Yes you have rights - rights to future taxation from whoever is the government of Scotland (should they decide to honor them of course).
What you wont get is any right to any money from the UK simply because, as I have already explained, there is no money.
Those with years of Class 1 NI Stamps paid to the United Kingdom Exchequer may have a claim in court against the rUK for a basic state pension if the rUK is indeed claiming status as the Continuing State of the United Kingdom.
I'm sure Salmond would have been over the moon if the CBI had backed the Yes vote, but since the overwhelming number of members are England based he shouldn't be surprised that the CBI are supportive of the union.
But that rather assumes that you actually hold a ballot in the first place. If they had done so then they might have managed to keep the results under wraps and simply opt for registering the CBI as being the body taking a role even if it later turned out that CBI Scotland had voted for neutrality. Or they could have held a pro-forma ballot in Scotland given they seem so sure of the results and properly register CBI Scotland as being the body taking part.
If anything the way the CBI has gone about this is highly reminiscent of Scotland's position in the UK.
If it is a no and uk vote to come out of the EU, residence of Scotland would have been part of that vote to make it happen.
I'm guessing you mean 'residents'?
Working on the assumption that is what you meant then you will understand my bafflement as to why the No campaign and posters on here seem to focus on self determination for Orkney and Shetland in the event of a Yes vote, even though they as 'residence' (sic) have been part of that vote.
I take it you agree then that if Scotland votes for independence you wouldn't suggest that Ork or Shet should have a further vote?
Those with years of Class 1 NI Stamps paid to the United Kingdom Exchequer may have a claim in court against the rUK for a basic state pension if the rUK is indeed claiming status as the Continuing State of the United Kingdom.
I thought iScotland has guaranteed the pensions, why would they need to go to court?
As to the "consultation" that took place they are very careful to avoid claims that they actually asked or even invited feedback simply claiming that their members had every opportunity to do so.
I did laugh at that.
Not sure how that would go down in a general election if the govt of the day held a consultation exercise on a range of policies then declared themselves winners.
I imagine a fair stushie from the media and the general populace.
Working on the assumption that is what you meant then you will understand my bafflement as to why the No campaign and posters on here seem to focus on self determination for Orkney and Shetland in the event of a Yes vote, even though they as 'residence' (sic) have been part of that vote.
I take it you agree then that if Scotland votes for independence you wouldn't suggest that Ork or Shet should have a further vote?
I wouldn't suggest that Orkney or Shetland have a further vote, but I'd be surprised if anyone who supports independence would deny them that right.
I wouldn't suggest that Orkney or Shetland have a further vote, but I'd be surprised if anyone who supports independence would deny them that right.
Orkney and Shetland aren't in a political union with Scotland. They are a part of Scotland. So while some supporters of independence may or may not support a further referendum for Orkney and Shetland others may not. Supporting ending a political arrangement with England does not automatically mean one should support secession for the Northern Isles, Western Isles or any other part of our country.
Can you repeat this? Im' assuming you made a typo because it makes no sense.
Statistically, if you are a UK citizen under 50 years old, you have no pension of any meaningful value. I believe the average money purchase scheme will pay out around £100 a month. It will also reduce, under current rules, the amount of welfare benefits you receive by around 50% of this. So anyone contributing to a retirement pension is basically putting money into something that will pay back £50 a month.
Meanwhile the United Kingdom has promises made for State Pensions and Public Sector Pensions which are not funded and they intend to pay out of general taxation. It is the core reason why the United Kingdom is currently bankrupt and cannot afford its future pension promises.
And Independent Scotland would be in a much better position. Partly as some of its public schemes are funded whereas the UK equivalent is not but mainly as Scotland has more ability and wealth to pay out the unfunded promises.
Orkney and Shetland aren't in a political union with Scotland. They are a part of Scotland. So while some supporters of independence may or may not support a further referendum for Orkney and Shetland others may not. Supporting ending a political arrangement with England does not automatically mean one should support secession for the Northern Isles, Western Isles or any other part of our country.
If they had a strong enough feeling about it and voted for it, then I think they would be allowed to do it. As I said before, I'm not a big fan of nationalism in any form. I've never really been into my lot are better than your lot.
Historically The ISles, Northern or Western have belonged to a few different people before the Scots and perhaps in another thousand years they will belong to another political entity we wouldn't recognise or even contemplate today.
