Pages tagged with "Featured"

Scotland took a slightly different approach to vaccinating its population against COVID-19 than the rest of the UK. The Scottish Government planned for a slower start in the vaccination programme, due to prioritising the oldest and most vulnerable individuals. This has proven effective, with deaths among care home residents falling rapidly in Scotland. Furthermore, over the past couple of weeks, with the majority of all care home residents and over 80s having been vaccinated, the speed of Scotland’s vaccination roll-out has reached new heights and is now significantly more efficient than the UK’s overall. In fact, Scotland currently leads the way in Europe (alongside Wales) administering the most daily COVID-19 vaccine doses (0.89 per 100 people on 9th February - 7 day rolling average).

A comparison of the two nations

31st February – 10th February 2021

 Over the past week, Scotland has administered more doses of the vaccine each day (per 1,000 people of population) than the UK average, and in fact, England has vaccinated notably less than the other nations.

Number of 1^st dose of COVID-19 vaccine daily per 1,000 individuals (31^st Jan – 10^th Feb 2021)

Scotland’s approach proving effective

 Scotland is now not only vaccinating more people per day than the UK average, but the government’s decision to vaccinate the most vulnerable individuals first is proving to be a success. The latest figures from the National Records of Scotland highlight that 68 people residing in care homes in Scotland died with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in the week beginning 1^st February. When compared to the week beginning 4^th January, the number of deaths has declined by 40%. This suggests that in Scotland, deaths in care homes are falling 10 times faster than amongst the general population. While it is not yet clear to what extent the vaccine has contributed to this, it is likely that the prioritisation of vaccinating the elderly and most vulnerable first, will have played a key role in these promising figures.

This graph highlights the change in Scotland's vaccination programme after a majority of care home residents and staff had been vaccinated. On the 1st of February 2021, 98% of older care home residents and 88% of care home staff had been vaccinated in Scotland, as the government had planned. Therefore, with a majority of the most vulnerable members of society having been vaccinated, the focus of vaccines could shift to the wider population and be carried out at a greater speed. This is clearly demonstrated in the graph and from this point the Scotland has vaccinated more 1st doses per 1,000 people each day than the rest of the UK.

Conclusions

Throughout January, Scotland’s approach to rolling-out the vaccine was politicised and often criticised in the headlines. However, recent figures, showing a decline in deaths among those in care homes, have suggested that this approach may have been significantly more effective. Meanwhile, the statistics on daily doses across the UK suggest that Scotland is now leading the way and exceeding all targets set out by the Scottish Government.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has claimed that Scotland would not have been able to fight the virus as effectively without the support of England and the rest of the UK.  With the increasing politicisation of the pandemic, we feel it is only right to point out the facts. As the UK recently passed a grim milestone, with over 100,000 people having died from COVID-19, it is important to consider the grave mistakes that have been made by the UK Government and question whether an independent Scotland, with fully devolved powers, would have taken a different and more successful route in tackling the pandemic.

To understand how an independent Scotland would have been likely to respond during this crisis, let’s examine some of the independent countries across Europe, with similar population sizes to Scotland, including Ireland, Finland, Norway and Denmark. The measures enforced and the consequent results in tackling COVID-19 across these countries will be compared to those of the UK. Looking at these case studies in comparison to the political one liners, allows us to recognise why an independent Scotland would have coped better with the pandemic than it has been able to as part of the UK.

     1. Higher case numbers

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the UK has faced disproportionately high case numbers. Throughout the winter months, cases of COVID-19 have run out of control once again. As of the 3rd February 2021 (rolling 7-day average), there were 22,2476.4 daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases. The Nordic countries, Norway (268.3), Denmark (463.1) and Finland (347.6), have kept their number of daily cases under greater control.

Norway and Finland, in particular, implemented strict measures quickly after the summer months and despite a slight rise in cases over the winter, have avoided case numbers escalating out of control.

     2. Rising hospital admissions

In relation to the rising number of cases, the UK has faced a serious rise in hospital admissions, putting severe and continuous strain on the NHS. On the 22nd January, the UK had 38,167 COVID-19 patients in hospital. In comparison, Ireland had 1,969, Norway had 131, Finland had 136 and Denmark had 745.

These figures demonstrate that the UK has a higher number of COVID-19 patients in hospital per head of population than the smaller independent nations that we have benchmarked against. Again, this is due to their ability to implement strict measures quickly and effectively.

