British Pensioners and the Scottish Referendum.
HM Government’s view of British Pensioners in mid-winter Aberdeen?
The argument is that the economic, social and political policies which can and would be pursued by an independent Scotland would leave its inhabitants in a better place than remaining part of the United Kingdom.
That may or may not be true for those residents who have ‘Scotland’ stamped on their birth certificate as being ‘place of birth’. I shall leave that particular argument to the Scots.
However, whether an independent Scotland would leave all its inhabitants in a ‘better place’ is debatable. There is a forgotten proportion of the population that have probably never even considered how their status will change.
Dorling’s Social Atlas of Britain tells me that: ‘the largest group of immigrants in Britain are the English in Scotland and Wales’. In 2010 alone, 47,000 people came to Scotland from the rest of the UK; in total 8.1% of the population of Scotland in the 2001 census were born in England. These are not people accustomed to being viewed as ‘immigrants’ or ‘white settlers’ as they are sometimes referred to. They may be in for a shock, one that they would be well advised to avoid by looking for answers from the silvery tongued politicians – before deciding how to vote.
They are, of course, provisionally entitled to vote in the forthcoming referendum. That is based on residency. They live in Scotland, and the question of independence is largely one of ‘self determination’ and ‘pride’ in their adopted country.
However, and it is a big ‘however’, they will have paid into the giant Ponzi scheme known officially as the British Age Pension for many years. Now I am assuming that part of the independence calculations will be taking over a chunk of the Age Pension ‘Fund’ as it is laughably called, though it is, in truth, no Fund. Let us accept that Scotland will be handed a sum of money to cover those pensions liable to be paid out to persons who have been paying into the ‘British Age Pension’.
Will Scotland grant citizenship to everybody living in that country on the date of independence? Unlikely. Will they grant citizenship to everybody entitled to vote in the referendum? Equally unlikely.
Far more likely is that those not blessed with the words ‘Scotland’ on their birth certificate will be in the same position as those British Citizens who chose to live in Spain or Australia, Canada or France. They will remain British citizens, with British, not Scottish passports, who happen to be resident in another country.
They will have become part of that unloved army of expatriates, Britons who have ‘forsaken’ their Mother country…actually, they are not that unloved at all by the British Government. They save her a small fortune. She pays a nominal sum each year to the ‘foreign government’ in whose borders they reside – no matter how expensive their medical needs become, and depending on which country they are living in, HM saves another small fortune in pension increases.
Should Scotland not be accepted as a member of the European Community – then all those ‘British pensions’ paid directly to ‘British Pensioners’ as opposed to Scottish citizens, will be frozen at the date of independence. No more pension increases. Ever. Do you imagine that the Scottish Government is going to pay out to increase the pension of ‘foreign nationals’ just because they happen to be living in Scotland? Think on.
Even if Scotland is accepted as an independent nation within the European Community – then HM government has a few nasty shocks up her sleeve to penalise those Britons who now ‘live overseas’. Forced to pay out minimum pension increases by European Union coordinating Regulations, which are in place to protect a citizen’s right of free movement within the EU, now enshrined in Article 21 of the consolidated Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union does not mean that they have to include things like the Winter Fuel Payment (WFP).
Those shivering in the frozen waste north of Aberdeen may be dismayed to discover that if they didn’t claim the WFP whilst living within the British Isles – either because they relocated long before such a payment became applicable, or because they have only reached the required age since independence – that the British government fondly imagines ‘overseas’ or even ‘over Hadrian’s Wall’ to be synonymous with the Malaga Golf club, and that therefore they have no need of additional heating in the winter since they are ‘living in sunnier climes’.
No good appealing to the Scottish government – you’re an ‘immigrant’, a foreign national, the responsibility of your own government.
No good appealing to the British government – you’re an ‘emigrant’, a deserter of the Albion shores, you are your own responsibility.
Don’t imagine it will change either – there’s an estimated one million pensioners living ‘overseas’ and any change in the current rules would have to apply to them too, not a change that HM government will undertake without being legally forced to.
So here’s a question for you to pose to the next silver tongued SNP politician who arrives on your doorstep.
‘You might want my vote now for the Referendum, but what will be my pension status after nationalisation?’