Orkney and Shetland aren't in a political union with Scotland. They are a part of Scotland. So while some supporters of independence may or may not support a further referendum for Orkney and Shetland others may not. Supporting ending a political arrangement with England does not automatically mean one should support secession for the Northern Isles, Western Isles or any other part of our country.
That's interesting, so those who support independence are happy to break a long term union because they argue it would be better for them, but some would not be happy for Orkney or Shetland to annex itself because they believe it might be better for them.
I'm sure if we looked back far enough we would find a time when Orkney was not part of Scotland.
If they had a strong enough feeling about it and voted for it, then I think they would be allowed to do it. As I said before, I'm not a big fan of nationalism in any form. I've never really been into my lot are better than your lot.
Historically The ISles, Northern or Western have belonged to a few different people before the Scots and perhaps in another thousand years they will belong to another political entity we wouldn't recognise or even contemplate today.
The point I'm making is that the situation with Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles is not comparable to Scotland and England. Even places like Berwick upon Tweed to decide they want either independence or to rejoin Scotland etc. It's not the same thing. Nationalism in Scotland is more about democracy than nationalism.
Supporting ending a political arrangement with England does not automatically mean one should support secession for the Northern Isles, Western Isles or any other part of our country.
Not the actual question though, is it? You might equally say the same about denying Scotland the right to end the union. I don't believe that there is any merit to such mischief making as the general opinion after actually consulting them is that the islanders would vote to stay part of Scotland. However in the early days it did seem to be that the Lib-Dem representatives of that area advocated a kind of situation where if Scotland voted for independence as a whole then some select regions that voted yes could opt to ignore that and remain part of the rUK whilst at the same time if the result was an overall No then none of the regions that voted Yes could be allowed the opportunity to take their independence.
Self determination is just that and if there was a demonstrable movement to independence from Scotland then I wouldn't stop a vote going ahead even though I wouldn't want them to "secede". Just as I accept the legitimacy of Northern Ireland remaining as a part of the UK as long as that's the will of its electorate. Of course the slight complication here is that there's absolutely no guarantee that Shetland would actually want to return to being part of the rUK rather than becoming outright independent or even rejoining Norway.
That's interesting, so those who support independence are happy to break a long term union because they argue it would be better for them, but some would not be happy for Orkney or Shetland to annex itself because they believe it might be better for them.
I'm sure if we looked back far enough we would find a time when Orkney was not part of Scotland.
No not those who support independence, some who support independence. People will have different views. The point is that Scotland is not a unitary state which Britain is. Shetland is a part of Scotland not in union with Scotland or England for that matter.
That's interesting, so those who support independence are happy to break a long term union because they argue it would be better for them, but some would not be happy for Orkney or Shetland to annex itself because they believe it might be better for them.
I'm sure if we looked back far enough we would find a time when Orkney was not part of Scotland.
So you would agree that individual householders should be able to declare independence then, if you follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion?
Not the actual question though, is it? You might equally say the same about denying Scotland the right to end the union. I don't believe that there is any merit to such mischief making as the general opinion after actually consulting them is that the islanders would vote to stay part of Scotland. However in the early days it did seem to be that the Lib-Dem representatives of that area advocated a kind of situation where if Scotland voted for independence as a whole then some select regions that voted yes could opt to ignore that and remain part of the rUK whilst at the same time if the result was an overall No then none of the regions that voted Yes could be allowed the opportunity to take their independence.
Self determination is just that and if there was a demonstrable movement to independence from Scotland then I wouldn't stop a vote going ahead even though I wouldn't want them to "secede". Just as I accept the legitimacy of Northern Ireland remaining as a part of the UK as long as that's the will of its electorate. Of course the slight complication here is that there's absolutely no guarantee that Shetland would actually want to return to being part of the rUK rather than becoming outright independent or even rejoining Norway.
If there was a real movement for it I would support it if that is what the people really wanted. What I'm saying here is that it's a very different thing from the situation with Scotland and England.
Comments
How would you know if I have or not? I don't think any poster should do it.
Hence an independent Scotland is in a far better position to guarantee future pensions.
The United Kingdom cannot afford its current pension commitment, this will only get worse till it defaults on its debt.
A wee wink can mean many things on a forum.
Sorry if I didnt pick up on it.
Those with years of Class 1 NI Stamps paid to the United Kingdom Exchequer may have a claim in court against the rUK for a basic state pension if the rUK is indeed claiming status as the Continuing State of the United Kingdom.
If anything the way the CBI has gone about this is highly reminiscent of Scotland's position in the UK.
