Can you be specific about the risk that you feel exists?

Goodnight.

The risk is that basically it is a dumb idea to start with -

I live in digs during the week - there were 3 of us ostensibly english guys talking about it in the kitchen the other week - we all have close family ties with scotland - I was born and raised in fife and I would not dream of going back to scotland if they split !

I have yet to find a single working jock that thinks splitting is a good idea - in fact they are unanimous that it is a crackpot thing to do - the risks are horrendous PS

There's been enough disruption of the independence thread in Jet Blast by "people" throwing in meaningless one-liners and pot-stirring, goading posts. It will NOT happen in the Mil Forum!

Perthsaint will not be back in here for 30 days so that he can concentrate on Jet Blast!!!!

perthsaint

A few questions for you...

Would we all agree that the United Kingdom is a modern country that is based on democracy and governed by a Government voted in by the whole of the UK and also holds such things as fairness and democracy close to the heart... Yes?

So why are the 'Yes' group trying to break up OUR country the United Kingdom?

And more importantly WHY THE ****** DON'T I and every other citizen of this fine and upstanding Country the UNITED KINGDOM who are not currently sat in Scotland GET A ****** VOTE AND SAY IN BUSTING UP OUR COUNTRY!!!! :mad:

What right does a MINORITY (which, at the end of the day the 'Yes' campain is when you take into account all UK citizens) think they have to break up the country, hardly democratic is it?

Out of interest, in the event of a 'yes' vote. One that will no doubt lead to the break up of our country, the UK and considering the majority of the voters in the UK will have had NO SAY IN IT WHAT SO EVER what's the chances of taking it to the European Court of Human Rights as I for one will most certainly feel that my human rights will have been proper rolled over.

Mark my words the UK is going down the pan and the way it's going, give it ten years it's going to resemble the FRY, ie Bosnia revisted only instead of being over there it will be over here!


Okay rant over... for now, apologies for all the shouting etc. Nurse is here with my meds now... :}

I believe the rest of the UK should pay half of the pensions of retired service personnel who retired before Scotland became independent, for those who live in Scotland. Scottish men have died for the UK's interests, so it's only right.

Although I doubt Scotland actually will become independent....

So what is the current situation regarding foreign veterans? I presume that F&C and British citizens living abroad have no trouble receiving their pensions, so why would it be different for Scots?

Always a Sapper,

Regarding your questions, Mate, you need to post them on Jet Blast if you want an answer. Perthsaint can't answer here - see Wholigan's post.



Wholigan,

A wise move, I think.

One of the complications might be is that at the moment we are all 'British' but if the vote goes to the separatists and the Union is split up then presumably the people in Scotland (ie permanent residents etc) will have to choose between being 'Scottish' or being 'British' in the new not so Great Britain !

I doubt that the British Government will have a problem paying pensions to ex servicemen in scotland but I doubt Salmond would want them to have that 'power'.

LR - proud to be called a 'Porridge W*g'

As an aside - this vote is the most divisive/potentially catastrophic vote I can remember since we voted to join the 'Common Market' way back in 1974 .
I have been talking to some extremely worried folk north of the border - anybody with a reasonable IQ can see the huge potential risks.
Also on the other side of the 'coin' - as a taxpayer - this has already cost us a fortune - it will cost another fortune to 'organise' the break up and then yet another fortune to bail them out when it all goes 'Ti ts Up'

Since the original question pertains exactly to me - and having seen this morning's poll - I'll answer the question as asked, and without any yes/no spraff.

I'm a veteran (27 years in) so I get a pension, which is pretty profoundly important to me, thus any decision I make will depend on:

a. Tax issues.
b. Who is going to pay my pension and with what.

I'm English, but I could not give a flying goat about nationality/identity stuff like that, providing I get to live in a democratically free & just country.

All that pension and tax stuff will be sorted between Sept 2014 and March 2016 (the nominal date of independence). In true, time-honoured TOFO fashion, I will be keeping up to date with every titbit and morsel of information as it unfolds, using all available means, with the sole purpose of making an informed choice well in advance of any deadlines.

Since I already own property north and south of the border, I'll end up living wherever I ****ing well choose. Who knows...I might end up a tax free expat of no fixed abode.

Why on earth are 16 year old kids being allowed to vote in this ridiculous referendum, given that the normal minimum voting age is 18?

