TIM Rideout is absolutely correct in his assertion that UK/rUK will never let up on the pretence that rUK will not pay already paid pension contributions to pensioners of an independent Scotland (Letters, Feb 18). Where I depart from this, is that relief derives from simply not stating who will fund Scottish pensions.
The independent Scottish Government will fund Scottish pensions, either from discrete agreed entitlement monetised and transferred, or from an overall asset/liability entitlement monetised and transferred, or from starting national debt free with an HMRC database.
That is the simple message, which must be used to negate misleading statements from Baroness Altmann and others.
Mr Rideout is also absolutely correct in his assertion that “No pot” pensions simplify matters substantially, in that such transfer negotiations “monetising” state pensions for transfer is no more than monetising a promissory note that the UK Government burglar left before taking the cash to spend elsewhere.
I would suggest that the trap Yes must not fall into, is to simply mirror what the UK currently has, suggesting that the current UK pension system is anywhere near good enough for an independent Scotland.
I would hope that an Independent Scotland would commit to totalling up the UK basic pension, and necessary additions such as pension credits, and other payment reductions, and deliver a simple UBI pension level from a stated age on an agreed date. This would potentially also be from a Scottish revenue (and/or monetised UK transfer) payment, at least initially.
Additional voluntary contributions for earnings-related income should be set up by the new Scotland, which should have a funded pot, and include previous noted accumulated years of UK state pension entitlement, albeit reduced after considering the safety net of the new Scottish UBI pension. A UK entitlement of 35 years should perhaps take the combined pensions up to the current UK tax allowance level, with less entitlement leaving a reckonable shortfall.
Future accredited Scottish years should perhaps be based on income tax paid, with National Insurance a somewhat superfluous tax, given that there was no pension pot, and that essentially National Insurance was to keep NHS and social care ready for full privatisation across the UK, to be sold simply as a shift from big government state public tax, to shrunken state personal choice private insurance.
Pensions – more specifically, the way pensions may change in a future independent Scotland – need to be nailed, not left to the robber barons and baronesses of Westminster governance, to set their chosen UK No-vote risk agenda, above a more realistic Scotland Yes-vote agenda of hope.
Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow
NO surprise, no shock to hear the Conservative leader in Scotland Douglas Ross on a visit to a soup kitchen was heard defending welfare cuts by the Conservative government at Westminster.
But one thing I can say about Mr Ross’s comments: he demonstrates consistency!
Because we all remember his voting record at Westminster and that of other Conservative MPs in Scotland, abstaining in a vote last year to extend the £20/week uplift to Universal Credit. The need for soup kitchens and food banks is harrowing, and the demand for them is only going to increase with the cost-of-living and inflation rises, not to mention the increases to National Insurance, only weeks away.
So, is there a strong case for the return of the uplift to Universal Credit? After all, many lives depend on it.
Catriona C Clark
Banknock
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel