THE Fraser of Allander Institute’s report on funding state pensions in an independent Scotland ("Think-tank’s ‘hammer blow’ to SNP pension plan under indy", The Herald, February 5) concludes that determining liability would be “both more complex and more uncertain than either ‘side’ might claim”.

I don’t doubt the complexity, but have the authors overstated the uncertainty?

The UK Government’s own document “State Pension if you retire abroad” states in its first sentence “You can claim State Pension abroad if you’ve paid enough UK National Insurance contributions to qualify”, making clear that following payment of contributions there is a liability to pay a state pension, consistent with the terms of the scheme at the time.

Of course, these terms can change, “reduce, or even, in principle, eliminate”. Certainly, the state pension has varied in real value over the years, but it is no less clear that, in any post-Yes vote negotiation, pension liability could not be valued on the basis of something that might or might not happen several years later.

As for elimination of pensions, the politics of telling the UK’s grey vote, and the expats all over the world, that they are not getting their pension any more is, in terms of political disaster, much worse even than Downing Street parties.

Likewise, it is possible that the UK Government might challenge its liability on the basis that “the tax and NICs made by Scottish residents were used to pay for public services that they previously enjoyed”, but this is not what its own website says. Moreover, would this argument be applied to pensioners in the continuing UK?

Lastly, as the authors point out, “the UK Government can change the qualifying rights for state pensions as it sees fit”. However, how can this be done to exclude only Scots. What would a requirement, for instance, to live in the continuing UK mean for British expats living in Spain?

Many of the uncertainties in the report are therefore just too horrible politically to contemplate, or involve so many difficulties that their complications would surely triumph. The logical solution is surely to negotiate an agreement about division of assets and liabilities, and secure reciprocal agreements. I don’t doubt the complexity or that certainty is imperfect, but with goodwill on both sides, rather than weaponising the issue to cause fear among the elderly, I am sure a solution agreeable to both sides can be forthcoming.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

SNP'S WISHFUL THINKING

I NOTE the debate on the SNP’s assertions that the UK would fund Scottish pensions after independence. This is an extreme case of wishful thinking, as today’s taxes pay pensions, because there is no pension pot to draw on.

At present the workers in the 60 million population pay the pensions of that population. If Scotland were to be independent, surely the workers in the 54 million population of rUK would pay the pensions of that population and the workers in the six million population of Scotland would pay our pensions?

Why would the UK Government agree to fund, out of current taxation, the pensions liability of a different country, when that country is receiving the tax from their own workers at the same time?

Scotland has a demographic handicap with fewer working people supporting all forms of benefit. The SNP solution to this is large immigration of young people, which kicks the can down the road as they will all be old and entitled to a pension one day. Pension planning in the UK and Scotland is broadly similar to a Ponzi scheme, where increasing the population gives more workers to pay pensions and benefits. This lets politicians pass the problems associated with us all living longer down to the next generation.

Nicola Sturgeon says that people will notice no difference or get a bigger pension; this is extremely unlikely, given that it would need the UK politicians to completely capitulate to the SNP viewpoint.

The experts writing in your paper on Saturday, David Bell of the University of Stirling and David Eiser of the Fraser of Allander Institute, seemed to suggest that a fudge agreement would be most likely ("The big questions in fight over who pays pension after independence", The Herald, February 5).

Certainly more of a drawback to, than an advantage of, independence.

John Leonard, Falkirk.

HAVE A PLAN BEFORE THE SPLIT

THE dissolution of the United Kingdom brought on by Scottish independence means that the two newly-independent entities would have no claim to UK Treasury funding as the UK would have ceased to exist. In other words pensions for England, Wales and Northern Ireland would not be paid by the UK nor would Scotland’s pensions.

Arrangements would have to be made prior to the split ensuring that the qualifying conditions for pension payments to former UK pensioners apply equally to both new states; perhaps continuing to be based on the qualifying conditions of the former UK pension scheme.

Payments up to the date of the split could be overseen by a joint board of the two new states and financed by the same mechanism as before. In effect all previous UK pensions would continue to be paid as normal and from the same revenue base. This revenue stream would be the same as before but now bifurcated. Both new states could then review the amount of pension paid within their jurisdictions.

Don Ferguson, Kirkintilloch.

WE NEED ALL THE ANSWERS EARLY

I WOULD sincerely hope that all negotiations regarding finance, pensions, taxation, border controls and so on are satisfactorily settled before any independence vote. Otherwise the Scottish electorate will have no understanding of the effects of voting Yes.

No intelligent person votes for something without knowing what they will get as a result.

Previous voters were not told of the chaos which would ensue when voting to leave. We need the truth of the outcomes before there is a vote.

Barbara Jarvie, Milton of Campsie.

NORWAY MADE THE RIGHT CHOICES

I ALMOST choked on my Corn Flakes this morning while reading Michael Sheridan's letter (February 7) on the subject of Norway.

Norway, in his view it seems, is only a thriving economy thanks "disproportionately" to the might of Great Britain and the United States, who apparently have kept the "free world" open and alive to capitalist endeavour. That world order, it would appear, has provided infinite pathways, both physical and financial, for Norway to expand and flourish.

No mention of the mighty "free world" heroes having invaded or plundered other nations, stolen their resources or having killed their indigenous populations throughout history, in pursuit of the great capitalist utopia. (Recent oil-related adventures in the Middle East spring to mind.)

Mr Sheridan goes on to deride Norway for pursuing "a long-standing policy of military neutrality and exclusion of nuclear weapons". How very dare they!

We are urged by Mr Sheridan to believe that the rest of the "free world" is to be grateful to the might of Great Britain and the United States for the free flow of capitalism, and that Norway is a political passenger and a fortunate beneficiary of our unparalleled might.

Hilarious.

Kevin Orr, Bishopbriggs.

* I AGREE with Michael Sheridan that Norway is not a legitimate comparator for Scotland but disagree with his reasons for saying so. The crucial difference, which appears to have escaped Mr Sheridan's notice, is that Norway is an independent nation and Scotland is not. He employs the blatant oxymoron of explaining that if all the nations of the free world shared Norway's aversion to militarism and nuclear weapons there would be no free world.

Norway, as a free and independent nation in the 1970s, was able to make its own choices regarding North Sea oil and gas; our Scottish nation was in a very different situation and it is now clear that great efforts were made by the UK Government at that time to conceal the full potential economic benefits of North Sea resources from the people of Scotland.

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.

WILL THE SPIN DOC SURVIVE?

BORIS Johnson’s new Director of Communications, Guto Harri, told the press that our beloved and boisterous PM sang "I Will Survive" when they met on Friday. I presume then that Thursday evening’s party was still in full swing.

The PM clearly impressed his new flunky, who described him as "not a complete clown". I’m not sure that statement would have earned Mr Harri another day in the job, or another day on Earth, had he said it of Henry VIII.

John McArthur, Glasgow.

Read more: Why Norway can never be a comparator for Scotland

Subscribe now for the latest opinion articles and letters from just £1 for one month by clicking here