a small one in proportion to the number of years they paid into NI. They also receive a pension from the Irish government.

  41. Proud Cybernat says:

    “For those people living in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for the payment of that pension will transfer to the Scottish Government.”

    Why not “the responsibilty for the administration of the UK State Pension will then be handled by the Scottish Government. The funding for those pensions will still be funded by the UK State Pension scheme.”

    Whoever came up with that wording in the 2014 White Paper really needs their arse kicked. It is totally ambiguous and allowed the Yoons to seize on that ambiguity to then disingenuously infer that “Scots pensioners won’t get their UK penshun! Look–it’s in the SNP’s White Paper!”.

    We need to get our act together with shit like this because those snivelling lying yoon fuckwits will be all over the slightest ambiguity like a rash, especially if it means they can easily spin it into a complete lie.

  42. Rob says:

    Rev and Liz, thanks, and Liz, it’s always ground my gears that so many have told me they’ve moved here for a better life, but they’ve gone on voting for the old one. My two aren’t bad people, but they are who they are. That has to be liked or lumped, though I will admit to rationing contact sometimes.

  43. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Why would is it “a mark of the terrified desperation that has seized them ever since the Brexit vote?” There appears to have been no movement whatsoever in the polls towards a pro Indy majority.”

    Terror isn’t rational. But we’ll see how the polls go as Brexit takes shape.

  44. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Whoever came up with that wording in the 2014 White Paper really needs their arse kicked. It is totally ambiguous”

    Agreed. Or at least, it can easily be SPUN as ambiguous.

  45. Bob Mack says:

    If you want to get really technical what about all the MP’S who hold dual citizenship including the members of the Commons and House of Lords who took out Irish citizenship after Brexit to allow them free movement in case of early exit ?

    Would they be considered for a UK pension ?

    You bet.

  46. Dcanmore says:

    All they need to do is shout the threats, aided by the compliant media, and poor frightened pensioners will believe them.

    It’s all or nothing now and Unionists believe in five, ten, or twenty years being a victor will give them the right to re-write history.

    They are fundamentalists who believe they are serving the greater good and will leave Scotland a wasteland to protect their precious ideology under the butcher’s apron…

    ‘better 100 years of Tory rule than independence’, said some Labour arsehole.

  47. Andrew McLean says:

    This is what could happen if looking at UK dealing with Brussels on pensions today.

    There currently is a pensions liability standing £50.7 billion for all retired and current officials, with annual payments currently at about £1.2 billion. the UK is responsible for 8 per cent of the 22,000 retired EU officials. A similar percentage to UK v Scotland pension liabilities.

    So far the UK insists it cannot be held responsible pensions for which, it says, are the responsibility of EU institutions.
    But EU officials say Britain would be expected to pay its part of the EU’s pension promises.
    “The UK is correct in its point that paying the pensions is the responsibility of the European budget. But the budget is a common responsibility of the member states.” so any pension liabilities are still the responsibilities of the UK government, well someone has to pay Nigel the Forages’ into Europe’s pension.

    One compromise being forwarded by the EU would involve the UK paying a lump sum to close its exposure and create a standalone pension fund. “This could be horrible, ugly. I hope it won’t be,” said the UK treasury.

    There is the magic word “Compromise” and for all the Shite spoken by Judas McDougall in the grown up real world, an agreement will be made because that’s what happens when bullshit meets reality.

  48. Robert Kerr says:

    @Dcanmore

    Indeed it is an ideology!. the sundering of the “Union” would be a disaster to the Yoons and BritNat Establishment alike. It will be resisted relentlessly and irrationally.

    This is a weakness that YES can exploit equally ruthlessly.

  49. Effijy says:

    Scaremongering nonsense from Mini Me Blair.
    Both Blairs should be in prison for crimes against humanity.

    I’ve paid in to Westminster for someone’s pension these last 40 odd years.

    There is no way they are going to get away with walking off and and trying to tell the Scottish Government this debt, on top of the other Westminster debts, is a new magical power.

    So for pity sake some of you wake up.
    How many time does these people need to lie to you before
    you stop giving them any form of credibility?

  50. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Cath like many you are mistaken about the UK debt ,as the Rev says I Scotland is not obligated to pay any Debt on UK borrowings .Scotland doesn’t benefit by a increase in monies from Westminster ie NO Debt.

    I shouted Jim Sillyarse down for the same reason.

  51. CameronB Brodie says:

    It is likely there would be no barriers to holding both British and independent Scottish citizenship. – HM Government, Scotland analysis: Borders and citizenship

    This is an example of the policy framework that will be need to make the transition from subordinate partner within Britain, to fully functioning nation state.

    Solutions of synthesis like this enabled India to disengage from colonial rule and they were starting from a much poorer starting point, developmentally. It will take time for Scottish culture and practice to disengage from British/English oversight.

    The cargo cult of British-ness will diminish over the generations. Our grandchildren’s grandchildren will simply look back and scratch their heads, with their human rights and shit. I would expect they would have the civil liberty to do such without being sanctioned, as they would be protected by a written constitution. No such prospect is offered by out-of-time UKOK Yoonland.

    “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” (Article 1.1, Declaration on the Right to Development)

    “The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.” (Article 1.2)

    http://www.un.org/en/events/righttodevelopment/pdf/rtd_at_a_glance.pdf

    @Blair McDougall
    Got a positive case for the yoonion, or are you simply a terrorist in a sharp suite?

  52. orri says:

    Said it elsewhere but worth repeating.

    If it’s illegal to use financial inducements to secure someone’s votes then, given they can change the rules, surely threatening to withdraw finance if you don’t vote the way they want is
    equivalent. It’s well seeing that the government of the day set up Labour to take the heat of as a form of plausible deniability.

    The main problem with pensions wasn’t actually the state one. It was in all the private pensions schemes that would then have to be fully funded should they become cross border and within the EU.

  53. frogesque says:

    When that bastion of the establishment and crooked proprietor of the fourth estate, Robert Maxwell, tried to fuck about with pensions he was’ planked’ Now, whether it was a diy job or whether he was pushed is open to debate.

    What is not open to debate is that he now communes with the fishes.

    Anyone who thinks they can play fast and loose with pension entitlement is a fool. We oldies may not be as fast on our feet these days but by fuck there’s a lot of us!

  54. galamcennalath says:

    Dcanmore says:

    All they need to do is shout the threats, aided by the compliant media, and poor frightened pensioners will believe them.

    Yes.

    We tend to divide NOs into :-

    a) those who will never be persuaded to support Indy

    b) those who potentially could be persuaded

    Another way to split NOs would be :-

    a) those who have a clear understanding of reality and conclude for their own interests that the Union is best for them and their families

    b) those who have never been expose to sufficient unbiased information to allow them to make a reasoned judgement on the matter

    The two ways of splitting give quite different groups.

    IMO, WM has the first group in the bag. That second group is the battleground. Fear, lies, misinformation, omission of alternative views, overwhelming with too much (biased) information, will be their tactics. And their main weapon will be the media which certain groups still read/listen/watch and digest as if gospel.

    Pensioners need to be tackled face to face by Indy minded family and friends they trust. New media and leaflets through doors won’t work.

  55. Tam Jardine says:

    Some have alluded to UK pensions being paid out of current general taxation. Of course that is the case as it is with private pension schemes. The money I dole out each month to aviva doesn’t just pile up in a vault and magically grow- they use it for investments and paying out on current pensions.

    The fact that I get a yearly statement telling me the size of my pension pot does not mean the crock of gold is real. It is simply a commitment to pay a theoretical amount out when I retire.

    Just as Aviva are “looking after my money” in this theoretical way, so to are the UK government.

    They can spend it on whatever they choose but come my 68th birthday, if I’m not turned to ash and spread over the plastic turf at Palmerston they will honour their commitment.

    It is important to understand that we have an old age pension rather than an old age benefit: otherwise we would just be paying an inflated income tax and we’d be getting a benefit when we retire like any other benefit.

    The yoons want to have their cake and eat it. They want to deny Scotland the pound, they want their seat on the security council, they presumably want to retain dominion over all the overseas territories, they never want to even contemplate the division of assets and until recently they were certain they would stay as an EU member and we’d be punted out.

    But when it comes to liabilities they demand Scotland pays her fair share of debt (much of which would be paid to the Bank of England which we apparently have no claim over) and they are certain Scotland should be liable for the UK pensions of UK citizens who happen to reside in the new Scotland, or even a per capita share of all UK pensions!

    Arrogant much? If they are going to be dicks about it (which they show no sign of doing) then can I have my lump sum out and I’ll invest it in the new Scottish scheme when it starts up?

    I never asked them to piss my hard earned cash up against a wall- that’s on them.

  56. clipper says:

    Sorry o/t but absolutely excellent Crosstalk show on RT today about msm. Highly recommended, should be on again 4.30pm and 8.30pm. (Freeview 135)

  57. frogesque says:

    I can assure everyone that this particular pensioner is neither feart nor fool. I know exactly what I’m entitled to!

    Pensioners also talk to one another whether it’s down the pub, at the tea room or walking the dog. Trust me, even the bloody dog knows!

  58. One_Scot says:

    Seriously, I would be very surprised if there was anyone left in Scotland that actually believes anything that the Yoons say about anything.

  59. McBoxheid says:

    The Uk pension in no different in principle to many othe state pension schemes. It is not a private pension or a state benefit.

    You get out what you pay in.

    What fund it is paid out of after indy is irrelevent. You have already paid the full amount in, so you will still get the full amount out.

    If you have made state pension contributions to any country, that country pays your pension accordingly, no matter where you no live.

    If you contribute to multi country’s state pension schemes then you get paid the percentage contribution you have made to each country.

    After indy it no longer matters that you don’t live in the UK, the still will pay your pension. If you emigrate, the UK pays your pension to you at whatever the current exchange rate is. Similarly in a iScotland with a separate currency, you will be paid your pension in whatever currency the rUK is using.

    This means it depends on the exchange rate how much you get. Some month you get more money, others you get less.

    If the UK decides that all pensions paid to those not resident in the rUK are no longer index linked, then they are likely to have a far greater cost and problems with rehousing, health treatment etc of all the millions of expats who can no longer afford to live abroad.

    In Scotland, if the rUK doesn’t keep it indexed-linked, then I’m sure there will be massive international repercussions, that by no means equal the fairly small numbers of pensions that are involved, less than 1 million pensions in monetary terms. In the case that they still proced with this ridiculous idea, then I’m sure the Scottish Government will sort it out one way or the other.

    The folks on this thread are asking the same questions that they asked on the last few threads have either failed to understand/believe the answers they get here, in which case contact your local Citizens Advice or the UK Government, or write to your local MP.

    It they are trying to spread fear, or are just trolling, then please don’t listen to what they are saying. If you have any doubt about their lies, contact your local Citizens Advice or the UK Government, or write to your local MP.

  60. DerekM says:

    @ Bob Mack

    Exactly Bob what the UK governments did with the contributions to everyone’s pension is really the big question.

    Total economic incompetence on a massive scale,they should have been saving that in a fund growing interest on it much like they should have done with the oil revenue.

    They are really bad at everything they do its an astonishing feat of ideological economic idiocy but one they will have no choice but to honour or face lots of lawyers and lose in court and have to pay up and then some.

    I would hope in an indy Scotland we set up a pension fund and tie it down so tight with legislation it makes it impossible for any politician to think it is theirs to use when they want.

  61. heedtracker says:

    The United Kingdom of Fear. Lovely.

    BBC r4 vote Tory and NO lunchtime news there, sent Sarah Smith to Arran for the SNP evicts poor farmers from Arran and isn’t that a terrible terrible thing. Usual no interview with rich aristo landlord’s but its all SNP bad.

    Arran evictions involve at least 60,000 people, sorry no that’s 6000 people, oops sorry, it’s 6 people, or families, across the BBC r4 Scotland region of greater England.

  62. gordoz says:

    Jeez there are sum thick people on Stus twitter feed re pensions & IScotland.

    The key word to consider is default here.

    The UK gov has not said so ever (Only cyberyoons so far)
    but if they did suggest not honouring pension contributions to persons now living in IScot, markets and foreign govs would consider this default that they would lose in any court.
    Remember as Ms Mayhem has said Default means Default. And finance gates the word default!
    UK markets would crash / trade with a defaulter .. Not likely.

    Its simple – illegal and would result in self harm for UK heading out EU.
    So a non starter – stop being stupid folks.
    It doesn’t happen now and is a Non Starter.
    All Current UK pension contributions up to and beyond Indy will be honoured.
    Thereafter IScot pension conts are a Scot Gov issue involving

  63. Stoker says:

    Folks, remember, this stoater of an article, along with Dr.Dalzell’ article from yesterday are ones for the keeping. Better ammo you cannot wish for to help with the purge-a-tory pish.

  64. CameronB Brodie says:

    Dan Huil
    Sorry for being a pedant Dan but I see Britain as the embodiment of hypocrisy built on a foundation of fudge. The FEAR is a ‘binding agent, generated so as to encourage the plebs(us), to willfully accept their own oppression under a system of neo-feudalism/neo-colonialism. I don’t fit in to that mindset, which is probably why I support self-determination. It’s a post-modernist thing. 🙂

    Any help?

  65. gordoz says:

    Jeez there are sum thick people on Stus twitter feed re pensions & IScotland.

    The key word to consider is default here.

    The UK gov has not said so ever (Only cyberyoons so far)
    but if they did suggest not honouring pension contributions to persons now living in IScot, markets and foreign govs would consider this default that they would lose in any court.
    Remember as Ms Mayhem has said Default means Default. And finance gates the word default!
    UK markets would crash / trade with a defaulter .. Not likely.

    Its simple – illegal and would result in self harm for UK heading out EU.
    So a non starter – stop being stupid folks.
    It doesn’t happen now and is a Non Starter.
    All Current UK pension contributions up to and beyond Indy will be honoured.
    Thereafter IScot pension conts are a Scot Gov issue involving
    Citizens & Indy giv thereafter

  66. One_Scot says:

    ‘Jim Someone’. Lol. You know what, I genuinely can’t even remember that first rate wasters second name, and I don’t want to even to try. #BayonetsAtTheReady.

  67. heedtracker says:

    The FEAR is a ‘binding agent, generated so as to encourage the plebs(us), to willfully accept their own oppression under a system of neo-feudalism/neo-colonialism.”

    Nail on head for the Scotland region, at least for the worst off and the JAMS.

    Why did you vote NO? “I was frightened. I was frightened I’d lose what little I have, and I have very little. Gordon Brown says its true so it must be.”

    Its probably less nuanced than that even. That BBC R4 lunctime news Arran eviction thing, even had on an evictee who said he blames Scots.gov for the evections, not the filthy rich landlords. And Green Andy Whiteman also explained, SNP bad.

    Also, filthy rich landlords doing the evicting remained entirely BBC anonymous, although they have their own spokesberk who explained that the nameless landlords had won back their lands on human rights law and were now due compensation from Nic Sturgeon.

    Which bit of that merry tale of teamGB says SNP bad tale did I just make up?

  68. Jack Murphy says:

    BREXIT.Sorry for going OT so soon but the Independent is saying:-

    “—–Not many people are familiar with section 2 of the Scotland Act of 2016, but it could give First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and her government in Edinburgh the legal power to block the UK from triggering Article 50. Conservative MP Anna Soubry – in a wonderfully honest interview in The Guardian yesterday – mentioned it in passing—–”

    Independent Archived:-
    http://archive.is/eXDRg

  69. Mochachoca says:

    The split of all assets and liabilities will be subject to negotiation, but the liability for the state pension should be one that’s fairly easy to determine.

    Yes, during the transition to independence the actual payment of pensions will remain the responsibility of the UK government (as will the collection of NI), but does anyone seriously believe that following independence the payment of Scottish state pensions will then fall purely on the shoulders of rUK taxpayers, and that Scots taxpayers will escape that burden ‘Scot free’?

    The whole point is that we take all of Scotland’s proportion of responsibilities and powers back from the UK government. Do we really expect to pick and choose only the responsibilities we want?

    The ex-pat argument is a red herring, indeed the responsibility for state pension payments to ex-pats who paid their contributions while residing at a Scottish address will also transfer to the Scottish Government.

    The whole point of independence is to be, well, independent.

  70. Juteman says:

    The message is getting through, folks.
    My sons friends were split 50/50 in the 2014 ref.
    If they are typical of Scots 20/30 somethings, then the worm has turned. The failure of any real Devo Max being delivered has not gone unnoticed.

  71. Arbroath1320 says:

    Pensions as explained to Ian Davidson on 6th May 2014.

    Perhaps this may help explain State pensions as we move closer to independence. If I understood this explanation correctly it makes no difference as to where you live so long as you have been paying into the U.K. State pension scheme then you are entitled to a U.K. State pension. Therefore after independence everyone who is currently paying into the U.K. state pension will be entitled to receive their U.K. State pension.

    Methinks the phrase “told you so!” springs to mind here. 😀

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su47Cx3HiSI

  72. heedtracker says:

    Graun says,

    “EU referendum and Brexit
    First thoughts
    Is a second referendum a bad idea? Not if we ask the right question
    Simon Jenkins”

    Can Scotland have another one too? Fuck off.

    But Jenkins sez,

    “But divorce is a clumsy metaphor. Neighbouring countries do not marry and divorce. They become more or less separate, hence the shorthand of “soft” and “hard” Brexit. There is a world of difference between these two outcomes – so much so that pundits vie with each other in claiming the impossibility of both.”

    pundits like very over weight loafer, farting about in a lovely Glasgow southside suburb, where everyone knows your name, Bliar the fearmomger general.

