The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Oddquine]

Another scare story from Better Together bites the dust.   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27309215

I've been saying all along, to the punters panicking about getting their pensions post-independence, that all I know is that I have paid all my taxes and NI into the UK pot...and, now I am retired...the UK pot has the responsibility to meet their obligations to me re State Pension, (just as my past employer does re my small work pension) and just as they do for all ex-pats everywhere else in the world, who have paid their NI in the UK. The fact that I will be living in an iScotland and not an iFrance or an iUSA,makes no difference to that obligation..and the obligation applies not only to State Pensions but to public service pensions as well.

There has been a lot of scaremongering about pensions from Better Together in the media for ages, whenever the politicians get fed up of doing "you can't use the pound" and "you can't afford the welfare state" and "The EU doesn't want you" and "NATO doesn't want you"and "you can't defend yourself" and they are continuing the pension theme in their current "positive" campaign, as illustrated by the "PUT OUR PENSIONS AT RISK?  NO THANKS" billboard declaration.  In Facebook, there have been a number of posts by people who have actually gone to the bother of writing to DWP to ask about the pension position post a YES vote, and had the reply that, after Independence, we would continue to get the State Pension as we do now...which is from Westminster.though that has not been reported in the media, perhaps because the media don't ask questions to which the answers won't fit their agenda, which is pro-Union. Even last month, we had Alistair Darling saying in print  “On the subject of pensions, what happens with separation? Nobody knows – certainly not the Scottish Government.”

Now, you'd have thought that, given the uncertainty being touted over pensions post Independence, that the MSM would have been all over the attendance of the Pensions Minister in the Scottish Affairs Committee in Westminster, on 6th May saying on record that anybody who had paid UK National Insurance would be entitled to their State Pension, regardless of the referendum result. But no...not a bit of it...just a wee bit on page 2 in the print edition of the Herald...and in the P&J...and an online bit in the Scotsman (behind a paywall, of course)....but nowhere else.......bar in the BBC news online on the afternoon of the 7th May

Sure, how it would work is subject to negotiations post the referendum, along with everything else. Imo, given the level of UK National Debt, even after Scotland takes a share, a £5 trillion UK pension black hole, and the possibility that pensions in an iScotland may change re amounts, retirement ages etc, compared to what will happen in rUK, it would be pretty complicated ensuring pensioners were all treated the same in iScotland if rUK pays what they want to pay and iScotland have to make adjustments to that. Seems to me that it would be pretty unfair if people like me, who are already retired, will be stuck with the Westminster version of pension for the rest of my life, if iScotland improves it for pensioners who retire post independence.

Seems to me that the best way to do it would be to work out how much of the £5 trillion black hole would be due to be paid over the piece, to Scottish pensioners and future pensioners who have paid into the UK system.and knock that amount off the Scottish share of the debt, making the Scottish Government responsible for paying the unfunded pensions for current UK pensioners and NI payers living in Scotland. That should give us a decent nest egg to start with rather than debt, most likely. If so, we could always shove it in a piggy bank to gain interest to help meet the ongoing costs....or would that be too sensible?

So with that that out of the way. That just leaves, from over the campaign so far....
The threat of border guards; Not being able to watch Coronation Street; Higher mobile phone costs; A Scotland isolated from the world; A health service that would not be able to look after the sick; Kicked out of the European Union; But forced to join the Euro; Not accepted in NATO; Having to return the Edinburgh Zoo pandas to China; unable to defend ourselves; Part of Scotland annexed by rUK to house their nuclear missiles; Scottish airports bombed by rUK; Family and friends living in rUK would become foreigners; Could not have bailed out our banks; Won't have the £85000 savings guarantee if banks do go belly up; It'll cost more to post letters; We can't afford broadband connections to rural areas; Can't use the pound, no way, no how; Have to renegotiate 14000 Treaties; No triple A credit rating outside UK; Overly reliant on oil income; Independence, even the prospect of it, will damage inward investment to Scotland; rUK won't buy your energy; No dual citizenship;Can't afford to replicate 200 public bodies; No intelligence sharing; Lose thousands of defence jobs.

 

Those are only the ones I could think of right now......and you know the bit that worries me more than anything......all of the above are from the mouths or press releases of our UK politicians....which does make one wonder at the level of their intelligence...but then those same intelligences are responsible for the economic state of the UK..so maybe there is no need to wonder....they have the collective intelligence of a par-boiled amoeba.