Why should the UK government pay the pensions of another countries veterans? Yes, a veteran who served the the UK armed forces defended the whole of the UK, but that also included Scotland. So the liabilities for paying pensions earned up to the point of independence are for all the peoples of England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland to shoulder, not just those who decide to stay in the rUK. Given the SNP's attitude towards their liabilities if they don't get everything they want, then best of luck. Either pension responsibilities are split individually between an iScot and rUK depending on initial residence at independence, or iScot needs to contribute it's share of the pot to the current arrangements for ALL veterans of the UK. Given that this applies to all public sector pensions (local government ones may be simpler), I think there are some big unanswered questions and I too would be a little concerned when the most basic statements from the SNP about finances (Currency Union, currency, LOLR, deficit etc) are just not believable. It's a sad affair, as the choice of independence is one for the Scots to make but the way the SNP are going about the whole process is so damaging.

I suspect "the reason 16 year-olds are getting the vote" is exactly the same as how "Bliar" got voted in in 1997.
The more minorities that are courted by "Fishy" Salmon the only chance he has of getting a successful Yes vote.
It all has a rather fishy smell to it.

Beagle,

because the SNP took the view that impressionable, gullable, full of piss and wind 16/17yo's would be more likely to vote 'yes' than 'no'. the pollsters tell us that actually thats not true, or wasn't the last time i looked, and that are as broadly split as any other group with a slight majority as 'no'.

there was some guff about extending the vote to those who would be most effected by the result, but not only does no one believe it, the logic of that argument extends to giving the vote to four year olds, and oddly enough the SNP didn't push for that...

i'm still betting on a 'yes' with a tiny majority - firstly 'yes' people tend to be more passionate about their cause and are therefore more likely to go out and vote on the day than 'no' voters, and secondly because the 4 years of polling has said 'no' will win, leading, imv, to a certain complacency on the part of 'no' voters about the size of the 'no' vote - a proportion of 'no' voters will probably take the veiw that the referendum will be defeated without their vote. if enough people think that...

thirdly theres the 'don't knows' - the polls put the DK's at around 8-12% of the electorate who plan to vote. what they decide, and if they'll vote, will decide this - and i take the view that a majority of those who eventually make a decision and who then go out and vote will vote 'yes'.

i'm a 'no' by the way...

I heard just now, on Smooooth Radio that more Scots now want independence than there are those who want to remain part of the UK. Notwithstanding that, yesterday, I mentioned the political, financial or regulatory pressures on pensions. The reality is, whichever government holds power, the situation concerning state or unfunded pensions is pretty much the same and no amount of lobbying or legal action is going to change that.

Although, even as late as last week, the detail about the new state pension is still emerging, we can be relatively certain that most of the electorate is going to have a new, generous flat-rate state pension which will pay out £144-a-week - if you have paid 35 years of National Insurance Contributions (NIC). We can thank the Liberal Democrats for that, you either think it's a good thing or you don't. However, today’s 20 and 30-somethings will have to wait until they're 70 to receive it. But, when we talk about the state pension not being around or whenever we talk about party 'x' or party 'a' jeapordising it and rendering it ‘extinct’, we are referring to depleting the ‘National Insurance Fund’.

We all probably know that NIC are paid and then passed on to today’s pensioners as state pension and any surplus goes into the NI fund; effectively, we pay for the pensions of our parents and so too, will our pensions be paid for by our kids (huh). It isn't a fund as such, it's just one big debit ledger which juggles expenses and future commitments. But although the fund is hypothetical, the Government Actuarial Department (GAD) continues to calculate any surplus within it. The problem is, the difference between the money paid in and the money paid out is shrinking fast.

The fund health is calculated every 5 years, most recently as a couple of months ago, with reference to back testing against the previous 5 years. In 2010 GAD reported that the NI fund had asurplus of £45 billions which it projected would increase to £103 billions in 2013. It got it wrong. The most recent report calculated it to be just £29 billions. When/if it goes, the state pension and any unfunded pensions will have to be found from somewhere, scrambling around the state sofa for loose change, etc. The situation isn't that precarious, just yet. Optimistic predictions by GAD show the NI fund will rise until 2036, and at that point.. it'll then collapse.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._July_2014.pdf

The problem is, GAD has to rely on growth figures provided to it to work with - for instance, it has to assume that earnings growth will be 2.4% a year (ha). But if you refer to the period covered by that report (2008 to 2013) wage growth was minus 1.8% in real terms and since then, just 2.2% per annum. So, when Labour politicians talk about growing the economy, although they may not have the same motivation that I think they should have, the reality is, we NEED growth to grow and generate the NI fund. It's that growth which will fund our pensions, not whether or not the Scots vote for some bloke with a chip on his shoulder.. that's just a red herring, and he's nothing more than a legislator, a politician. I don't know about you, but I tended not to trust those people who wanted to be prefects or head boy either. He won't be able to magic money out of thin air.

