It would simplify state pension administration if the the UK govt continued to pay UK state pensions to Scottish pensioners. But since Scotgov would be receving the NICs from which UK state pensions are paid, it would have to compensate the UK govt.
In other words, a negotiated settlement in which UK govt would administer the pensions but Scotgov would pay for them. This is actually what the UK govt proposed in 2014 and what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury clearly meant in his comment.
In giving the impression that the UK govt would bear the full cost of the pensions with no contribution from Scotgov, Blackford is being profoundly dishonest.
Blackford knows perfectly well that the UK state pension operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, meaning that NICs received in the current year pay pensions and benefits in the current year. He is wilfully ignoring this to further his political agenda.
Just as he previously misrepresented the funding of the state pension to buy the votes of #WASPI women, he's now misrepresenting it to buy the votes of Scottish pensioners in an independence referendum. He should be called out for his dishonesty.
Blackford seems to think that because UK pensions would be "overseas pensions" for Scottish pensioners, Scotgov wouldn't have to pay for them. But in 2014, the UK govt explicitly said that Scotgov post-indy would have to contribute to overseas UK pensions. parliament.uk/business/publi…
Blackford's entire argument falls apart once you look at what the UK govt actually said about state pensions post independence. Don't be fooled by his blather.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good piece, but misses the subtlety of Blackford's argument. Blackford is arguing that the UK govt would be obliged to continue to pay UK pensions to Scots in Scotland after independence as it does for other "overseas pensioners".
If the ScotGov refused to contribute to these pensions, the UK govt would no doubt freeze them as it does overseas pensions in other countries where there is no reciprocal agreement. Over time, they would become smaller and smaller in real terms.
So Blackford's solution is for the ScotGov to top them up. Sturgeon even said this in the Scottish Parliament. Some people seem to think the ScotGov would pay the UK Govt to pay higher pensions to Scots, but this would be politically a non-starter for the UK Govt.
really good news from the USA. Strong "WWII ended the Great Depression" vibes about it though. Turning on the fiscal taps to deal with a crisis also fixed the previous long-running stagnation.
And at the risk of sounding like a Friedmanite, I must say that turning on the monetary taps does not have the same effect. Fiscal policy was too tight for over a decade, and extremely loose monetary policy did not offset it.
What we actually needed in the decade after the financial crisis was looser fiscal policy and tighter monetary policy. To be fair, we did eventually get that a bit, under Trump. But mostly it was tight fiscal and loose monetary policy.
Those saying Scottish state pensions after independence would be paid by DWP as UK overseas pensions are being extremely foolish. They should be holding out for Scottish state pensions to be treated as a special case. Let me explain why. 1/
The UK does not uprate overseas pensions in countries where there is no reciprocal agreement. The triple lock does not apply to them. Many have not been increased for years. These are known as "frozen pensions". 2/
A "reciprocal agreement" means that just as the UK pays the state pensions of British citizens living in another country, so that country pays the state pensions of its own citizens living in the UK. 3/
I genuinely don't understand how anyone can claim "gender critical" is remotely feminist when its proponents are throwing tantrums about an image of a person with short hair who appears to be pregnant.
This is far from the only example of gender critical people reinforcing gender norms. A prominent "gender critical" person recently posted a video on her YouTube channel which said it was "easy" to distinguish men from women and pointed to length of hair and style of dress.
SEC has denied Cboe BZX Exchange's request to approve its Bitcoin ETF proposal, saying it has not been able to prove that it would not be used for fraudulent purposes.
There appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion. BZX claims that Bitcoin's market cannot be manipulated. The SEC thinks it can.
And not only that Bitcoin's market can be manipulated, but that there is significant evidence of actual manipulation and fraud.
The problem is that homeowners don't want houses to be cheap, bcs their houses are a significant part of their net worth and many have mortgages secured on their house value. They are 60% of the population and they vote. So there won't be cheap housing.
Relaxing planning laws would make no difference to house prices, because government and the Bank of England would intervene to prevent them falling, or to pump them up again if they did fall. I have tried repeatedly to explain this but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
I've also explained repeatedly how banks' appetite for lending, and the peculiar nature of mortgages, means that falling house prices reduces, rather than increases, demand for houses and hence also reduces supply as builders and sellers withdraw from the market.