Oddquine

The David Kelly of his day?

It looks as if the No campaign has convinced Kevin McKenna to vote YES. My two-year journey to a new kind of political and cultural understanding during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence has been far from straightforward. I had expected the last few steps to be the most arduous and emotionally fraught of the entire process, but they have not. Thanks to BP, Standard Life, Royal Bank of Scotland, TSB, John Lewis and the mad Gadarene dash to Scotland of the Westminster elite, the final few days of the journey which had once promised to be rocky have been a breeze. I am grateful to all of them. Together they are a microcosm of what the entire no campaign has been all about: money; raw corporate power and a naked sense of absolute entitlement. So I will be voting yes for an independent Scotland on Thursday, with a confidence and certainty that, until last week, I would never have thought possible." Rest at........... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/14/kevin-mckenna-why-i-am-voting-yes-for-scottish-independence

Media manipulation example..though I know it won't convince some as to the media bias. The picture the BBC chose to illustrate events in Glasgow’s Buchanan Street today What it really looked like....... Wonder where the Orange March photos are?

I Edited out everything but the salmond / snp references that is alot for one post A shade obsessed? A Nulabour voter for a polished turd sporting a red rosette, d'you think? Have to say, the NO lot don't appear overly bright.....from Newsnet Scotland......... .http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/in-brief/9723-david-cameron-pleads-with-newsnet-scotland-editor-to-back-no Below is the email sent on behalf of the Prime Minister: Lynda, My message to the Scottish people is simple: we want you to stay. As the United Kingdom, we have punched above our weight for centuries - and we've done so together. When the world wanted representation, we gave them democracy. When they wanted progress, we had the Scottish enlightenment and the industrial revolution. When slavery bound innocent people, we abolished it; when fascism threatened freedom, we defeated it. As individuals and as nations, we have done extraordinary things. This is the special alchemy of the UK - you mix together Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland and together we smash expectations. The UK is a special and precious country. So let no one in Scotland be in any doubt: we desperately want you to stay; we do not want this family of nations to be ripped apart. Across England, Northern Ireland and Wales, our fear over what we stand to lose is matched only by our passion for what can be achieved if we stay together. So please, if you don't have a vote in this referendum, join me in signing a letter to everyone who does, letting them know that we passionately want them to stay: http://email.conservatives.com/a/tBUEIHRB81Nm6B88VEVAAEKGatW/cons2 If we pull together, we can keep on building a better future for our children. We can make sure our destiny matches our history, because there really will be no second chances. If the UK breaks apart, it breaks apart forever. So if you have a vote, please choose a brighter future for Scotland by voting No. And if you don't have a vote, please sign this letter to the voters of Scotland, expressing our heartfelt desire to keep our proud family of nations together: http://email.conservatives.com/a/tBUEIHRB81Nm6B88VEVAAEKGatW/cons2 Thanks, David Cameron You'd have thought, if they were actually bothering with the campaign, they might have noticed Newsnet Scotland was a wee bit inclined to be pro-indy. Wonder if Rev Stu got a similar email! Also wonder what their definition of democracy is......maybe any set-up of government which leaves us in Westminster in charge of everything, from the kids' pocket money to who we are going to fight with tomorrow, and what/who we are going to use to do it.

Forgot to throw this in at the end of my RBS post And it applies to every other financial institution who has made contingency plans! Sheesh!

Then they are amply demonstrating their ignorance. We have 16 year old YES voters who know the difference between an election and a referendum.