    It’s all for our own good though, tweets Bliar.

  73. Bob Mack says:

    @Mochachoca,

    I think the only area we differ, is the important one that whether we like it or not Westminster has for many years received Scottish contributions from people who retired under their established pension system.

    Nobody is saying that Westminster must pay indefinitely, but we are saying they have to honour the contracts they collected the money for, or transfer sufficient sums to Hollywood to cover that sum.

  74. Iain More says:

    Is that troll Rippey back calling himself by another name? Or is there an army of Yoon clones just ready to go with utter misleading pish. No prizes for guessing who the Yoon clone is.

    Oh and I know half a dozen folk living abroad who live off UK provided pensions. I can only assume that the Yoon clones are planning to cut them off or maybe just chop them at the knees, I am not sure what would give the sadist in them the bigger thrill.

  75. manandboy says:

    Excellent post, Stu.

    If UK Government propaganda wasn’t so effective, Westminster would use guns, genocide and deportation.

    Most people are simply oblivious to the fact that they are being brainwashed every single day.

    Blair McDougall is employed to spread propaganda. He knows it’s all made up. He also knows that there are lots of vulnerable people, like the elderly, who don’t. As ‘Dubya’ once said, reportedly, ” You can fool some of the people all the time, and they are the ones to concentrate on.”

    But it would be a huge mistake to think that propaganda is designed and spread just for the easily fooled. Propaganda is aimed at everyone – because it gets through to everyone, even the most alert, and influences our thinking, even when we are convinced it has not.

    Westminster is determined to ‘keep’ Scotland, and it’s weapon of choice is propaganda.

  76. One_Scot says:

    Lol. I was actually thinking of Ian Davidson. A man so forgettable, I could not even recall his first name.

  77. CameronB Brodie says:

    heedtracker
    As far as I’m concerned, ‘Greens’ who do not seek Scottish independence, at the earliest opportunity, need to decide whether they seek the chance for a sustainable future, or if they are happy simply stroking their egos. Fundamentalist, me?

    Culture – the fourth pillar of sustainability

    The transformation towards a sustainable society requires not only technological progress and innovative solutions, but also a strong cultural sector that inspires change in consumption and production. Culture is the fourth pillar of the Nordic countries’ sustainability approach, complementing its economic, social and environmental dimensions.

    http://nordicway.org/2014/06/culture-fourth-pillar-sustainability/

    http://www.agenda21culture.net/index.php/documents/culture-the-fourth-pillar-of-sustainability

    http://www.agenda21culture.net/index.php/docman/-1/393-zzculture4pillarsden/file

  78. Mochachoca says:

    Bob, but on Independence Westminster/UKGov/UKTreasury and all other UK institutions effectively split into rUK and Scotland, and either part takes on all responsibilities for it’s own geographical area.

  79. CameronB Brodie says:

    Juteman
    That No voter I spoke to the other day, is 50 years old (we were talking about birthdays). It looks like Scots in general are engaging their brain.

    I’d hate to be a Yoon living now, the future must look so hopeless. 🙂

  80. Quentin Quale says:

    I wonder at what point after seeing all the disgraceful scare stories of Better Together crumble one after the other the likes of Blair will think ‘ooops, I’m on the wrong side here?’

  81. CameronB Brodie says:

    Westminster is determined to ‘keep’ Scotland, and it’s weapon of choice is propaganda.

    So far. The ‘generals’ were on the point of putting tanks on the street to unseat PM Harold Wilson. The British Establishment is fascist to the core. Discount nothing.

  82. Robert Louis says:

    You know, it is such unmitigated rubbish coming from unionists on pensions now, it tells me just one thing, the unionists are quite literally sh*tting themselves.

    I will never grasp just why some Scots go out of their way to rubbish their own country – regardless of their political views, like unionists do. To me, it is utterly bizarre.

    Why do Scottish unionists hate Scotland so much?

  83. heedtracker says:

    Scotland can block Brexit maybe.

    http://archive.is/eXDRg

    RightLeft 2 hours ago

    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha….. I can see the stupid brexiter faces right now!

    So you brexiters thought you won, did you? Thought that you could brazenly lie your way to brexit, did you? Well, you might have found enough suckers among us English, but evidently the Scots and the N. Irish are not so gullible.

    In years to come school kids in history lessons might very well be taught how the UK owes the Scots a debt of gratitude for saving us from these ludicrous Brexit maniacs and demagogues trying to drive us all over the economic cliff.

    Good on the Scots! Keep it up!
    ReplyShare1 reply+9

    58 minutes ago
    Peter Franks
    Kick NI and Scotland out of the UK then all they do is take and I knew exactly what I voted for you patronising idiot.

  84. Bob Mack says:

    @Mochachoca,

    A suitable comparison is Brexit. Have we split overnight ? There are such numerous interconnections between the UK that it will take years to unravel them all.

    We will be responsible for everything —–in time.

  85. Arbroath1320 says:

    Rob says:
    25 November, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    A couple of Englishmen I know are utterly clear about their and their spouse’s intentions come the next indyref; they’ll vote No and they’ll move south in the event of independence entirely because they don’t trust the UK to honour increments on their pensions. Yes, they accept the UK will continue to pay their pensions, but they fully expect the UK to freeze them. Increments payed to UK pensioners abroad elsewhere are, in their fixed opinion, no guide.

    I’m sorry Rob but I’m in one of “those” moods again today. 😀

    If I had met either, or both of those individuals then my answer would be pretty clear and straightforward … I think.

    “The roads are pretty clear just now I can come and help you pack today and escort you all to the border tomorrow. This way you will have no worries about your pension and you will not have to waste your time voting in a referendum! ” 😀

  86. heedtracker says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    25 November, 2016 at 2:33 pm
    heedtracker
    As far as I’m concerned, ‘Greens’ who do not seek Scottish independence, at the earliest opportunity, need to decide whether they seek the chance for a sustainable future, or if they are happy simply stroking their egos. Fundamentalist, me?

    Its hard to know what the Scottish Greens really stand for, let alone who votes for them in Scotland. Whiteman’s thing on BBC r4’s send Sarah Smith a nice wee sleep over in Arran, was disappointing but he’s got his own mission of Greeness too. What that actually is, who knows. Scotland run by the people of Scotland might be in the Green mix somewhere. Depends on who votes for them maybe. I dont know.

  87. CameronB Brodie says:

    Why do Scottish unionists hate Scotland so much?

    Three centuries of cultural indoctrination that Scotland is a hopeless case without England’s paternalism. The “cringe” is a manufactured manifestation typical of colonial suppression of indigenous cultures throughout history. The BBC is the technological equivalent to blankets infected with smallpox, frankly.

    http://cultinformation.org.uk/article_caring-for-cult-victims.html

  88. Arbroath1320 says:

    They must really hate the Scots dan suff Heedtracker.

    What with the concept that Scotland may be able to block Brexit and the Lord Advocate joining forces in the courts to fight the Tories over what they can and can not do whilst using article XVIII of the Act of Union it must really be pissing them off something terrible dan suff. 😀

    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf

    I think we may have begun down a wee side road here where the destination is May standing up in parliament and saying:

    “You uppity Jocks want independence do you … then fine! take it it’s all yours just leave me in peace to deal with this other rabble of brain deid numpties arguing over what is and what isn’t Brexit!

    Pass me the bottle of Gin … QUICK!” 😀

  89. clipper says:

    Arbroath 1320

    Quite agree. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained by playing oh so nicey nicey with these scum, nor is there any need to because they lack the imagination and strength of character to ever be able to admit that they’ve been wrong all along. They will never change so why waste time on them? Personally I’d have told those two to do the world a favour and go fuck off and die.

  90. Men of honour being given airtime to advise us john major him of the Edwina affair tony Blair him of the Iraq affair nick clegg him of the student fees affair how could you doubt anything they say ? The media have nerve to give them airtime pass the sick bag please

  91. Proud Cybernat says:

    Okay – Pensions actuaries deal with this type of stuff all the time when valuing and transferring private pensions for individuals moving between companies.

    So what’s the value of the Scottish pensioners contributions to the UK Pension Scheme? Well crudely –

    900,000 Scottish pensioners x £140 p/wk each (avg)

    = £126,000,000 x 52 weeks

    = £6,552,000,000 x 14 years (avg pension term)

    = £ 91,728,000,000

    So, Westminster, all you have to do is cough up £91.7 billion, Scotland’s share of the UK Pension Scheme (pot that doesn’t actually exist).

    Ta.

  92. Francis Mooney says:

    This is your first post for which I did not have the heart to read right away. I am so sick of this circular rubbish. YES! Their case has been destroyed. Now what? Pre 2014 my Father in law ONLY voted No because of his pension. This tactic worked in a huge way. He honestly now bitterly regrets this decision. A weekly, crowd funded “News Where You Are” , documenting the positives from the preceding weeks MSM, delivered on a Sunday morning by willing YES group volunteers? No more carping, laughing and face meet palm episodes. Enough. Anybody?

  93. Phil Robertson says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
    25 November, 2016 at 11:58 am
    “Those people are also UK citizens who paid their contributions to the UK government. The Scottish Government’s obligations only begin accruing after independence, and only to people making those contributions in Scotland.”

    I’m afraid that is delusional. Are you really suggesting that, in the event of independence, Scotland would have no claim to UK assets nor responsibility for UK debts?

    Dream on!

  94. Arbroath1320 says:

    I’m in agreement with you Clipper.

    There is nothing that pissed me off more in 2014 than the sight, and sound, of pensioners (and others) gaining benefit from all our free education/health/care etc and voting NO.

    If there is one thing that really pisses me off it’s folks who come up here, use our scarce resources and then vote against us being able to do even better independent of a crackpot dictatorship in London.

  95. Robert Peffers says:

    @Phil Robertson says: 25 November, 2016 at 11:51 am:

    “The first mistake in this article is to suggest that NI insurance are one’s savings towards a state pension. They are not.”

    Awa an learn to read you utter Wally.

    No one claims that NI contributions are directly paid into an insurance scheme. That is except for those, like yourself, attempting in their desperation to frighten Scottish, and BTW: English Welsh and Irish people who, if registered to vote in Scottish elections and mainly resident in Scotland are every bit as much qualified as I am to call themselves one of the legally sovereign people of Scotland.

    ” … NI goes into the current year’s income pot and pensions are paid from the current year’s taxation. The NI contributions simply determine what fraction of the state pension one is entitled to.”

    Yes!
    Dear!
    We know that.


    But more alarming is the omission of Scotland’s obligation to rUK if your description of the system is correct.”

    More utter pish claptrap and bare faced lies.

    I’m not about to go through it all again for a numptie on here who tries to instil his lies into the Scots.

    Go read my comment, made rather late due to my ADSL line going down, on the last topic.

    You can find it by clicking on the wee panel to the left under the heading, “recent comments”.

    “A Scottish government would have a pro-rata responsibility for the UK pensions of those whose entitlement was built up pre-independence.”

    That, at least, Phil, may only be partly true but as the United Kingdom is exactly that – a bipartite kingdom – and that is NOT arguable – then post independence there must legally be a decision made by the Kingdom of England as to whether it intends to attempt to continue to claim to be, “The still united Kingdom”.

    In the event that it does then it carries all the assets and debits of that former state. Legally the United Kingdom will have just dissolved. The United Kingdom is actually, not as so often claimed, Britain and neither is it Great Britain.

    Truth is that a bipartite kingdom reverts to a Status Quo Ante of two independent kingdoms and as they joined the United Kingdom as equally sovereign kingdoms there can be no legal rUK post independence.

    Evidently, to sane people, when two independent equally sovereign kingdoms revert to their pre-union status the United Kingdom they formed ceases to exist. There is no legal evidence to prove otherwise.

    ” … In practice, the SG will have to assume responsibility for either all the cost of Scottish pensions or of its pro-rata share of UK pensions. The numbers are probably not that different”

    Absolute tosh. The Scottish government will have no legal commitment to pay any UK pensions that are contracted to the United Kingdom Government until the moment of legal separation.

    Furthermore, neither will the United Kingdom after the bipartite United Kingdom splitting up as there can no longer be a United Kingdom with only the three country Kingdom of England left.

    Then comes the big crunch – if Westminster persists in claiming still to be the United Kingdom then they continue to be liable for all United Kingdom assets, debits and debts.

    If they claim to be just the Kingdom of England then the negotiations begin as to what the relative shares of all things will be. Note also that the claims made by Westminster that all things be split on the basis of current population ratios is utter, pie in the sky, claptrap.

    Those population proportions are directly the result of the Westminster parliament’s decisions and that parliament was the former United Kingdom parliament that no longer will exist. It will be the new Parliament of the Kingdom of England that will be present at the negotiations and if it is not the Scottish Kingdom’s negotiators can simply walk away from the table with a clean slate.

    Either Westminster is the new parliament of the Kingdom of England or it is the old United Kingdom’s parliament and owns the whole shebang, debts and debits too.

    Don’t you understand, Phil, that there are only two kingdoms signatures on the Treaty of Union and these are Kingdoms, they are not countries, the resultant union is thus a bipartite union of kingdoms and when they split up there is no more union of Kingdoms.

    ” … To suggest that, post-independence, the rUK will have to take on the current pension cost for the whole of the UK is incorrect. “

    Is it? On what hard evidence?

  96. Iain says:

    It was disgusting enough when this scare story was tried the first time.

    They are preying on some of the most vulnerable people in our community. It’s the political equivalent of the telephone scammers, of the cowboy tradesmen who knock on old people’s doors and tell them their house needs urgent repairs.

    But it’s not just for political advantage, because with that advantage comes career advancement – or even just a career – for McDougall and his kind.

  97. Proud Cybernat says:

    “If there is one thing that really pisses me off it’s folks who come up here, use our scarce resources and then vote against us being able to do even better independent of a crackpot dictatorship in London.”

    That is because those who come up here to use our scare resources believe those scare resources are fully funded by the largesse of our southern cousins. They think Scotland is a basket case economy because that is what they have been told to think. And few, I imagine, have the wherewithall to ask the questions, “If Scotland is a basket case economically, who brought that about? And if it’s true, why the hell does Westminster insist on holding on to Scotland?”

    Such questions, if they ever crossed the minds of these individuals, would probably send them over the “does not compute” edge.

  98. Proud Cybernat says:

    “scarce resources”, naturally.

  99. Sinky says:

    2015/16 GERS report shows that Scotland’s National Insurance contributions amounted to 8.2% of the UK total. Population share should be 8.4% but hardly the work shy basket case yoons like to portray.

  100. Bob Mack says:

    @Phil Robertson.

    You need to do your homework on this site.

    Total UK assets £6 trillion.

    Scotlands per capita share around 8 % of that.

    Scotlands debt if we decide to take any would be 8% of £2 Trillion .

    what you think ?

  101. Chic McGregor says:

    We certainly do not have ‘scarce’ resources in Scotland.

    We might have ‘scare’ resources but thus far the indy movement has by and large left that tactic up to the Yoons.

  102. Arbroath1320 says:

    Oh you want a “News where you are” type of thing do you Francis? 😉

    May I suggest something along the lines of … erm … this perhaps:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhL57cjN8xY

  103. Fred says:

    And England’s natural resources are? Cornish fuckin pasties & they’re Cornish! 🙂

  104. Les Wilson says:

    Well if they screw around with their due pensions for those in Scotland who have paid into the UK system all their lives, they may open a can of worms for themselves.

    First off is the UK debt, if we make any payment at all then there would be a further cut to that to compensate the losses.
    In the event we pay no debt, after all it is not ours, then there assets that they would want to keep, but we might want our share of these. Of course we might accept cash payments for our part.

    We may have been nice and traded their most precious assets for something else.However under such a move against our pensioners, we may chose not to do that. There will be a big price to pay in Yoonland. With this in mind, I feel certain they would honour their debt to pensioner.Grudgingly.

  105. Phil Robertson says:

    Bob Mack says:
    25 November, 2016 at 3:40
    Total UK assets £6 trillion.
    Scotlands per capita share around 8 % of that.
    Scotlands debt if we decide to take any would be 8% of £2 Trillion .
    what you think ?

    I think we would come to the same conclusion. There would be a division of the assets and of the debts. Part of that debt would be on-going commitments to pensioners. I don’t think you can get share if the assets alone.
    Which is where I started.

    Mr Peffers – you need to get out of the 18th century. Legislation by Westminster and Holyrood will make anything that happened in 1707 historically interesting but constitutionally irrelevant. The last thing that will happen is a reversion to the status quo of 1707.

  106. yesindyref2 says:

    I think it’s worth echoing the words of Forsyth in the House of Lords. Something like:

    “When Scotland leaves the UK, the UK ceases to exist”.

  107. ScottieDog says:

    @Bob Mack
    Remember to subtract QE – gilts owned by the Bank of England – more than one quarter of UK national debt, which err kind of makes a mockery of the ‘national debt’.

  108. yesindyref2 says:

    @Phil Robertson: “Mr Peffers – you need to get out of the 18th century. Legislation by Westminster and Holyrood will make anything that happened in 1707 historically interesting but constitutionally irrelevant. The last thing that will happen is a reversion to the status quo of 1707.

    I think firstly you need to check out the UK Government’s own paper on that, Annex A which the UK Gov endorsed, the opnions of its legal team Crawford & Boyle, where that is indeed one of the three options they considered:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf

    They may have settled on a third option where the UK is the continuing UK but that was their remit as they say in the preamble.

    And secondly there is a UKSC case in December with a ruling in January that may or may not shake the foundations of your world.

