Leaders: A good conference but SNP still faces difficult decisions

IN KEY respects the SNP can be said to have had a good conference, deftly capitalising on the current confusion and disarray among the ranks of its opponents.

First, it has voted to drop its long-standing opposition to membership of Nato while at the same time pledging itself to be a non-nuclear member of that organisation. Here the party may have taken an important step towards credibility in its campaign for independence. First Minister Alex Salmond, visibly apprehensive as to the outcome of the vote, owes much to his Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill for a speech that was expertly pitched and delivered with conviction. Perhaps it was only a notable CND supporter in previous years who could have made the argument with such persuasive force to a pacifist-leaning party.

Second, Mr Salmond successfully managed to portray the SNP as the defender of benefits and universal entitlements against a Labour Party that Mr Salmond was able to characterise, however unfairly, as now lying to the right of the Conservatives. The Scottish Labour leader, Johann Lamont, was doing no more than the obvious when suggesting that the era of “free” universal benefits has come to an end. But the political price exacted by an unforgiving opponent could prove colossal.

Third, the SNP has managed to present independence as the best defence for those fearful of the return of a Conservative government, although that, on current form, hardly seems likely. The Conservatives seem to be stumbling from one disaster to another. It is a resurgent Labour Party with which the SNP may well have to deal, and one not at all minded to make life easy for the nationalists.

The fact is that our borrowing and debt position being what it is, some tough decisions will have to be made on public spending and benefits, as Ms Lamont has been brave to point out. The problem is that it is politically deeply damaging to admit so. The SNP for the moment continues to enjoy the best of both worlds – of having power in Holyrood but still able to present itself as the party of permanent protest when dealing with Westminster.

Yesterday the First Minister raised the party’s anti-nuclear credentials by making clear that he would not agree to leasing any part of Scotland to the rest of the UK (rUK) for the purposes of stationing Trident. He did not make clear how quickly this would take effect after a referendum “yes”.

The “rUK” might reasonably want to move very quickly to withdraw Trident from Faslane as a nuclear power has never agreed to station its nuclear arsenal other than in its own territorial waters to ensure total control. However, whether it could do so is moot. That will depend on which alternative deep harbours in the rUK could be made ready – Devonport, perhaps, or Falmouth in Cornwall. There would be deep and far-reaching consequences for which Scotland will need to be prepared if this is indeed the road we choose to go down.

Women trail in pension savings

Figures from the Scottish Widows Women and Pensions Report do not make comfortable reading. It reveals women are falling almost £30,000 behind men when it comes to saving for retirement, a record high. Nearly half of women said they feel worse off than a year ago, compared with 41 per cent of men.

The report found the gender gap in retirement savings has increased by more than 10 per cent in 12 months. Women are saving an average of £720 a year less than men for use in old age, against £617 last year. This means a 30-year-old woman who maintains this average annual rate of saving will face a shortfall of £27,600 in today’s money, compared with her male counterpart, if she chooses to retire at the age of 65.

The report also found that almost a quarter of women (24 per cent) are now failing to put anything aside for old age, compared with 14 per cent of men. It is not that women are “bad” at saving – on the contrary, they manage household financial crises well. But longer term commitments are an extra burden.

One of the most powerful

arguments for the institution of marriage was that the couple, by working and living together, could pool resources and divide responsibilities – joint pension provision having long been a male responsibility. All this, however, pertains to an age of social behaviour and attitudes now left behind.

Women, enjoying longer life expectancy than males, have a more daunting pension saving challenge. The new world may be more equitable in terms of rights, though arguably more difficult when dealing with those long- term financial commitments.