-
February 27, 2012 at 21:47 -
I will remain on my high horse for as long as it takes. Resorting to name calling tells me you are a very arrogant snide character. I am no more a moron than you are Scottish.
“which includes all EU citizens resident in Scotland and on the voting register. ”
You can be a Martian as long as you are on the register and qualification to be on that register rests with the UK parliament at the moment.
Under the terms of the 2010 Draft Bill, the following people would be entitled to vote in the referendum:
*British citizens resident in Scotland;
*Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland;
*Citizens of other EU countries resident in Scotland;
* Members of the House of Lords resident in Scotland;
* Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the armed forces or with Her Majesty’s Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.The SNP has proposed to reduce the voting age for the referendum from 18 to 16. In January 2012, Labour MSP Elaine Murray led a debate arguing that the franchise should be extended to Scots living outside Scotland. This was opposed by the Scottish Government, who argued that it would greatly increase the complexity of the referendum and cited evidence from the United Nations Human Rights Committee that a referendum not based on residence would be queried by other nations. In the House of Lords, Baroness Symons argued that the rest of the United Kingdom should be allowed to vote on Scottish independence, on the grounds that it would affect the whole country. This argument was rejected by the UK Government, with Lord Wallace pointing to the fact that only 2 of 11 referendums since 1973 had been across all of the United Kingdom.
I’m sure amongst that lot will be many Greeks, who will vote for Scottish Independence, provided they qualify….
-
February 27, 2012 at 14:58 -
“Will Scotland grant citizenship to everybody living in that country on the date of independence? Unlikely. Will they grant citizenship to everybody entitled to vote in the referendum? Equally unlikely.”——————————-The answer to both questions is yes —–the pension problem does not arise .
Anna with the distaste you show for Scots ,why are you so keen to maintain the union
-
February 27, 2012 at 16:37 -
Dear Jellied Eel,
Are you sure about this ‘distaste for the Scottish’?
I AM Scottish – and I certainly don’t have a distaste for myself!So you are saying that everybody resident in Scotland who is thus entitled to vote in the referendum will be granted Scottish citizenship after a successful partition of the Union – Blimey, you are going to have one heck of a rush of Greeks willing to rent a house for a year or so in return for a Scottish passport – are you sure you can afford that?
-
February 27, 2012 at 20:31 -
Eligibility to vote in the UK is not something that Greeks bearing gifts would find suitable as it would not allow them to do so unless they are citizens, it is all very clearly laid out in the electoral commission web site.
Why this disdain for Greeks and Scots, do you have issues with our Greater Scythian heritage. I know some Greeks in Scotland and they are jolly fine people. Very much like the Scots who if we believe our history, are one and the same.
Are you really asking me to believe that it is beyond the wit and the will of a new Independent Scotland to solve these problems?
There have been 140 new independent countries created since the end of the last WW, how on earth do they manage?
I am confident that the good citizens of Scandinavia have exactly the same issues and have solved them.
If this debate were to go on for another 1,000 years there would be a new question arising every day from unionists who pretend that these questions are insurmountable and mean we are all doomed to eternal damnation after independence.
The very same people who say that the SNP are not dealing with these questions. Then screech why wait until 2014? You can’t have it all ways.
As a native Highlander born on the Murray coast who has lived in the Pyrenees I agree on the waste land aspect of your post North of Aberdeen.
A croft my ancestors worked and lived on for generations is now but a few lumps on the ground, another one that my father bred goats and sheep on and was self sufficient, is also heading the same way. Vast tracts of empty land stolen from my ancestors and handed to landed gentry from the south, still in their possession today, a grouse moor.
Yet similar areas in the Pyrenees where families have lived and worked the land for hundreds of years thrive and prosper, relative to rural Highland Scotland. That was the price we paid for membership of this corrupt union, force fed to us by London. “The will of God,” as the self interested clergy told us.
In 1707 Scotland had 20% of the UK population now we struggle to maintain 9%, not a very good endorsement of the union as far as rural Scotland is concerned. We instantly became a much more indebted nation in 1707, having taken on a share of skint Englands debts. The very first thing that was done was to empty and close the Scottish Treasury, the contents rushed to London to repay the queen who lent money to the Unionist cause. The Scottish merchant fleet became re flagged, and all Scottish trade with the Balkans and Scandinavia was stopped immediately. And then began 304 years of propaganda and lies to keep us fast. These days are over. It is now time to let the people talk, for the first time in 304 years. And Westminster hate that with a passion bordering on racist bigotry.