Given the Credit Rating agencies only slight worry about the Scottish economy was the level of our Financial Sector compared to our population, the banks, particularly RBS, moving their Group/RBS brass plates to rUK would be a bit of a blessing. Wonder if it can keep the "of Scotland" in its name if it does. Their Direct Line Group is already registered in England, It had already been decided, btw, to satisfy the EU Commission over the bank bailout, to sell off/hive off the Scottish NatWest branches, to a financial services consortium, and rename them Williams & Glyn, registered in England, along with the RBS branches in England and Wales, and their personal customers and some business and corporate customers from around the UK, and the Direct banking division, around 2016. Nothing to do with the referendum. Afaik, anyway, though happy to be corrected....it is an EU requirement that a bank is registered in the country in which the bulk of its business takes place..which, for Royal Bank Group, is in England, not Scotland. It's a wee bit sneaky to make it sound as if it is all down to possible Independence. They have also said RBS intends to retain a significant level of its operations and employment in Scotland to support its customers there and the activities of the whole Bank. Be interesting to see, if the UK comes out of the EU, whether the £85,000 guarantee will still apply...as that is an EU requirement, not a UK choice. If Scotland is in the EU, they will be obliged to continue it, if rUK isn't, they might not. Just saying! It is only sensible to do contingency planning...as all the banks, and likely other sensible businesses are doing...shame Westminster doesn't think contingency planning is necessary for them! It is a real pity that it has been spun in the media as it has, because it makes it look vindictive rather than a logical preparation for eventualities. None of them are removing their branches, the jobs etc from Scotland, just deciding to hedge their bets and stick with "the regulation they know they can manipulate" in case the new Scottish regime, whatever flavour it is, doesn't let them dictate their preferred regulations to them.

There are aspects of independence that I think are fundamentally good in principle, but for me the biggest single issue is the economy and for me that paragraph sums it up very well. The economic plan which underpins the white paper and our ability to maintain our public services is based on fantasy economics. I like footballing analogies, so here goes. ICT aren't doing well enough these days, we just aren't winning any trophies. So here's what we'll do. Borrow heavily to sign up a load of top international stars and build a better stadium to accommodate the bigger crowds we're going to get. Success on the pitch will lead to Champions League football every year, and the debts will be repaid from all the prize money and the improved crowds we will get, with people coming not just from the local area but from far and wide to see us play and be part of the miracle. What could possibly go wrong?! And you have just described the UK economy, Yngwie. ICT (UK in your analogy) is doing well enough these days, but still borrowing more than they are getting in income and racking up increasing debt. And they are borrowing heavily to sign up a load of top international stars and build a better stadium to accommodate the bigger crowds we're going to get, adding to that debt. Success on the pitch will lead to Champions League football every year, and the debts will be repaid from all the prize money and the improved crowds we will get, with people coming not just from the local area but from far and wide to see us play and be part of the miracle. What could possibly go wrong?!...bar that the people from far and wide don't give a toss about keeping ICT afloat. So what could possibly go wrong is that the punters could decide to support Clach (Scotland) instead and take their presence, and their money to Grant Street..and the sponsors(Scotland's oil) could do the same....and ICT(UK) could then find it difficult to repay its borrowing and meet its wages and running costs on the reduced income, and as the stadium is owned by private (oil) companies, it cannot be used to guarantee that the borrowing is safe and cannot, therefore, if push comes to shove, be repaid by selling the stadium and leasing it back. And wee Clach, with the influx of income, decides that it is not an imperative to be at the top of the table competing with the big players, because it is more important to make the club a community effort, with no expectations other than good football,(society cohesion) and because they don't feel a need to buy importance in the footballing world to attempt to get the money which comes with that, make the decision to use their income sensibly(no Trident, no pee-heeing to the financial fraudsters, no gravy train funding for 1350 wastes of space) , to gradually improve their ground and their squad, over time, while staying well within their income, (balanced budgets) as they know they have debt from the past to repay and want to ensure they meet all their obligations.(only sensible) If they get sponsors coming in from businesses (oil licence/tax income), that would improve their income, certainly enable them, initially, to set up good insurance schemes to ensure that players injured while playing are adequately compensated for the time they are injured and the treatment they need to get back to full fitness (NHS)...and even maybe allow them to increase the squad more quickly,(job creation) increase wages,(living wage) and keep entrance fees(taxes) at a sensible level. And bringing the punters with them at every stage, by setting up the Clach Trust to give them a real say in how it all works (a written constitution), it becomes partly a fans club, shaped by both fan and club representatives, controlled by both fan and club representatives, and will be a democratic entity. Most of us who will vote YES on 18th September, are not voting for ourselves....for example, I'm fine in the UK regarding income, it really wouldn't bother me one way or another whether it was a NO or a YES vote, if my only consideration was what was best for me.......because, in my case, it won't make a heck of a lot of difference, either way. But I have children, grandchildren, a great grand-daughter and a great grand child on the way..and Westminster is going to trash all of them, whoever gets in in 2015, as the children are all in public service jobs, the grandchildren are all under 25...and they are going to be trashed in the cuts to come in order to ensure the rich, big business and the bankers aren't all in this together with the easy PAYE/Benefit marks. And I do rather think, when looking at what is happening in this America-lite society which Westminster, under all its party colours, is promoting...that I really can't believe that Thatcher has done her job so well that there are now a lot of people in Scotland who can no longer think "there, but for the grace of God go I", but believe that they will never lose their job, become sick or disabled, become homeless or be hit by any other circumstance which will make them one of the UK's "undeserving poor" and reliant, if only for a time, on benefits. And if I have offended people by the above, I am sorry, but I have honestly never come across, in my months in the YES shop in Elgin, any person who is determined to vote NO (and who come in specially to tell us so), who can give any other reason but worry about the possible effect on their personal circumstances in the short term. I accept that I don't meet all NO voters, and I do know that there are NO voters who feel British first (like my cousins), and I can accept that, even though I don't understand it.....but I do really struggle to understand why people, worried about the economy side would prefer the absolute certainty of cuts to the Scottish budget, whoever is in power in the UK, which will result in possible cuts to the NHS,(and possible privatisation) and in other devolved areas, or increased taxes only in Scotland.....to the uncertainty of having all our income to disburse as we see fit, to meet our aspirations, with full control of all the fiscal levers which allow us to promote Scottish values instead of labouring under Westminster monetarism. Anyone care to tell me how much we ordinary punters have benefited from the monetarist "trickle down" theories, given the big businesses and the rich have removed out of our grasp, mostly legally, the income/profit we have provided to them, which were (theoretically) meant to trickle down to us in tax receipts, into offshore facilities which has meant they don't trickle anywhere but into the pockets of the rich/big company shareholders/management?