 

Editing to add something not connected with the above, bar it does show the calibre, or lack of it, of Unionist politicians in whichever Parliament they sit...and is why we must, in a Written Scottish Constitution, have some mechanism to allow we voters to recall our elected representatives if we deem it necessary. And it also has had a lot more Press coverage in Scotland than the pension information, unsurprisingly!   Imo, it is one thing to hold politicians and businessmen with dubious practices to account for those practices, another again to smear elected politicians and celebrities using  gratuitous insults, as to an extent being in the public eye invites opinions, good or bad, but altogether unacceptable for any politician to smear private citizens all over the media solely in order to get at other politicians or political parties. http://wingsoverscotland.com/what-an-********-looks-like/

 

And edited again to add this. It's a video of a doctor talking about the NHS in England, the NHS in Scotland, and the prospects for the Scottish NHS, if there is a NO vote.  Longish, but worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esV6pGo8UTI





 

Edited May 8, 2014 by Oddquine

[Scarlet Pimple]

Well, if your pension remains as static as existing pensioners who live in ex-Commonwealth countries currently is,  having NEVER been uprated from the amount of what it commenced at, to offset ongoing inflation, not only will you feel the depth of despair that all half million of us feel at being treated with such unfair disdain by all previous and current U K Governments, but you will soon feel the pinch as the years go by.

 

And maybe end up, as it has been reported in the journals of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners who are deeply embroiled in fighting this iniquitous (and never justified) situation, like one old pensioner in Toronto,Eastern Canada, who is getting only five pounds per week. Try living on that.

 

I cannot see any Government in the United Kingdom, old or new, trying to get away with reducing the amount of any existing pension because I think in Britain that would cause  riots in the streets. It's different to do it to overseas pensioners because they are out of sight, out of mind.

[Alex MacLeod]

Well, if your pension remains as static as existing pensioners who live in ex-Commonwealth countries currently is,  having NEVER been uprated from the amount of what it commenced at, to offset ongoing inflation, not only will you feel the depth of despair that all half million of us feel at being treated with such unfair disdain by all previous and current U K Governments, but you will soon feel the pinch as the years go by.

 

And maybe end up, as it has been reported in the journals of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners who are deeply embroiled in fighting this iniquitous (and never justified) situation, like one old pensioner in Toronto,Eastern Canada, who is getting only five pounds per week. Try living on that.

 

I cannot see any Government in the United Kingdom, old or new, trying to get away with reducing the amount of any existing pension because I think in Britain that would cause  riots in the streets. It's different to do it to overseas pensioners because they are out of sight, out of mind.

Is the amount of pension based on what you paid into it?

[Oddquine]

 

Well, if your pension remains as static as existing pensioners who live in ex-Commonwealth countries currently is,  having NEVER been uprated from the amount of what it commenced at, to offset ongoing inflation, not only will you feel the depth of despair that all half million of us feel at being treated with such unfair disdain by all previous and current U K Governments, but you will soon feel the pinch as the years go by.

 

And maybe end up, as it has been reported in the journals of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners who are deeply embroiled in fighting this iniquitous (and never justified) situation, like one old pensioner in Toronto,Eastern Canada, who is getting only five pounds per week. Try living on that.

 

I cannot see any Government in the United Kingdom, old or new, trying to get away with reducing the amount of any existing pension because I think in Britain that would cause  riots in the streets. It's different to do it to overseas pensioners because they are out of sight, out of mind.

Is the amount of pension based on what you paid into it?

 

 

For us in the UK  just now, it is Alex. I didn't work enough years to get a full pension, having taken time out to bring up kids, but I get increases. pro rata to my NI contributions. I think the problem is that the UK only increases pensions for those living in the EEA, Switzerland and countries which have agreements with the UK to allow annual increases. Frankly, I don't understand why you would need an agreement with a whole country to increase an individual's pension....unless it has something to do with both doing it for all pensioners or neither for any.

 

Be interesting to know if Canada pays Canadian pensioners their pension entitlement if they live in the UK....and if they do, if they get annual increases......because I suppose if Canada doesn't do annual increases, and the UK does, there is, in the UK's mind, the idea that the Canadian pensioners are more liable to fall back on the UK welfare state as their money reduces in real terms.....so maybe the UK is making sure that Canada pays one way or another.   From a quick look, it all appears to be darn complicated....but then that's a problem with anything to do with the UK tax or welfare systems.