     3. Greater number of deaths

With rising cases and hospital admissions, it is unsurprising that the UK has also faced a severe number of COVID-19 deaths. In fact, the UK’s mortality outcome is among the worst in the world. When considering the COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 of the population, the UK has the third biggest cumulative death total, with only Slovenia and Belgium having higher mortality rates.

Meanwhile the latest data shows a drastically different picture among some of Europe’s small independent countries. On the 4th February 2021, Norway had registered 574 deaths (cumulative total per 1 million population, 105.88) , Finland 685 (123.63), Denmark 2,170 (374.64), Ireland 3,512 (711.25) and the UK 109,335 (1,610.57).

     4. Delays in locking down the UK

Government advisers have recognised that the UK’s delay in locking down in March 2020 was a crucial mistake. The UK Government did not announce national lockdown until 23^rd March 2020. In comparison, Norway announced a national lockdown almost two weeks before, on 12^th March 2020. Denmark followed suit, implementing lockdown on 13^th March and Finland on 16^th March. Closer to home, Ireland started to take action, such as closing schools and colleges, as early as 12^th March 2020.

The UK were slow in locking down, especially when compared to smaller independent countries across Europe, and this has had critical and grave effects. The different approach adopted by many small independent nations suggests that an independent Scotland would have been likely to implement measures sooner, particularly without the pressures of following a four nations approach as part of the UK.

     5. Failure to close borders

Unlike the UK, Finland, Norway and Denmark all closed their borders by 19^th March 2020. This allowed these countries to be less strict in other respects, such as the number of times people could leave their house in a day to exercise. The UK Government holds control over borders and has only recently closed all travel corridors and made a negative test mandatory before entering the country. However, great pressure remains on Boris Johnson to close the borders completely.

The significance of this failure of the UK Government to close the borders in March 2020 and only recently implementing more lenient measures, has even been recognised from within the Cabinet itself. The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, stated that it was a mistake not closing the borders last year in March.

     6. Vaccine capitalism

As of the 2nd February 2021, the UK had vaccinated 10.52 million individuals. Boris Johnson claimed that there would not have been any COVID-19 vaccines in Scotland if it had not been for the Union. This insensitive and irrational comment can be understood as an attempt by the PM and the Conservative party to politicise the pandemic and the vaccination programme.

Evidence shows that an independent Scotland would be more than capable of vaccinating its population, as other small independent nations have done so. Although the Nordic countries and Ireland have not yet vaccinated as many individuals as the UK, they are certainly capable, as by mid-January, Denmark had administered their vaccines so efficiently that they had run out. This shortage in vaccinations is largely a result of the UK capitalising the vaccine. It has been reported that the UK has paid between £24 and £28 per dose on the Moderna vaccine, meanwhile the EU is paying approximately £13. Moreover, the AstraZeneca vaccine has cost the UK £3 per dose and the EU £1.61. The UK paying significantly more for the vaccinations than the EU has resulted in the UK being prioritised for distribution by the struggling drug companies, thus breaking their contracts with several EU nations. This is being recognised as a success for the UK Government, despite that it will almost certainly result in worsening trade relations with the EU and greater austerity within the UK due to the accumulated COVID response overspend.

Meanwhile, EU nations and the other Nordic countries have largely administered the Pfizer/BioNTech (95% effective after two doses) and Moderna (80.2% effective after one dose and 95.6% effective after two) vaccines, which offer greater effectiveness than the AstraZeneca vaccination (76% effective after one dose and 82% after two).

     7. PPE shortages

Another crucial error made by the UK Government refers to the major PPE shortages experienced by the UK.  Despite the UK government emphasising that sufficient stockpiles of PPE existed and were available, this was most certainly not the case. In fact, Professor Ewan Macdonald, one of the UK’s leading occupation health specialists, recognised the way in which the government had tailored its advice and guidance on the use of PPE to the availability they had. Ultimately, the UK Government failed to recognise the urgency and volume of PPE that would be required and instead, had to play catch up with other nations in trying to secure its share of scarce resources.

On the other hand, Finland demonstrated a very different approach to the pandemic from the beginning. As the UK scrambled to find resources, Finland held a grand stockpile of PPE and surgical masks. The stockpile had been built up over many years and includes medical supplies, oil, grains, tools and raw materials. This level of preparedness is something that the UK Government has lacked hugely throughout the pandemic.

