AT the risk of offending former Tory pensions minister Baroness Altmann, I would restate the simple truth that as an independent EU nation state, Scotland would be responsible for paying state pensions in Scotland, and as required outwith Scotland (These are factors to be considered in state pension argument, December 16).
The Scottish Government preferably needs to reach an agreement with rUK in respect of the actuarial monetary values of pension commitments to those individuals for whom it will take on the state pension payment responsibility. This would be set within an agreement on the monetary value of continuing nation rUK national debt, and Scotland/rUK asset transfers.
The HMRC currently has designation of “Scottish” taxpayer in its database, together with addresses and contact points, and all other incoming pensions. HMRC also has the designated number of accruable years of state pension payments, also currently on its database.
READ MORE: Tory pensions expert Ros Altmann 'baffled' by Unionist claim about independent Scotland
The default position is that the continuing rUK retains the UK national debt, and assets (with the notable exceptions of the seabed that Blair stole and the WMDs) remain geographically inert. The respective national legal systems would likely have minimal roles in respect of pensions, though international and ECJ courts likely would have more in respect of national debt and national borders.
It is possible that a sociopathic, corrupt, unprincipled and mendacious UK Government could instruct the wiping of the HMRC database where it pertains to Scotland, perhaps after a particular wine-soaked No 10 “working session lock-in”, but that remains an outlier.
Scotland will likely be typically using EU principles for pension accrual/payment agreements, which the Brexited rUK will have past knowledge of, so no real problems there, only ones confected by a former Tory pension minister.
That is state pensions, however, and not SERPS, unfunded/fully funded final salary pensions, nor unfunded/fully funded money purchase scheme pensions, SIPPs etc.
READ MORE: Do English taxpayers subsidise Scotland? Here's how it really works
Fully funded pensions and SIPPs etc are readily transferable across national borders if required, and are not considered to be a problem while an independent Scotland shows no inclination to abolish en masse the insurance and banking system.
Baroness Altman correctly highlights the issue of the public-body unfunded pension schemes where the UK Government takes in the personal pension contributions, spends them elsewhere on tax cuts for the wealthy, and then commits to pay the pension when/if payable, whether final-salary or otherwise, and subject to a variable pensionable age.
This is indeed a question for the Scottish Government to address in respect of whether to move public-body pensions to a more stable and honest fully funded system, potentially involving national assets like a national investment bank or similar.
Whether Scotland will incrementally move to Universal Basic Income to replace the state pension, and whether there would be a similar appetite for Variable Additional Pension Income, are moot points, but current UK promissory pensions whether state or public body, are literally theft, with the burglar leaving a promissory (variable) note.
So, once again I would state that for “simple” pensions, Scotland requires to be an independent EU nation state, even at the risk of being charged as “misleading” by former Tory pensions minister Baroness Altman.
Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow
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 here