I read back through various financial books and in the most prescient ones, authors have been predicting the demise of the state pension since the 80s, but as long as we had a large number of older people with a high probability to vote I doubt that would ever happen. It's all changing now, in 5-10 years, the legions of cruise enjoying, blue collar final salary gas board workers are going to start pegging it in largish numbers and so their input won't matter so much. I really feel for generation Y. My kids will all be impacted and I feel almost guilty to be part of it; complacency and lack of awareness in many people is palpable. Most recently, 10-12 years ago when the word 'debt' was replaced by the far hipper 'credit' and Tony Blair (GQ Philanthropist of the year - really)? dropped rates to practically zero and we all hocked our homes for a new TV - to fund his and Gordon Brown's self indulgent, self referencing insane political and social vote winning odyssey.

We have all read of the campaigning and the uncertainty surrpounding increases to, for instance, AFPS. The above scenario looks grim, but it can change - and quite quickly. We simply have to start increasing taxes (quickly) to pay for it. If we take ONS data at face value, the rate of increase of liabilities is £640 billions per annum and total tax revenue is running at somewhere near £600 billions. So, we make pension payouts more miserly, we continue to increase retirement age, we increase NI contributions, we remove guarantees on SERPs, we introduce yet more tax raids or restrictions on savings and assets, we introduce means testing - lets not forget either, Putin actually confiscated pensions.

Russian Pensions Paid for Putin's Crimea Grab - Bloomberg View

Public sector pension liabilities have jumped from £770 billions to £1.7 trillions in just 5 years, according to figures from Treasury accounts. Peter Tompkins, Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and chairman of the non-governmental Public Sector Pensions Commission (and therefore, not someone you'd immediately think of as being so irresponsible to be arrested at half past three one morning chained to a lamppost and with his trousers down around his ankles) calculated the liability would rise in very short order to £1.3 trillions. This is one of the reasons why I think the cost cap on AFPS is unsustainable in the short term.

But, seeing that this thread IS about Scotland, if the young taxpayers up there are going to be funding an ageing population's free prescriptions, TV licences and heating allowances and if free tertiary education has to be funded.. all against a backdrop of uncertain oil revenue, then unless you know where the money for the state and occupational pensions are going to come from, then you really are taking a big gamble. If we assume, and it is generally accepted, that the cost of looking after all of our disgracefully and gently ageing Lightning AND Phantom pilots (Courtney excepted, as he slips into cognac induced reverie and won't care too much either way - chapeau, Courtney - apologies, I still think Cauliflower au Gratin is a Parisian railway station) is going to double as a proportion of GDP by 2025, then the impact will be more keenly felt, surely, north of the border where the state commitment is that much greater.

The middle-aged and middle classes are already struggling with uni debt, unaffordable housing and fragmented careers, military partners are finding it increasingly difficult to get work, let alone save for their own retirement which may provide resilience. On the basis of that cash flow modelling, and it could change either way still, and it will, as the flow ebbs and flows, we can kiss goodbye to any meaningful state pension benefit for anyone currently less than 32-35 years old or so. Unless something changes, unless something gives. I suppose, the reality is, if you want independence in Scotland, don't vote for it because some toe rag legislator who wasn't good enough to get a proper job tells you it's a good idea.

Finally, the story about how the Czechs and Slovaks oversaw the separation of the Koruna offers a useful signpost.

Al R wrote:


Al, have a 'Like'. :D:D:D:D

I was worrying about how independence might affect the British and Irish Lions team for the tour to New Zealand in 2017.

Then I remembered that the Scottish rugby team is so cr@p that there are very few Scottish Lions!;)

That's rather an immature view. Don't forget, when the Republic of Ireland was created in 1922, a "minority" of the islands citizens were allowed to stay part of the UK. Also remember, the UK was a union of individual states.... not unlike the USSR was in concept. Do you think those Soviet states had a right to their independence?

Why not asks the Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians and others.....