     8. Testing failures

Norway and Finland were some of the first countries to begin testing for COVID-19, with tests being carried out towards the end of February 2020. In April 2020, when the virus was peaking in the UK and across Europe, the UK trailed behind some of the smaller, independent countries with regards to testing. On 25^th April 2020, the UK was carrying out 0.39 tests per 1000 people. Denmark was carrying out more than 4 times the number of tests per 1000 people than the UK was at this point (carrying out 1.72 tests per 1000 people). Norway, Finland and Ireland also proved to have more effective testing systems.

Despite, the UK’s testing system gradually improving since the beginning of the pandemic, Denmark continues to carry out approximately double the number of tests per 1000 people than the UK. This, again, shows the capabilities of smaller independent nations.

     9. Eat out to help out

The UK Government introduced the ‘Eat out to help out’ scheme in the UK during August 2020. The scheme involved the government funding discounts on food and non-alcoholic drinks on Monday-Wednesday throughout August. The idea aimed to boost the economy and help businesses get back on their feet. However, the irrationality of this programme was evidenced in the consequent increase in COVID-19 cases. Research has suggested that the scheme contributed directly to the rise in cases over the summer. This demonstrates an example in which the UK Government prioritised the economy over the health of the population.

     10. Poor economic recovery

As of December 2020, the Scottish Government had been allocated £8.2 billion and was not aware of any further funding from the UK Government in respect of COVID-19. However, not all of the £8.2 billion had been transferred as cash to the Scottish Government bank account yet. £3.063 billion has been formally allocated at the UK Main Estimate, the remaining is expected to be allocated at Supplementary Estimate later this financial year.

Despite, the UK Government asserting that Scotland is financially better off during this crisis as part of the Union, earlier last year, we discovered that had Scotland been both independent and a member of the EU, it would have received roughly £5.4bn worth of funding to help tackle the COVID-19 crisis.

Throughout this global health crisis, it has become clear that small independent countries have been able to offer very supportive economic recovery packages. For example, Norway and Denmark, two of our closest neighbours which have similar population sizes to Scotland, have been able to source large sums of funding to deal with the coronavirus pandemic and restarting their economies.

Conclusions

This article has recognised only a handful of the numerous significant mistakes that the UK Government has made throughout this pandemic. As Boris Johnson’s Government leads the UK past a grim milestone of over 100,000 COVID-19 deaths, and with rising cases and hospital admissions, the winter peak appears to be far from over.

Throughout this article, we have outlined some of the UK’s COVID-19 measures and policies and their consequent results and have offered a comparison to those of the smaller independent countries across Europe. These case studies have allowed us to understand how an independent Scotland would have been likely to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is clear their approach would have been undoubtedly more successful.

With delays in locking down, PPE shortages, open borders, billions spent on track and trace apps that do not work and poor testing systems, it is clear that the UK Government has made grave mistakes from the beginning of this crisis, and these failures would have been avoidable with competent governance and greater preparation, as displayed within a number of the independent Nordic countries.

Therefore, without the numerous U-turns and policy disasters, the ability of an independent Scotland to handle the pandemic more effectively appears very probable. The evidence has demonstrated that Scotland, with a similar population size to the case study countries, would have been likely to have coped in a similar manner and tackled the pandemic more successfully as an independent nation.

The “Yes Challenge” is set to take place over the next three months and aims to convert as many undecided voters as possible to independence.

The new initiative, a collaboration between Believe in Scotland (BiS) and The National, has been described as a potential “gamechanger” for the independence campaign.

BiS founder Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp said: “With 20 polls in a row showing a majority for Yes and support for independence as high as 58%, now is the time to build momentum and our ambitious grassroots campaign will do just that.

“May’s Holyrood election has the potential to cause a seismic change on the future of Scotland and we are going to be ready to harness that opportunity.”

The 12 week Yes Challenge aims to achieve:

• 5,000 people to sign the Yes Challenge pledge
• 2,000 undecided voters to participate in the Open Minds to Independence journey
• 1,000 confirmed new Yes voters after 12 weeks
• 200 “Yes from No” conversion testimonials to share via print and social media

The concept is simple to understand and easy to engage with; members of the Believe in Scotland community (12,900), members of local Yes groups and readers of The National will be asked to sign up to the Yes Challenge pledge at yeschallenge.scot and will be encouraged to sign up undecided voters amongst their friends, family members or work colleagues. Over the course of 12 weeks, BiS and The National will take up the challenge of sharing with those undecideds the tangible opportunities of independence through content that will answer their questions and allay their doubts.