 

Kinda wonder if it is because the pension is being paid direct to an account in Canada, with a contact address in Canada....maybe if Scarlet had organised a trusted UK contact address before he left and the money had gone into a UK bank account in his name, he'd have gotten increases.and been able to transfer the money to Canada himself. Thinking that because my address was used as a contact address for DWP by an erstwhile partner who retired in the USA, so until I contacted his son, and told him to tell his dad to stop taking a lend, I was getting all his letters from the DWP....though I was nice enough not to return them as "not known at this address". As he was pretty financially clued up, I did wonder why, after a few years married in the States, he still had my address on his DWP records and a UK bank account..

[Alex MacLeod]

I know what it is in the UK Oddquine. I dont know how it is for people living abroad who probably never paid the full amount into UK pension.

[Oddquine]

I know what it is in the UK Oddquine. I dont know how it is for people living abroad who probably never paid the full amount into UK pension.

Think Scarlet gets no increases from the sounds of it, and will only get the equivalent of the number of years he paid into the UK system...at the level  it was when he first got it.....at least that's what I take from the DWP site.  Seems unfair to me that other pensioners in some other countries get increases, and those mostly in the Commonwealth don't. Part of the reason I'm hoping Scotland takes over the paying of all pensions, with a cash adjustment, as we will likely be in the Commonwealth. 

 

Found an article about it.....http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/22/retiring-abroad-state-pension-freeze

Edited May 9, 2014 by Oddquine

[Scarlet Pimple]

Oddquine;

 

Here is the Gen:

 

1. Agreements between countries do not relate to uprating and have no effect on what is paid. All initial payments of pensions are  based on  the total paid- in  by the pensioner over his working life in Britain. That means that there is a close link to what is paid out by way of pension to the number of years over which that pensioner has contributed in  Britain.  If they chose to emigrate after that , so long as they don't go to either Canada, New Zealand, Australia or S. Africa they will get an annual uprating but NOT if they now reside in any of these four ex-Commonwealth countries.

 

This results in ridiculous anomalies like where I live in the Vancouver area on the West Coast of Canada  only 100 miles north of the Western port of Seattle in the U.S of A.   In Vancouver I will never get an uprating but an ex-pat who lives in Seattle will have gotten it from day one and will continue to get it every year until he dies and the pension stops.

 

As to the Bank account issue, the pension can be paid into any bank account anywhere in the world and will have no effect on whether it is uprated annually or not.

If it is paid into a foreign bank you can be sure that it will be less than what it would be had it been paid into a Scottish or English bank. Why? Because the Dept of Pensions will tell you that you will get a better rate if you allow them to send it direct to a Canadian Bank but I found that this was, in my case, a lie because  it is a worse rate of exchange because they  buy in bulk and pocket the profit leaving you to get what is left in Canadian dollars. By instructing it to be paid direct in pounds into a Scottish Bank, I get the full pounds pension and can draw it off through a cheque at the rate prevailing in Canada when encash the British cheque to draw off my pension in Canadian dollars. They also told me initially that it would not be late but the first payment to my Canadian Bank ws five days late.so.....? 

 

I have had my small pension paid into a Scottish Bank  from the inception but, of course, the D W P know where you are domiciled because you have to declare your country of residence so they can keep tabs on you. Recently I got a  missive from them asking me to get a piece of paper certified by an official attesting to the fact that I am still alive. Go figure.

 

On the question of  whether Canada does pay an uprating to all their pensioners no matter where they live  the answer is yes they do. There is no discrimination whatsoever.They have been  urging Britain to change this iniquitous policy for donkeys' years and even has paid the fees related to the legal battles initiated by the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners and of the World Alliance  of ex Pat pensioners to help us get parity of payment. This is self-serving, naturally , since it means that more money  goes into their hands by way of taxes  and reduces the pensioners' dependence on  Old Age Supplements to their increasingly smaller and smaller pensions.

 

Strangely enough, if one goes to the U K on a holiday and applies for an uprating for the period of time they spend in Britain, then they are entitled to an increase for these days spent in the U K . To me this is insanity.

 

Hope this clarifies this vexing issue.

Cheers S. P.

[culduthel]

Must check out my entitlement to U.K. pension payments forgot about this. I wonder how much I will get?

[Oddquine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZMwp1elXw

 

 

The effects of Westminster Policies.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Oddquine

[Oddquine]

The Official Positive Case For the Union from The Secretary of State for Scotland, via Westminster..and it just same old, same old Project Fear reproduced in 24 pages. 