I think they are much happier with their current status.

Late to this but i am a veteran living in Scotland and recently medically retired early from the railway. I have always, despite working in London, spent as much as I could on local services and local shops to support the local community. That community is now split along the Yes/No debate. Friends and family are being divided and there has been vandalism of cars and properties that display favours for both sides. There has also been an increase in casual violence. Salmond, if he gets his way, will inherit a divided nation. Divisions that will take generations to heal, if ever.

This has pissed me off so much I am now in Spain in the process of buying a business and re-locating here with my family. So, the community will lose a net contributor. No big deal if it is just one but many in the area that work over the border are seriously considering moving into England for peace of mind over taxation, pensions, currency etc.

A united independent nation Alec? You are having a bubble.

Indeed.

I wouldn't actually mind the Yes campaign, but it is so addled with bluff and mendacity that no clear thinking person would actually accept their "arguments" but we live in the age of social media where any rationality stops at the front of the flatscreen.

Indeed - the divisiveness may well be a huge problem for Scotland whichever way the vote goes !

Whatever my feelings about scottish independence - I could never vote for a dipstick like Salmon d :ugh:

Al R summed it up extremely well -

You're confusing a vote for independence with a vote for the SNP/Salmond. Interestingly, you would likely find that the SNP/Salmond vote would go down in post-independence elections as their raison d'etre had disappeared.

I am not confusing anything young man ; )

As I said - Al R summed it up extremely well.

You cannot separate Salmon d from the vote because he is running the campaign and he is the 'gentleman' with no answers to all the really important questions ; )

Well, unfortunately for the Better Together campaign thousands of voters are able to separate Salmond from the vote because there are scores of non-SNP voters who are saying they will vote Yes,....young man.

I've not been keeping up with the propaganda coming from either side, but from what I've seen on farious social media links from friends it seems to be SNP versus the rest. Scottish labour (which you would assume would be keen to promote their own cause) seem to be playing catch up and the Tories are automatically "the enemy".

Friends who are "Yes" voters don't like me using the term "propaganda", they are all fervent in their beliefs and very vocal at anyone raising points which contradict their opinions. But as others have said, the amount of anti-english sentiment which has been used in the campaign is staggering. If you believed half of what was written you would believe the English ate Scottish babies and lived in the lap of luxury and through the cumbs over the border.

And don't get me started on the paradise that Scotland will become because of the oil revenue.....

melmothw,

You are of course correct, however, that is a distinction that I would suspect that a large majority of potential "yes" voters haven't made.

Of course it also means that all the comments/promises/commitments being made by the SNP could well not occur, and that the 600 odd page SNP document on a future Scotland is potentially a worthless piece of paper, nothing more than a manifesto for a potential future government, none of which may come to pass, and that the future of veterans pensions (despite perthsaints assurances otherwise) in an independent Scotland is unknown...


Which brings me back to where this thread started.

To be fair Ogre, that accusation can be just as easily leveled at those supporting the No campaign, as evidenced by just a cursory read of the majority of posts in this thread and the many others on the subject.

For what it's worth, I'm not Scottish, do not live in Scotland, and have no particular desire to see the UK broken up. If the Scots do vote Yes though, I will wish them the best, in all of our interests.

Politicians of all parties rely on naivety and gullibility of the voters LOL

My 61 years in NSGB have left me a tad cynical about politics :)

I think salmon ds legacy to scotland is (unfortunately) going to be a very divided country - that has already happened - but could get much worse after the vote :ouch:

That's the nature of democracy longer ron. I can think of few political events more divisive than a US presidential campaign, but few would argue that's a reason not to hold them.

And don't think the promised EU referendum won't be divisive either, so maybe we shouldn't hold it?

I asked a SNP MSP (on the street) about pensions and taxation if I worked in England and lived in Scotland. Also, would I be able to access my Scottish GP if my taxes went to Westminster. Also about double taxation (which I had to explain to her). The only answer I got was that it would be decided after the referendum. She was either totally ignorant of the manifesto or she merely wanted to carry on playing the populist 'Braveheart' approach to her campaigning. :ugh:

I doubt very much we will get a referendum but it would not be as divisive as the scottish vote.
There are many people already leaving scotland ahead of the vote because they are fed up with the outbreak of 'nationalism' and racism etc.
As I said previously - I have spoken to many working Scots and have not heard anybody support the split - not one !

melmothw,

You say you are not Scottish, nor do you live in Scotland, so I can only assume (quite possibly incorrectly) that this subject is of passing academic or social interest to you, along with other national and world events. You certainly seem very vocal on the matter for someone not directly involved.