  109. John J. says:

    Blair McDougal is either ignorant of the facts or he’s a liar.

    It’s inconceivable that he doesn’t know the facts, therefore he must be a Liar.

    One note of caution however. I believe that pensions drawn abroad do not increase (it might have changed). However it wouldn’t be very expensive for a Scottish Government to make up the difference.

  110. John Edgar says:

    After Hammond’s revelations yesterday, the rise in UK public debt and long term debt, soon to approach £2 trillion + pfi and all the other hidden borrowings and additional spend Trident, Fast trains and nuclear power stations owned by the Chinese what would the English Gers look like?
    I suppose the UK government would answer they don’t know as it is all under a UK rubric!!
    Brexit means MayHem means chaos!!
    Yoonionist doom.

  111. Francis Mooney says:

    @Arbroath 1320.
    YES! Why not? I’ve watched it a few times but again it has the humourous side. The MSM are undoubtedly serious. As we should be.

  112. yesindyref2 says:

    Just another data point, with the UK Gov’s implementation of ESA10 now taking place, it got a deferral to 2017 from the EU, it means its National Accounts will have to include PFI, pension liabilities and I think other debt as well, such as student loans, so we’re going to see some dramatic figures coming out soon, real soon now, if I have this right.

    I can’t get my head around the student loans angle, but it was something the Scot Gov were protesting about, that the UK not including that skewed GERS or something.

    Time will tell.

  113. Andy-B says:

    Project Fear are a despicable bunch of people, Blair McDougall and Murdo Fraser, are shameful in their anti-Scottish actions of late.

  114. Arbroath1320 says:

    Sadly Francis you are right the MSM are serious but only serious in dealing out LIES. They have no concept of what telling the TRUTH means or how to do it.

    The whole raison detre thingy for the MSM being in business these days is to ensure the prolonging of the disunited broken U.K. nothing more.

  115. Andy-B says:

    “If Westminster says otherwise Scotland will not be obligated to pay any of Westminster’s massive debts.”

    I wonder if any nation on obtaining independence from the British empire, has taken a share of debt, I can’t think of one.

    I’m sure someone will know.

  116. Albert Herring says:

    Personally, I think the Scottish Government should take responsibility for paying pensions. We are already affording them anyway.

    The whole “you’ll lose your pension” is based on the ridiculous notion that Scotland is too poor to provide basic services.

  117. @Phil Robertson

    `Legislation by Westminster and Holyrood will make anything that happened in 1707 historically interesting but constitutionally irrelevant`

    so the Acts of Union 1707 are constitutionally irrelevant,

    that will do me.

  118. call me dave says:

    The missing man in the video at the Scottish Affairs Committee on pensions which I posted yesterday. Now retired!

    Folk were asking on WoS twitter (which I don’t do)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Paice

    The video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su47Cx3HiSI

  119. Dr Jim says:

    The Uk gov wont want to give Scotland it’s share of the assets and they wont want to split them up either so they’ll pay Scotland an equivalent compensation which I would think would be very hefty indeed

    I’ve no clue what the worth of the armed forces and equipment stands at let alone contributed to holdings, properties, territories but around 8% of all that must be huge and it’s not as if the Only Kingdom of England is flush at the moment, I mean they don’t even grow enough Totties fur thur mince frae Galloways

    They have got sheep though

  120. Capella says:

    Why do Scottish unionists hate Scotland so much?

    IMO it’s because they are Tories and Scottish voters are mostly left of centre, social democrat. England is mostly right wing, Tory. So as long as we are in the UK, we will be saddled with Tory governments that the majority do not want.

  121. Francis Mooney says:

    @Arbroath 1320
    What do you suggest be done?

  122. Phil Robertson

    Pension provision is NOT included in the UK national debt calculation.

    Most countries do include pension provision in their national debt calculation but the UK does not. Surprised? Anybody?

    If it did the UK’s national debt to GDP ratio would be well over 100%.

  123. defo says:

    And why do the Establishment and their shills so desperately want to keep hold of the last colony ?

    Oil, whiskey, land ownership etc ? Aye.

    But what I feel is equally as relevant is that they are shit scared that a successful, socially just Scotland, which doesn’t have the City of London and entrenched wealth as its main priority, might make our southern plebish cousins question WTF is actually going on.

    BTW What’s a pension ? 🙂

  124. call me dave says:

    Radio shortbread breaking news from the courts.

    Scottish Parliament must have a say!
    ‘Claim of right mentioned’

    Game on!

  125. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Phil Robertson
    You are engaging in pedantic, empirical, obfuscation of simple facts. Here’s another you could try to twist, as is your want.

    Do you or do you not accept that Scots are denied their inalienable human rights by the British sate? I will take failure to reply as a sign you agree.

    “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” (Article 1.1, Declaration on the Right to Development)

    “The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.” (Article 1.2)

    http://www.un.org/en/events/righttodevelopment/pdf/rtd_at_a_glance.pdf

  126. Robert Peffers says:

    @CameronB Brodie says: 25 November, 2016 at 1:14 pm:

    “It is likely there would be no barriers to holding both British and independent Scottish citizenship.”

    How many times must it be highlighted before it sinks in?

    There is no such entity as, “A”, state, kingdom or country named either, “Britain”, or, “Great Britain”.

    It is therefore a logical conclusion there can be no such thing as either citizenship of either Britain or Great Britain.

    The political states that exist within the British isles are:-

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. this political state contains the two kingdoms of Scotland and England that between them contain the four distinct countries of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. With the Kingdom of England comprised of the countries of England, Wales and part of the country of Ireland. Scotland is both a country and a kingdom.

    Then there are three, (independent of the United Kingdom Government), Crown dependencies of the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

    Last, but certainly not the least, is the totally independent Republic of Ireland.

    There is, though, an anomaly in that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s personal United Kingdom includes the three crown protectorates but which are not part of Her Majesty’s Government of Her United Kingdom.

    There simply are no states that are entitled either Britain or Great Britain but there is a British Passport as this Passport is issued in the Name of Her Majesty.

    So there you go – there are no states of either Britain or Great Britain but there is a British Passport.

    England, Scotland and Wales, (which also form the geographic biggest, or greatest island of the archipelago) called, “Great Britain”, this is not a single state, country or kingdom.

  127. Gary45% says:

    Every time an SNP politician gets on the wireless or TV including FMQs, they must start with “your pensions are safe and the Yoon politicians are LIARS”.
    Call them out or the same bollocks will happen at Indy Ref2, we all know someone who fell for this shi*e before.

  128. yesindyref2 says:

    @Chic
    Yes, well, with the implementation of ESA10 looks like that’s changing – and the first affect for the UK should from my reading, be end of March. “Council Regulation (EC) No 79/2009, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 679/201 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 220/2014, requires that EU Member States report EDP-related data to Eurostat twice per year at end-March and end-September.

    A lot of stuff about unfunded pension schemes, and private ones not government (though the statutory one now can be either), but it looks like most will have to be reported. Far too long for me to do anything but skim through the manual.

    Anyways, as the UK derogation from the EU was until 2017, it looks like end March could be crunch time in a lot of ways, for a lot of different reasons, and I also wonder if we’ll be seeing a re-issue of GERS 2015-16 shortly after. Maybe just in time for the Indy Ref 2 to be announced! Who knows.

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5937189/KS-GQ-14-010-EN.PDF/

    Of course, ESA10 might just be a boring fizzle.

  129. Phil Robertson says:

    yesindyref2 says:
    25 November, 2016 at 4:11 pm
    “the opinions of its legal team Crawford & Boyle, where that is indeed one of the three options they considered”

    Thanks for the interesting reference. I note that their conclusion on reversion i.e. the 1707 position is
    “Once we leave aside plainly inapplicable categories of reversion, there is little or nothing to suggest that Scotland could identify itself with the pre-1707 Scottish state in a manner which would have any specific legal consequence”

  130. Robert Louis says:

    Scott Finlayson at 442pm,

    Indeed. If as our unionista chum insists the acts of 1707 are irrelevant, then QED Scotland is an independent nation.

    I have stated this here many times, and it remains true, that the ONLY legislation which gives Westminster a say in Scotland is the treaty (and acts) of union of 1707. It is what makes the United Kingdom.

    Legislation from Westminster only has power across the entire UK, where the treaty is intact. Westminster is not the English or British Parliament, but the parliament of the United Kingdom, established by the treaty of 1707. Without the treaty, the Parliament at Westminster becomes a redundant talking shop, with no authority ANYWHERE in the UK.

    I long for the treaty of union to be irrelevant, for it will be the day Scotland is independent and free of London colonial control.

  131. Robert Louis says:

    Robert Peffers at 527pm,

    Well said. It is tiring is it not, the way in which yoons, insist on talking of something which does not exist. Their is NO British citizenship, there is no Great Britain citizenship, there is only United Kingdom citizenship.

    Likewsie when they talk of the ‘British’ Prime Minister when no such title exists. Theresa May is technically the First Lord of the treasury (the Chancellor is the second) of the United Kingdom, but is styled a ‘Prime Minister’.

  132. Phil Robertson says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    25 November, 2016 at 5:21 pm
    @Phil Robertson
    Do you or do you not accept that Scots are denied their inalienable human rights by the British sate? I will take failure to reply as a sign you agree.

    Way off topic but the answer is I do not accept the denial of human rights.

    “The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes,”

    Last time I checked the Scottish electorate voted to remain in the UK

  133. Dan Huil says:

    Again we see britnat apologists struggling desperately to come up with more Project Fear flim-flam. It’s all they have and it won’t work in IndyRef2. And they probably know it.

    We also are seeing britnats making a complete mess of brexit – and it’s only just starting.

    This is an ideal opportunity for Scotland to show the world its mature, sensible proposals for Scotland’s self-determination.

  134. Arbroath1320 says:

    Francis Mooney says:
    25 November, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    @Arbroath 1320
    What do you suggest be done?

    I know I’m far from being the first to mention this Francis but talking face to face with people armed with leaflets carrying all the important point be it on Pensions, currency,E.U. or whatever must be the obvious way forward.

    The down side of this, there’s always a down side isn’t there :), is that you will undoubtedly come across a xenophobic shouty Britnat. If you come across one of these “individuals” then best just smile and walk away.

  135. Proud Cybernat says:

    “Last time I checked the Scottish electorate voted to remain in the UK.”

    Predicated in no small measure upon the Unionist lie that the only way Scots could gurantee their EU membership was to reject full self-governance and remain in the UK.

    Given our present predicament where a bigger majority (62%) of Scots voted to Remain with the EU , I am sure many of those No-voting Scots (55%) who believed the Unionist EU lie peddled in 2014 will be demanding a second vote. And especially so if Scotland truly is hard-exited from the EU.

    Ps – When will ‘The Vow’ be delivered in full? You know, Near Federalism, Devo-Max etc, etc? When exactly?

  136. yesindyref2 says:

    @Phil Robertson
    Yes, Crawford & Boyle would. That was their remit in fact:

    10. We are asked to advise on two questions:
    10 .1 the status of Scotland and the rUK in international law after Scottish independence, in particular ‘(a) the strength of the position that the rUK would be treated as a continuation of the United Kingdom as a matter of international law and an independent Scotland would be a successor state’; and
    10.2 after Scottish independence ‘(b) the principles which would apply to determining the position of the rUK and an independent Scotland within international organisations, in particular the European Union’.”

    Effectively Crawford & Boyle were the QCs for the UK Gov, and their remit was to discuss and dismiss any counter-arguments to the desired outcome – that the rUK is the Continuing UK.

    It wasn’t neutral Phil, their remit was to put the UK Gov’s legal position, and they did exactly that.

    However, as has been pointed out be some legal experts, in doing so they exposed the case the UK Gov would make, and also gave importance to the other two statuses they discussed and dismissed by argument. Exactly as the QC for any claimant would in court.

    The QC for the other side – the Scottish Government – holding out for one of the other two options, e.g. dissolution to the pre-1707 state, would do similar with the “Continuing UK” claim, and the Judges would decide.

  137. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Phil Robertson
    Thanks for your reply, however, you fail to grasp the spirit of international development law, which aims to promote the rule-of-law in general. The British state is legally required to do everything in it’s powers to help Scotland become independent, if it so chooses.

    You are correct, Scotland voted No in 2014 but I would suggest that was largely due to a campaign of terrorist propaganda aimed at the most vulnerable members of Scotland’s community i.e. the elderly. The BRITISH STATE DID EVERYTHING IT COULD TO DISCOURAGE SCOTLAND’S SELF-DETERINATION e.g. ‘Scotland was extinguished in 1707’.

    Now, your point was?

  138. manandboy says:

    Defo says “And why do the Establishment and their shills so desperately want to keep hold of the last colony ?”

    Because Scottish Independence will stop the bounteous flow of money from Scotland to the British Establishment, and thereby bring an end to it.

    There will be no more living luxuriously off the public purse by the upper classes.

    There will be an end of centuries of abuse and exploitation of Scotland and its people.

    No more Rule Brittania
    No more Union Jack
    No more Empire, invasion and subjugation of other lands
    No more Royalty
    No more Lords and Ladies
    No more Knights of the realm
    No more Aristocracy
    No more ruling class
    No more getting away with murder
    No more gravy train for politicians
    No more effortless superiority and widespread contempt
    No more privilege
    No more Royal Ascot
    No more hunting, shooting and fishing on Scottish estates
    No more holidays in Scotland for the Royals.

    The British Establishment is fighting for its life – in vain.

  139. Robert Louis says:

    O/T,

    And, as an aside, here is a great picture of Jamie and Andy (both world no.1), tweeted the other day by Judy Murray (who incidentally got an honourary doctorate from the University of Abertay in Dundee today.

    https://twitter.com/JudyMurray/status/800439294133465088

    Made in Scotland. Braw.

  140. Bill McLean says:

    John J.- Pension increases are paid in some countries. In Malta, where I lived for some time, UK pensioners received any annual increases. The UK and Malta have a reciprocal arrangement on this as do some other Commonwealth countries. In some countries where UK pensioners have retired they receive UK State pension but no increases. Bill

  141. Chic McGregor says:

    yesindref2

    The really big problem the UK has is the Total Debt

    Haven’t looked at data post Brexit ref. so it is likely to be worse now but in addition to PSBR running at nearly 100% of GDP
    Household and Corporate debt were also both about 100% GDP and Financial Sector debt was about 200%.

    A Total Debt of around 500% of GDP.

    Now some say, Household, Corporate and Financial sector debts are balanced by associated asset values. And they are, nominally.

    But unlike the debt which remains fixed, the value of those assets is nominal and subject to sudden devaluation if there is for example an international credit crunch.
    Bricks and mortar are perhaps more secure in terms of housing and offices/factories etc. So those sectors are not as vulnerable. House prices could and do drop and factories do become obsolete at times of recession.
    However the really vulnerable one is the financial sector, depending on the type of crisis.

    Also with an indebted populace and therefore less savings it makes it harder for the Government to borrow money through bonds.

    The Central bank solution, Quantitative Easing which has been on going at an average of about 100 billion per year which many claim amounts to nothing more than a monetisation of Government Debt, is not counted on the UK national debt calculation because it is undertaken by the BoE and the BoE balance sheet is not included in the national debt calculation and makes the process ‘legal’.

    QE funds in the UK are ring fenced for financial institutions who are unregulated. They can do what they like with it, pay bonuses, invest overseas etc. There is no guarantee, that it will be used to stimulate the UK economy. It has been estimated that 40% of QE money ends up in the pockets of the elite 5%.

    The Total External Debt the UK has is on a par with the United States in absolute terms, but of course, the UK only has a fifth of the States’ population.

    Frightening.

  142. call me dave says:

    From the shortbread web site.

    https://archive.is/wogVZ

  143. yesindyref2 says:

    @Chic
    Yes, it is quite frightening. There have often been figures quoted for all the different parts of UK debt, but they’re unofficial ones. I think this ESA10 will make a substantial part of that official and required in National Accounts. It probably means the quoted debt will double, and then on top of that the private sector will still exist. If that had to be reported as well, can’t make out if any of it would be, then, ooops.

  144. CameronB Brodie says:

    Have I just killed off Phil. Bummer, he was ‘fun’. 🙂

  145. Jules says:

    Respectfully suggest that Stu misunderstands this.

    There aren’t separate pots of money into which NI contributions go, before being invested in ring-fenced form.

    Rather, it all goes into general govt coffers, and pensions are paid from general govt coffers.

    Having said that, pensions entitlements/liabilities would form part of the post-Indy division of assets and liabilities.

  146. HandandShrimp says:

    Neatly laid out Stu. I noticed that Colin was a tad strident yesterday going with the Yesperados and Cult jibes as part of his argument. I can’t recall him doing that before. I think the strain in trying to crank start Project Fear in the face of the Tories quietly preparing to screw over pensions must have spooked him.

    Project Fear is a dead duck. I think people have got fed up with that sort of approach to politics. If anything voters seem to be reacting against it. Brexit being a case in point. The Yoons might play the wrong game yet for us.

  147. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Phil Robertson@ 17:41:

    Last time I checked the Scottish electorate voted to remain in the UK

    So if you buy something online and it turns out to be a total piece of junk and the description of it was a fairy tale, you just have to grin and bear it? No return allowed?

    Your UKOK had the opportunity to do the decent thing after the result and give us the full autonomy BT had promised. Instead all we have had is EVEL the day after and some reluctant minimal diddling around the edges since.

    You must think we’re complete idiots to regurgitate that tawdry line.

  148. yesindyref2 says:

    @cmd
    For me the interesting part from Wolffe is: “are such as to engage the legislative consent convention“.

