A FURIOUS row has erupted over Scottish Government claims that Scots are "short-changed" by the state pension because they die younger on average than people across the rest of the UK.
SNP ministers were yesterday accused of showing an "appalling" lack of ambition by basing pension policy for an independent Scotland on continued low life expectancy.
Opponents also branded the claim a "disgraceful and divisive" attempt to rally support for independence and warned a go-it-alone Scotland would struggle to match UK pensions.
The row followed the publication of a Scottish Government analysis showing Scots reaching the age of 65 could expect to receive between £10,000 and £11,000 less in state pension payments than people across the UK, on average, due to lower life expectancy.
For a woman who lives in Glasgow - which has the lowest life expectancy in Scotland - the gap is £22,000 less than in the UK average.
Men from Glasgow can expect to receive £29,000 less than the UK average, and £50,000 less than a man in Harrow, which has the UK's highest life expectancy.
However the figures also showed that a man from Orkney, which has Scotland's highest life expectancy, could expect to receive £31,000 more than a man from Manchester.
Cabinet Secretary for Pensioners' Rights Shona Robison said: "This research makes clear that Scots are already short changed when it comes to pensions.
"If we stay tied to the Westminster pension and welfare system, and the state pension age rises at the same pace in Scotland as in the rest of the UK, the risk is that this problem will be compounded.
"The lower life expectancy in Scotland means it would be fairer for people in Scotland if the increase in the pension age was postponed."
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon added: "This research clearly sets out why examining a delay to the increase in retirement age beyond 66 would be the fairest option for people in Scotland."
The Scottish Government has backed the UK Government's decision to raise the state pension age to 66 by 2020.
However, if Scotland becomes independent, SNP ministers have promised to set up commission to consider whether further Westminster plans to raise the age to 67 after 2026 should be followed north of the Border.
The Department for Work and Pensions said yesterday that delaying increasing the pension age to 67 could cost an independent Scotland about £6billion in additional pensions costs between 2026-27 and 2035-36.
Gregg McClymont, Scottish Labour's pensions spokesman, said: "The experts are clear - pensions are more affordable as part of the UK because we can pool our resources to share out the costs of Scotland's rapidly growing elderly population.
"For the nationalists to suggest the best way to be able to pay for pensions in Scotland is if we continue to die younger is frankly appalling. If this is the extent of the nationalists' ambition for Scotland the Scottish Government should be ashamed and immediately apologise for insulting the intelligence of Scots."
He added: "The Scottish Parliament already has the power to improve the life expectancy of Scots, with control over health, education and local services. Maybe if Nicola Sturgeon focused on the day job instead campaigning for separation things would improve.
Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury said an independent Scotland would "struggle" to match UK state pension rates in future.
He added: "The Scottish Government should do something about why Scottish people don't live as long as people in the rest of the UK."
Scottish Conservative deputy leader Jackson Carlaw said: "The Scottish Government is disgracefully trying to shoehorn this into a Scotland versus England debate, in the hope it will generate more animosity and boost the Yes vote."
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