-
February 27, 2012 at 21:04
-
-
February 28, 2012 at 01:22 -
Yes everybody resident in Scotland and entitled to vote will get Scottish citzenship .
Your point about Greeks is just silly .As for Distaste for Scots I think i,m justfied when in past posts ,you`ve talked about them and those dependency Scots .
You must read too much daily Mail if that is your view .Anna your out of touch with Scotland and attitudes to independence -
February 28, 2012 at 01:36 -
So here’s a question for you to pose to the next silver tongued SNP politician who arrives on your doorstep.
‘You might want my vote now for the Referendum, but what will be my pension status after nationalisation?’————————-much better than under westminster ,the latest OECD report states Scotland would have the sixth highest GDP in the world
-
February 28, 2012 at 01:39 -
– “are you sure you can afford that?”
What an snide remark ,like all unionists your argument boils down to “Scotland too wee —too poor —too stupid “—very Daily mail
-
-
-
February 21, 2012 at 12:46 -
I was born in N.Ireland, of Scottish parents. For almost all of my life I’ve lived in England. I have family who live in Scotland, N.Ireland and England.
I am proud of a distinguished Scottish heritage. N.Ireland will always have a special place in my heart. I love living in England.
I identify myself as citizen of the UK.
The British Isles had no population until the end of the last ice ace. British people are descendants of the Romans, the French, the Vikings , the full list is to long to write here.
For me the big issue in the UK is the disproportionate economic focus in the south east of England. Perhaps a better idea would be to move the capital of the UK to a more central position, Manchester perhaps.
-
February 22, 2012 at 21:50 -
Yeah, because that’s going so well for the BBC isn’t it!
-
-
February 21, 2012 at 11:53 -
The great advantage of an independent Scotland is that it will give many English people somewhere to flee to, much as Brittany and Wales were in the Dark Ages.
-
February 20, 2012 at 19:45 -
If (and it is an if) the Scots electorate declines independence, should the SNP pay the entire costs of the exercise?
Why should the Welsh, Northern Irish or English pay 1p towards the £billions racked up in investigating the “fair” apportionment of assets & liabilities?
-
February 20, 2012 at 20:24 -
They are not paying anything. The Scottish Government get a block grant of X calculated on a per person basis using the discreedit Barnett Formula. In 5 of the last years this X has been a few million less than the amount paid to the UK Treasury. Scotland has been subsidising the UK as during this time while we have been in surplus in the north the UK Government has been borrowing upto £15 Billion per month to meet the cost of the PSBR.
It is from this block grant of X that the referedbum will be financed. If we can have a referendum on AV and other such nonsense we can surely have a referendum of self determination.
Note: The figures attributed to being spent by Scotland by HM treasury include billions “Spent on behalf of Scotland”, much of which is spent in the south east. This is the same for all the regions of the UK.
The figures are available in the GERS report & HM treasury websites for all to see. The accounting practises on attributing spending at HM Treasury would make a Russia Mafia boss blush.
-
February 20, 2012 at 20:37 -
As this is a decision about whether or not to ammend the Union, should not all the people of the UK get a say in it?
-
February 20, 2012 at 21:23 -
And the repercussions if the Scots vote to remain, but the English, Irish & Welsh vote them out, would be……………
-
February 20, 2012 at 21:48 -
……..interesting.
-
-
-
-
-
February 20, 2012 at 15:36 -
We’ve got two and a half years to discuss the referendum.
In the meantime the important point is your caption:
“HM Government’s view of British Pensioners in mid-winter Aberdeen?”
I know Aberdeen. That photo wasn’t taken after early November. By “mid-winter” one or two would be wearing t-shirts…
-
February 28, 2012 at 01:31 -
Today in mid febuary I walk on the beach in Aberdeen 17degrees and a few in t-shirts
-
-
February 20, 2012 at 14:34 -
Firstly my position. I whole heartedly believe that an Independent Government in Scotland could not fuck it up worse than successive Westminster Governments have already done.
Could Scotland pay it’s own way? Almost, based on past piss poor management and neglect minus investments in infrastructure and industry.