That's your view, and I suspect you may well be right, but it's not what Salmond says. "Three Plan B's!", he proudly proclaimed. And one of them is sterlingisation, or didn't you notice?

You just don't want to hear it, Ywngie, it will be the pound until we decide otherwise. We already use the pound with no input to monetary policy or fiscal policy, and already back our pound with sterling.....so we will be able to do better outside a currency union than we are doing in the currency union of which we are currently, theoretically, a part. .

Yeah.the money markets are worrying not about Independence..but about the Westminster lot saying there won't be a Currency Union.

Don't be so deliberately obtuse, DD, you are better than that........that will be one of the consequences of having to either raise taxes..so leaving less money in people's pockets......or cutting services....like free prescriptions, free or the Bedroom Tax amelioration, or the Scottish Welfare Fund....thus leaving less money in people's pockets.......while having no facility to change any of the policies on welfare, defence etc...... or without the access to all our income to pay for our needs. Or do you not get the fact that actions have consequences which are more worrying for some than the ability of Westminster politicians to keep their gravy train on the rails and ponce about the world sporting their stick-on hairy chest?

That's confirmed then..no new powers...... Alistair Darling says so! Less than six hours after George Osborne's claim that the No campaign has an action plan to give Scotland more powers, the Better Together leader confirmed the reports were false telling SKY news that all new powers have already been announced. Mr Darling said that next week's No announcement will merely be a timetable for when the Scottish Parliament could expect to be given the limited powers already forthcoming. http://78.110.165.228/index.php/referendum/9708-better-together-new-powers-claim-collapses-within-hours Goodie......to more or less quote a friend "we'll have new powers to increase taxes on our own people, sending even more families into poverty, increasing the need for food banks, while still contributing billions towards the cost of Trident, House of Lords, illegal wars, etc......or cut services. Do they really think we are that stupid? "