    Conventions are not in themselves legally enforeceable generally, so I’m guessing Wolffe wil have to make the case that this one IS enforeceable in Law, with all the arguments to show that it is. Game on indeed.

  149. yesindyref2 says:

    @CameronBBrodie: “The British state is legally required to do everything in it’s powers to help Scotland become independent, if it so chooses.

    Not legally, but by convention, and Convention with a capital “C”, then yes. As the larger entity, the rUK will be bound to make sure iScotland is fiscally capable of making our own way in the world as a viable entity, specially if it makes itself the Continuing UK.

    I like the way you repeat the simple UN message by the way, I think it’s neccessary, in the same way Robert Peffers repeats his.

  150. Jock McDonnell says:

    Check para 51 of the Lord Advocate’s submission
    Made me chuckle

  151. CameronB Brodie says:

    yesindyref2
    Thanks, it helps if folk appreciate your party piece. 🙂

    I’m no lawyer but are you suggesting UN Treaties supported by international law, have no legal force? Btw, I don’t think the UK is a signatory to the “Right to Development” convention. I wonder why?

  152. Not Convinced says:

    Actually National Insurance is, technically, paid into a separate pot from general taxation. In fact if we want to be *really* pedantic about it, there are in fact two separate “pots” – one for Northern Ireland, and the other for England, Wales & Scotland.

    However from a practical standpoint, it’s not all that separate (even though the Debt Management Office will tell you there’s ~£22.7Bn in the GB fund and ~£1Bn in the NI fund) as the money is simply placed in a Debt Management Account Deposit Facility and loaned to the government. Amazingly enough they even pay interest on the money they borrow!

    http://www.dmo.gov.uk/chooseFormat.aspx?rptCode=D6A&page=CRND/Market_Values

  153. Greannach says:

    Reading the words of people like Blair MacDougall and David Torrance always makes me wonder if countries like India, Estonia and Ghana had their equivalents prior to independence. I wonder what Indians, Estonians and Ghanaians think of them now. People like J K Rowling are easier to understand: Happy Valley in Kenya was full of imperial superiors looking down their noses at the ill-educated natives, but McDougal and his pals are the natives. They’ll be tolerated as long as they bear their superiors’ burden, but they’ll never be accepted in the club.

  154. Ken500 says:

    On average, Scotland raises £54Billion In taxes. Most goes to the UK Treasury. Scotland get Block Grant back an average £30Billion back. On average The UK Gov takes £4Billion for Defence share, £4Billion in debt repayments on money Westminster borrows and spends in the rest of the UK. £16Billion is taken to pay for (UK) Gov pensions (£6Billion) and £10Billion on welfare benefits. Total £54Billon.

    The rest of the UK raises less pro rata than Scotland. £42Billion. The figures are on the Scottish Gov and UK Gov website. Google. There are tables which are easy to access. The rest of the UK spends more pro rata on (UK) Gov Pensions, because people there live longer. £72Billion.

    Scotland can’t put a tax on ‘loss leading’ drink. Saving £1Billion. Trident cost £Billion. Tax evasion £3Billion?. HMRC not fit for purpose. Whisky companies tax evade. Scotland has lost st leady £4Billion+ a year and thousands of jobs. The Westminster Treasury (Osbourne) charging 60% to 80% on the the Oil and Gax sector when the price had fallen 75%. since 2010. It is now 40% from Jan 2016. Total £9Billion Scotland has lost.

    Plus £4Billion on loan repayment on money borrowed and spent in the rest of the UK = £13Billion.

    Scotland could borrow 10%+ to invest in Scotland – £6Billlion+

    Total £19Billion Scotland loses a year to Westminster Treasury.

    Council tax is raised in Scotland stays here.

  155. Grant says:

    Stu,

    It wasn’t just one ambiguous line in the white paper. There was a 135 page document with a foreword by Nicola Sturgeon:

    http://www.gov.scot/resource/0043/00434502.pdf

    Repeatedly in this document it states that the Scottish government would be responsible for paying Scottish pensions. Never once does it says being the UK’s agent. In fact it goes on and on about how the Scottish pension would be better because it would be indexed better than the rUK with a triple lock. How could this be, if the rUK was paying for it?

    Just two examples. On page 12, page 21 and page 46 it says:

    “For those in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of
    independence, the responsibility for paying that pension would transfer to the
    Scottish Government. ”

    In the summary it says:

    “People living in Scotland on independence would be entitled to the Scottish State Pension based on years of NI credits built up in the UK. After this date, entitlement built up in Scotland would accrue to the Scottish State Pension”

    Not once in the 135 pages does it ever say that the UK government would pay the Scottish Government to pay Scottish pensions. Are you honestly saying they left this bit out by accident? That the meanings in the above quotes are open to interpretation?

    Prove me wrong. Find a single line that suits your interpretation and not mine. Find a single quote from Nicola Sturgeon, Alec Salmond or any member of the Scottish government ever that suits your interpretation.

    The one thing I do agree with this article is that it won’t be as simple as saying “Scottish Government pays for Scottish pensions” because in the event of a currency split you would definitely see lots of people trying to, as dual nationals, get a UK pension rather than a Scottish one. Even then, I think the rules would be: Dual National means you’re only eligible for one pension at a time. If you live in Scotland, Scotland pays. In rUK, rUK pays.

    And in fact the Scottish Government document anticipates this on page 43:

    ” In order to be clear about entitlement across the current UK, it would be
    necessary for the Scottish Government and an rUK Government to share data
    and records securely, including National Insurance contributions statements.
    We would work to secure such an agreement on independence. There is
    already a mechanism in train to capture the residency status of tax payers in
    Scotland, which would allow identification of those who accrued an entitlement
    to the Scottish State Pension after independence. Under plans for the Scottish
    rate of income tax, set out in the Scotland Act 2012, the UK Government will
    have identified Scottish tax payers separately from other UK tax payers on the
    basis of residency. This categorisation could be used for this purpose”

    Again, why mention accruing from NI to the Scottish State Pension, if the rUK would be paying it? What would the Scottish State Pension actually be, by your interpretation?

  156. yesindyref2 says:

    @Jock McDonnell
    Got a link for that? I can’t find it 🙁

  157. Macart says:

    @HandandShrimp

    Couldn’t agree more. Upon a time I took interest in the other argument and at least listened to the fear and smear out of curiosity.

    Today?

    Today I simply can’t be arsed. I find the narrative and those politicians, policy wonks and media who attempt to forward those smears and fears beneath contempt.

    They had their day and their victory. All they had to do was win the settlement, even in the smallest way. They didn’t and never had any intention of doing so. They sought to punish, intimidate and humiliate.

    Basically they’re not worth the candle and we have better things to do. Cleaning up the galactic clusterfuck they dumped in everyone’s laps would be a start.

  158. Phil Robertson says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    25 November, 2016 at 5:54 pm
    @Phil Robertson
    “Thanks for your reply, however, you fail to grasp the spirit of international development law, which aims to promote the rule-of-law in general.”

    Care to indicate which laws were broken?

    “The British state is legally required to do everything in it’s powers to help Scotland become independent, if it so chooses.”
    First clause is plain wrong. As for the second, Scotland chose NOT to.

    “was largely due to a campaign of terrorist propaganda aimed at the most vulnerable members of Scotland’s community i.e. the elderly.”
    We’re losing the plot here.

    “The BRITISH STATE DID EVERYTHING IT COULD TO DISCOURAGE SCOTLAND’S SELF-DETERINATION”

    This is becoming a theme – the Scottish electorate DID determine what they wanted. The UK and the Scottish Governments were both entitled to support one side or the other.

  159. Ken500 says:

    How much do illegal wars, banking fraud and tax evasion cost. £Trillions.

    UK has some of the biggest debt and the is be of the most unequal place in the world.

  160. Croompenstein says:

    FFS how hard can this be for the yoons…

    A 46 year old guy has worked since he was 16 and has paid tax and NI for 30 years in to the UK treasury. The day after his 46th birthday Scotland becomes independent. He then pays tax and NI in to the Scots treasury until he retires at 65.

    At 65 he gets two pensions, one paid from the former UK treasury based on 30 years contribution and one from the Scots treasury based on 19 years of contributions.

    But with any luck he wins the fucking lottery and flees the madhouse…

  161. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Phil Robertson
    You’re a slippery wee thing, I’ll give you that.

    What part of “spirit of the law” did you not understand?

    What part of human rights and specifically the “Right to Development” do you not understand?

    Do you think Better Together’s Project Fear was ethical?

    Do you think HMG’s conduct was ethical?

    Do you live in Scotland?

    “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” (Article 1.1, Declaration on the Right to Development)

    “The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.” (Article 1.2)

    http://www.un.org/en/events/righttodevelopment/pdf/rtd_at_a_glance.pdf

  162. Albert Herring says:

    Another factor. Those past NI contributions have already been spent to the benefit of the whole UK. (Yes I know).

  163. yesindyref2 says:

    Yup, XVIII of Act of Union with England 1707 as I thought:

    XVIII

    That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises to which Scotland is by virtue of this Treaty to be lyable be the same in Scotland from and after the Union as in England and that all other Lawes in use within the Kingdom of Scotland do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain With this difference betwixt the Laws concerning publick Right, Policy and Civil Government and those which concern private Right That the Laws which concern publick Right Policy and Civil Government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom but that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/section/XVIII

    and the Claim of Right 1689 – and the Scotland Act 1998.

    Yer man’s got them all in 🙂 🙂 🙂

  164. Famous15 says:

    On pensions,please note that even Robert Mugabe”s regime still pays pre independence pensions to police and civil servants even if they now live abroad.

    Pensions are a debt to repay to workers who paid pension contributions or National Insurance. So few states renege on their duty as the IMF and others would not give them any more credit.

  165. Terry says:

    @robert peffers

    Just read the lord advocates submission to the Supreme Court. It’s all in there – all the things you have written so informatively about. 1689 and the treaty of union 1707. And other acts. They could be hoisted by their own petard!

  166. Bob Mack says:

    @Grant,

    I’m going to open a new bank account for you,but unfortunately I have to keep your old one with all your savings.

    Never mind ,you can save up again in your new account.

  167. Robert Peffers says:

    @Phil Robertson says: 25 November, 2016 at 3:57 pm:

    ” … I think we would come to the same conclusion. There would be a division of the assets and of the debts. Part of that debt would be on-going commitments to pensioners. I don’t think you can get share if the assets alone.”

    “Mr Peffers – you need to get out of the 18th century. Legislation by Westminster and Holyrood will make anything that happened in 1707 historically interesting but constitutionally irrelevant. The last thing that will happen is a reversion to the status quo of 1707.

    Oh! Phil, grow up. Start to think for yourself instead of spouting Yoon Loon lies and propaganda like a broken down gramophone.

    In the first place there is the Treaty of Union that is what gave birth to the United Kingdom. If that is not the bases for debate about the United Kingdom then What is.

    That Treaty is a legal agreement. There is, as I’ve told you and you have been totally unable to refute only two equally sovereign Kingdoms in the United Kingdom.

    It isn’t a union of four unequal countries nor even a union of any countries. Yet that is what Westminster is attempting to justify today. It is the country of England legislating for England under EVEL and English law ant it has divided the bipartite union into four unequal countries that it has devolved the Country of England sovereign powers to unequally. It also funds itself directly with UK funds as the UK.

    Can you deny that?

    There have been no other British kingdoms created and, since at least 1542, no existing British Kingdom lost or annexed by England.

    Thus there only remains the two that signed the Treaty of Union of 1706/7 and both those kingdoms were equally sovereign kingdoms when they signed that treaty.

    It follows that being equally sovereign then whatever applies to the one must equally apply to the other. It is thus ludicrous to claim, as the Westminster incompetents have, that the totally laughable, so called, independent think tank – (commissioned by the Westminster incompetents)

    “The Treaty of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England, (as), the United Kingdom”

    There is not a single word or even a hint of such a think in the Treaty of Union nor in either Act of Union.

    Thus the legal fact remains that The Treaty of Union is an agreement between two equally sovereign Kingdoms and thus a bipartite union of Kingdoms and NOT a union of countries.

    Can you deny that or not – if not then you know where your arguments belong.

    “Mr Peffers – you need to get out of the 18th century.”

    More Yoon Loon lunacy, Phil. The vast majority of the laws of the both the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland have their roots well before the 18th century. Thus you are once more are full of Yoon Loon idiocy, lies and myths.

    ” … Legislation by Westminster and Holyrood will make anything that happened in 1707 historically interesting but constitutionally irrelevant.”

    Total pish! Phil and this wisdom of yours comes from a person advocating a United Kingdom formed in 1706/7 based upon the legal head of that United Kingdom’s descent from a long line of monarchs with no better claim to rule than the belief in superior beings of ignorant people.

    This from you, a believer in the oaths of fealty to such a sovereign monarchy made by Members of Parliament that is called, “Her Majesty’s Government of Her United Kingdom.”

    Really?

    Are you attempting to tell me that is based upon scientific evidence? That it does NOT stem from, (and I use the term advisedly), “God Alone Knows When”.

    This from someone espousing the totally idiotic and unelected House of Lords that still has members of the ancient English Aristocracy from the Anglo-Saxon invasion, Unelected Archbishops of the Church of England that broke away from the Holy Roman See because Henry King of England got too big for his boots and appointed himself head of the church, This from a guy who believes that the unelected Law lords of England should be governing The United Kingdom.

    Get a grip on reality, Phil and realise the system of government of the United Kingdom has been based upon events going on well before the 18th century.

    “The last thing that will happen is a reversion to the status quo of 1707.”

    Hilarious! Simply hilarious!

    “The Status Quo Ante”, Phil, is a legal term and it has a very specific definition :-

    “The previously existing state of affairs”

    It applies in many legal matters but mainly in the ending of treaties, contracts and marriages.

    Thus, when only two equally sovereign Kingdoms agree to a union the legal thing that results is a Kingdom and nothing can legally change that fact and when such agreements end the results are always the Status Quo Ante.

    There is a slight difference in the two signatories status, though.

    The sovereignty of Scotland rests with the people while that of the three country Kingdom of England rests with the current Royal and wearer of a crown going well back before the 18th C.

    Bear in mind also that the only reason this union has lasted so long is because the legally sovereign people of Scotland were ignorant of the fact that they were actually legally sovereign and Westminster went to great lengths to assure the never found out.

    Now a majority of them have and it is exactly the Status Quo Ante that will be the result. Perhaps you should get out of that Westminster bubble while you still have the chance. When the end comes it will be swift and final.

    The United Kingdom’s days are numbered and resistance is futile. Nothing succeeds like an idea whose time has come. (Unless it is a budgie wi nae teeth)

  168. Dr Jim says:

    Andrew Neil owns an apartment in Trump Towers does this mean he gets to be an ambassador for the UKBBC Dept of Privileged Brexiteers to the good old USA…Sieg Heil… long live the Telegraph

  169. Jock McDonnell says:

    Yes2Indyref,
    Old Tomkins gets a mention, lol

  170. galamcennalath says:

    Having just read Wee Ginger Dugs latest …

    https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2016/11/25/malvados-cibernaces-and-a-blow-for-ruth-davidson/

    … I am even more convinced that the EU will see the breakup of the UK as just outcome for betrayal. The UK must be seen to be worse off outside the EU. What better way than to wipe it off the face of the map!?

    While I don’t believe they will actively engineer the breakup, should Scots (and Northern Irish) show willingness to part company with England, I genuinely expect the EU to smooth the path because it suits their agenda too.

  171. frogesque says:

    @Phil Robertson

    Yeah, I get it that you think all Scotland’s OAPs would be living in penury post Indy. I also get you might be pleased about the prospect.

    Even if your spiel were true, which it isn’t, I would trade my miserable pittance from HMG in a heartbeat for my great grandchildren to grow up and thrive in an Indy Scotland.

    That is what the souless knaves of the Union cannot grasp: it’s not about me, me, me!

  172. yesindyref2 says:

    @Terry
    UKSC and Law meets Robert Peffers and History.

    I think we’re going for a Constitutional, it’s a bit cold out, better get those boots on, they’re made for walking. Mmmm, Walk all over U as in UK.

    Intervention URL cleaned up:

    http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00510602.pdf

  173. Macart says:

    RE Lord Advocate’s Submission

    Who knew all that history stuff had relevance?

    Robert?

    Keep educating. 😉

  174. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Phil Robertson
    In case you need some help joining the dots:

    1. The aim of international development law is to bring development, in it’s broadest sense, under the rule-of-law.

    2. The “Right to Development” aims to articulate this philosophy so as to enable the potential for the social inclusion of all.

    3. The spirit of the “Right to Development” is such that the British state is required to do all it can to support Scotland’s self-determination, including ensuring a proper environment for debate.

    4. It was obvious to those whose minds are not colonised by British/English nationalism, the British state and it’s gimp, Better Together, was playing a very dirty game to ensure the retention of colonial control over Scotland

    I’ll ask again, do you live in Scotland?

  175. CameronB Brodie says:

    Dr Jim
    Re. Andrew Neil. His ‘impartiality’ must be in question now, Shirley? I mean, the Donald is now indirectly Neil’s landlord.

  176. Grant says:

    One more thing.

    If the act of union is a union of two equal sovereign states, and dissolving that union leads to two equal but separate states, then if the rUK successor state is asked to be responsible for paying for pensions in the Scottish successor state, why couldn’t the rUK turn around and ask the Scottish successor state to be responsible for paying for rUK pensions?

