Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
[COLOR="Blue"]I would have the National Audit Office draw up a reconciliation which would form the basis for negotiation.
On pensions, first your point makes the common sense case for no secession by Scotland; but politics has little to do with common sense. I would expect actuaries to calculate the pension accrual to be sent to an approved fund in Scotland; I wouldn't want anything messy like continuing to pay across a border from the depleted UK.
All other financial matters would be settled on the principle of ownership of an asset and for corporations the place of registration.
I imagine any UK government would think along those lines; we're not Brussels.
And what's your view?
|
My view isn't really relevant, but to demonstrate my point you have said that even though Scottish citizens have paid into the pot through national insurance contributions you think that they shouldn't automatically be entitled to a pension from the United Kingdom. Yet, for example, a citizen of the Irish Republic who lived and worked in the UK and moved to another country would be entitled based on what they had paid in.
Others may take the view that would be a 'nasty' and 'spiteful' approach to deny taxpayers what they had paid in.
Quote:
They are nasty because they are binding us to their rules in perpetuity. Obviously much of what you say is logical and correct; but we must not sign up to a deal that's bad for us just because they are bigger than us and can screw us over. We hurt them by not giving them the full £39 billion on a no deal basis and then we go our own way. Some sort of common sense will ultimately prevail in matters such as travel, planes and the like.
To hell with them.
|
It isn't 'nasty' to require a trading partner to adhere to some kind of framework or rules on the basis of which to trade. It stops the world descending into a free for all and race to the bottom against sweat shops and labour camps in developing countries.