If I'd been old enough to vote then, heck even if I'd been just a few years older than 7 or so, I'd have seen that quote for what it was: a leader of opposition who was completely opposed to even a weak Scottish assembly making some vague and non-committal statement that alternatives could be considered. That is a world away from a rather more detailed promise of extra powers from the serving prime minister, backed by all the other main parties. I wouldn't say that I "trust" any politicians as such, but on the balance of probabilities...... So if you were that cynical then at that age, what on god's good earth has made you start believing them now when you are older and wiser? That detailed promises would be what, exactly.........and just how useful are they? I haven't seen any detail..can you give a link? Anyway, it is the political parties which are making the offer, not the Government....because if it was the Government, they'd be breaking the purdah rules. We can vote NO, there could be a constitutional convention, and the Government could then put the kybosh on anything decided, as "it was nothing to do with them, guv"...or, as with Kilbrandon and Calman, do picky and choosy about what they'll let us have, and then, by the time it gets out of the readings, it won't resemble what went in at the start...and it would still leave them able to take powers away if it suited later....as happened with energy..or even, if UKIP get their oar in post 2015, remove the Scottish Parliament altogether.

Ed Balls has just said that that there will be no single cross-party manifesto on further devolution to Scotland and that the existing offer is what it is. There will be no joint offer and no further powers offered over and about that. Trust them, Yngwie? How much have they changed since Thatcher lied to us in 1979...really...when you think of the lies the Westminster politicians have been telling for the last few years? Does the following not read a lot like what is happening now?

In the next few days, we will be getting, from Westminster, according to Alistair Darling, just now, a strong vision of how the UK will deal with Scotland if we stay, so we will be better together......honest! From his interview...in which he said we were told weeks ago what was offered (which was nothing of use or ornament)..he says there will be yet another talking shop set up to discuss further changes...talking shops like Kilbrandon and Calman......all .the recommendations of which did not get into the subsequent acts placed before Parliament, and many of those which did get included were removed/amended in the process of the readings and watered down. A timetable to talk about something which then has to get through Parliament is not a guarantee of anything at all, as we have found in the past.....and nobody is talking about anything even vaguely approaching Devo-max anyway. I do hope that 1979 has taught us a lesson about how much Westminster can be trusted...but I'm seeing 1979 deja vu all over again. I do hope that Scottish heads no longer zip up the back!

Now watch the offers to do something for us so they can hold onto the oil tax revenues, the Scottish export figures and the Trident parking space come thick and fast! Wonder who will be first to tender! But I hope everyone bears in mind, offers/promises from Westminster are always as little as they can get off with, or are ignored completely when they get their way, as in 1979.........and once we vote NO...we will be perceived to have acquiesced to everything they do to us in future. After all, haven't they had two years, at least, to come up with something useful, having decided to forbid the Devo-max option in the referendum.....but true to form, they offer sops, then, as in 1979, at the last minutes, weigh in with a promise they will do something AFTER we vote NO......having proven with regular monotony in the past, that we can't trust a Westminster politician as far as we can throw them. If they are so desperate to keep us, it is because it is to their benefit, not ours...and you all know that.

Aye OK, presumably you are excluding all of Africa, Asia and South America! Regarding the things in your second last para, some of it stinks but it happens everywhere and will happen in Scotland too, unless you restrict people's freedom to move jobs which would of course be illegal. Excluding from where? African, Asian and South American countries are in the 177.......just more corrupt than the UK.unless you want to include Singapore in the Asian countries. UK is one point less corrupt than Hong Kong and Barbados, 2 points less corrupt than Japan and 3 points less corrupt than the USA and Uruguay. Botswana is 11 points more corrupt than the UK.........and the UK is 15 points more corrupt than Denmark. But in an independent Scotland, setting up a constitution etc from scratch, pretty much........we will have a chance of doing something about it.....in Westminster there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of them voting to derail the gravy train. We won't stop corruption, because human greed and self-interest is human greed and self interest........but we can make it that they don't get to hang on in the job until they,or their party, decides they have to go....as we will be able to recall them. ..and they will not have laws which apply to us and not to them.....so if they commit fraud they get taken to court, and if jailed, lose the same as someone sacked for proven gross misconduct loses..their job, their pension etc. A politician is a person in a paid job like anyone else.....and should be subject to the same type of employment contract, restrictions, misconduct penalties and all, as anyone who works for an employer.