 

Wings take on it is here......http://wingsoverscotland.com/none-more-positive/  

 

And I quote the last paragraph

 

So, in summary: there’ll be loads of forms to fill in, everything will cost a fortune, we’ll go bust if the banks collapse, our mortgages will go through the roof, there’ll be no telly, no lottery and no jobs, we’ll be awash in crime, we’ll have to bail out the UK even though we’ll have no money, and all our businesses will be bankrupted or leave.

We don’t know about you, readers, but that’s about as much positivity as we can take before lunchtime. We’re off to do a little happy dance.

 

and another bittie  here http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-lie-that-wont-die/ about not being allowed to use the pound..in which case the banks will withdraw the millions on deposit in the BOE to cover the Scottish banknotes in circulation.  No Scottish pound, no need to cover them, is there?

 

Now, maybe it's just me....but in all of the stuff quoted from the "Positive Case" in those articles, the assumption appears to be that we are too wee, too stupid, too poor and completely incompetent and we are, unlike Eire, which fought and killed for their independence from Westminster, to be cast into the international wilderness, friendless and  alone. And you know something.it makes me sick.....pig-sick and very angry, that people who claim they are Scots....even "proud Scots" sometimes....and actually represent us in Westminster, are so bloody arrogant and denigrating to those who keep them in fecking jobs! 

 

Duplication of services the UK already deals with, like HMRC, DWP, MOD etc, for example, is a bad thing for an independent Scotland, to hear them...while I prefer to think of it as essential jobs and services coming into Scotland to be undertaken by Scots provide jobs and boost the economy...and maybe even being shared out around the country, instead of being all in one place. Seems to me, just as the Scottish Government has managed to balance the books since devolution (if it wasn't for Westminster profligacy in spending on reserved items and debt interest), it will be able to do all the stuff that Westminster currently does (very expensively and incompetently)...probably at less cost than the amount we currently pay for our share of the Westminster equivalents...particularly if we reduce the pointless complexity of a lot of them.

 

Sorry........but only the unthinking would believe any of the negative crap in that taxpayer funded booklet.....and maybe the Scottish Office needs to check out the meaning of positive!

 

[dougiedanger]

What's this about an opinion poll commissioned by the Westminster lot that they are trying to keep quite, but which apparently shows a surge in Yes support?

[Alex MacLeod]

Not a surprise there Dougie.

 

My old man was a socialist and his before him. Family were all labour supporters. This article http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldscotland.com%2Fcomment%2Fcolumnists%2Flabour-has-lost-sight-of-what-it-stands-for.1399979290&h=QAQH-iaDi in Herald sums up exactly why we should take our own destiny in our own hands.

[Alex MacLeod]

What's this about an opinion poll commissioned by the Westminster lot that they are trying to keep quite, but which apparently shows a surge in Yes support?

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/may/westminster-must-publish-hidden-opinion-poll

 

The sleaze has failed. The lies have failed and now they cant even face the truth.

[Oddquine]

Scarlet, I thought that was maybe the case....but why I mentioned the fact that I was getting the DWP letters for the ex-partner who was in the USA, was because I wondered if he just hadn't told them he had gone to live out of the country and was letting them assume he was still in the UK at my address. Maybe honesty isn't always the best policy.......because if you don't tell them any different, how would they know? 

 

On rereading that link I gave, it looks as if the likes of the USA and Israel are two countries outside the EU who do get uprated, so forgetting to do a change of address may just have been a blond moment or an age thing on his part.    The link also seems to say that 95% of UK pensioners are in Commonwealth countries..so methinks it has always been a money-saving decision by UK Governments.  Certainly seems really unfair to me...but I suspect that it is going to be some time before the UK can afford to whack another half a billion annually onto pension outgoings even if they wanted to do that, particularly if we vote for independence and they have, additionally, to pay for our pensions out of their income for the next forty or so years, with no input from us.

[Scarlet Pimple]

As I think I mentioned previously, the  total cost of any uprating is infinitesimal in terms of the percentage of the overall pensions' budget. From the figures quoted by the Can. Alliance of British Pensioners it's about 0.5%.

 

All these politicians think about is money in their pocket and whether or not they can persuade the  great unwashed public to vote for them. After so many years (5 in Canada) a pollytishin gets a pension  and , of course, it's based on their salaries.

