Sir, One way to protect our state pensions following the possible creation of a new Scotland would be for pensioners to remain British.
This is important because Scotland’s forecast is that the number of pensioners here is set to grow by 60% over the next 25 years, which is five times the forecast growth in Scotland’s national insurance income. But there is an escape route!
Let us suppose that a new Scotland was able to join the European Union alongside the UK, that would mean pensioners here who retained their British citizenship would have the right to their full UK pensions and to any future increases.
All of this would be paid directly by the UK to us, just like those Scots living in the rest of the EU still get their pensions paid to them. The move would also save taxpayers in Scotland a lot of money!
If Scotland was unable to agree terms with the EU, then different pension rules would apply. We’d still get our state pension from the UK, but not any increases that might come along each year.
So it remains vital for pensioners that both Scotland and the UK remain members of the EU. Otherwise, the future of Scottish pensions would be uncertain.
Andrew Dundas. 34 Ross Avenue, Perth.
There will be no way back
Sir, At local or general elections one can vote for a candidate or a party in the comforting knowledge that if they perform poorly in office one can vote them out in four years’ time.
However, if Scots vote “yes” on September 18 and independence proves to be an utter fiasco, we cannot go back to the polls in 2018 and vote to rejoin the UK.
There is no way back however much we may rue the original decision. So, as the Romans would say, caveat elector.
Brian Townsend. Whitehouse, Kirkinch, Meigle.
Found the missing ‘B’
Sir, Your correspondent, David Illingworth (Monday’s letters), will be pleased to learn that I have sussed out what the “B” stands for in Alex Salmond’s “plan B” to replace the pound.
It quite simply stands for “Barter” and I expect Mr Salmond’s slogan will be “Back to Basics with Barter!” Now, I wonder what I can get out of Tesco for my old stamp album?
John M Page. 8 Panter Crescent, Montrose.
Beach visit was ruined by dogs
Sir, Visiting the East Sands in St Andrews on Saturday afternoon with my grandchildren, I was not surprised at the number of dog owners out walking with their dogs. It was, after all, a beautiful day.
It’s just unfortunate that these “caring” dog owners have a complete disregard for the families who also want to enjoy a day on the beach.
We were almost knocked over by lumbering dogs who had been set off the lead. My grandson lost his football to a barking, thieving dog. And, last but not least, when I sat down on a stone to watch the children play, a large brown dog came behind me and urinated on my back.
Not surprisingly, that was an end to our afternoon on the beach.
There was a bit of debate on the radio last week about dogs being allowed on beaches.
Well, as far as I’m concerned, if the Scottish Executive promise to ban dogs plus their selfish, inconsiderate, thoughtless owners from all Scottish beaches in the future then I just might be tempted to vote “yes” in the referendum!
Sandra Simpson. 21 Innewan Gardens, Bankfoot.
Don’t discount the majority
Sir, It is quite clear from your correspondence pages that there are many differences of opinion over the new Madras at Pipeland. But in all the debate, one stubborn fact stands out. The great majority of people want the school to be built.
The figures are there for all to see. They can’t be denied. However, there is a disturbing, and growing, tendency for those who don’t like the result to discount the votes of those who support Pipeland.
At various times we have been told that supporters are “emotional”, that they don’t understand the issues, that they were merely involved in a tick box exercise and that the opinions of 800 ordinary people are worth less than the views of one member of the House of Lords.
This attitude was again on display in the letters page last week. We were informed that many of those who sent supportive comments into the planning process did so merely by crossing three boxes on a form and so don’t count.
This is three times as many crosses as we use when voting in a general election. Using this logic, we should ignore the democratic process and simply allow our “betters” (those in the Lords, perhaps?) to decide what is best for us.
And that is the real point here. In recent weeks, those arguing for Pipeland have been dismissed as being “emotional” and “preposterous”; of “ranting” and even of being incapable of passing Standard grade examinations.
Such elitist and anti-democratic views are profoundly dangerous and disrespectful to ordinary members of the community.
By all means, state your case against Pipeland and try to convince us of your case. But don’t pretend to win the argument by discounting those the great majority who have perfectly good reasons for disagreeing with you.
Tone Brennan. 9 Priory Gardens, St Andrews.