ALASDAIR Galloway (Letters, February 8) would have us believe that needless alarm is being created by questioning how pensions would be funded should Scotland choose independence. This is not needless whatsoever. It is a very valid issue that needs to be explained by the SNP if it wants the electorate to choose with their eyes open.

Like many others who favour independence, Mr Galloway uses the argument of being able to claim a state pension when abroad. There is a huge difference between an expat who decides to live abroad and the citizens of a part of the country that decides it wants to leave a union. Pensions are paid to us through the taxes collected from current taxpayers. There is no pot that can be shared between Scotland and rUK. Independence means just that – standing on your own two feet and living within your means. Those who seek independence sound like the flatmate who has moved out as they didn’t like you but still wants to come round to use the washing machine. The concept that another country would be responsible for paying pensions out of its current tax receipts is just farcical.

As for goodwill on both sides, I have yet to see the SNP ever extend goodwill to the UK Government. Ian Blackford is testament to that. The ex-flatmate that is all nice when he wants something is going to learn the hard way.

The SNP and separatists are yet again trying to get the citizens of Scotland to jump off a cliff into the unknown. No thank you, I say.

Jane Lax, Aberlour.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

THE joint contribution of The Herald and the Fraser of Allander Institute is to be welcomed in the debate on the future of Scottish pensions ("Think-tank’s ‘hammer blow’ to SNP pension plan under indy", The Herald, February 5, and Letters, February 5 & 8). We now have neutral confirmation that the UK state retirement pension scheme is a pay-as-you-go arrangement, with no accumulated personal or national pot; and that it is a benefit rather than than an entitlement. In turn, we can now agree how those Scottish pensions will not be paid for (that is, the taxpayers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

However, there is uncertainty as to how they would be paid for, even at the current rates, let alone the more generous levels promised by the SNP. It is incumbent on nationalists to tell us the who and how of the future funding of Scottish pensions. Hopefully, we will learn more in the much-touted independence prospectus now being prepared at great cost by the policy masterminds of the Scottish Government. Ever the optimist, I look forward to being convinced.

Incidentally, the issue of pensions is a perfect example of why the burden of proof should always be with those who advocate change, in this case who support secession from the UK. We can see the current state retirement pension, how it is funded, how sustainable that funding is, what it will buy, what its relationship to private pensions is and so on. In contrast, we have no certainty at all about the arrangements in a putative independent Scotland, just lofty assurances and best-case scenarios, and there will none until we know how they will work in realistic and concrete terms.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

A DEAL WILL BE DONE

MARK Smith ("The pensions row explains why many of us still back No", The Herald, February 7) quite rightly pointed out the irony in Ian Blackford and Nicola Sturgeon possibly "doing a Boris" regarding the state pension being paid by the UK Government on gaining independence. But his article seemed to be a personal worry that he may lose out financially given a breakaway. He needs to take on board that a Yes vote is not a vote for Nicola Sturgeon, or even a vote for the SNP, but a choice for self-determination. I believe that a deal will be done to honour the pension.

Brian Higgins, Clydebank.

* CAN someone please explain why the UK Government would continue to pay Scottish pensions after independence? I accept that the UK pays for expat Brits who live abroad as they are still British, but I can't see why if Scotland gets independence why they would pay for the pension of foreign nationals, as every person living in Scotland will become a foreign national on day one of independence.

Robert McCaskie, Biggar.

GIVE US SOME CLARITY

I AGREE with Barbara Jarvis (Letters, February 8). Last year one of George Galloway's Alliance for Unity's policies was for the UK Government to pass a Canada-style Clarity Act to set out the terms of any referendum and subsequent treaty on issues such as national debt, trade, borders, citizenship and options for No-voting regions to remain in the UK.

This would be negotiated before a referendum so voters would know what they were voting for.

It was studiously ignored by all the mainstream parties. The argument over pensions is surely an example of the need for it, if only to put the nationalist pipe dream – and Scotland – out of their misery.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

HOME TRUTHS FOR STURGEON

KEVIN McKenna’s article ("Small doors policy could lead the way on green living", The Herald, February 7) was pretty funny and despite being tongue in cheek offered some serious points. I fully agree with his suggestion that the FM should visit “one of Glasgow’s less salubrious arrondissements” for a photo shoot. May I suggest she visits Govanhill, possibly one of the least salubrious arrondissements in Western Europe? Oh, it’s in her own constituency, by the way.

John Gilligan, Ayr.

JOHNSON MUST APOLOGISE

THE hounding of Labour’s leader by what can only be described as a baying mob on the streets of London was shameful ("Starmer ambushed by shouting mob", The Herald, February 8).

Cries about Jimmy Savile and Sir Keir Starmer’s part in the prosecution process (or lack of it) could be heard clearly on news clips. I am afraid Boris Johnson must accept his part in igniting this disgraceful behaviour and unconditionally apologise. When he taunted the Opposition leader in the way he did, it was tantamount to unleashing every crank and zealot in the UK.

Does the PM not recall that very recently one of his own MPs was brutally stabbed to death by a zealot? And of course no-one has forgotten the Jo Cox atrocity. When someone in high office uses such language he or she risks giving carte blanche to the unstable and deluded.

It is incumbent on all in public office to speak in measured language and remember what can result if they do not. Mr Johnson may well be singing "I will survive" in the shower but it will not be for much longer unless he learns very quickly to hold his tongue.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.

THE CASE FOR A WINDFALL TAX

OIL giant BP has reported its highest profit for eight years, amounting to £9.5 billion for 2021, the highest for eight years. This comes days after Shell reported profits of more than £14 billion for last year, both companies cashing in on rocketing oil and gas markets.

Gas prices have increased five-fold from prior to the pandemic and oil prices have almost doubled as economies open up. This is leading to big increases in gas and electricity bills for households, which will face a record energy bill increase of 54 per cent from April after the regulator lifted the cap on default tariffs to £1,971. The choice for many, pushed into fuel poverty, will now be between heating and eating.

Facing crippling increases in the cost of living, it is interesting to note what other countries are doing to tackle this energy crisis. France, for example, is capping bill increases at four per cent; Norway is paying half of its citizen’s energy bills with profits from its lucrative oil fund, and Germany is looking to cap increases at five per cent.

The pockets of the oil companies are deep, having profited from higher wholesale prices, and a one-off windfall tax here in the UK on fossil fuel giants helping hard-pressed households cope with record energy bills is urgently required.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh.

* WILLIE Maclean (Letters, February 8) states that when it comes to the treatment of North Sea oil, the crucial difference between Norway and Scotland is that the former is independent, whereas Scotland is not, being subject at the time to the UK's efforts to conceal the full potential economic benefits. The implication is, that if we had been independent, then we could have followed Norway's course.

Forgive me for not sharing his rosy view, in light of the fact that with the benefit of 50 years' hindsight, the SNP Government felt able to sell off seabed plots for offshore wind projects for what most experts deem to be a pittance.

R Murray, Glasgow.

Read more: Stop causing needless alarm to the elderly over pensions