When the CABP, along with the other Australian supporters, took the case to the  High Court in London  the learned Judge was sharing Cheri Blair's chambers so, naturally, the case was  turned down - not on merit but due to alliances within the Judiciary--bearing in mind that Cheri Blair (that's Tony's wife) is a lawyer and probably a Barrister as well in Chambers. What a farce and how infuriating is that? The whole thing is a disgrace to so-called British Fair Play and justice itself.

 

So how do the Bits know who lives where? Because all the Governments are in cahoots, that's how. The Canadian Government shares information  on the financial affairs of it's citizens with the British Government and vice versa, for the precise reason that they do not want any tax evasions to go unnoticed. And if I lived in Israel or the U.S. then I would not be worrying about not getting an increase because I would already have had an annual increase from the time I reached the age of 65.

 

You are dead right Oddquine. It's totally about saving money for the British Government and, what is worse, they unashamedly admit it. They cry the blues and then allow their M P's to clean out their moats on the public purse. Did you ever see the top politicians in London at any time in your life, swan around without a chauffeur in anything but a splendid and highly polished very expensive car?

 

I will quit whilst I'm ahead but , to turn a phrase, they are hypocrites and readily find the money for their lavish spending don't they.

[PullMyFinger]

Scarlet, if your host government had a reciprocal arrangement would they not increase your pension in line with UK rates? Instead of criticising UK govt. what are the CA govt. saying? It's a double edged sword.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Because, Pull My Finger, the reciprocal agreement to which you refer is a Tax Agreement not one that relates to the payment of pensions.

 

Many of us in the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners have heard successive British persons attempt to allude to this as an excuse for not paying the uprating but here is what the Agreement with Canada is all about:

When I receive my pension from the Royal Bank of Scotland it is paid into my Scottish bank account without any British tax being deducted at source because the TAX AGREEMENT with Canada refers specifically to what is a reciprocal Government policy which cuts both  ways for each country. But I have to declare the Canadian dollar equivalent of the total annual pounds pension income at tax Return time to the Canadian Government .i.e the total dollars received by me when the pension cheques have been cashed at the Canadian Bank must be declared on my tax return each year.

 

As to your comment about the double edged sword , sorry, but I don't know what you mean. If an ex-Canadian, naturalised U K resident who lives in the U K cashes a Canadian dollar cheque in the U K for his or her pensions, it may be that they have to also declare that income to the British Government but not to the Canadian Government. That's what is meant by reciprocity--what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Oh. and I don't understand your references to the Canadian Government paying upratings in line with U K rates. ?

 

Firstly the rate of inflation in Britain has historically been virtually the same as that in Canada on a yearly basis--eerily so.

But this similarity is meaningless unless each Governemnet pays an  inflation-related uprating on an annual basis to their ex-pat pensioners living abroad. 

Canada , but not the U K , pays an annual uprating to all their pensioners, no matter where they live in the world, that is  directly linked to the prevailing rate of inflation each year.

[Alex MacLeod]

Clarify something Scarlet. You are referring to a private pension provided by RBS and not a state pension provided by treasury I presume.

[Scarlet Pimple]

No, Alex.

The non- uprating references relate only to the DSS pension paid into my RBS bank account in Scotland monthly.

 

My  Royal Bank pension in pounds is a very small one indeed because I only worked for them for 19 years and the bank uprates it annually by about 2-3% but with an upper limit of 3%. Since inflation has been so low in the last few years  they have never failed to pay the annual increase that matches British inflation rates within their policy that I can recall. So, in general, it matches the reduction in the value of the pound in real spending terms.

 

On the other hand, the British Government Dept. of Social Services pension, which is supposed to be directly related to the past contributions you paid to them when you worked in Britain, is also paid into my Scottish bank account in pounds but the amount of the monthly deposit is exactly the same as what it was when  I received the first payment some 11 years ago at age 65 when I reached retirement age. i.e.  inflation has eroded it's buying power steadily because it has never been adjusted (uprated) to counter the annual devaluation in spending terms.

So far, as a rough guess, my DSS pension is now at least 22%% less in value in real spending terms than it was on the day I started getting it  some 11 years ago, despite the fact that I paid exactly the same amount of contributions as any other employee during my working life in Britain. And that is why the Canadian Alliance of British pensioners  is so upset because we have found that one pensioner living alone in Toronto is trying to survive on five pounds a week and the longer he lives the worse it gets. The only way he can eak out even a meagre living is to go to the Canadian Government and apply for the old age supplements for those on, or below, the poverty line. 

