Labour shirking responsibility over pensions

Andrew Whitaker’s attempts (Perspective, 25 November) to attribute to Labour in Scotland and to the SNP the consequences of their reactions to the strikes over public sector pensions misrepresents the situation.

It is disingenuous for Labour MSPs to demonstrate support for the workers. When this fraught topic arose during Labour’s 13 years of UK power from 1997 to 2010, the prospect of fouling up its relationship with the unions led to no solution. So, the issue was kicked into the long grass and we now have Ed Miliband, as the union- favoured Labour leader, knowing all the answers. So Scottish Labour’s approach is opportunistic.

Regarding the SNP and its “social democratic” party category mentioned by Mr Whitaker, that does not reflect the large number of former Conservative voters who contributed to the SNP gathering many former Tory seats. Paradoxically, that, together with Labour’s lurch to the right, enabled the SNP to upstage Labour.

As part of the rationalisation of the economy forced on the Conservative/Liberal Democratic coalition by the mess left by Labour, former Labour employment minister (Lord) John Hutton was asked to examine the pensions issues and his report forms the cornerstone of finding a remedy.

Of course, for several decades, successive UK governments have presided over the situation whereby employees’ and employers’ superannuation contributions became subsumed into Treasury coffers and current years’ pension commitments were consequently met from current years’ taxation.

However, that excludes certain schemes administered by managers and subject to regular actuarial reviews regarding their viability. Furthermore, many schemes are negotiated on a UK basis, so the SNP can only stand back and await what the repercussions are for its budget.

A major part of the proposals is that public sector staff should pay a greater (eg, 3 per cent) contribution towards their pensions. If that is aimed at reducing the burden on taxpayers, how exactly is it proposed to separate the total contribution payable, from the rest of the salary? If all of public sector pay comes from taxation, as it does, then existing contributions come also from taxation. So future inflation-linked pay negotiations would have to be dealt with excluding the pension contribution element, which would comprise the extra they should pay.

The unions we have are virtually all in the public sector. Their leadership claims that “the workers” did not cause the adverse financial situation. Does that mean the workers, and their leaders, were voting Labour over those 13 years without realising the extent of the economic mismanagement for which their party was guilty?

If that was the case, they did not read the articles as early as 2002 and 2003 by Bill Jamieson (available on The Scotsman website archive), foretelling what lay ahead.

DOUGLAS R MAYER

Thomson Crescent

Currie, Midlothian

Although I don’t have the current figures, I do have a letter from Danny Alexander MP which says that, in 2008-9, the NHS pension fund was in surplus by £2,100 million. Being an NHS pensioner, I’d like to have had my share of my pension fund, but I wasn’t offered the chance. Instead, the UK Treasury snatched the lot. That’s one reason I’m with the strikers.

Maybe this lot will consider reintroducing window tax.

BARRY LEES

Denholm Street

Greenock

the former CBI leader Digby, Lord Jones of Birmingham, certainly made me laugh when he stated on national radio at the weekend that public sector pay used to be much worse than that of the private sector so the trade off was a good pension, but because the pay of public sector workers has now caught up then our pensions should be cut to reflect that of most private sector workers.

Perhaps if he spent more time condemning some of the ruthless employers who are interested only in profit and who reward their workers with poor conditions and pensions, then the private sector may not be in the state it is.

GORDON McQUADE

Strathmiglo Place

Stenhousemuir, Falkirk