I WRITE on this auspicious day (November 6, 2018) when current and recent governments achieve equalisation of state pension age for men and women. This achievement takes no account of the detriment to 3.8 million female, UK citizens.
I began my teaching career in 1974 and worked full-time until 2012 when I retired early. In 2012, aged 58 years, I knew I would not receive my pension until I was 63 years following the 1995 legislation. I knew this through word of mouth, not through any official notification. After I retired in 2012 I then heard from friends that my state pension age was delayed by another two and a half years. My state pension age increased from 63 years to 65 and a half years following the 2011 legislation. This news was a bit of a shock. I received no letters advising me of this.I then had to seek employment to bridge this gap, of which I had been unaware, in my financial planning for retirement. I worked for a further five years on a part time basis, continuing to pay National Insurance contributions.
During my working life I returned to full-time work after six months' maternity leave. At the same time I cared for my mother who had dementia, my mother-in-law who had heart disease and my husband who was also ill. Most other women of my age have done the same. I am not special but to have my state pension delayed in this way is insulting and demeaning.
I have no quibble with equalising the pension ages of men and women. It is the timescale of this exercise that is wrong. To achieve equality, one cohort of women is being discriminated against. The circumstances of the those represented by Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) really are a national disgrace and one which needs to be addressed by our government.
Sandra Gibson,
23 Balgonie Avenue, Paisley.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel