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".
https://twitter.com/CapX/status/1489522699114356742
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.
So what they would actually have to do is pay Scots a second pension which would over time become bigger as the frozen UK pension lost value in real terms.
It's a clever idea which would achieve two political objectives:
1) reducing Scotland's fiscal deficit after independence
2) making Westminster look mean and Scot Gov look generous.
1) reducing Scotland's fiscal deficit after independence
2) making Westminster look mean and Scot Gov look generous.
The losers from this horrid scheme would be English, Welsh and Northern Irish workers who would have to pay the frozen pensions, probably through higher NICs. In effect, they would be subsidising the Scottish government.
The dishonesty at the heart of this scheme needs to be exposed, and Blackford and Sturgeon called out for their duplicity. I don't think CapX's piece quite achieves this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