Once an undecided voter signs up (no card details required) they will be sent a new series of 24 articles, written by Believe in Scotland, which will make the case for independence step by step. The articles will highlight the democratic deficit in the UK, dispel the myths of the Union, tell the truth about Brexit and share facts about the potential that independence could deliver for Scotland.

Additionally, they will also have access to all of The National’s usual news stories, columnists, fact-checks and features.

There will be a series of virtual events exclusively for undecided voters, offering a welcome and safe space in which they can ask questions of real experts who can address any fears and answer queries about the case for Yes.

MacIntyre-Kemp said: “We all have at least one friend whose heart says Yes but their head isn’t yet convinced, that’s who we want you to connect us with, someone that is open to the idea of independence but still on the fence. We will engage them, listen and answer their questions, then hopefully put their heads in touch with their hearts by sharing the evidence that shows why independence is the right path.

"We are aiming big and we need the help of all dedicated and true independence supporters to make this work.

We can’t win by talking amongst ourselves and this Yes Challenge is the single biggest independence campaigning initiative for years. We hope our Yes family will unite behind this major campaign and help us engage people outside of the Yes community."

Sign up to the Yes Challenge today – and help us convert undecided voters to independence.

Believe in Scotland’s virtual Burns Supper featured Scottish stars in a fantastic video production of "A man's a man", which topped 11,000  views in less than 24 hours.  Headlined by Brian Cox, the video also includes supermodel Eunice Olumide, Lesley Riddoch and Alistair Heather.

More than 550 independence supporters attended the BiS event and raised more than £4,000 for its independence campaign.

The event, rated by 91% of attendees as “excellent” or “very good”, was hosted by BiS founder Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp and featured talks, toasts, recitals and songs from a host of well-kent Scots.

McIntyre-Kemp, who hosted the event from his kitchen, said he was delighted with the success of the virtual Supper.“We didn’t let lockdown stop us celebrating the Bard and having a great night in. In is clearly the new out!

“We raised a fantastic amount of money for our billboard and Facebook advertising campaign being launched in February, this will be a major part of our bid to reach an increasingly independence-voting public and share our message of a better, fairer, greener, healthier and happier independent Scotland.

“But just as importantly, it was great to see so many independence supporters getting together and enjoying the event; some said even though it was only online that it was the best Burns Supper they had ever attended and 74% said it was better than or as good as a normal Burns Supper.”

The stellar line up of entertainers ranged from the best Burns and folk performers to TV and radio presenters, leading politicians and even a major TV and movie star. Guests enjoyed:

• Readings from Brian Cox, Lesley Riddoch, Kate Forbes MSP, Eunice Olumide, Alistair Heather, Billy Kay and Brandon Malone
• Musical performances from Iona Fyffe, and youth performers Rhianna Boyle and Eala McElhinney
• Toasts and talks by Mike Russell MSP and Philippa Whitford MP, Alistair Heather and Bill Nolan
• All hosted by Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp

One of the highlights of the evening was A mans a man for a’ that, the Bard's thoughtful expression of the ideas of equality and fairness in society - which makes it so relevant for today’s society.

The poem was recited by a star cast led by actor Brian Cox with supermodel Eunice Olumide, historian and presenter Alistair Heather and presenter and academic Lesley Riddoch. The music was also provided by Oscar winner Patrick Doyle.

Click here to watch the video on our facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/105247661026106/videos/115686417102822

The Believe in Scotland Virtual Burns Supper will take place on Saturday, January 23. All proceeds will be spent on campaigning for Scottish independence and we have a stellar line up to entertain and enlighten you, ranging from the best Burns and folk performers to TV and radio presenters, leading politicians and even a major TV and movie star.

The line up

• Readings from Brian Cox, Lesley Riddoch, Kate Forbes MSP, Eunice Olumide, Alistair Heather, Billy Kay and Brandon Malone
• Musical performances from Iona Fyffe, John Hutchison and youth performers Rhianna Boyle and Eala McElhinney
• Toasts and talks by Mike Russell MSP and Philippa Whitford MP, Alistair Heather and Bill Nolan
• Hosted by Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp

Tickets are just £15.00 per person

The campaign goes on

We can’t get together physically due to lockdown restrictions but that’s not going to stop us celebrating the life of Scotland’s iconic national Bard and raising funds to kickstart our 2021 independence campaign with a virtual Burns Supper on Saturday, January 23. 