So, naturally, the Canadian Government has been contributing to our cause to have this policy of non-uprating  reversed and abandoned because it's costing the Canadian taxpayer money to subsidise the British pensions paid to ex-pats who live in Canada, S. Africa, Australia and New Zealand. But, by way of contrast, all residents in Britain or in any other country other than ex-commonwealth ones get an annual  uprating to their British pensions. Go figure.

[Oddquine]

Scarlet, I found a Parliamentary Briefing Paper which explains the Historical reasons behind the UK Government's  decision. Think you can get it here http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01457.pdf., but if not, PM me your email address and I can send the PDF file to you. 

 

I quote

When the rate of pension was increased in 1946, the increase was not paid to pensioners abroad. The reasons for this decision appear to have been related mainly to the then forthcoming new scheme of National Insurance. It was considered that the substantial increase in pension, from 10 to 26 shillings, was a first instalment of the new scheme and that pensioners abroad had made only a small contribution to their pensions and could not reasonably expect a share in the new scheme.

 

I suppose I can see their reasoning at the time, and a general clause was included in the 1946 NI Act, which stopped increases to all ex-pat pensioners.(and to pensioner prisoners in UK jails), and at the time the only ex-pat pensioners receiving pensions were those in the Commonwealth.  After 1946, the UK started making reciprocal social security agreements with various countries, which allowed up-rating for ex-pats, but they don't appear to be countries with lots of ex-pats claiming pensions at that time. The Republic of Ireland didn't start getting UK pension up-rating until 1966.

 

According to the briefing paper
The agreements between the UK and Australia, New Zealand and Canada came into force in 1953, 1956 and 1959 respectively (there had been an earlier, 1948, agreement with New Zealand which covered Family Allowance). There is no indication that the question of unfreezing pensions in those countries arose during negotiation of the agreements.  So it kinda looks as if Canada could have negotiated the increases, as France, Switzerland, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxembourg did between 1948 and 1955. But it appears that after 1973, the UK stopped reciprocal agreements because of, you've guessed it, the cost to the current UK taxpayers (in other words, the Government).

 

In Parliament in 2008, it was said that  The UK state pension is payable world-wide but is only uprated abroad where there is a legal requirement to do so....so it looks as if there is no agreement which specifies/requires up-rating...there will be no up-rating.and it appears that the agreement with Canada does not mention up-rating.

 

From reading here http://www.dwp.gov.uk/international/benefits/state-pension/state-pension-arrangements-in-social/  it rather looks as if the Canadian agreement is more to do with Canadian pension entitlement being counted for UK pensions for people who work in Canada but come back to the UK to retire, though I'd have thought a reciprocal agreement would have meant that the years paying towards a UK pension would have counted towards a Canadian one.  Have to say, the more I read stuff emanating from the UK Parliament, the more I understand why lawyers can make a lot of money interpreting it and fighting the UK interpretation.
 

[dougiedanger]

It's good we're really getting to the heart of the key issues in this whole independence debate.

[Oddquine]

It's good we're really getting to the heart of the key issues in this whole independence debate.

 

You want to get to the heart of the debate......then the heart of this debate, on the ICT forum, is that, according to a Panelbase Poll done for Wings......

 

Most supporters of Aberdeen, Dundee United, Hearts, Hibernian, Inverness, Ross County, St Johnstone and St Mirren are in the No camp.

Of the County fans who responded, none committed to backing independence, though 39 per cent were undecided.

A majority of fans of Celtic, Kilmarnock, Motherwell, Partick and Rangers are in the Yes camp.

 

Got that off the Record online. Wings hasn't discussed it yet, but undoubtedly will.

 

To be fair, I think polling is akin to casting the runes or reading chicken entrails......and maybe talking about the UK Governments treatment of ex-pat pensioners, which stop many going abroad to live with family when they are retired, isn't really about independence, though it is perhaps something an independent Scottish Government  will have to think about at some stage. But, heck, I'm just glad to have someone to talk to on here!

Edited May 24, 2014 by Oddquine

[Alex MacLeod]

Very surprised the majority of Rangers fans are in YES camp. I work with a few and have friends/relatives who support Rangers and they are all for the Union. Also surprising St Johnstone fans would be in NO considering Perth has been a very strong SNP supporting city for a few years now. Who did they ask anyway? Cos it sure as hell wasn't me.

[Yngwie]

The sample size was as little as 2 for each team, so you can completely dismiss it!

 

See page 5 for details.  http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/F4108WingsoverScotland210514.pdf