According to UK Gov figures Scotland is second to London/South East in financial stability. London is 150% of UK average Scotland is 98%. We have a fiscal surplus in the last 6 years when the UK Government has borrowed hundreds of billions of pounds on bond markets in the couple of years alone.
Our small population allows per capita earnings to be as Paul Brown mentioned in the top 10 in the world compared to the UKs ranking of top 30. It makes it seem as if we are subsidised when you make comparisons of Government spending on a per head basis (Barnett) but when you do the accounts you realise Scotland contributes millions more to UK treasury than receives back. When it is in deficit that is funded by Government borrowing not subsidy from English tax payer. Easily mixed up by non accountants and daily mail readers.
We are obsessed £ and pence, honestly the average SNP supporter has spend decades researching and studying the economic arguments, treasury documents, GERS reports, etc The average Unionist just woke up to the concept in May 2011 as repeats what they have always believed.
We also have received a particularly rough deal in the energy sector. eg. hundreds of millions paid to Crown Estates for development of Scottish off shore renewable licences, every energy company in Scotland pays a heavy surcharge to connect to National Grid to send electricity south while English based electricity generation receives a subsidy, thousands of billions in oil revenues sent to Westminster with a pittence returned. We are the only country in the world that struck oil and became poorer. The IMF were at Downstreet about to bail out the UK when we struck oil wealth in the North Sea.
The economic arguments aside we have social problems that just connot be solved by remote government, by people who have no idea about the trouble and even less idea about the solutions. As long as we remain part of Westminister we will have Labour donkeys twiddling their thumbs while keeping their client state of improverished constituents voting Labour as all the worlds problems are caused by the evil Tories.
We cannot vote in our Government based on ideas nor vote them out based on incompetence or inaction. We can simply await the result based on the choices made by our larger and more influencial neighbours in England. Those of a weaker mind resign themselves to “We’re Doomed!” and those who want to change it are labeled “Anglophobic”
This democratic deficit means nothing gets done, nothing changes and no solutions are tabled.
I want a better Scotland, Better Government that lives in the world they manage not hides hundreds of miles away in luxury accomodation in London dealing with Global issues and the bigger picture. I want smaller government dealing with the priorities of the people they are elected to represent not doing deals to ensure the parties election or keeping quite for a seat in the Lords.
It is not about leaving UK but simply improving our country. Remote management often fails in business when on site management works well and efficiently.
I like my neighbour, in fact he is my cousi. When we were growing up we used to fight alot but as we matured we became friends. We used to live together in a shared house and it was great but our relationship as neighbours will always be better than as joint tennants. We would be at each others throats if I was expected to hand over my salary every month and wait to see what he allocated back to me.
-
February 20, 2012 at 22:22 -
Wonderfully put.
I did not seek to hijack this article with an argument about the pros and cons of independence. I merely wished to point out that the equation which says what is good for the English goose must be good for the Scots gander is one of those little niggles which gets in the way of an honest debate.
Actually there is no proposal for the union of crowns to be dissolved. Elizabeth The First of Scots, will continue as queen, though I should have thought there would be ramifications if Charles was crowned using that soubriquet, so I expect him to be a George in due course.
So the United Kingdom would still be a united kingdom, but of 2 ( or more ) nations, hence I figured that it was the GB bit that would be going.
-
-
February 20, 2012 at 13:55 -
There is an intriquing historical issue here. Given the coming and going over the Atlantic Isles over the last 300 years quite a high proportion of those now “English” will have some Scottish Ancestry. Indeed I am proud to be Nesbitt. So these “English” pensioners may have something in their DNA that draws them north. Whether it is sense or insanity is an interesting question. So how about citizenship determined by DNA?
-
February 20, 2012 at 13:32 -
Silly Anna! Details? Thought through policies on independence instead of rhetoric? No, no no no. Alex doesn’t do details, as witness to his responses to any of the more obvious problems awaiting him in the astonishingly unlikely event he wins a referendum. THIS level of detail – Pensions? – would actually cause his head to explode.
-
February 20, 2012 at 14:05 -
Another specious argument.
David Cameron was up in Scotland recently giving a speech in which he proclaimed that a no vote in the referendum would mean his government would think about looking at maybe putting further devolution in place.