However, there are people posting on this thread who are currently living through this situation in Scotland, experiencing increasing social unrest, intimidation and discrimination on a daily basis. Maybe you know people who would consider selling their house, possibly at a loss, giving up their jobs, changing their children to a different education system by moving to a different country, all on a whim, or a fit of pique because they lost a vote or don't like a political leader - I don't. The people I know who would consider such actions would only do so after considerable thought, and only if they felt deep genuine concerns over the future for themselves and their loved ones.

Hang on to your Tam O Shanters or Bowler Hats.
 

Because it will all become very acrimonious very shortly, like many divorces do. Leaving both sides hating the other.
To me, having been in both countries over August after decentish periods abroad, its very obvious (to see the opening and widening divisions on the islands that are Britain) and this will only continue after the poll (which will be won by the "yes" vote, clear as day).
This is going to launch a real period of soul searching and change within England. And who knows what the remainder of "Britain" will do?
You could aim the barrel of the gun right at the heart of the Conservative Party for this, IMHO. This has been coming for 35 years.
Federalism could and I think now, will end up being the way ahead for the remainder of Britain, consisting of Wales, Northern Ireland (almost impossible to fathom, for me, that one) and probably the larger area of the Midlands, the North of England ( basically a crescent shape Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield Leeds to Newcastle (like the rail and communication plan that has been so mooted recently and now we see why), plus London (practically a separate country in itself now anyway (like Singapore?), plus "the South East"(simply now a vassal to London) and finally plus good old horrible weirdo Cornwall.
Its a disaster and its coming.
Wonder if Cameron thinks it was a good idea to spend most of August chillaxing on holiday now?
And someone please wake up and tell the Queen. Her family will be out on their ear after this as well, mark my words.
Its a disaster. 300 years of up and down and it ends shortly, thus, under these dim twerps.
But nothing I can do anyway, nor you.Rant over and going back to work.
p.s. put your money into the Euro or Dollar.

As a UK citizen who will undoubtedly be affected by the result of the referendum, yes or no, I can assure you Biggus that the subject is as relevant and as of much interest to me as it is to everyone else posting here.

Not sure what you mean by this.

I reapeat the gist of my previous post, as a Canadian who has been living with this this stupidity, and live with it on a daily basis, {forced to move, victimised by Surete du Quebec if one click over the speed limit, unable to put my children in French school in Quebec, the list goes on} We now reside in Ontario, in a "border town" where eighty percent of the patients in our local hospital are from across the border as very little of the services, be it health or whatever, still function "next door", we were also forced to move our aviation and manufactering companies due to endless harasment from the "Speach Police", for heavens sake, think before you leap, or the price will be devestating to civilised Scotish society.

melmothw,

I meant that (I assumed), the issue of Scottish independence is but one of many issues, both national and international, that occupy your time/thoughts/energy on a daily basis.

As opposed to it being an issue that occupies your every waking moment to the exclusion of almost everything else...

clunk,

I'm not quite sure that your comparison with Quebec and Canada quite holds up. As I remember it, Quebec actually voted No to independence so with Quebec still an integral part of Canada I can't really see how your experiences of discrimination etc might translate over vis-a-vis England and an independent Scotland.

No Biggus, it doesn't occupy my every waking moment, but that doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion on the subject, nor that my opinion is any less valid than the next person's.

Someone mentioned on here earlier about the Yes campaign shouting down anyone who disagrees with them. Well, I'm not in either camp but please don't use that as an excuse to shout me down Biggus.

Speaking as a person who lives in Scotland, I have had only received the approved PR material delivered to my door via Royal Mail. No door step canvassers and no phone calls offering transport to the Voting Station.

It's obvious the Yes Campaign dominates the web and blogosphere but most people who will vote on the day will not form their opinion from such sources. It's also obvious that a really big push is being made for the "working class" vote in the normally staunch Labour heartlands. That's being done by an interesting alliance of SNP and Scottish Socialist Party activists promising the world in return for a Yes vote.

However, this whole process is opening a chasm that may never be closed and unless HMG is very careful, offering more powers to Edinburgh late in the day only serves to confirm the SNP case that post Devolution, real power still lies in London.