So what’s a Burns Supper?

Burns Suppers are fun evenings of musical, poetic and comic entertainment to mark the birthday of Rabbie Burns, Scotland’s national poet. We have a track record of delivering high quality online events and our virtual Burns supper format is innovative; it has not been done before on this scale and it will be great fun as well as providing a high profile event for the Yes movement, spreading the message far beyond Scotland's borders.

How does it work?

Buy a ticket for yourself, or for two or three people if you are all using the same device to participate, and we will send you a link to log in on the night. There will be two main areas; a main stage where all the performances will be broadcast (some recorded and some live) and the virtual tables.  

If you purchase a table we will allocate you a virtual table, which is essentially a breakout room where you can video chat with your friends as you eat and drink. One person needs to buy the table and tell their friends which table to log into during the event - you can get the money back from them yourselves, or even ask them to click the link to donate.  

If you buy an individual ticket you will be allocated a virtual table where you will meet new friends and maybe some old ones, but you don’t get to choose your table. 

The virtual tables will be open from 6.30pm and performances will start on the main stage at 7pm - we will break for 30 minutes for you to eat and chat with pals on the virtual tables and then back to the main stage again for the rest of the entertainment. 

Official proceedings will end at 10.30pm but the virtual tables will be open for several more hours so that you can keep chatting and drinking, even singing, whatever you want. 

What is Believe in Scotland and what will we spend the funds on?

Believe in Scotland is the grass roots independence campaign that spun out of the leading independence campaigning group, Business for Scotland.  

Believe in Scotland was awarded 2020 Independence Campaign Group of the Year by the Scottish independence Newspaper and The Scottish Independence Foundation. All of the funds raised from this event will go towards our new billboard campaign, delivered in partnership with local Yes groups.

Tickets are just £15.00 per person (you have to supply your own haggis!) and we also have private virtual tables where guests can video chat during the event with up to 10 friends at a time, with everyone enjoying the meal and the entertainment together. Virtual tables cost £150.00 to have up to 10 guests at your private table.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has called for a constitutional convention, in a speech which was postponed from last month because he wanted to concentrate on getting Brexit done.  That alone demonstrates the Labour leaders lack of understanding of the people of Scotland and their priorities.  Putting aside the fact that Labour have had decades to offer Scotland more powers and have not done so, they were even less keen on offering more powers through the Smith Commission than the Conservatives were. Let's also put aside the fact that Starmer is not in power and doesn't look likely to be in power any time soon.  

Federalism or near Federalism was offered by Gordon Brown in 2014 (someone else who has no power to implement what he is offering) and has been discussed for several years and now, with the Scottish Labour Party suggesting it as an alternative to independence, so Federalism is the expected offer should any convention ever exist (which is in itself is doubtful). We researched the facts and we found the following: 

The truth

Federalism requires the agreement of all member-states of the UK, it cannot be implemented by Scotland alone. With a Conservative majority in Westminster that does not back Federalism, such an agreement is highly-unlikely.  It's also worth considering that under Federalism, Scotland’s political power would still be limited by a central government outside of Scotland. Therefore, many Scottish voters would not consider it as an alternative to independence.

The facts

• Federalism involves a mode of political organisation that distributes power between a central authority (e.g. Westminster) and the constituent units (e.g. Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland). These states are granted certain powers, while others are retained by the central government.
• Federalism cannot be implemented in Scotland without the rest of the UK also adopting federalism and this would involve significant constitutional change.
• A recent poll from Panelbase highlights that only 10% of Conservative voters support federalism. Therefore, considering that Westminster holds a Conservative majority, the implementation of federalism is practically impossible.
• It was demonstrated in the 1973 Kilbrandon Commission that there is no federal structure currently that could accommodate England as a separate entity.
• The House of Lords Select Committee on the constitution concluded that: There is no support for federalism within England. This would be essential, as a UK-wide referendum would have to take place to decide whether federalism would be implemented or not - therefore Scotland could vote yes to Federalism and be overruled by a lack of support in England. 
• Under a federal system, defence (e.g. declaring war) and foreign policy (conducting foreign affairs and agreeing to trade and immigration deals with other nations) would be powers retained by Westminster.
• Other powers, such as those regarding taxation, lawmaking and enforcement, would be shared by the states and the federal government (Westminster).

