Pensioners will be worse off if Scotland opts to stay in the union because of Westminster's plans to increase the state pension age, Pensioners' Rights Secretary Shona Robison has said.
Scottish Government research shows that because of lower life expectancy, people in Scotland with identical state pension entitlement to the rest of the UK would receive "substantially less" over a lifetime, Ms Robison said.
She pledged to "ensure support for pensioners is a priority for this Government", and warned they would lose out if Scotland rejects independence in September.
"There is a pensions pay gap for the vast majority of pensioners in Scotland," she said.
"For future pensioners in Scotland, a No vote in the independence referendum will cost an average of £10,000 as people have to work longer and longer.
"The simple message for pensioners of the future is, if you vote No, you will be worse off."
The UK Government has proposed to increase the state pension age to 67 from 2026.
Speaking during a debate at Holyrood, Ms Robison added: "In Scotland's Future, we have committed to establishing an independent commission to consider the appropriate rate of increase in the state pension age.
"The commission will consider fairness, life expectancy, affordability and equality issues in the round, and reach a decision that genuinely suits Scotland's circumstances."
Labour's Neil Findlay said Ms Robison had given another speech on independence instead of focusing on issues such as health, social care and life expectancy.
"Scotland faces a serious demographic challenge with the number of over-75s set to double in the next 25 years," he said.
"As people live longer we will see demands on our services, particularly health and social care, rise.
"What pensioners need is a health and social care system fit for purpose and fit to meet the demands of the 21st century.
"Why won't the Scottish Government rid itself of its complacency and do likewise to what Labour has called for - a Beveridge-style review of our health and social care services?
"Pretending everything is okay just won't cut it."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article