AN independent Scotland should take action over the state pension age to avoid the "unfairness" of large numbers of Scots dying before retirement, pension experts have claimed.

Under current UK plans, the state pension age will be increased in stages from 65 years at present to 68 to take account of increasing longevity.

But official figures show average life expectancy for men in many parts of Scotland, including Glasgow, Renfrewshire and Inverclyde, are currently well below the proposed level.

Malcolm Paul, chairman of JLT Benefit Solutions in Scotland, said: "There are a number of places in Scotland where people will have not live that long. They will not receive a state pension.

"There is a fundamental unfairness about the state pension distribution."

In Scotland, males and females can, on average, expect to live shorter lives by 2.7 years and 2.1 years respectively than in England, where life expectancy is the highest in the UK.

But there are also stark divides within Scotland. Life expectancy in the Glasgow City council area is just 65.3 years for men and 74.2 for women. But in East Dunbartonshire men can expect to live to 79.8 and women 83.8.

John Wilson, the Edinburgh-based head of technical at JLT, described the state pension age as arbitrary.

He added: "The issue should be raised by the Scottish Parliament.

"And should Scotland vote for independence in the forthcoming referendum, this would have to be an issue high up on the agenda of the new administration."

Scots have the lowest life expectancy at birth of any part of the United Kingdom.

Currently, powers over welfare, including the state pension age, are reserved to Westminster.

It is intended that the state pension age will rise to 66 for both men and women between 2018 and 2020. It will then increase to 67 between 2026 and 2028 and to 68 by 2046.

However, the Government has said it wants to conduct five-yearly reviews that might see this timetable altered.

Mr Paul said: "It seems fundamentally unfair that people could get no benefit at all. The current state pension regime favours the rich over the poor."

One solution proposed by JLT is that people should be allowed to retire earlier than the state pension age but take a reduced income.

Mr Paul said: "The existing one-size-fits-all state pension regime is not fit for purpose."

He said corporate and public-sector schemes increasingly recognised the changing nature of retirement. For instance, in some schemes people can draw on their retirement income while continuing to work to top up their incomes.

JLT acknowledged there would be a price to their plans.

"To the extent that people otherwise unable to receive a benefit would receive one, there is a cost," Mr Paul said. "What you could do is reduce the pension to reflect the fact that it will be paid for longer."

He added means-testing of pensions might be also reduce the overall cost.

Mr Wilson said : "There will always be winners and losers if you make it cost neutral."