Folk will be wondering who George Monbiot is. Is he some eminent economist? No. George Monbiot is a zoologist by training who used to be a member of pussycat George Galloway's "Respect" party and who now earns a living writing controversial articles for the Guardian. He's not exactly someone whose opinion should influence us in making the momentous decision of whether or not we want to end a 300 year old political union. But given that Oddquine has jumped on his views on the currency as supporting her position, it is worth looking at what he says on that. Oddquine quotes Monbiot saying "The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the city." Why then, is the "YES" campaign hell bent on insisting that an independent Scotland will use a currency which allegedly harms Scotland's manufacturing industries? Elsewhere in his article Monbiot identifies that there are other small countries who have their own currency, so why does the YES campaign not have the confidence and belief in the strength of their own economy to prosper with their own currency under their own control? We hear all this scaremongering nonsense about how corrupt the British Government and financial institutions are, but the truth of the matter is that the Scottish Government's desparation to use the pound post independence is because they know that whether they have any control over it or not, the strength of the British pound and the way it is managed, far from damaging manufacturing in Scotland, is the best way to support the Scottish economy. It's not my position, it was my logical conclusion from all the currency options, if a Plan B was necessary. A lot of economists think the same..but I linked to Monbiot, because of his whole article, which I notice you do not challenge, apart from the currency part. The UK is the 14th most corrupt country of 177, America being the 19th (but we are catching the USA up) and with the least corrupt being Denmark, Sweden, Norway and New Zealand, all small and closer to their population, and all with written constitutions. There was an article in the Grauniad in June last year, (and nothing much has changed since then). It finished by saying..... City directorships in opposition used to be a Tory preserve. But after New Labour embraced corporate power it became a cross-party affair. Blair is in a class of his own, of course, raking in £20m a year from banks and autocratic governments; but he is followed closely by dozens of New Labour ministers who moved out of government into lucrative corporate jobs, often for firms hustling for contracts from their former departments. It defies rationality to believe that the prospect of far better paid jobs in the private sector doesn't influence the decisions of ministers and officials – or isn't used by corporations to shape policy. Who can seriously doubt that politicians were encouraged to champion light touch regulation before the crash by the lure and lobbying of the banks, as well as by an overweening ideology? Britain is now an increasingly corrupt country at its highest levels – not in the sense of directly bribing officials, of course, and it's almost entirely legal. But our public life and democracy is now profoundly compromised by its colonisation. Corporate and financial power have merged into the state. And that is just the politicians, with the House of Lords being corruption writ large and blatant, with jobs for the political boys, and rewards for political donors. Cameron's own election advisor is a lobbyist for tobacco, alcohol, oil and gas companies. Top civil servants also move from Government activities to big businesses..... from HMRC to accountancy firms, to design tax loopholes, from the MOD to provide influence for arms manufacturers, from the DOH to top jobs in private Healthcare companies. Interesting reading... and being legal doesn't mean it isn't corruption......it just means it is "acceptable" corruption, in the view of our sovereign Parliament, if you believe there is any such thing as acceptable corruption. . http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/corporate-britain-corrupt-lobbying-revolving-door

Salmond's desperation to keep the pound is all the more interesting when you consider that years ago the very same Salmond said "the UK pound is a millstone around Scotland's neck"! Mind you, until 2 years ago he was also vehemently opposed to NATO. I know this debate isn't really about Salmond himself, but he's the chief architect.......and the foundations seem a bit too pliable to build a detached house on. Ah, but Salmond listens to the people, unlike Westminster politicians.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland Jings.........George Monbiot agrees with me about the currency...and I agree with him about other bits of his article.the last part of which I quote......... The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City. To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable. Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this? Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