    On what basis would the Scottish state not be responsible? That it was accrued by the UK, a state that no longer exists? The rUK could make the same argument, surely?

  177. yesindyref2 says:

    @Macart
    I can’t wait to see the Express and its btl comments, they’re going to be obscene.

    My favourite is paragraph 87.

  178. Molly says:

    Was just thinking… Lesley Riddoch on her excellent podcast made a really relevant point . Although she was talking about the here and now, she was basically saying we are still doing things the British way ( paraphrasing) . The systems, the infrastructure, the established way and although it consistently isn’t working for us, we continue trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

    I get it at the moment that’s the hand we have to work with but as Lesley was saying the Scottish Govt need to get the message out loud and clear that there is an alternative way of doing things.Like the ‘pension’.

    As for Phil Robertson ?

    I’m already seriously hacked off that a contract I agreed to when I started work has already had the goalposts moved several times by some anonymous person ‘ on my behalf’ and extending my working life by 17 years does not fill me with joy so if the UK Govt seriously think they can withhold my pension contribution for some twisted ideology as Wendy Alexander said, “bring it on!”

    I’m sure clarity in a court by a disgruntled public would benefit millions regarding the outcome of my contributions plus a few years ago I bumped into a Scottish woman who’d emigrated to Canada. At that time there was ‘ talk’ of stopping her UK pension.

    I think this woman would have wrestled with President Putin so Phil Hammond go ahead and good luck with that…

  179. CameronB Brodie says:

    Grant
    I wondered what you point was with your first post. I now get the point. Would you like to make one?

  180. Robert Peffers says:

    @Andy-B says: 25 November, 2016 at 4:29 pm:

    ““If Westminster says otherwise Scotland will not be obligated to pay any of Westminster’s massive debts.”
    I wonder if any nation on obtaining independence from the British empire, has taken a share of debt, I can’t think of one.”

    What you ask is totally irrelevant, Andy-B for you are doing your thinking like a Yoon Loon First Class.

    It really is not your fault, though as the brainwashing has been going on from long before the Treaty of Union.

    So I’ll just gently point out to you the error of your thinking. It may give you pause for thought and then to see these errors clearly in future.

    No other country on Earth is comparable to Scotland in relation to either the British Empire nor to the United Kingdom.

    In the case of the so called British Empire it was really the United Kingdom of Britain’s Empire and legally Scotland is an equally sovereign partner kingdom in the United Kingdom. Which kingdom is, as its title states, a Kingdom and not a country.

    Thus no other kingdom or country on Earth has the same legal footing as Scotland except only our full partner The Kingdom of England.

    What that boils down to is this :-

    When The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England part company the result cannot legally be that Scotland’s status returns to being an independent Kingdom while the Kingdom of England, (three countries), remains as the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom is a two, equal partner, union of kingdoms.

    I’ll put that bluntly the two kingdoms of Scotland and England parting company is the ending of the United Kingdom it is NOT The kingdom of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.

  181. CameronB Brodie says:

    I think Lesley Riddoch has seen the light.

    “Put the master’s tools down”.

  182. yesindyref2 says:

    9 is wrong though, it’s 69 to 86 and Conclusion is 87 to 88. I despair. Maks nae odds though.

    I note the Intervention makes clear it’s about “UK Constitution”. I presume this excludes “Scottish Constitution” i.e. Scots Law in its own right, for any later legal forays, but not sure. Scots Law could make a submission the other way around! Which is fair enough I think, it’s all about Jursidiction, scope and competence.

  183. Grant says:

    CameronB

    My point is this article above doesn’t bear any relation to reality. Do you honestly believe the rUK will pay Scottish pensions without a fuss?

    Thanks.

  184. Valerie says:

    Woohoo!

    Still wading through the SG submission for the intervention in the Appeal.

    Mr Peffers, take a bow, and my thanks, for educating the ignorant like me on Claim of Right and legal history of the Unions, 1707.

    I’m actually smiling in recognition as I make my way through the document.

    May you live in interesting times, eh?

  185. K1 says:

    ‘Legislation by Westminster and Holyrood will make anything that happened in 1707 historically interesting but constitutionally irrelevant. The last thing that will happen is a reversion to the status quo of 1707.’

    NEWSFLASH!

    yesindyref2 says:
    25 November, 2016 at 7:21 pm
    Yup, XVIII of Act of Union with England 1707 as I thought:
    “XVIII
    That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises to which Scotland is by virtue of this Treaty to be lyable be the same in Scotland from and after the Union as in England and that all other Lawes in use within the Kingdom of Scotland do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain With this difference betwixt the Laws concerning publick Right, Policy and Civil Government and those which concern private Right That the Laws which concern publick Right Policy and Civil Government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom but that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland ”

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/section/XVIII

    and the Claim of Right 1689 – and the Scotland Act 1998.

    Yer man’s got them all in 🙂 🙂 🙂
    —————————-

    Terry says:
    25 November, 2016 at 7:27 pm
    @robert peffers

    Just read the lord advocates submission to the Supreme Court. It’s all in there – all the things you have written so informatively about. 1689 and the treaty of union 1707. And other acts. They could be hoisted by their own petard!

    —————————–

    You were saying?

    You’re ignorance is stunning. Keep digging that hole…

  186. yesindyref2 says:

    @Robert Peffers: “the two kingdoms of Scotland and England parting company is the ending of the United Kingdom it is NOT The kingdom of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom

    Indeed. However, that is negotiable with Scotland holding the upper hand, as we have the right to insist on dissolution. But if Scotland decides to recognise the rUK as the continuing UK, that is our right and privilege, and internationally it would be accepted.

    If the rUK wants to scratch our back, and accept our perfecly reasonable demands …

  187. Macart says:

    @Yesindyref2

    Heh. Hell, the whole right wing press will implode in an orgy of frothing self harm.

    We’ve been preaching the relevance of this stuff for years Dads and Robert Peffers a damn site longer. Soon as I heard what the contents of the submission were likely to include I had a feeling it was about to get really loud, really quick.

    I have a feeling too about the probable outcome. Well three possible outcomes tbh. 🙂

    Its going to get louder yet and like yourself, I’ll predict right now that there will be a mahoosive screeching coming from two titles in particular. I also reckon that’ll be followed by a media offensive we’ve not seen since the height of the indyref campaign.

  188. Terry says:

    @robert peffers.

    ”Tis a fanciful notion. But if Brian spanner is really JK Rowling in disguise then Robert peffers must really be the lord advocate. Simples!

  189. Robert Peffers says:

    @Albert Herring says: 25 November, 2016 at 4:38 pm:

    “Personally, I think the Scottish Government should take responsibility for paying pensions. We are already affording them anyway.
    The whole “you’ll lose your pension” is based on the ridiculous notion that Scotland is too poor to provide basic services.”

    That Albert, is a Red Herring.

    The point being made presumes that the former Kingdom of England is legally the United Kingdom and that the Kingdom of Scotland is leaving the United Kingdom.

    The Kingdom of Scotland is legally a full and equally sovereign partner kingdom with the equally sovereign, (three country), Kingdom of England and when two equal partners split up they both return to their pre-partnership status.

    How would it be if a wife divorced her cheating husband and the judge awarded one partner a decree nisi and the other a decree absolute?

    Note- A decree absolute is a final divorce while a decree nisi requires some condition be met before a decree absolute is awarded. That is one partner would be divorced but the other still married to their partner.

    So there cannot still be a United Kingdom when the only two partners part company.

    I do wish someone would explain to me how two kingdoms can unite as one kingdom and first end up as one partner dominating the partnership and then that dominant partner splitting the two kingdoms up along the lines of their own two annexed and their partner Kingdom with one of their annexed countries getting more devolved English powers than the other English Kingdoms annexed countries.

    Scotland and England signed up to this union as Kingdoms and the name United Kingdom proves it. Yet now Scotland’s position is less than the English annexed N.I and Wales is treated as less of a partner than Scotland while the country of England assumes to now be the United Kingdom in charge of all the rest.

    More worrying, though, is that so few Scots realise the truth.

  190. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Macart –

    ‘They sought to punish, intimidate and humiliate.’

    Kin right.

    Did you see Lesley Riddoch’s piece in yesterday’s National? She mentioned, almost in passing, that work, for her, has all-but disappeared. It’s small wonder so many MSM soft Yessers have kept their heads down. They’ve got bills to pay same as abody else.

    One of the best broadcasters and sharpest minds in Scotland cast out, shunned, marginalised. It’s punishment. The punishment for us is that we’re subjected to Kaye and her ilk, including a main anchor who unashamedly admits to ‘never’ having picked up a copy of the only indy-supporting daily in the two years it’s existed.

  191. Bob Mack says:

    Well folks, if this works then the English will be demanding to get fid of Scotland.

    We may well not need a second referendum.

  192. manandboy says:

    Assuming the 12 Supreme Court Judges find for Scotland, the Government will issue immediate instructions to the BBC and all UK media, bar The National, to broadcast a carefully crafted DISTORTION of the true finding. By so doing, Treeza will seek to brainwash the UK population and thereby prepare them for the next ballot.

    This British Establishment will stop at NOTHING to prevent the Golden Goose from escaping English clutches.

    Just as they did with IndyRef14, which few believe, thanks to the world’s most successful propaganda network, at 10 Downing St.

  193. yesindyref2 says:

    @Macart
    Paragraph 14 is a cracker by the way, possibly enough of an argument to put down the appeal on its own. But looking at it, with the legislative consent motion, that has to be heard I think, unless the UKSC decides it’s not in the scope of its current hearing.

    I think the results are a win-win, or even a win-win-win. And having the Intervention accepted was a win in itself.

    Yes, if I’d come across the redoubtable Peffers before I guess I could have saved a lot of research, but on the other hand I like to do my own, and it means I can “confirm” Robert’s points from my own research. Though his history is more than mine.

    I remember doing the Treaty and Acts in Grun, and even in the Herald to the likes of MM who no longer posts there (posts in Curtice’s blog). You’d get these infinitely superior patronising gits “Oh, UK Parliament is superior to all you lot and your Councillors”, and you could squash them from legislation dot gov dot uk itself

    I never really did Claim of Right 1689 though, apart from the Sovereignty angle. I’m delighted to see that one brought in to the UKSC, even though its final arbiter would be the Scots courts under Scots Law, even if it “fails” in the UKSC.

  194. Fiona says:

    There is not doubt that pensions will be payable to Scottish pensioners by the UK after independence, and they said so.

    However, have we learned nothing from indyref1? What unionists threaten is a statement of intent, not an analysis of the consequences of independence. We already have evidence of this govt’s intention for pensions: there aren’t going to be any. See how far contractual obligations are being honoured for women born in the 1950’s, or for men who were promised a pension at 65. Remember way back under Thatcher when their plan for the NHS was made and Mr Portillo told us that state pensions would be “nugatory” in future. They have not changed that plan

    Truth is if we do not vote for independence this threat will indeed be carried out: but for everyone in UK, not just Scots. Only way to avoid this is independence.

  195. Tam Jardine says:

    Valerie

    Can you post a link to the submission? Struggling to find it on my Samsung

    Cheers in advance

  196. yesindyref2 says:

    @Tam
    Well, I’m not Valerie but yrtis

    http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00510602.pdf

    I put it on Herald and one couldn’t get it, but another could. Keep trying!

  197. Molly says:

    I heard John Beattie saying that he’d never read a copy of The National. I am certainly not the target audience for The Telegraph but even I have read an odd copy .

    He did quickly say we review all the newspapers but he also kept asking why you would buy a paper with only one point of view????

    He then totally confused me cos I thought he can’t be the host of reviewing the media and honestly think that only one paper in the whole of Scotland has an agenda – can he?

  198. Robert Peffers says:

    @Dr Jim says: 25 November, 2016 at 4:46 pm:

    “I’ve no clue what the worth of the armed forces and equipment stands at let alone contributed to holdings, properties, territories but around 8% of all that must be huge and it’s not as if the Only Kingdom of England is flush at the moment”

    Never mind thir mince an totties, Dr Jim, Thir mince is aye watery onywey. Can you explain something for me?

    From whence comes this oft claimed rule about an 8% shares out of the assets and presumably of the debts and debits?

    The only thing I can tie this claim into is the GERS figures that most commenters here will agree are like yon wattery English mince. No afu substantial an aa that.

    If it is the GERS calculations just why are independence supporters so keen to go along with it?

    To my mind, and it is just my own opinion, the decline in the ration of Scottish to English population is 100% due to the Westminster incompetents and often deliberately vindictive administration of Westminster.

    If a projection tied to England’s population growth is taken or some better bases for the division of spoils and debits a far fairer and agreeable deal should emerge from negotiations. (Or a meringue)?

  199. Stoker says:

    WOS archive links for January 2012 now over on O/T.

  200. Iain says:

    O/t, I’m fed up with all the crap of yoonery, we need independence asap. The UK is heading down the the toilet, don’t let them drag us down. If everyone converts one yoon the job is done. Freedom awaits.

  201. Breeks says:

    History will record the 2014 Yes Referendum as an academic victory for the Union, because that’s what actually happened.

    However the whole object of the referendum was to have a debate about Scotland’s constitutional position, analyse and appraise that constitutional position, and compare and contrast the parallel options for Scotland’s future in order to decide whether Scotland has a better future as part of the Union, or as a separate sovereign nation.

    It is a measure of just how truncated and unsatisfactory the entire debate was in 2013-14 that here we are again in 2016 seeking to have a second constitutional debate. I would argue that it isn’t a second constitutional debate at all, but instead, merely a second attempt to have an unadulterated discussion and debate about our constitutional future, and not have the narrative and constitutional agenda hijacked by the media and hysterical ranting of ill informed, overtly disruptive and obstructive individuals who were quite determined to prevent a rational, level headed and progressive debate ever taking place.

    Scotland’s constitutional debate is a matter which needed to be addressed, still needs to be addressed, but addressed properly. That did not happen in 2014, and as a direct consequence, not one single aspect of the constitutional argument was properly heard or resolved, and the verdict delivered consequently meant next to nothing beyond blunt testimony that holding a monopoly on media propaganda can influence public opinion. Who knew???

    I could, and would, albeit with saddest reluctance, accept Scotland’s decision to remain in the Union IF that was the conclusion which the country arrived at, after having first been properly educated dispassionately and objectively about the relative pros and cons of both sides of the constitutional argument before being asked to make a decision. That is not what happened in 2014.

    A massive part of that debate, if not the very definitive part of that constitutional debate has to include Scotland’s constitutional history, and properly resolve the issue of Scotland’s historic sovereignty; what it is, how it is defined, who controls it, and how its power is wielded. None of that happened in 2014.

    How can we ever hope to assemble a workable, modern, constitutional model for Scotland without first deconstructing the present day dogs breakfast? We need to break down the machine, disassemble the parts, keep those parts that are sound, throw away the rubbish which shouldn’t be there, and affect repairs to those parts which are missing or in need of repair, then put it all together again fit for its intended purpose. It isnt just a heated barney and a quick vote we need, but a thorough overhaul of a failing and unsatisfactory constitutional system.

    What we got in 2014 was a reluctantant concession to open the bonnet, have a quick look, then slam it shut again and expect to be satisfied that despite the steam, rattles and oil leaks, the constitutional engine is still able to run. That just isn’t good enough.

    Put simply, forget the 2014 result. It is academic. The only success for Unionism in 2014 was to make sure the real debate which needed to happen never actually did; something most of us here recognise as tacit acknowledgment that if that debate ever did happen, Unionism knows it would lose.

  202. Robert Peffers says:

    @call me dave says: 25 November, 2016 at 5:19 pm:

    “Radio shortbread breaking news from the courts.
    Scottish Parliament must have a say!
    ‘Claim of right mentioned’
    Game on!”

    I’ve been campaigning for that all my adult life. You have no idea what it feels like to finally have other voices and typing fingers claiming it.

  203. Macart says:

    @Yesindyref2

    See what you mean on 14 and yes I agree that would make a decent argument on its own. 🙂

    Also, yes on those three possibilities I mentioned? Win, win and win, but a bit longer. I think we’re reading from the same page. 😉

  204. Pete says:

    Grant
    Completely agree with all you say.
    Post independence, Scottish pensioners will receive their pensions from taxes paid by current Scottish taxpayers.
    It’s the only logical outcome.
    That’s what I understood the SG to be saying.

  205. Phil Robertson says:

    CameronB Brodie

    “What part of “spirit of the law” did you not understand?
    What part of human rights and specifically the “Right to Development” do you not understand?”

    I think I get it all but not sure about yourself.

    “3. The spirit of the “Right to Development” is such that the British state is required to do all it can to support Scotland’s self-determination, including ensuring a proper environment for debate.”

    And likewise the Scottish Government presumably. The people have done the DETERMINATION. Therefore, under your precious “spirit of the law”, that decision should be respected and people left to get on with what they chose.

  206. CameronB Brodie says:

    Robert Peffers
    I think I might have an inkling Robert. 🙂

  207. Macart says:

    @Ian Brotherhood

    Posted a far longer reply Ian, but it appears to have vanished into the aether.

    But, yes it has been pretty bloody grim. They’ve come after everyone and everything. Our institutions, our government and politics, the YES movement and wider Scottish society. Last but by no means least our spokespeople and emergent new media.

    I see absolutely no reason to give them a another chance or anything like a fair hearing at a second time of asking. We don’t have the time for the luxury of debate.

    Apologies if my other reply appears as this one is quite similar.

    Anyroads, some tunes, some wine and some relaxin’ are next on the menu.:)

  208. call me dave says:

    @yesindyref2

    Excellent ferreting to get these links. Well done.