Verdict

For federalism to be implemented a UK-wide referendum would have to take place. However, there is neither the public support nor the political structure to accommodate this in England, or the rest of the UK. Moreover, federalism would mean that powers concerning defence, welfare and foreign policy would be retained by Westminster, again limiting Scotland.

Federalism does not appear to be a suitable political system for the UK as a whole and the only way it can work would be for UK member-states to adopt it simultaneously. The mood of the Conservative majority in Westminster seems more likely to favour removing powers from Scotland than adding to them.

As a matter of fact, federalism is nearly impossible to implement, as it would be heavily rejected by English voters, especially with only 10% of Conservative voters supporting the idea. As a concept, it falls well short of the powers Scotland would possess as an independent country and thus, would not work as a political alternative to independence. Finally in order to sell Federalism, Starmer would have to explain why the current Union is not a suitable system for governing and that would mean that English independence (currently at 49% in the polls in England and with majority support from Labour and Conservative voters) would have to be also offered to the English electorate - in our opinion England would wholeheartedly vote for its own independence were it offered. 

Federalism is often confused with the term “devo-max” which we discuss in another FAQ.

Many people have asked us what impact independence is likely to have on their existing pension schemes and investments.  In another post which you can read here, we have covered the state pension situation after independence. In that post, we have pointed out that:

• The UK has the worst state pension in the developed world. In 2016 it was only worth 29% of average income.
• The EU average is 70.5% meaning that UK pensions receive more than two times less than comparable countries.
• The 2019 SNP Conference voted that in an independent Scotland the Scottish Government should create plan to increase the Scottish state pension to the EU average, effectively doubling it.  The plan has not been published yet.

With regard to private pensions, we researched the facts and we found the following: 

The truth

Occupational pensions will not be affected by independence. Private pension assets will be protected by existing legislation after independence. These include personal pensions, cash ISAs, lifetime ISAs and private investments without a fund to administer them. You will still be able to purchase bonds and tax-free savings but the Scottish Government, and not the Westminster, will be responsible for those bonds and making contributions. 

The facts

Occupational Pensions

• Each occupational pensions scheme establishes the conditions that govern the operation and that the company has to fulfil regardless of political circumstances, in advance. If you are due an occupational pension you will get your full pension entitlement in an independent Scotland as your contract with the pension supplier will still stand.  
• In the case of final salary pensions, also known as defined benefit schemes, a fund is obliged to pay you the amount that was agreed in advance. The only occasions in which this has not happened has been when the firm has gone into liquidation, in which case there are adequate industry protections to guarantee your investment.
• The ultimate backstop is the Pension Protection Fund (PPF), which protects the entire pension of those who have already retired and 90% of those who are still working. This is subject to an annual cap of £38,505.61. 
• All protections that exist as part of the UK will also be in place in an independent Scotland.

Private Pension Assets

• Currently, private pension assets are mainly held in banks and other institutions which operate cross-nationally. For instance, the largest banks in Scotland are; Royal Bank of Scotland (owned by the UK Government), the Bank of Scotland (owned by Lloyds group) and Clydesdale (owned by an Australian banking group). These, and other banks, are all covered under UK regulatory frameworks because they are either headquartered in the UK or have subsidiaries there. Following independence, those companies will simply designate their offices in Scotland and England as their registered office for that nation and work under the pension laws of that nation. Your pension will be registered with the bank/pension provider in the nation in which you live. 
• The position expressed by the Scottish Government is that tax-free savings products, such as private pension savings, will be supported and honoured in full after independence. These savings products will also be protected by compensation schemes, providing protection in line with European harmonised rules of consumer protection.
• Scottish based savers will be Scottish residents and therefore no longer UK residents when it comes to tax-free savings and so will have access to tax-free savings schemes operated by the Scottish Government. Savers will be able to keep existing UK savings without paying tax on them but will not be able to contribute additionally to those specific UK funds. This is because the UK government pays towards these schemes and new schemes towards which the Scottish Government will contribute will be put in place.
• National Savings and Investment bonds will also be treated the same way. Scottish based investors will not be able to invest additional money in UK bonds but will be guaranteed their returns on existing investments and allowed to keep their NSI open. These private investments will continue to enjoy 100% security. At a government level, such financial assets will be divided between the two nations upon independence. The Scottish Government will have its own bonds and savings products that people will be able to invest in.
• In the event of an independent Scotland launching its own currency, your private pension will be paid in the Scottish currency, it is likely that the Scottish currency will be pegged to the pound sterling.  However, in the case of currency fluctuations, the policy under development from the Scottish Government is that the value of your currency will be protected and that there will be no detriment due to currency fluctuations. The full economic prospectus for independence will be produced prior to a new referendum campaign and we will link the relevant commitment to this page to confirm that arrangement.