That'll be why we leave the Israeli's to oppress. Lets just turn a blind eye to that one because Palestine has nothing to offer and the sons of Israel are the financial blood of the good old US of A. Britian has been involved in conflict in Afghanistan since Hannibal was a boy. Dont you think maybe the threats from the fundamentalists there may have something to do with that? Britian took near riots in the streets before becoming involved in Syria. Britian ignored many of the conflicts in central and southern Africa. We denounced the Angolan people in their fight for Independence from Portugal. Britian ignored many of the conflicts in South America. If the oil and mineral wealth of those nations was known about then as it is now I think our stand would have been a helluva lot different. Sometimes I think that Britians involvement in much of what goes on in the Islamic world has more to do with continuing the christian crusades of the middle ages and imposing our ideals and beliefs on other people. But Britain doesn't just leave the Israeli's to oppress. Britain has been very strong in it's condemnation of Israel's latest actions. Just what do you expect them to do? This dispute is incredibly difficult and whilst one can be rightly critical of Israel's attitude to the Palestinians, it should not be forgotten that the Palestinian Government denies the right for a Jewish state to exist in the first place. Despite this, Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is far less oppressive than the Taliban's oppression of its own poeple in Afghanistan or Saddam's oppression of his own people in Iraq. You say "Sometimes I think that Britians involvement in much of what goes on in the Islamic world has more to do with continuing the christian crusades of the middle ages and imposing our ideals and beliefs on other people." Really? if that was the case, would the Government provide the freedoms and support given to the Muslim communities in Britain? The picture I get is one of trying to encourage ethnic and racial respect and integration. They condemn Israel.......while selling them arms to continue oppressing.......and you think that level of hypocrisy is acceptable? What I'd expect them to do is cancel all arms sales, embargo all imports from Israel which are produced in the Occupied Territories, recall our foreign ambassadors and support the formation of a Palestinian state within the 1948 borders in the UN. That would be the moral way to behave in order to remedy a situation they had deliberately set up and have condoned for decades..but Westminster doesn't do moral, I'm afraid.

This response is a bit tongue in cheek, to be fair....but we have been expecting something on the terror/terrorist lines to be produced at some stage latish in the referendum campaign.....and we have, it appears, not been disappointed! Never thought that if it hadn't been for the actions of the UK Government post WWI/WWII, we wouldn't have terrorists at all? I can't say in my lifetime I have ever noticed any terrorism in the UK which was not a result of UK actions......and which, until the aftermath of 9/11, consisted only of Irish terrorism condoned by our bosom buddies, the USA, and funded mostly by US Citizens. The terrorism we have is us reaping what we have sown to enrich our tax-paying (or at least bribe paying/post Westminster job-providing) companies. If we don't irritate the hell out of other countries, why would anyone want to terrorise us? Given the numbers of people who live their lives on FB and twitter.all we need to do is rely on the easily offended to report any and every unacceptable remark!

Inclined to think that Salmond beat the keeper to win this time (though I didn't think he had lost last time.....and nor did the after the event polls of undecideds)......with an able assist from the wee wifie in the audience. The scaremongering all came from Darling, apu. There's a lovely youtube of Darling (looking a bit like Rev Stu, beard and all) coming away with all the same guff in the run up to the 1979 referendum as well..so he is at least consistent, if not intelligent. To be fair, though, I gave up half way through because I found myself picking up ashtrays to chuck at the screen every time Darling blustered and refused (or couldn't) attempt to answer questions...so turned it to watch the extremely safe, oft-repeated NCIS/CSI stuff on 5 USA before I didn't have a telly left to watch anything on (and anyway, as I'm not paying a licence fee in protest at BBC bias, kinda feel a bit guilty watching BBC.) Maybe Darling upped his game later and said something positive to recommend the Union?

However, pensioners in Canada, Australia and NZ, afaik, are not even getting the annual upgrades those of us who have not paid any NI at all, or have only paid a few years of NI get, as a right in the UK, any EU country or in the USA. Those in Commonwealth countries are entitled to that as well, imo.........or nobody should be getting upgrades if collecting a pension when living outside UK at all.