AS an independent EU nation state, Scotland gets to pay “state pensions” to those entitled to such a pension. It is that certain and that simple.
The complicated bit is how to make allowance for past years of accrual within the UK, applicable to the citizens of Scotland, and how such a funding-stream transfer is incorporated within the general asset transfers between Scotland and the UK at the point of independence, and beyond, when Universal Basic Income may be a consideration.
Should voters be content that the Scottish SNP/Green government is capable of this budget control issue, then Yes2 would be the likely appropriate choice.
READ MORE: SNP told to 'reassure' voters on pensions ahead of indyref2
The message required, however, is not “clarity with certainty,” it is “certainty with clarity,” and this message also needs to be applied to both currency and EU membership.
Let us not get bogged down in a sea of opportunistic Unionist dead cats. That said, the message needs to include clarity as to a sense of direction towards “state pensions” or equivalent, increasing from the UK level towards the higher levels found in the EU.
There are established mechanisms between nations for individuals transferring pensions which can be followed, to include the UK taxpayer working mainly in UK (England) moving to Scotland, and becoming a Scottish senior citizen at independence, then moving down to rUK for a while, before migrating to say Portugal (EU), with their state pension level determined appropriately.
READ MORE: The reality of pensions in a Scotland that has voted for independence
That is three nations, with stays in one nation twice, it includes independence, and Brexit, and three currencies, and retirement. The biggest issue here would appear to be the appropriateness of which state(s) should hold data on the individuals’ lifetime of work and/or level of contributions. Changing citizenship multiple times might present a degree of complication, but outliers merely require a more experienced, supportive official.
With an independent Scotland, the certainty of message required is that the individual citizen gets a “state pension” equal or better than that accruing to them in the UK at present. It really is that simple.
For those citizens migrating from Scotland requiring their “state pension” to be paid elsewhere, they need to know that an independent Scottish Government will “see them right” when it is responsible for administering the “state pension”. Again, it is that simple.
Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow
IN respect of the current discussion relating to payment of pensions in an independent Scotland, there are two separate issues here: occupational and private pensions, and state pensions.
As far as the former are concerned, these are contributory schemes and the funds accumulated provide the source of the pension payments. There is no reason why payments from these schemes would change whether Scotland is independent or not. The only requirement for payment is that a pensioner be a qualifying member of the scheme.
State pensions, on the other hand, are based on an entitlement generated over the pensioner’s working life and paid out of general taxation when the pension is due, although recent events have shown governments vary in their adherence to their promises to pensioners.
READ MORE: Pensions question backfired on Murdo Fraser
In my case, for example, I spent the majority of my life working outside the UK and a smaller proportion working in England. The balance of time I worked here in Scotland. During this entire period, I continued to pay National Insurance contributions in order to safeguard my state pension. This is payable whether I retire to Scotland, Spain, Australia or anywhere else. The UK Government and any successor state has a duty to pay me the pension it promised when I decided to continue paying National Insurance. The question then becomes what the successor state is.
The government in London will wish to be given the designation of successor in order to retain the UK’s various international rights and responsibilities, specifically its seat on the UN Security Council but also to ensure it can roll over the many and varied treaties it has entered into over the years. Let’s call it rUK, as has become the convention.
That being the case, the rUK government would be required to continue paying the state pensions it promised. If it tries to stop the pension it said would be due to me over the 40 years I dutifully paid my National Insurance contributions I, and I’m sure many others, will be seeing it in court.
The only way out for rUK would be an agreed asset transfer as part of an independence settlement to cover the costs of Scotland paying accrued UK state pension liabilities.
This also addresses the spurious question I have seen raised recently: if England seceded from the UK, would the remaining parts of the UK be required to pay its pensioners? In these circumstances this other rUK, comprising Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, would not be the one looking for a seat at the UN top table, so the answer is clearly “No”.
Cameron Crawford
Rothesay
REGARDING the nonsense being spouted recently by the SNP over the pensions debacle, it seems obvious to me that during negotiations in the transition period that we would, of course be able to claim every penny that our citizens have paid to the English (British) Treasury. They simply know they cannot renege on this. In the end we have the debts they will want us to take a share of – much leverage to be negotiated there.
We would then be able to pay pensions at the rate the Scottish Government votes for. I would assume it would be at an increased rate than we receive at present and this should be pledged by the SNP government before any referendum vote or plebiscite election vote.
To now be confusing everyone by giving Westminster yet another veto to allow them to deviously imply that they would not honour pensions in the run-up to a vote on a independence is plainly ridiculous! Similarly with currency – remove all power from Westminster to lie, deny and confuse our voters. We are handing them a No vote on a plate.
They are past masters at smoke, mirrors and spin. Time to start taking control, Scotland – now!
Alison Brown
Pitlochry
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