    My heids spinning and I must read them again later to absorb the details properly but it looks promising. Game on indeed.

    Might even buy a ‘Scottish’ Daily Mail; the Express as well maybe and as usual The National in the morning.

    Unfortunately according to shortbread Scotland radio there is no news where we are on a Saturday. 😕

    @Robert Peffers
    You keep on telling it as it is! I look forward to every post that you make.

    I keep telling her indoors just because a thing is old it’s not necessarily to be discarded.

    eg:
    ‘The Claim of Right’ and ‘my record collection’ 🙂

  209. CameronB Brodie says:

    Phil Robertson
    You can’t seriously think the 2014 debate was open and honest? That the British state ensured an appropriate information environment? That it complied with the spirit of the “Right to Development”.

    Do you understand what the denial of human rights looks like?

    Do you live in Scotland?

  210. Robert Peffers says:

    @Phil Robertson says: 25 November, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    … “Once we leave aside plainly inapplicable categories of reversion, there is little or nothing to suggest that Scotland could identify itself with the pre-1707 Scottish state in a manner which would have any specific legal consequence”.

    Yes indeed, Phil, they did say that but it is as idiotic and transparent a load of utter imbecilic claptrap as the rest of their claptrap.

    The Treaty, and both Acts of Union, are as clear as any legal document could be and you do not require legal training to read them. Even the preamble is very, very clear and precise. You should read them sometime.

    I’ll even give you a cite to the text. I did actually post the full text on wings some time ago.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/contents

    If you cannot be bothered I’ll just post this :-

    Act Ratifying and Approving the Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms of SCOTLAND and ENGLAND.

    That, Phil, is the heading of the pre-amble and you must note it describes quite plainly that it is without any doubt a Treaty that unites only the two kingdoms of Scotland and England. There is nothing ambiguous about the treaty and the articles of union are, without doubt, clear and precise. BTW: the text of the Acts is virtually word for word the text of the Treaty.

  211. yesindyref2 says:

    @CameronBBrodie
    Paragraphs 20-22 of the intervention submission cover Conventions pretty well.

    They’re kind of law and not law, unless codified or put into law itself – in member states.

    There isn’t really (alert: contentious statement) any such thing as International Law!

  212. Phil Robertson says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    25 November, 2016 at 9:16 pm
    Phil Robertson
    “You can’t seriously think the 2014 debate was open and honest?”
    It was a typical political campaign. So the SNP misled the electorate over oil revenues but that’s politics.

    “Do you understand what the denial of human rights looks like?”
    Yes it’s about serious stuff – life, death, slavery, torture. It devalues the whole concept by talking about a denial of human rights when an election doesn’t go the way you want.
    “Do you live in Scotland?”
    Irrelevant.

  213. CameronB Brodie says:

    Phil Robertson
    Scotland was extinguished in 1707.

    Colonialist or troll??

  214. JGedd says:

    Re argument being led before the Supreme Court, congrats to Robert Peffers for persistence in pressing those very points all these years. Vindicated, or what? Keep on doggedly keeping on, Robert.

  215. heedtracker says:

    It devalues the whole concept by talking about a denial of human rights when an election doesn’t go the way you want.
    “Do you live in Scotland?”
    Irrelevant.

    Referendums are not elections. The Vow was a great historic fraud on Scots. Devo-max was kept off our 2014 referendum, only to be stuck back on agaiun, when polls showed YES catching up, not winning, just catching up Phil.

    Scots have just had their very hard EU citizenship ripped up in front us, despite being threatened very badly with losing it all 2014.

    So where you live does matter.

  216. Broch Landers says:

    It’s just as well people are up for it, and the independence cause is strong across a huge swathe of Scottish society, because the scale of the task is immense.

    This is a long war of attrition on five interwoven fronts:

    Against the UK state, its official institutions and international allies.

    Against established commercial and property interests.

    Against all of the main UK political parties and their allies.

    Against the embedded culture of Unionism / British nationalism.

    Against virtually the entire established state and corporate media.

    It’s like trying to dynamite the Alps, basically.

    Even if you’re not a socialist you need to acknowledge that it’s much more than just a colossal cultural and political fight against armies of liars and morons.

    It’s a fight against the economic world order (yes, capitalism, even for conservative Nats who have no conscious intention of undermining the system). If you doubt this, consider honestly how destabilising the break-up of the UK would actually be.

    Not for Scotland, but for England’s economic standing in the world and it’s own colonial sense of self worth, for confidence in the City of London. It would be greatly diminished, no matter what they might pretend about how little Scotland matters to them when they take the huff. Owning Scotland matters a great deal in terms of England’s political economy. The shock of losing it would make Brexit look trivial by comparison.

    Put away the tinfoil hats and get your real helmets on.

    2014 was just a prelude and these wee skirmishes (over vital and excellent work on Beyond GERS) are, as someone wisely pointed out, the calm before the storm.

  217. yesindyref2 says:

    @Robert Peffers “Claim of Right”
    Enough to bring a tear to a glass e’e.

    @call me dave
    Morrisons have a £30 bluetooth record player, apparently I might be gettng one for Christmas so it’s in the attic and out with the vinyl 🙂

    @Macart
    We’re on the move, and it’s hearts and minds. This is Scotland “in court” as well.

  218. CameronB Brodie says:

    yesindyref2
    That was my understand, that conventions are purely indicative until enacted into national legislation.

    The spirit of the “Right to Development” is no less compelling though, IMHO, as it confers an inalienable human right to everyone in the world. I think that might include Scots but you never know with the inversion of reality in our Better Together Yooniverse.

  219. Dr Jim says:

    Carwyn Jones…Forrest Gump…Same guy?

    Poor old Carwyn doesn’t see how the Brexit deal for Scotland could be different when we share the same land mass

    Yes he actually said that out of his very own big mouth
    As we all know the Germans French Spanish Portuguese or indeed the Chinese and Hong Kong places have exactly the same problem not to mention the Republic of Ireland, where he said it and Northern Ireland which was just spitting distance from where Forrest, I mean Carwyn, was standing when his mouth engaged sound mode before the brain cell told it to

    Or should we just call him Dick!

  220. Molly says:

    Phil Robertson as a licence payer at the time , it was not a ‘typical ‘ political campaign . You can try all you like to refute it but the coverage by the media and BBC rendered it anything but a ‘Typical campaign’.

    Make your points but please don’t try to rewrite history , we were here, remember?

    Even Trump didn’t ( as far as I know, ) threaten more likelihood of alien invasion

  221. Polscot says:

    This is what I don’t understand about this pensions question that seems to be taxing the deductive reasoning powers of the frothing yoon deniers. My understanding is as follows, although I may have got some of the finer details wrong.

    A bunch of UK pension contributors have been paying into a fund for many years and upon retirement require their contributions back in the form of a pension. The mountain of cash that they contributed is sitting in a treasury account ready for the payments to commence when they reach a suitable age or otherwise qualify for a pension. The cash is accounted for by the Treasury (acting on behalf of HM Govt.) As this mountain of cash must exist, at least on the UK books, upon annulment of the Union it doesn’t really matter if the mountain of cash is distributed by HM Govt. or if the new Scottish Government Pensions Authority distribute the payments from the pre-existing pensions account. The payments will originate from the mountain of cash held on the pensions account.

    Hang on, has someone gone and spent all of the pension contributions? Who was it? It couldn’t have been Crash Gordon and other Chance(llo)rs could it? Is it legal to do that? Who guarantees the pensions and ensures that the contributions are safe and disbursed accordingly?

    Maybe the new Scottish Government Pensions Authority will have to have a stern word with whoever is looking after all the contributions and make sure they pay back every last nickel.

  222. heedtracker says:

    Phil Robertson says:

    Just keep posting this Phil. Save you time. Whether the gangster’s right or wrong is irrelevant. Just like you, he likes to pretend Project Fear 2014, all led and coordinated by the BBC and likes of that great big unemployed slob up there, didnt happen. Next time Phil, next time soon.

    Wings Over Scotland Retweeted
    Arron Banks ?@Arron_banks 44m44 minutes ago
    Arron Banks Retweeted
    By the way , you had a referendum and the Scottish didn’t have the balls to leave – why shouldn’t the English & Welsh get to vote on you !

  223. Bill McLean says:

    Phil Robertson – Agreed! “life, death, slavery, torture” is about “serious stuff”! Well, we have had all of the above in this foul union. “Do you understand what the denial of human rights looks like?” – Well! Do YOU? Your oil comment is absolute rubbish – the UK Govt at the time forecast even higher income from oil than the Scottish Government did! “But that’s politics” – well it may good enough for you, these UK politics but we want to do them our own way not the corrupt, class ridden crap we’ve had and get from W/minster daily!
    You’re wrong about pensions!Where you live is “Irrelevant” so why bother us with your tedious claptrap?

  224. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Macart –

    Sorry your longer comment was lost, would’ve liked to see it. (Real bummer when that happens…)

    Anyway, aye, as Molly mentions above, the whole Beattie thing is a case in point. It took me a while to warm to Beattie as a main presenter, but he’s good in interviews, always seems to at least try to be balanced and is a lot firmer with wafflers (on both ‘sides’) than any other RS presenter. But he’s plummeted in my estimation after that ridiculous admission of wilful ignorance.

    Even if it’s true that he’s never opened a copy of The National (which I strongly doubt) he could easily have bluffed it. That solitary example of unprofessional behaviour speaks volumes about attitudes inside Pacific Quay.

    Enjoy yer wine buddy, and here’s hoping WOS gets some joy at that awards ceremony.

    🙂

  225. CameronB Brodie says:

    heedtracker
    It not just that, unless you live in Scotland you will have no appreciation of how flawed the process was. For example, I bet Phil still thinks James ‘Tiberius’ Murgatroyd was egged by an SNP supporter.

    @Phil Robertson
    I shared a flat with the twat who did the egging and he was a British National Socialist when I knew him.

  226. Bob Mack says:

    You wonder listening to guys like Phil, how such an inefficient organisation like the Scottish Public Pensions Agency manage to invest their members benefits and pay thousands of them on time.
    Must be some mistake.

    Then again perhaps it’s just possible.

  227. yesindyref2 says:

    @CameronB Brodie
    Conventions are very strong, even if not signed up to or ratified. It needs a good reason to go against them and for instance the The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, and the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in respect of State Property though not fully signed or ratified, tend to guide how settlements do work, even if disupted.

  228. Bob Mack says:

    @Polscot,

    Bingo !! On the money my friend.

  229. Rock says:

    “There are currently approximately 900,000 pensioners in Scotland. They are all UK citizens, and would remain so after independence.”

    Even if they abandoned their UK citizenship and became “foreign” citizens, they would still be entitled to a pension from the pension fund they had paid into.

  230. Robert Peffers says:

    @Robert Louis says: 25 November, 2016 at 5:40 pm:

    ” … Theresa May is technically the First Lord of the treasury (the Chancellor is the second) of the United Kingdom, but is styled a ‘Prime Minister’.”

    Ah! Robert Louis, You have hold of something there but, if memory serves me well, and it usually does, The formal title is indeed, “First Lord of the Treasury,” and the Prime Minister bit is actually ‘Her Majesty’s Prime Minister’, “First Lord of the Treasury”.

    The Prime Minister bit is actually not a formal title and in fact began as rather a derogatory term way back in 1688.

    At which time the Parliament had just taken over from the Royals and Their Majesty’s Prime Minister bit implied the PM was their Majesty’s man rather than the top minister of the government, (there were no female MPs then anyway.

  231. Rock says:

    Robert Peffers,

    “English Welsh and Irish people who, if registered to vote in Scottish elections and mainly resident in Scotland are every bit as much qualified as I am to call themselves one of the legally sovereign people of Scotland.”

    Calling yourself “sovereign” doesn’t make you “sovereign”.

    The Scottish “plebs” have never been “sovereign”, let alone the English, Welsh and Irish.

    As Bob Mack posted on a previous thread:

    “When did universal suffrage come to the UK?
    Prior to that nobody was allowed to express a choice. For over 300 years we had to do as we were told or suffer the
    consequences financially and even militarily.”

    What sort of “sovereignty” was that then?

    “Sovereignty” not worth the paper it was written on.

    To this day, basically the only right that the “plebs” have is the right to vote.

    And that right came from Westminster, long after the Treaty of Union, not from any Scottish document, nor from the rotten to the core Scottish justice system.

    Like everyone else, Mr Peffers, you are a subject of the Queen and there is no way you can ever get rid of her even if you wanted to.

    Give me one example of when the “legally sovereign” “plebs” of Scotland got rid of a monarch in the last 710 years.

  232. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Ian Brotherhood @ 20:31:

    She mentioned, almost in passing, that work, for her, has all-but disappeared.

    Actually, I found that almost throwaway line highly significant too, Ian. And it was not just her either, it was all across the board.

    It chimes only too well with a more extended comment I made some threads back that the BBC have had a longstanding policy of vetting potential employees and blacklisting “undesirables”.

    It is then all too easy to believe that BBC Scotland broadcasts the skewed way it does because the only ones who thrive in its cosy little enclave are those who are either card-carrying Unionists or who meekly keep their head down for the sake of their mortgage. (Maybe one day though someone will finally have the courage to “spill the beans”.)

    My sis told me tonight of John Beattie’s proud boast that he has never read The National. And he’s supposedly their newspaper reviewer?! It doesn’t matter a hoot what that paper’s view(s) may be, a gross professional dereliction like this by Beattie is prima facie grounds for disciplinary action. But will it happen in EBC Scotland? I’m not holding my breath.

  233. ScottishPsyche says:

    The increasing desperation of Yoons as they compartmentalise and nitpick to avoid dealing with the reality of the broken promises and fraudulent claims of BetterTogether is something to behold.

    The article 50 hearing will be illuminating. Will the UK government continue to pursue a disastrous and time consuming court case to prove what – that they can stomp over the devolved nations whenever they want? We know that already.

    I really want out of this toxic pathetic union.

  234. carjamtic says:

    Looking for A ‘Rough’ Guide to Scotland ?

    You’ve found it….no bullshit.

  235. yesindyref2 says:

    Some links on that succession of states with USSR
    http://www.ila-hq.org/download.cfm/docid/3E0DAA87-C1D3-4175-971D8B67F1A82754

    http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1526&context=gjicl

    http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/3/2/2045.pdf

    https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168004a360

    very disaapointing though, I can’t find a great paper by a female at Manchester University, I think it was. Tried “vienna convention succession of states property ussr russia” and others, but give up – for now.

  236. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Does anyone know what Blair McDougall’s doing now anyway?

    Away back to sort out Africa?

    Perhaps he’s been telt that he’ll have to take the helm again for indyref2, elsewise he won’t be getting the gong he craves…

    Serr fecht, eh?

  237. heedtracker says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    25 November, 2016 at 9:55 pm
    heedtracker
    It not just that, unless you live in Scotland you will have no appreciation of how flawed the process was. For example, I bet Phil still thinks James ‘Tiberius’ Murgatroyd was egged by an SNP supporter.

    Takes you back eh. Mind the sudden explosion of The Vow shyste across the country? Crash Gordo and his federal UK for NO, better, faster change, devolve all the good stuff.

    And all based on one poll was it, that looked 50-50. More likely the postal vote sampling with the crews of yoon watchers checking each vote coming in, as it came in. Meaning Ruthie Babes could announce the result to or on the BBC coverage, as soon as polls shut too.

    Kneel before your imperial master baiters NO voters

    Wings Over Scotland Retweeted
    Arron Banks ?@Arron_banks 1h1 hour ago
    Arron Banks Retweeted
    It’s time the English & Welsh had a referendum on ejecting Scotland. You are over indulged both politically and in monetary terms

    See Ligger Neil’s got a pad in Trump Tower New York City? Could explain why the BBC is now the vote Nigel Farage channel. Must make gimps like Nic Robinson green with envy.

  238. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    heedtracker,

    Don’t confuse philibuster by facts, he just ignores those because they do not compute in his skewiff worldview.

    It was interesting at first to see a likely yoonster line of attack on the wobbly voter. But now it’s merely tiresome. “Ignore the troll.”

  239. heedtracker says:

    Robert J. Sutherland says:
    25 November, 2016 at 10:33 pm
    heedtracker,

    Don’t confuse philibuster by facts, he just ignores those because they do not compute in his skewiff worldview.

    Trolls are fine. Here’s Crash Gordon on C4 news, currently shitting all over the reputation covering a farm eviction on Arran. Parcel of rogues doesn’t come close the historic fraud perpetrated on Scotland by Gordon and SLab.

    You were an undecided, Sept 10 2014, one poll shows YES getting close, up pops this appalling con artist…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwfvL4jQVDA

  240. Free Scotland says:

    It bugs the life out of me when trolls come on here and start banging on about accepting the result of Indyref 1. Do they think it’s a coincidence that, just a year later, when it became obvious that the VOW was a cheap con, Scotland comprehensively rejected the unionist parties and sent 56 SNP members to Westminster to represent Scotland’s interests? Are we supposed to just purr gently and accept the Mayhem and madness created by the likes of Johnson, Gove and Farage, and pretend that we’re content with Brexit, which we comprehensively rejected.

    The Scottish electorate of September 2014 is not the same as the Scottish electorate of November 2016.

  241. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Phil Robertson
    Just to clarify what I meant by a British National Socialist.

    1. He believed in Britain (created through the Acts of Union) as a fact of nature.

    2. He believed in British socialism – socialism shaped and controlled by the Establishment.

    3. He did not like foreigners, especially non-white ones.

    4. He thought Scotland is too small, too poor and too stupid*.

    5. He might have carried a picture of the Queen in his wallet, though I might have just imagined it. Tight? He was pitiful.

