Pension Dispute

So the independence drum is beating again and we already have one almighty argument about who would be liable to pay the State Pension.

My understanding was that if some one had paid their NI contributions to the UK Government then it would be the UK Government who would pay the pension.


Any NI contributions paid to the Scottish Government after independence would then mean that the SG would pay pension relating to those contributions. This I thought would, in some cases mean that some pensioners would receive a pension in two payments, one from the UK Gov and one from the SG. Eventually the SG would end up paying all of the state pension.


This appears to be what Sturgeon and Blackford think as well. Unfortunately Kate Forbes doesn't seem to know and stated she would not argue with Blackford.


The SNP policy Convenor has thrown some doubt on who would be liable to pay state pension.


It would appear that there is no real clarity on this issue from either the SG or UK Gov. There are many biased opinions on the internet but what the People of Scotland need is clear, truthful and up to date information that is not based on flawed statements that were made before the 2014 referendum.


I wonder how much "clear and truthful" info will be forthcoming. !

This is just the start of Project Fear part 2 in advance of IndyRef II. It's also distraction behaviour to take the heat off Johnson.

The whole issue of pensions was sorted out quite clearly and unequivocally before IndyRef I. However, if your intention is to prevent independence at any cost then resurrecting a lie to sow a seed of worry is a pretty standard way to go about it.

The extract below is from Paul Kavanagh's blog of 4 February 2022.


On 7 May 2014, the then UK pensions minister Steve Webb told the Scottish Affairs Committee in the House of Commons that older people would be entitled to continue receiving the current state pension even in an independent Scotland. He acknowledged that there would have to be a negotiation between Holyrood and Westminster about how these pensions would be administered, but assured the committee that Westminster would continue to have an obligation to pay the pensions to existing pensioners. When asked by a Labour MP if the pensions of existing pensioners would be secure following a Yes vote, Steve Webb confirmed that this was the case, saying “Yes, they have accumulated rights into the UK system, under the UK system’s rules.”

Then he added, “Take a Scottish person who works all their life and then retires to France… they still have an accumulated pension right in respect of the National Insurance they have paid in when they were part of the United Kingdom.”


Please know that this is a quite wilful attempt by the Tories to deceive the Scottish people. They and the other nay-saying parties used fear to spread doubt prior to
IndyRef I. Do not let them away with it this time around.

Remember the old proverb, - "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

Below is a link which may give some insight in to the complexity of pensions post independence.

I note that Steve Webb is rowing back so fast from what he said years ago he is likely to win a gold medal.

I am not interested in project fear etc, just who will end up paying the state pension post independence and how it will be done.

It would seem that what was said years ago will count for nothing and that the SG will be liable to pay the state pension and to negotiate the liabilities and assets as best it can. If the Tories are still in power for those negotiations they will attempt to punish Scotland in the same way that the EU keep trying to punish the UK Government.

Who pays the State Pension in an independent Scotland? | FAI (fraserofallander.org)

Corky…In your highlighted Para, it says that PENSIONS WILL BE PAID TO EXISTING PENSIONERS!
I would say there is ‘big hole’ there……Nothing about ‘future pensioners’!
Just a Thot!
Is this another..’Here we go again’?

Honestly Horseman, I could compile a reply and back it up with evidence. However, past experience shows that you just ignore it and provide us with the next chapter of "The world according to Horseman" which rarely, if ever, has any evidential substance.

In any case I just don't have time to do a full reply. I'm far too busy digging a fall-out shelter in my back garden in preparation for WWIII.

I hope you've got your thermals on Corky.
It is surely a legitimate question to ask about pensions and who will pay those set to retire in the future and from what I can see, this is not something that is settled at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky Smeek

Honestly Horseman, I could compile a reply and back it up with evidence. However, past experience shows that you just ignore it and provide us with the next chapter of "The world according to Horseman" which rarely, if ever, has any evidential substance.

In any case I just don't have time to do a full reply. I'm far too busy digging a fall-out shelter in my back garden in preparation for WWIII.

---

There is very ‘specific’ wording in that Statement. It is called ‘Word Smithing’.
When one sees the care that has been taken in preparing an exact and precise message like that, one should question it!
BTW…I did work in Gov’t for some time, and that is why Legislation is very time consuming, maybe too much so, but that wording ‘does not include’ anything in the future!

And Evidence was my ‘forte’! I practiced it for 35 years, both in the UK and North America.
I would hate to see you ‘outsmarted’!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fulmar

I hope you've got your thermals on Corky.
It is surely a legitimate question to ask about pensions and who will pay those set to retire in the future and from what I can see, this is not something that is settled at all.

---

I'm not denying the legitimacy of the question. The problem is that I could provide a statement, signed by God, and Horseman would still come back with a load of unsubstantiated opinion.

It is interesting that you say the matter is not settled. That is entirely because spreading fear about pensions worked so well in 2014 that the Unionist side have decided to give it another go. During the run up to IndyRef 1 I lost track of the number of times people said they were "doorstepped" by No campaigners who said their pension would cease on the 19th September 2014. That was a bare-faced lie then as it is now. If you have accumulated rights under the UK's pension scheme then you will entitled to benefit from it. It is as simple as that.

Think about the consequences of rUK reneging on that assurance. If rUK did withhold payment then that would have huge implications for other people who have accumulated rights but no longer live in the UK. I cannot see rUK wishing itself to be bogged down in litigation over such an issue. Secondly, the rUK would need Scotland (and its people) to be friendly neighbours. Scotland is virtually self-sufficient in domestic energy and rUK would need our energy exports. Another trade war with a close neighbour is the very last thing the rUK would need given the current state of relations with the EU. But even if you ignore all of the aforementioned, if that's the way HMG are behaving now ie, issuing threats why the h*ll would anyone want to remain part of such a union. I don't know about you but I don't want to live under a regime where if you ask to leave the state takes revenge against you.

The previously mentioned Steve Webb said that those who had accumulated rights would be entitled to the money. Obviously negotiations would have to take place to settle matters such as at what point in a person's accumulation of rights responsibility transferred to an independent Scotland. That is just one of many such matters over which there would be negotiation.

But in any case, remember just how appalling a UK pension is. It is the worst state pension in the developed world. Within Europe, the latest figures I could find were that a UK pension was worth only 29% of average income. The average for the EU is 70.5% of average income. That is a huge gulf and is entirely within the control of HMG to do something about; but they won't. They are content to see UK pensioners living under conditions that are fundamentally unfair. So, instead of worrying about whether the rUK will honour its pension commitments to contributors now living in an independent Scotland is it not possible to foresee a situation whereby the Scottish state pension rises to become more aligned with pensions almost everywhere else. It could quite easily be paid for from the savings made by us not having to give the UK Treasury roughly 50% of all revenues generated in Scotland.

Finally, expect more and more such misinformation. The sowing of doubt persuaded many to vote No in 2014. However, if you were in any doubt as to the benefits that may be gained from leaving the UK then look no further than Ireland - now the second richest country in the world based on per capita GDP.

Corky..It bothers me not if you want to take Scotland out of the UK.
As long as you ‘examine carefully’ wording crafted by the Legal profession.
Honestly you can do what you wish, but pls read what is said and more importantly what is not said!
The SNP has been in power since 2007…..and they are doing a good job?

Rest assured Horseman. I have done plenty of reading around the issue of Scottish independence and the more I read the more I am convinced that Scotland is being held back by being part of the UK. Ask any of the other countries who have gained their independence from the UK if they regret the decision and I guarantee you 100% of them will say "No".