Verdict

The question is not so much whether occupational pensions and private pension assets are protected as it would be fair to say that this is a certainty. The question, thus, is: how are they going to be protected? What would be the arrangement or policies put in place by the Scottish Government that would ensure this protection?

It is likely that a deal would be reached in which the Scottish Government would accept the full liability for pensions, in order to guarantee their value and for continuity. That is in Westminster's interests as well, as they would be required to honour these commitments anyway. It would also provide a guarantee for people from the rest of the UK that are living and saving in Scotland.

The Institute of Faculty and Actuaries has proposed a number of regulatory options for Scotland after independence, each with different trade-offs and benefits. An agreement with existing UK bodies could be reached, with the benefit of continuity, coverage and cost-effectiveness. However, this would limit the Scottish Government’s ability to tailor the insurance market and would require negotiations.

A likelier solution would be to create new equivalent Scottish regulatory bodies, which would likely be funded by a proportionate industry levy (as is currently the case for the UK bodies). This would offer flexibility and the capability of changing regulation.

The Scottish Government’s stated policy is to give priority to reaching a single agreement for the joint regulation of occupational pensions, which would minimise disruption, yet offer little flexibility. The rules and practices of the UK Pension Regulator will also be adopted. The government would also establish a Scottish equivalent to NEST, providing both continuity for those already investing and giving the Scottish Government greater control over future contribution rates.

The second-choice option is to establish a Scottish pension regulatory and pension protection scheme to achieve regulatory alignment for occupational pensions, as well as private pension assets.

Many people ask; “why can’t we just have devo-max?”. We researched the facts and found the following: 

The truth

Devo-max remains a largely undefined term, and therefore, unlike federalism, does not offer a defined constitutional solution. Devo-max would also have to be voted for by the House of Commons to be implemented and thus, is not up to Scotland to decide. Like federalism, devo-max would involve Scotland’s political power still being limited by a central government outside of Scotland.

The facts

• Devo-max is an undefined term. This was the case in the lead up to the 2014 referendum, when the term was used by the Unionist campaigners to try and persuade voters that Scotland would receive greater powers if there was a No vote.
• Devo-max was proposed as a constitutional alternative by which Scotland would be granted full economic independence from the rest of the United Kingdom but would still be subject to governance by the British Parliament in particular areas, such as defence, foreign policy and benefits.
• By most definitions, defence, foreign policy and benefits are three of the key areas of policy that Scotland disagrees with Westminster on the most. For example, the Scottish Government strongly opposes the Bedroom Tax (benefits), Brexit (foreign policy), and renewing trident (defence).
• Brexit has drawn attention to other issues with devolution. Research from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) has highlighted that new powers, that had previously been shared with the EU, will be granted to UK ministers in the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, including devolved matters. This will allow UK ministers to act alone or alongside Scottish ministers on devolved matters.
• If devo-max was to be fully implemented, Scotland would be granted full fiscal autonomy (FFA). This means that all powers would be devolved to Holyrood except those regarding foreign affairs and defence. However, attempts to have FFA included in the Scotland Bill were rejected by MPs in 2015.
• Devolution, even if it was enhanced to devo-max, has limitations. The UK parliament retains the power to legislate on any matter, even those that are devolved. Although this is not common, it highlights the vast differences between devo-max and independence.

Verdict

Devo-max is another political promise that has almost zero support within Westminster and so will never be fulfilled; a promise made in an attempt to decrease the support for independence in 2014. The term remains largely undefined, and even if we consider the commonly used definition, it is still unworkable. Three key areas, defence, foreign policy and benefits, would likely be retained by Westminster. These are areas that the Scottish Government and population largely disagree with Westminster on.

Although the UK parliament would not normally legislate on a devolved matter, it does have the power to do so. Therefore, even if devolution was enhanced, the limitations of devolution would still exist, and this is another problem with the concept. Moreover, devo-max or full fiscal autonomy requires the support of Westminster to be granted. It was demonstrated in 2015, when an attempt to include FFA in the Scotland Bill was rejected, that MPs are not willing to support devo-max.

Devo-max can often be confused with the term federalism. Read our FAQ on federalism here.