RUTH Wishart’s article (Principle on which we base the state pension is flawed, August 20) is itself seriously flawed.
Ruth says “the whole principle on which we base the state pension is flawed at base camp by utilising a statutory cut-off point. Life expectancy varies by more than 10 years just between different districts in Scotland’s major cities”.
READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: Principle on which we base the state pension is flawed
Whilst true, this is but one of the of many factors that influence how many years (if any) an individual can expect as a pensioner. It would be impossible to adjust the pension of every individual to take account each person’s individual life expectancy. The basic principle is surely that if you pay into the pension through National Insurance contributions for the required time, you are entitled to draw your pension.
That, however, is the smaller flaw in Ruth’s article, which states that “the UK pension is worth just 29% of average earnings compared to 100% in the Netherlands and more than 93% in perennially cash-strapped Italy”. There is clearly a very significant discrepancy between this assertion and the article, on the same page, “What’s the state pension like in other countries across the world?” which states that “in the Netherlands ... a single person gets an amount worth up to 70% of the net minimum wage, while a pensioner couple gets the equivalent of 100% of the net minimum wage (50% each)”. If the Dutch pension was indeed 100% of average earnings then clearly a very large number of people will be better off as pensioners than when working, which would seem both unlikely and unsustainable.
There are differences between the Netherlands and UK pensions that must be taken into account when comparing them. To get the full Dutch pension requires having been resident in The Netherlands for 50 years between the age of 15 and pension age (66, soon 67); entitlement to a full UK pension requires 35 years of NI contributions (which can include years credited for, for example, caring for children). Dutch pensioners also have to make health insurance contributions (5-6%) from their pensions, unlike UK pensioners.
I do not know if Dutch pensioners also get benefits available to UK pensioners such as Winter Fuel Payment, bus passes etc. Nonetheless it probably is the case that the Netherlands pension is somewhat better than the UK pension, but Ruth’s comparison of 29% to 100% is wildly exaggerated.
As for the Italian pension I have no knowledge, but I expect that the comparison of UK 29% to Italy 93% is similarly comparing chalk with cheese.
We will not convince soft No voters to switch to Yes by making flawed or exaggerated arguments, which can so easily shown to be wrong. Perhaps you could give us an article properly comparing pensions in UK with other EU countries.
Geoff Hobson
Kirriemuir
GREAT front page on Tuesday (You will NOT have to work until 75 in an independent Scotland, August 20) and excellent articles inside about the iniquities of the present UK state pension.
The future for pensioners doesn’t look very rosy either. Work till you’re 75 then you’ll be so knackered that you’ll snuff it before collecting the worst pension in Europe.
Wouldn’t it be really great if the next National front page read, “SNP pledges to increase the state pension in an Independent Scotland to at least the average of pensions in Europe”?
The 2014 referendum was arguably lost by older Scots voting No. Doubtless many were persuaded by Better Together propaganda that an independent Scotland would not be able to afford a decent state pension. Their fears, though groundless, were understandable, but this can’t be allowed to happen again. When the next campaign starts, it should be made clear that an independent Scotland would be wealthy enough to be able to target increased spending, not only into pensions, but also into other priorities such as health, education and welfare. For a start, think what we would save by not having Scottish taxes subsidise the likes of Trident or London Crossrail or F-35 fighter aircraft (at £190 million each) or HS2 or all the other toys that Scotland neither needs nor wants.
Here’s a novel idea, perhaps the YES movement could hire a big red bus with the above message plastered across it and drive it all around Scotland! The truism that we are strong enough, smart enough and rich enough cannot be repeated often enough.
Alex Henderson
Bearsden
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