Westminster's record shows it is not to be trusted on pensions

Successive Conservative and Labour governments have let pensions decline since 1980, when the Thatcher Government cut the link with earnings increases. Labour promised to restore this link, but didn't. The Coalition has restored the link, but the damage has been caused and increases begin from a much lower base. Average UK income falls from £19,000 in work to a state and private pension pot worth just £11,600. Many people are facing a bleak financial outlook, with nearly a quarter of women entering retirement entirely dependent on the basic state pension, and one in five retiring to an income below the poverty line. The OECD reported last year that Britain's state pension is the least generous of all the 34 OECD members except one (Mexico).

As for the future, the single-tier, flat-rate state scheme coming into force in the UK in 2016 will be set at £7488 per year, against a Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimate that a single pensioner needs an income of at least £8600 a year to reach a minimum socially-acceptable standard of living. The 2016 changes are designed to deliver a planned cut in the budget of Westminster's Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) from £9bn in 2009 to £6.3bn in 2016. The TUC has calculated that the 2016 changes could leave almost 20m people worse off, either immedi­ately or when they eventually retire, many by thousands of pounds a year. The biggest gainers will be those who already have good private pensions.

Younger people and women will be hard hit by the ever-rising age for pension receipt, to 67 years by 2027, with plans for further increases in later years. The physical and stress demands of working to 67, for paid carers, including nurses, building workers, tradesmen and women, teachers and others seem to be ignored. The geographical and mortality gap will mean large numbers in poor areas across Scotland will contribute towards their pensions but die before getting to pension age or within a few years of it. In affluent areas, there will be huge numbers of retired professional and managerial workers who will receive a state pension into their nineties.

Gordon Brown's UK will not allow Scotland the different economic and immigration policies we need to increase our tax base to fund public services and pensions. His vision of an independent Scotland, dependent on UK finances, would merit the "subsidy junkie" label, which is currently unjustified. Pensions in the UK have been described as a disaster area, but Gordon Brown believes we are better together and should put our continuing trust in Westminster.

The clear evidence of past performance and what is planned suggests that we should put greater trust in ourselves, and take independent control of our own pensions, and those of future generations.

Andrew Reid,

Armadale, Shore Road,

Cove,

Argyll.

MARGARET Kay (Letters, April 22) is not going to vote Yes because she is not certain what the future will hold if we become independent. What certainties lie ahead if we vote No?

There are precisely three. We will continue to be governed by people who are unrepresentative of our wishes, the rich will become richer at the cost of the poor, and Trident will remain on the Clyde with further colossal investment in weapons of mass destruction.

Beyond that, there is no certainty whichever party is in power. No certainty on Europe, on the economy and benefit systems, on international affairs, on the defence of our coastal waters or the application of our oil revenues.

The fact is that in global terms the future is entirely uncertain. Against that the SNP Government has produced a detailed White Paper which seeks to answer many of the doubts and show the way forward which Scotland might choose to take. Other elements of the Yes campaign, notably the Greens and the Common Weal, take a different view, but all are positive and optimistic. Against the risks inherent in the inevitability of future uncertainty, nothing has been heard from the No campaign beyond the implausibility that there will be little co-operation between the separate governments.

If we vote Yes we will select a government of our choice which will represent our wishes to the best of its abilities, howsoever they may be restricted by other factors; a government that will endeavour to eliminate the growing divide between wealth and poverty, and weapons of mass destruction will be expelled from our shores.

Of course, beyond that there is little certainty whether on Europe or the economy, but on these and on defence and international affairs our government would be acting in our interests.

The Yes campaign has expressed its positive view of the future if the decisions are made in the interests of the Scottish populace. Some may consider that view over-optimistic, but one thing is obvious: whichever government Scotland elects, it will have to answer to the people of Scotland and will perforce be acting in their interest.

Of course there are uncertainties. Will the politician you voted for adhere to promises or betray them? Is your bank trustworthy? Will the situations in Syria or Ukraine escalate to affect us? What will global warming do to the Fife coast and the machair of the west?

But there is one further certainty: if Scotland votes No, while we may receive some crumbs dropped from the table, Westminster will yet again plunder our oil, feel free to tax us as it pleases while destroying our economy, undermine our benefits system, deny us the immigrants we need, and deny us coastal and fisheries defences while continuing the obscenity of a nuclear arsenal sited in such proximity to a major centre of population that was unacceptable even to the old USSR.

KM Campbell,

Bank House,

Doune.

YOUR correspondent Margaret Kay demands more factual clarity from the Yes campaign without requiring the same standards of herself. She uses the now-customary No sup­­porters' tactic of misrepresenting claims made by independence campaigners.

For example, no-one has promised the voters a land of milk and honey or anything close. What has been expressed is an aspiration towards maintaining fairness and social justice both of which are being undermined under Westminster rule backed by a self belief that this can be delivered in an independent Scotland. Also, Ms Kay states that the Yes campaign rubbished the views of Mark Carney when, in fact, Finance Secretary John Swinney praised the Bank of England Governor's measured assessment on currency union. As far as Lord Robertson is concerned, he did not even enjoy much support on the No side for his over-the-top remarks and, of course, he has a track record on predictions. Devolution has not exactly killed nationalism stone dead.

Finally, Ms Kay asks how independence may enhance lives for herself, her family and her com­munity. Protecting the NHS from creeping privatisation plus free care for the elderly, free university tuition fees and free prescriptions would be a good start.

Gordon Evans,

5 York Drive,

Burnside,

Rutherglen.

The SNP just cannot stop themselves from being rude and disrespectful to anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Iain McMillan of CBI Scotland was given a dose at the recent Holyrood committee hearing and now that the CBI, quite rightly, has voiced its considered opinion that business is better in the Union without artificial barriers and additional costs (anyone with any common sense would see that), it is now derided because it is not neutral and any Government-related body told to resign their CBI membership.

What next? No government contracts to companies which are CBI members?
All this comes from a party which is using taxpayers' money to further its own aims.

Alan McNeilage,

Greenwood,

Lochwinnoch Road,

Kilmacolm.

LIKE so many others with the issue of the referendum looming ever larger, I have recently found myself looking at my own experience in an attempt to compare the values of my life working within the United Kingdom.

I can look at a lifetime working within two very different national charities. In the case of the Samar­itans this saw it grow from one branch to more than 200, each different yet tied intimately and successfully within the whole country. One national line, the backing of national support, the sharing of that wide experience, all of which was of necessary importance.

The other, being a medical charity, also saw a national spread but was so inextricably bound together that the thought of losing the many national facilities to smaller, less-supported units could cause major problems. Would the large national pressure on the development of new drugs be less? Would the heart/lung operations in England suddenly shrink and become unavailable? Would the value of national experience across a large area be less available?

To consider just two such bodies which work successfully is to convince me that, if only for practical reasons, any separation would be a mistake.

David Arthur,

5 Victoria Crescent,

Helensburgh.