Relax. I wasn't flirting!
I'm guessing you mean 'residents'?
Working on the assumption that is what you meant then you will understand my bafflement as to why the No campaign and posters on here seem to focus on self determination for Orkney and Shetland in the event of a Yes vote, even though they as 'residence' (sic) have been part of that vote.
I take it you agree then that if Scotland votes for independence you wouldn't suggest that Ork or Shet should have a further vote?
I thought iScotland has guaranteed the pensions, why would they need to go to court?
I did laugh at that.
Not sure how that would go down in a general election if the govt of the day held a consultation exercise on a range of policies then declared themselves winners.
I imagine a fair stushie from the media and the general populace.
I wouldn't suggest that Orkney or Shetland have a further vote, but I'd be surprised if anyone who supports independence would deny them that right.
The SNP have not only guaranteed pensions but they will still be paid earlier and will be increased.
Thats the pensioner vote sorted then.
Shorter life expectancy in Scotland.
Less per capita liability compared to UK as a whole.
Orkney and Shetland aren't in a political union with Scotland. They are a part of Scotland. So while some supporters of independence may or may not support a further referendum for Orkney and Shetland others may not. Supporting ending a political arrangement with England does not automatically mean one should support secession for the Northern Isles, Western Isles or any other part of our country.
I dont imagine we'd have much in common;-)
Statistically, if you are a UK citizen under 50 years old, you have no pension of any meaningful value. I believe the average money purchase scheme will pay out around £100 a month. It will also reduce, under current rules, the amount of welfare benefits you receive by around 50% of this. So anyone contributing to a retirement pension is basically putting money into something that will pay back £50 a month.
Meanwhile the United Kingdom has promises made for State Pensions and Public Sector Pensions which are not funded and they intend to pay out of general taxation. It is the core reason why the United Kingdom is currently bankrupt and cannot afford its future pension promises.
And Independent Scotland would be in a much better position. Partly as some of its public schemes are funded whereas the UK equivalent is not but mainly as Scotland has more ability and wealth to pay out the unfunded promises.
Probably due to the fact that once you get down to local council level it starts getting highly problematic.
Could you imagine if every local council in England were given a vote to stay in or out of the EU?
If they had a strong enough feeling about it and voted for it, then I think they would be allowed to do it. As I said before, I'm not a big fan of nationalism in any form. I've never really been into my lot are better than your lot.
Historically The ISles, Northern or Western have belonged to a few different people before the Scots and perhaps in another thousand years they will belong to another political entity we wouldn't recognise or even contemplate today.
That's interesting, so those who support independence are happy to break a long term union because they argue it would be better for them, but some would not be happy for Orkney or Shetland to annex itself because they believe it might be better for them.
I'm sure if we looked back far enough we would find a time when Orkney was not part of Scotland.
The point I'm making is that the situation with Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles is not comparable to Scotland and England. Even places like Berwick upon Tweed to decide they want either independence or to rejoin Scotland etc. It's not the same thing. Nationalism in Scotland is more about democracy than nationalism.
Not the actual question though, is it? You might equally say the same about denying Scotland the right to end the union. I don't believe that there is any merit to such mischief making as the general opinion after actually consulting them is that the islanders would vote to stay part of Scotland. However in the early days it did seem to be that the Lib-Dem representatives of that area advocated a kind of situation where if Scotland voted for independence as a whole then some select regions that voted yes could opt to ignore that and remain part of the rUK whilst at the same time if the result was an overall No then none of the regions that voted Yes could be allowed the opportunity to take their independence.
Self determination is just that and if there was a demonstrable movement to independence from Scotland then I wouldn't stop a vote going ahead even though I wouldn't want them to "secede". Just as I accept the legitimacy of Northern Ireland remaining as a part of the UK as long as that's the will of its electorate. Of course the slight complication here is that there's absolutely no guarantee that Shetland would actually want to return to being part of the rUK rather than becoming outright independent or even rejoining Norway.
No not those who support independence, some who support independence. People will have different views. The point is that Scotland is not a unitary state which Britain is. Shetland is a part of Scotland not in union with Scotland or England for that matter.
So you would agree that individual householders should be able to declare independence then, if you follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion?
If there was a real movement for it I would support it if that is what the people really wanted. What I'm saying here is that it's a very different thing from the situation with Scotland and England.
Me, no as I prefer the union. It is those that want to break the union that are far more likely to have that view.