    * An Alsatian would have given him a run for his money in an IQ challenged, but is that not the profile of the perfect BLiS___d stooge?

    @Stu, destroyer of the Murgatroyd
    If you want to have a word with me just leave a message in OT indicating when and where.

  242. Flower of Scotland says:

    Robert Peffers.

    Well done. I’ve copied every comment you’ve made about the Bi Partite Union and use them all the time on social media.

    You’ve been proved right and thank you so much.

    What a wonderful site, Wings is!

  243. Bob Mack says:

    Cameron,Brown and Clegg gambled with the Scottish public. They gave the meaningless vow knowing full well that the findings and recommendations of the Smith Commission would be voted down in Parliament A con from beginning to end.

    We have scraps from their table. Nothing more.

    Well, things are changing. We have the momentum. We are no longer sitting back and trying to refute with little evidence. Instead we are finding our voice and our own evidence. Let’s take the fight to them now. We know what’s coming down the line,but we have been there before.same enemy ,same ammunition. Only this time we can fight back.

  244. Inbhir Anainn says:

    Apologies for going O/T but there is a poll doing the rounds namely if a snap general election was called who would you vote for and as Nicola’s name is on there please lend the lass a hand.

    http://www.polirants.co.uk/headlines/poll-if-there-was-a-snap-election-tomorrow-who-would-you-vote-for

  245. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Ironically, the worst-case scenario re pensions is one that has apparently blind-sided the yoon circus. For reasons you will probably quickly appreciate.

    If iScotland with its own economic policies and currency begins to take off economically, which it very likely could, given the vast wealth of energy resources which would no longer be bled from it by a vampiric UK, and since payments made by the UK in respect of UK pensions would be made in its failing Brexited pound, these payments could soon begin to lag seriously behind the cost of living in iScotland.

    Think trying to live in eg. Norway on a miserable cheapskate UK pension without any additional means of support!

    The (Scottish) Government might end up having to supplement the deficit. =chuckle=

  246. Robert Peffers says:

    Terry says: 25 November, 2016 at 7:27 pm:

    “Just read the lord advocates submission to the Supreme Court. It’s all in there – all the things you have written so informatively about. 1689 and the treaty of union 1707. And other acts. They could be hoisted by their own petard!”

    You don’t know just how much of a relief it, is after all those years, hearing more of the people of Scotland begin to appreciate themselves and their own worth.

    BTW: that phrase, “Hoist by their own petard”, has been used by me more than once on Wings recently.

    The court case may yet fail but no matter if it does for the trend is towards independence and nothing will stop it now – it will at the worst delay it a bit.

  247. Proud Cybernat says:

    Was talking to a top legal eagle from one of Scotland’s top Universities tonight (No, not Tomkins. I did say ‘top’ legal eagle).

    Anyway–they think the SG has a really strong case and knows many other legal opinion right across the UK is of similar mind. In short, they think the SG will win this intervention and that Holyrood will require to give legislative consent before A50 can be triggered.

    On the downside they said that if Holyrood does not give consent then WM will simply ignore Holyrood and push on regardless of Scots views (as they have done pretty much since the Act of Union).

    And if THAT happens then that could very well be yer actual trigger for IndyRef2 right there.

    Bring it on.

  248. Tam Jardine says:

    yesindyref2 8,48pm

    Nice one

  249. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Robert J.Sutherland I would expect the Scottish Gov to do as Southern Ireland does at present & tops up those pensioners in receipt of UK pensions to that of the Irish pension scheme.

  250. One_Scot says:

    To be honest there is a growing quiet confidence and realisation that now radiates from Yes voters that Independence is only a matter of months away, and no amount of stomping feet and throwing dummy’s from the detractors is going to alter Scotland’s future destination.

    We are about to experience a journey of a lifetime, and everyone is welcome.

  251. Robert Peffers says:

    @galamcennalath says: 25 November, 2016 at 7:35 pm:

    “While I don’t believe they will actively engineer the breakup, should Scots (and Northern Irish) show willingness to part company with England, I genuinely expect the EU to smooth the path because it suits their agenda too.”

    The EU needs do no more that accept the truth that the United Kingdom is exactly what it is, a
    United Kingdom composed of two equally sovereign previously independent Kingdoms that are now pointing in different directions in relation to the EU.

    The EU has deliberately never had any laws, rules or mechanisms to expel any EU citizens or member states. This is because their whole raison d’être is to draw in states and citizens to the European Union.

    The only way a state or citizen can leave is by their own request. Now why would they wish to destroy their own raisons d’être? This is what is behind their insistence that there can be no negotiations until there is a formal request by the United Kingdom to leave.

    They thus need only state that the United Kingdom, being composed of two equally sovereign kingdoms, is unique as a member state and then say Scotland, as a kingdom or a country, can remain in her own right as the successor state while the three country Kingdom of England gets their wish to leave the Union of Europe.

    The point being that as both member kingdoms of the United Kingdom are, by the Treaty of Union, obviously equally able to claim the succession on the breakup of the UK it is not EU policy to expel citizens, countries, states or Kingdoms against their will.

    Trouble for the Kingdom of England is they may have to lose both Wales and N.I. if they too decide they want to follow Scotland’s lead. Now THAT would be poetic justice. Not to mention that Gibraltar shows signs of ditching England too. Now I worked for the Admiralty and knew lots of Gibraltans and even did a spell in the dockyard there. I can say that they then were more likely to identify with England than either the UK or Scotland. Not any more it seems.

    We sure do live in interesting times.

  252. Chic McGregor says:

    @indyref2

    Have to agree with CammieB there.

    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
    The title may not sound terribly enforceable but it is legally of Treaty status for its signatories, of which the UK is one.

    PARTI
    Article 1.
    1. All peoples have the right of self-determination.
    By virtue of that right they freely determine their political
    status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
    development.
    2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
    3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

  253. yesindyref2 says:

    So the Herald is running with “May accused of contempt by SNP over Brexit hotline” as its front page, in spite of David Leask having retweeted a tweet and link by ScotGov 7 hours ago about the Intervention submission. And so far not a single article about a major piece of news, on is website.

    Scotsman has it as its top online article.

  254. Liz g says:

    Robert Peffers @ 9.01
    Trying to catch up ….but just wanted to Thank You and say.
    You were.. NEVER… alone.

    Also as I am sure you don’t need reminding…we have the internet,youre knowledge,AKA our power,has a platform now.

    But while it’s a bit of a breakthrough.
    I am not exactly sure that…..this is ( indeed ) the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    Oh Robert…it’s been a long time coming…and we Will get there!!!
    I have only had a quick read through,but as a fully paid up member of the awkward squad….. I do have questions.
    So hopefully you and the others will be around this weekend???
    To discuss stuff.
    And ..well..Em… Don’t shoot the messenger… let’s play at being grown up,and have and ACTUAL conversation!!!???
    As well.!!?????
    HINT
    Cause I think that we should not forget,what it is exactly that Judge’s do!!!
    Our Independence will be a political one.
    Judge’s will do everything they can NOT to “be seen to get involved”…;
    That’s partly why I thought Rock and I had some common ground.
    The Scottish legal system…well …..very much for another day.
    Right here Right now…. this is fantastic stuff…..
    Finger’s crossed it all works out.!!

  255. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Robert J. Sutherland –

    Aye.

    No tin-hats required here.

    The persecution of anyone ‘off-message’ is real, has been for a long time, and is ongoing.

    The ‘Christmas Tree Files’ is a subject we’ve discussed before. GrouseBeater has submitted first-hand testimony on this site that the ‘blacklisting’ of artists, writers and others involved in the production side of media is real. The ‘files’ are real. Their custody has been farmed out to private companies so that any FOI requests directed to the BBC can be ‘legitimately’ dismissed.

    The mediocrity of contemporary Scottish literature and other art forms is not a true reflection of the talent-base in this country – it is the result of deliberate, long-term colonial interference.

  256. Robert Peffers says:

    @Grant says: 25 November, 2016 at 7:44 pm:
    “One more thing.”

    What! Only one?

    “If the act of union is a union of two equal sovereign states, and dissolving that union leads to two equal but separate states, then if the rUK successor state is asked to be responsible for paying for pensions in the Scottish successor state, why couldn’t the rUK turn around and ask the Scottish successor state to be responsible for paying for rUK pensions?”

    LOL! Hilarious, Grant. You just don’t get it do you?

    When the United Kingdom, a union of two equally sovereign Kingdoms, splits up they return to being two independent kingdoms.

    You got that bit right.

    One of those kingdoms is the Kingdom of Scotland and the other is NOT the United Kingdom.

    It is, Ta! Da! the Kingdom of England. Not as you seem to imagine the rUK, (is that the remainder UK or realUK or the robberUK. Please do tell?

    Thing is that it was the United Kingdom and not the Kingdom of England that collected the Scottish people’s NHS stamp money. So unless they take responsibility for it then they have to pay that money back to those they took it from. England, just now funds itself directly with UK funds and has no block grant. Then the UK government that insists on English votes for English laws decides what block grant to dole out to the three devolved parliaments.

    There are no other British Kingdoms and have not been any since long before the Treaty of Union.

    The principality of Wales became an English principality in 1284 and the whole of Ireland came under English Lordship during the Irish Norman Conquest and then made the King of England its king in 1542.

    Even the two Channel Island Bailiwicks and Man are Crown Protectorates but independent from the UK government.

    There can be no United Kingdom when the only two extant kingdoms split up.

    Scotland becoming independent is NOT Scotland leaving behind the UK it is ending the UK. There just isn’t any other kingdoms for the Kingdom of England to unite with. you cannot have a union with one kingdom and the fact the N.I is mentioned in the present title is not because N.I. suddenly became a kingdom in 1800/1 it was just a name change because to describe the then United Kingdom as The United Kingdom of Great Britain was would only include Scotland, England and Wales as that is Great Britain and N.I. Is in the country of Ireland.

  257. Bob Mack says:

    Tonight Aaron Banks the multi millionaire financiers of UKIP tweeted that England and Wales should kick Scotland out of the Union.

    He knows as I know that Mrs May could call another election or indeed propose a fast track Bill for the Commons, but the real damage is that Scotland can display the power to overule Westminster.She did not want that seen by the public. That is political carnage and that is a very unhappy English electorate demanding Scotland is put in its place.

    It is a no win situation for any English MP whose constituency demanded Brexit.

    Seats will fall at the next election unless their wishes are met.
    Mrs May chose the wrong strategy.

  258. Chic McGregor says:

    Robert,
    “The EU has deliberately never had any laws, rules or mechanisms to expel any EU citizens or member states. This is because their whole raison d’être is to draw in states and citizens to the European Union.”

    That is undoubtedly part of it Robert, however, there is a moral dimension as well i.e. holding as a principal that it would simply be morally wrong for other members of the club to exclude an existing member. Unless of course, extremely extenuating circumstances demanded it.

    Indeed, circumstances the EU club, with reasonable justification, would hope never arose.

    It would require a member to do something really crazy like, going to war with another member or abandoning Human Rights to force such an act.

    I have no doubt that if such a circumstances were to arise, the rEU would eventually act to eject the errant member but that would require an extraordinary summit and unanimity by the rEU Governments to do so.

    I think it quite right that such an act would be kept at that extraordinary action level than having a written exclusion protocol otherwise the expectation of reasonable behaviour, a powerful message in itself, is compromised.

  259. call me dave says:

    The Hootsman:

    Lord Advocate says Holyrood consent needed for Article 50

    http://archive.is/pjvhw

  260. Cactus says:

    @The Claim of Right..

    MON The Claim of Right!

    Cheers you, ya wee dancer.
    X.

  261. yesindyref2 says:

    A hastily put together article online in the Herald timed at 00:09, with the conclusion:

    This would not be a veto, as Westminster remains sovereign, and it is only a convention that it stays out of devolved law-making.

    However if Westminster did ignore Holyrood, it would mean a constitutional crisis, but not as big a crisis as Brexit collapsing.

    which apart from being plain wrong, and the article largely missing the point, is kind of desperately defiantly funny 🙂

  262. yesindyref2 says:

    @Bob Mack “Tonight Aaron Banks the multi millionaire financiers of UKIP tweeted that England and Wales should kick Scotland out of the Union.

    Showsd the attitude and ignorance of these people. E&W can’t kick Scotland out of the Union, but England could kick the Union out of the Union. Same as Scotland 🙂

  263. call me dave says:

    Here’s a joker from this morning playing all his British aces. Wonder if he was writing that tonight if it would be so strident?

    http://archive.is/UpkSv

    Hopefully a few worried Brexiteers and or previous NO voters will decide to throw in their lot with Scotland’s independence cause once the dust settles.

    Surely no-ones going the other road no matter which way the court decides.

    Nothing really in the MSM darn Sarf yet!

  264. Ian McCubbin says:

    All this I agree with however could we not emphasis the mismatch between tax intake in Scotland versus R UK never mind national insurance. It is £52B in excess of what is spent in Scotland. So why worry about pensions, even if England default we can pay interim till we sue them in International courts.

    Besides the embarrassment would prevent them. Lets tame this line to counter Bettertogether.
    It makes so much sense to use there own language.

  265. Ian McCubbin says:

    As well as countering the bettertogethertwo all in Yes and Scot Government must push forward on National Investment Bank, foreign delegations and continue the support of welfare. Another front to push on is further devolution of taxation as we currently have £52B which is used by UK Gov for R UK. We need to have this and argue that this money will make us fiscally without debt.
    When we say this then we can fund pensions, investment, currency as well as an independent state from r UK.

  266. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    call me dave,

    That Spectator article is utter self-deluded BritNat bonkers. A pretty bubble with all the superficial attractiveness and endurance of the soapy kind.

    You have to wonder how they’re going to react when reality finally hits them. Full-on in the face. The humiliation will be on a scale to match the Suez debacle.

    (The author isn’t any relation of Thatcher’s former colonial governor, by any chance, is he?)

  267. Robert Peffers says:

    @Liz g says: 26 November, 2016 at 12:00 am:

    “I am not exactly sure that…..this is ( indeed ) the straw that broke the camel’s back.2

    To be truthful, Liz g, nether am I. Remember that I posted about the person who pointed me in the direction of all that historic stuff and about how sovereignty worked was an old and semi-retired Eminent QC. And that was in 1946. Yet if the legal profession in 1946 knew all that why has there been no action taken before now?

    I may have fooled myself that it was because the Sovereign people of Scotland had to have a demonstrable majority for the Scottish legal profession to act but I think that such legal brains could have figured out ways to inform, if nothing else, a largely ignorant of the both the law and history general public.

    Like you I am typical awkward squad and joined it seriously aged 4 on my first day at school when an Oxbridge educated dominie punished me and told me my very correct Lallans leid was slang English.

    I could read, at that tender age, the poems and works of R. L. Stevenson and knew by heart many of his Scottish language poems and shorter stories.

    Well there isn’t much else to do during inclement weather in a farm cottage with no electricity, gas or even running water. Oil Lamps were good enough for young and bright eyes to read with.

    So, like you I will not be holding my breath but there is no doubt that it is the biggest single step forward since Winnie Ewing got elected.

    Our Independence will be a political one.

    That was always on the cards but I do believe that before it could succeed at a political level it needed the legal side to come on board and their absence, with few notable exceptions, was obvious by their absence.

    “Finger’s crossed it all works out.!!”

    I’ve had those fingers crossed so often and for so long I have arthritis in both hands.

    However I have never doubted that Scotland would one have taken enough and demand her independence and it has never before been so close.

    I’m about to go to bed as my wee Papillon bitch is nagging me to settle down for the night, Err! Morning.

    I just had a wee laugh to myself as talking about my wee dog brought a memory back to me. I had an English friend in Portsmouth I used to visit and he had one of those wee Chinese dogs with the squashed in faces,

    He thought that its kennel name was a Chinese name. He couldn’t understand when I couldn’t speak for laughing when he told me the dog, from a Perthshire breeder, had named it , “Wan Wee Dug”.

    Goodnight! Err! Morning.

  268. defo says:

    Vuelio blog awards won by Guido. Utterly shocked that this provincial right wing fruit won.

    Looks for the sarcasm emoji 🙁

  269. Big Phil says:

    pished as a fart here , but still reading the only true media for me. they’ll be big medals for this Blog when we get there.Best educated buggers ever, and im starting tae sound like ye all. as long as i get one “nawbag” tae see the light am daein ma part. The truth will always win. Carpe Diem.

  270. defo says:

    vuelio blog awards

    WoS Robbed by a gossip column.

  271. Grant says:

    Robert Peffers

    I have no interest in what name the successor state for the rest of the UK chooses if/when Scotland becomes independent. Therefore your history lesson is completely wasted (and superfluous). I use ‘rUK’ as a convenience, just like the Scottish Government pension document I quoted did.

    I don’t quite understand what you mean by ‘NHS Stamps’? Apart from that, I believe your argument is that Scotland and whatever-you-want-to-call-the-rest-of-the-current-United-Kingdom-after-Scottish-Independence would be equal but separate after independence. On this we fully agree, which is why I’m asking why one successor state should then continue to pay the pensions of the other, and not vice versa?

  272. Big Phil says:

    @ Grant,
    Read what you just said. ? REALLY. This penson shite needs put to bed. The westminister gov have to pay ALL monies payed in, Mr Peffers is correct and well educted . ask any emigrated person if they get a pension from the almighty uk. seriously?