Has he come forward with any details? No.
Another empty defence of the union as it stand, that by ignoring information already in the public domain means it doesn’t exist.
http://www.scotlandforward.net/
and for balance, as in something not of or from the SNP
http://scottishdemocraticalliance.org/
And since we’re blogging, this:
That last one, a must-read. It blows so much of the flim flam from Westminster (not the English people who are currently in the same boat as we up here are) out of the water, so to speak.
-
February 20, 2012 at 16:42 -
So Scotland demands a per-capita share of assets but 0% of debts because they were incurred by the UK.
-
February 20, 2012 at 20:30 -
Every statement from the SNP state we would be expected to take a per capita share of National debt.
While we are at it some in the more economically literate wing of the nationalist cause are willing to split the oil on that basis as well as the assets of the UK.
We definately should get a couple of carribean islands, 8.4% of all UK overseas assets a few nukes to protect our oil and Pippa Middleton.
-
February 20, 2012 at 22:03 -
Except the proper share of the public bailout of RBS and BoS.
By the way, how much natural gas has Scotland received from the English part of the North Sea since 1965.
Sorry Pippa Middleton is non-negotiable: we’ll let you keep 100% of Nicola Sturgeon and Wendy Alexander in return.
-
-
-
-
-
February 20, 2012 at 12:43 -
Who pays the pensions and the level of debt is a bit moot since we’re all already living in what is effectively the UK’s massive overdraft facility.
The pension pot isn’t something tangible like an amount of money Westminster would need to ‘pay’ to Scotland for its share of pensions, I don’t even think it’ll work out like that.
I imagine existing recipients (those paying into and being paid from it) of the state pension wouldn’t change but a date would be set for a replacement Scottish state pension to take over. I suppose anyone in Scotland wishing to swap over into the New Scottish State Pension could do so (a similar thing has just happened with NHS Pensions in Scotland were we had the option to stick with the old one or swap to a new one.)
If the SNP get their way, a Scottish State Pension would be backed up by a healthy oil fund (I’ll bide my time on that, things can change.)
In terms of Scotland’s share of the debt, in terms of GDP it would be comparable to UK debt but here’s the kicker. The UK’s GDP is ranked 6th (I think Italy may have over taken us putting us 7th though) by size in the world. By GDP per capita though, the UK sits 22nd in the world. Scotland’s GDP per capita would have us ranked 7th (according to GERS figures.)
In terms of liabilities, arguably, we’d be better placed with independence, the Scottish economy is being diluted by the rest of the UK’s.
But the usual caveat applies: things change all the time.
-
February 20, 2012 at 12:25 -
Each year at budget time the UK Government legislates to discriminate against many of those of us who had the courage to migrate to help spread the good word around the world about he supposedly fair and moral British way of life, only find we are ourselves now discriminated against by the Britain’s legalized discrimination, which I would believe to be contrary to the normal social conventions and core values of the British way of life. Should Scotland decide to go its own way and not be accepted into the EU, then you Scots, including my own good wife, raised in Forfar Angus having been born in Glasgow, will find too you will be treated as a second class citizens. My wife will be too should she decide to “come home”. This is as Westminster’s Parliament treats us in Australia; i.e with disdain.
-
February 20, 2012 at 12:03 -
47,000 English live in Scotland??
Any idea how many Scots live in England? Guess they’ll want to stay too if/when Salmond and his cronies start to screw things up.
-
February 20, 2012 at 12:09 -
SA,
There are around 480,000 English people living in Scotland, and around 760,000 Scots living in England.
These figures are from the government and therefore untrustworthy.
CR.
-
February 20, 2012 at 12:47 -
This is a specious arguement.
The last two (or three) UK governments have already and are continuing to screw things up.
You’re basically using as an argument something that might happen, against something that already is.
Illogical.
-
February 20, 2012 at 13:12 -
I see your point!
-
-
-
February 20, 2012 at 10:41 -
Scotland’s share of the pension pot will be somewhat dwarfed by their share of the debt they will be bequeathed………..
-
February 20, 2012 at 11:33 -
If, as pagar says, Scotland inherit a large amount of debt on parturition, does that mean her being forced ‘out of the Pound’, as Greece is about to be forced ‘out of the Euro’ ?
This whole process is beset by imponderables – for Scots and Englishmen alike.
ΠΞ
-
-
February 20, 2012 at 10:20 -
The ‘details’ are very complex indeed; the SNP will sort them out once they have one the vote, they say. However the devil is in the details.
“How will you deal with the debt”? Apparently, like the old Irish joke, “we wouldn’t have started from here”. The whole plan is probably predicated on the rest of the UK paying reparations for 200 years of abuse as well.
The idea that Scotland could become a part of Scandinavia is ridiculous, as if the attractions of some sort of socialist heaven would overcome the barriers of language and culture and stronger than the ties of blood.
So much of the SNP rhetoric is just sour grapes. So they don’t like Westminster politics? Well Caithness and Carstairs probably don’t like Edinburgh politics either, just as Carlisle, Cardiff and Cambridge don’t like Westminster politics. Where do you stop? The joke is that the independency camp want to see increased ‘engagement’ in ‘community politics’, i.e. the EU. Sure! France and Germany are bound to dance to Scotland’s tune!
Little fish, too small to play at Westminster just want a pool for themselves and damn the consequences for the rest of us.
-
February 20, 2012 at 09:59 -
“We are not a vassal state.”
We are not a vassal state. Yet.
Five minutes after “independence”, we will be. Salmond (and his party) are in thrall to the EU and will hurt people in their rush to get to the phone in order to call their new masters to beg entry to the Stupid Club.
What of the 760,000 Scots living in Engerland? Do they all become foreigners the morning after? If I am to become a foreigner here I hope the courtesy is extended to them.
And after chipping in for my pension for the required 32 years (I got a letter from DWP last year to confirm I had done so) do I now have to travel south of the border every Thursday to collect it in English pounds?
Fabulous.
CR.
-
February 20, 2012 at 08:55 -
You were doing well to raise an issue there and had to spoil it with the bit about the EU. As it is Great Britain that would cease to exist after Scottish independence, will the other members be happy for England to keep “its” membership? Its one of those things which drives this “dispute”. That equation of England being Britain. Sure its petty, but we notice it.
A lot of those English migrants to Scotland are retired people. A lot of Scots have to leave to find work. The taxes of Scots in England could arguably thus be being sent home not just to fund their own parents health care, but also the care of elderly English people who have moved up here. The whole affair is very complex. Who owes what, who pays for what, who contributes most, who does the dishes? Sounds like a couple who have lived together for quite a few years, and now the early loving phase is past may be due for a divorce. A pre nup may have been a good idea, but noone expected it to end this way.
Scotland and England in theory entered an equal union, albeit a bit of a forced marriage. England is neither superior nor inferior to Scotland. We are not a vassal state.
-
February 20, 2012 at 11:00 -
“Great Britain would cease to exist after Scottish independence”
No it wouldn’t. ‘Great Britain’ is a geographical reference, and refers to the larger of the British Isles. There would be no physical separation of England and Scotland, only a political one.
The United Kingdom would also continue, just as the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland, Wales and England.
-
February 20, 2012 at 11:53 -
The UK would not continue if Scotland left. It was formed by the treaty of Union 1707 which created a new ‘country’, the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Ireland was separate. The UK was GB and Ireland. If one signatory secedes from the Treaty of Union, there is no UK. Wales was incorporated into England by Henry VIII and from that time sent MPs to the English (not British) Parliament at Westminster. Ireland did not join the Union until 1801 after the Act of Union 1800. No doubt there would be pressure for ‘the rest of the UK’ to retain the name ‘UK’ in order to claim successor state status. Strictly speaking it would the UK of England and N Ireland. Yes, Wales could be included and it might even get its flag within an amended Union Flag in which it has never previously appeared. Without Scotland, it has been suggested that England & Wales might be called Lesser Britain but perhaps that would not catch on. The UK of N Ireland, Wales & England is however most unlikely. Even the UK of England, Wales & N Ireland might cause doubts. Unionists prefer not to use the word England. The most likely title is perhaps the UK of Britain & N Ireland.
-
February 20, 2012 at 12:17 -
The Common Kingdom of England, Wales & Northern Ireland
-
February 20, 2012 at 15:12 -
Tartanrock – you wish. It won’
-
-
-
Comments are closed.
{ 45 comments }