  273. Cactus says:

    Have a groovy great weekend ye all.

    I wonders what Mr Chris has been working on for us for dis morning?

    Coming up..
    X.

  274. Big Phil says:

    wee question? why are our pensioners dying in a rich country such as ours, its not old age , its not a demographic, its cos them rich bastards keep getting rich and oor grannies are eating the shite that they dont need. Wake up.

  275. Cactus says:

    Agreed Big Phil.

    Scotland can be better than this.

    Who’s got the bolt-cutters?

    These chains need be gone.

  276. Bob Mack says:

    @Grant,

    You sound as if you have difficulty believing that Scotland has more than paid it’s way over the last several decades. Well, we have. Hundreds of billions to the Treasury and all wasted on their pet projects

    We in Scotland have quite literally kept the UK afloat. Time to look to our own.

    I admire your generosity of spirit that would leave a marriage with nothing at all,and also volunteer to take on all the debt accrued during that union, but then again I am different.

  277. Liz g says:

    Big Phil @ 1.47
    Seize not just this day….but for our children.. all the other days too…and…defend them well.
    Don’t you agree my friend?…. I had to think about putting a ? at the end of that sentence by the way..hope you understand.
    Infact I am confident you will.

    Grant @ whenever (canny be arsed lookin back)
    If you are paying the CO-OP tae burry ye.
    Why would you think that any change of yer circumstances let’s them off the hook????
    Jist incase you didn’t work it out…..If you paid into Westminster….then it’s Westminster who are obligated to pay you back…. It’s no Rocket science..bit there might be a wee bit O propaganda going on there…What say you Grant?
    Suggest you read more of the links provided by Wing’s.
    Then get back to us!

    Robert Peffers @ 1.38
    Glad to see you understood what I was getting at.
    It’s very difficult on this site not to sound pessimistic,as I am sure you will know, to you’re cost,and …. I Think… amusement.

    Anyhoo… While the relevance or not of the old laws,agreements and Treaty’s has been vindicated,
    Beyond doubt….(like there could be any other outcome) and it’s fantastic that we (Scotland) are finally getting before a Court.

    I do want to caution,but hope I am wrong,that, Court’s and Judge’s won’t give, in this instance, the kind of judgement we seem to be (making assumptions here) looking for.
    They will answer only the question they are asked.
    They will just focus on the question that the original complainer asked!
    All our stuff will be…just in the mix there somewhere.
    We have to caw canny and once again wait.
    This judgment won’t be our way out
    But rather a step…A Big One…on the road.

    Oh and by the way.. Papillon (pap-E-on) bitch…Ha Ha Ha ..How well trained are you…LOL..

  278. Willie says:

    So much talk but at the end of the day no action. Westminster will simply let the state pension die on the vine and the old folks will just lump it

  279. Seumas says:

    Liar McDougall.

  280. Blair Mc Dougall has all the morals of the bogus callers who prey on vulnerable pensioners, posing as meter readers, or tradesmen then rob our frailest citizens of their hard earned through threats, or simple theft.
    He is a liar, he is a bully, and should be called to task over the most base of Fear Mongering, menacing our senior citizens with the totally false assertion that if they vote Yes the next time, their UK state pension would cease to be paid by rUK.
    It borders on a criminal act, surely.
    I am 69, and he threatens me personally.
    Well, Mr Mc Dougall, I’m not trembling in my boots. My State Pension will continue to be paid by England post |Independence.
    To assert anything else is just laughable. You, sir, are an overfed laughing stock.
    You can keep your pound, BTW.
    You are a disgrace.

  281. Sandy says:

    After independence –
    Not “Rest of UK”, surely. “Former UK” more apt. Add “ed” should you wish.

  282. Macart says:

    @Yesindyref2

    I suspect the Herald is well aware of the true eventual consequences of this challenge.

    They’re just a bit shy of admitting it.

    Bless. 🙂

  283. Ken500 says:

    Arron Banks has been laundering embezzled public money through his illegal offf shore funds. Farague has been illegally using taxpayers to fund a political Party for years. Without this money there would be no political Party. Arron Banks has been laundering the stole money through his illegal (wiki leaks) off shore accounts. Arron Banks has been illegally influencing the political scene. Gerry mandeering.. Arron Banks and Farague are total criminal liars. Farague is an alcoholic. Alcoholics make more judgements with proper total abstinence rehab counselling. They are now being investigated, Will they buy themselves out of it and try and defraud US tax payers? They are totally despicable in every way. Enough is never enough for some people. They have ruined the world economy.

    The Greens masquerading as LibDems have been trying to ruin the North East economy for years. They illegally and secretly stopped Development in the North East. They are vindictive liars without any scruples of any kind, They tried to stopped essential roads, Developments and stopped the airport expansion for international flights. They acted illegally and secretly to make people’s lives harder Increasing the time people took travelling in traffic chaos. They caused traffic chaos and delays. Wasting £Millions/Billions of public money.

    They deliberately with a handful of protestors, illegally stopped the full Golf Development for sheer spite and are still crowing about it. A Development supported by the majority, which would have brought prosperity, jobs, amenities and prosperity to the area. They wasted £Million/Billions of public money instead. Breaking the Council code of conduct, illegally using privy council knowledge to act illegally with bias to try and stop the full Development. They are despicable.

    They are dubvious liars who renege on their own policies. Colluding with Unionists to destroy Cities centre and building concrete jungles and wasting £Millions of public money. Instead of pedestrianisation and open spaces that the public want. They do not spend enough on essential services, the elderly, schools, homelessness and proper drug rehabilitation etc. Leaving vulnerable people to starve and die. Building grotesque monstrosities instead of helping the vulnerable. They have cost the NE £Millions/Billions wasted instead. Against the public wishes and the public interest.

  284. Ken500 says:

    The (UK) pension is paid out of current expenditure in Scotland it is paid by tax revenues raised in Scotland (under the Barnet formula). ie the money goes to the Westminster Treasury through HMRC and comes back. In (UK) pension payments, – Approx £6Billion for Pensions £10Billion for welfare benefits (in Scotland) It could be less now because of lower unemployment. Tax revenues raised in Scotland pay for the (UK) pensions in Scotland. English people in Scotland get their (UK) Gov pension from money raised in Scotland. That is how the Barnett Formula works,

    The £16Billion comes off of the £54Billion+ tax revenues raised in Scotland. They are working a year behind. That accounts for a small proportion of the debt in the rest of the UK. If Scotland was Independent there would be far less Gov debt. Scotland pays it’s way and always has, it would be in surplus if it’s economy had not been ruined by Westminster Unionist. The Scottish economy would have bernmuch more prosperous and in surplus without the illegal wars, banking fraud and tax evasion.

    Since 2010 the Oil and Gas sector has been ruined by too high taxes when the price had fallen. Osbourne increased the tax. 60% to 80% when the price had fallen 75%. It is now 40% since Jan 2016. It is still too high for the stagnant price regime, Osbourne and the Tories tried to ruin the Oil industry losing thousands of jobs. Scotland would have had nearly full employment if the sector had been managed better.

    The Westminster Unionists do everything they can to ruin the Scottish economy, To reduce the UK economy to the lowest denominator. If Scotland’s economy was managed better by people in Scotland with less debt and more equal prosperity i.e. With policies which suit the Scottish economy. (as increasingly it is being). The rest of the UK would not be happy. They are already not happy but to see Scotland prosper (as it could) would be the final poison chalice for Unionists at Westminster. The rest of the UK would demand to know why their economy was not being as well and run better. It is already happening with Universal benefits. The Scottish Gov putting funds were they are needed.

    If Scotland doesn’t vote for Independence soon it will be dragged down even further in the Westminster Unionist quod mire of bankruptcy, inequality and unfairness. The most unequal place in the world. Westminster Unionists break International agreements and basic civil standards of human rights. Illegal wars, banking fraud and tax evasion. Enough is never enough for some people. ‘Psycho Bastards’.

  285. Fred says:

    @ Ian Brotherhood, what makes U think that contemporary Scottish writers n artists are mediocre kid?

    On another matter entirely, has anybody got a handle on the projected Land Tax to be imposed on sporting estates next year, what will the take be & is the cash raised going to the local authorities or the coffers of the Land Fund for community buy-outs.

  286. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Fred –

    Okay, ‘faither’, you think it isn’t?

    Fair do’s.

    This isn’t the place or time for that discussion, but it has to happen sometime.

  287. BJ says:

    Listened to a group at an “old” folks event where they were discussing pensions and what would happen if independence meant their pension would stop, the majority looked healthy, wealthy but definitely not wise! Very negative and anti indie

    i couldn’t help thinking as they skipped along the free food and drink buffet table, these are the “elderly” we should be educating. If they can get up to a buffet table they can up of their arses and find out the truth about what is really happening in Scotland.

    At the very least, when they go out to vote in the next referendum they will know why they they are voting no.

  288. Breeks says:

    I’m upbeat about the Supreme Court and the Lord Advocate’s submissions, but we shouldn’t get carried away.

    The Supreme Court will rule on whether the Scottish government has a say in Brexit, but it won’t go any further. It will not by itself plunge the UK into a deeper constitutional crisis, because the sovereign powers of Scotland and their interaction with the Scottish people and our elected delegates have already been acknowledged as beyond its jurisdiction.

    The “sovereign” landscape if you will, beyond the Supreme Court coming to the expected verdict will not be any different from what it is today, and the precedent it sets about Scottish sovereignty was already set in 2011 AXA case.

    It may however set in progress a chain of events, whereby the Brexit process has to consult with the sovereign voice of Scotland. We have the Brexit referendum result to serve as the benchmark for Scotland’s sovereign voice, so you could argue that Scotland has expressed it’s sovereign opinion already – but such conclusions will lie beyond the scope of the UK supreme Court. It won’t go there.

    This action can and will agitate disruption inside the UK instruments of government, but the end game will only begin once we realise that we require neither Westminster nor the UK Supreme Court to “hand back” our sovereignty, it is already here in our hands but requires both our own recognition and international recognition of its lawful legitimacy.

    Scotland’s sovereign independence will be a 100% made in Scotland exercise, and it will stand or fail on whether our own population and the international community can make the case for it. Frankly, it troubles me that we seem to be skirting the issue all the time, and sneaking up on independence incrementally when a fuller “Robert Peffers” grasp of our sovereign reality would circumvent the laboured process of court appeals and referendum.

    Nobody can wield Scottish sovereignty except us, but there are very few amongst us who understand what that actually means. We have the power to end the United Kingdom with or without Westminster’s consent to do so.

  289. Fred says:

    @ BJ, you’ve obviously got an exciting social life & wouldn’t be seen anywhere near a free buffet yourself. The auld folk are oot for a wee treat, get a fuckin life!

  290. liz says:

    We have been on an amazing journey since the start of the indy ref.

    In hindsight it was a self inflicted wound by the BBC to ban comments on their political stories in Scotland.

    This led to the explosion of blogs such as WoS where we have been educated by lots of posters like Robert Peffers.

    That we still, after all these years, have hung on by our fingertips to our sovereignty is a miracle.

    I agree that Blair McD is a liar, a bully and a fraud- in future he should be called out for what he is.
    As for ‘blind’, ‘deaf’ OAPs, the SG need to send a letter to everyone of them explaining the pensions.

  291. North chiel says:

    Lots of ” detailed discussion” on the state pension here. The scaremongering pre indyref1 by the unionists was successful and undoubtedly influenced the pensioner vote
    which was heavily ” NO”.
    What we DO NOT NEED in run up to Indyref 2 is being dragged by the unionists
    back into detailed arguments over this , as this largely ” washes over” the target audience here and
    ” doubts over the detail” favour the unionists as the message is NOT CLEAR .
    WHT IS REQUIRED is an UNAMBIGUOUS COMMITTMENT from the Scottish government that
    following independence the Scottish state will GUARANTEE that all Scottish pensioners present and future will receive a state pension which will NEVER BE LESS than the present UK / future RUK pension ( even compensating for any adverse currency fluctuations if Scots currency is post Indy option.).
    Further, NS could undertake over a reasonable timescale to move towards a ” European average ” pension.
    She could undertake to look to make our state retirement age 65 ( after all Scots die younger unfortunately , although fortunately for U.K. Gov. treasurey )
    She could undertake to compensate women aged 60 who have been ” robbed” by Westminster of circa £30000 of pension ENTITLEMENT .
    She could undertake to return the contribution threshold for full state pension to 30 years again ( the Tories increased it to 35 years )
    When the split comes and the negotiation over asset / liability division gets underway
    the ” pension negotiation” should take account of some of these factors.
    If the Scottish government make it absolutely clear that Scottish citizens pensions will be guaranteed and NEVER LESS than UK/RUK pensions then quite possibly
    the Indyref 2 vote will be ” carried” this time.
    GET THE MESSAGE OUT . Don’t let Broon and co. scare them again.

  292. Lochside says:

    Robert J. Sutherland and Iain B……
    A cursory examination of who gets the ‘gigs’ on BBC Scotland and Radio backs up both of your contention that those ‘not on message’ i.e pro Scottish artists/commentators/ presenters, are discriminated against in a disgraceful way. When the Wall of Silence comes down post Independence, the guilty parties(all Brit Unionist) will be named and shamed.

    There are a lot of shamefully shunned talents who must be bursting with injustice at their imposed exile from the Scottish public’s gaze and attention.
    John Beattie is a bone headed Brit scum sucking sychophant who boasts in his little self promoting ‘puffs’ on Shortbread Radio about how intuitively talented he is at his job, extracting fascinating insights from his guests with his incisive and forensic open questioning…aye right!. and how he would ‘ work for nothing’…..like the typical blackleg tory shitebag that he is …Doesn’t read the ‘National’ apparently…mabye no one can bear reading it to this cretin.

  293. Robert Louis says:

    Oh dear, I see from above that loony unionists are at it again, talking about ‘booting Scotland out of the union’. Of course as we all know this is an impossibility, since the union consists of only two signatories, the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England. Now, England could if it wanted unilaterally END the union (as could Scotland), in which case the United Kingdom would cease to exist, but that is another matter.

    It is like a husband and wife, and one asserts they will ‘boot the other out of the marriage’. At which point, said marriage ceases to exist. Their is no rMarriage, just two single parties.

    Unionists, eh, they really are pretty ignorant.

  294. crazycat says:

    @ Grant

    re: “NHS stamps” – it used to be the case for all the self-employed (and prior to PAYE, let alone spreadsheets, for employers too, perhaps) to have to stick little stamps onto a sheet for each week, to record their NI contributions. My memory is that my stepfather’s stamps were a pale blue, with perforated edges just like postage stamps. He used to moan about having to lick them all.

    The expression “paying your stamp” outlasted the actual physical items.

  295. Kennedy says:

    Hats off to Robert Peffers.

    Keep the lessons coming please.

  296. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Robert Louis,

    “rMarriage” – brilliant!

    That analogy explains the situation perfectly in just a single word.

    Definitely one to keep, everyone.

  297. BJ says:

    Fred@11:44

    Is that how you are going to try and persuade NO voters by being abusive when you don’t understand what read or hear from them?

  298. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Lochside –

    🙂

    Well said there.

  299. Big Phil says:

    Liz G and Liz. On the nail ladies. 😉

  300. woosie says:

    Robert Louis;

    I agree. Long wished that wm would sanction an english only referendum on ending the union. In the current climate, with Scotland constantly blamed for spongeing from our glorious protectors, there can only be one result.

    I heard 2 ukip leadership candidates on daily politics agree that the Barnet formula should be scrapped, as Scotland gets too much. As ukip seem to be the real drivers – albeit back seat – in england, we would soon be looking forward to a prosperous, fair and free future.

  301. mr thms says:

    Just started reading the Lord Advocate of Scotland’s submission to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom..

    The link can be found in this article.. (all 58 pages)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38110677

    And a thought occurred to me.

    If Brexit has the effect of changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, then it will be difficult for the Scottish Government to create new acts in the knowledge they are required to be compatible with current devolved powers and EU law, only to have them disapplied or disabled when the UK leaves.

    Confusing..

  302. DW says:

    For EU pensioners living in the EU, I don’t think this applies.
    “once someone reaches pension age they’re usually a net fiscal drain on society in countless other ways, especially health”

    The NHS will actually pay for pensioners health care even if they are living in another EU country.

    “If you are living in an EEA country or Switzerland and you receive an exportable UK pension, contribution-based Employment Support Allowance or another exportable benefit, you may be entitled to state healthcare paid for by the UK.”
    http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcareabroad

  303. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Do you honestly believe the rUK will pay Scottish pensions without a fuss?”

    Nobody gives a shit how much of a fuss they make. The point is that FOR EXISTING PENSIONERS they’re obliged to, and any attempt to evade that obligation would open a massive and hideous can of worms.

  304. Phil Robertson says:

    Bob Mack says:
    25 November, 2016 at 9:56 pm
    You wonder listening to guys like Phil, how such an inefficient organisation like the Scottish Public Pensions Agency manage to invest their members benefits and pay thousands of them on time.
    Must be some mistake.

    Actually there is. It’s your understanding of how the SPPA operates. SPPA does not “invest”. The pensions are unfunded and rely on in-year contributions and government grants to meet pension payments, if pension payments exceed contributions.

    (Local government is slightly different but above is true for teachers, NHS, police and fire services)

  305. John Mcewan says:

    I currently receive 155 pounds per week for my state pension having paid NI contributions for 45 years.However, if I had worked abroad outside the EU for all or most of this time without paying a penny in NI I could still qualify for Pension Credit of 155.60.This payment is based solely on income and not on contributions.



Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




↑ Top