to believe the remaining UK should not make special exceptions for Scottish economic refugees?

[longfingernails]

In the event of Scottish independence, the Scottish economy will be in the toilet. In this event, Britain should not be allowed to become a magnet for Scottish economic migrants.

I wouldn't blame Cameron if the Scots choose independence; the Tory party don't exactly have a strong foothold in those parts. However, I will certainly excoriate him if he gives an inch in any negotiations in the event of independence - especially if he allows large scale unskilled immigration from Scotland into Britain.

An independent Scotland would have almost zero negotiating power and Britain should exploit that to maximise our own advantage.

A "marvelous standard of living", Santana? Well, I'm glad for you, but what about the 20% of Scottish dc being raised in poverty? What about the elderly and less able-bodied having to choose between eating and heating, in an energy-rich country? And more of the same promised by both Labour and Tory, while they line their pockets and those of their cronies.

The number of children being raised in poverty fell last year, and fell quicker than they did in England www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/child-poverty-levels-falling-faster-in-scotland-than-in-england.1391340846

We are getting more spent us per head than English people, so this isn't surprising.

These children and these elderly people need stability and they need immediate action. They can't afford a decade of wrangling over currency options and choices. They also can't afford to be subject to the volatility of oil markets. In 2012-2013, for example, Scotland raised £53.1billion of UK revenue, but spent £65.2billion (GERS). This gap in revenue vs spending was largely caused by a fall in the price of oil.

This is a huge gap, and one that would have a massive impact on funding of facilities. If we are part of the UK, the market is big enough to absorb those shocks and maintain consistency of spending.

DH works in electronics and I work in a field I could do in Europe. DH has a few colleagues working in Holland, and when we've been on holiday there, I find parts of it away from the main cities surprisingly quiet and rural. The public transport is also far better. That would probably be our first choice on independence, as I really don't fancy paying higher taxes and living in what is obviously (according to some) an unusually impoverished country for Northern European standards.

After all, if it does turn out to be a success and we have a great yearning to return, we can always move back. DH's parents live in France and one brother in Germany, despite being Scottish, so we aren't particularly rooted to one spot!

Or England - I really like country walks in calm, lowland scenery. Scotland is very scenic but I'm not into hillwalking and there don't see to be so many local footpaths and bridleways which don't involve climbing up a mountain.

I'm really disappointed by the tone of this thread.

Cant we have a civilised debate?

To respond to points raised above: (apologies for super long post)

SantanaLopez (hello again!)
Yes some of those are SNP policies. They have published their plans for iScotland. I would refer to BT's plan for the future of the Union but they seem to have forgotten to create one.

FPC- This should save money in the long term. It encourages and enables people to stay at home thus saving on care home fees. It also creates more demand for care jobs and thus a higher tax take. FPC also encourages saving as people dont have to worry about their savings being used to pay for at home care.

renewables- To use the term 'subsidised by WM' is ignoring the higher tax take WM gets from Scotland than rUK.

F &D -rUK does not promote Scottish food and drink as well as it could abroad. It is not a priority of theirs so is neglected.

iScotland would have double the number of MEPs and a commissioner. Therefore we would have more influence than atm over EU F&D and agriculture policy.

Creative Scotland isn't a UK body. Neither is SAAS.

Tourism- I wasn't referring to APD. The world's media will have its lens on Scotland in Septmeber. Huge free publicity. A historical event such as the creation of iScotland will draw tourists in through curiosity, at least in the short term.

MelonadeAgain I'm sorry you see my response to the OP as 'propaganda'. What I see is No propaganda all over the MSM. Do you complain about that? Yes campaigners are only trying to even out the debate. Shouldn't people be able to hear both sides?

To address some of your points-
-rUK has higher unemployment than Scotland

• look around MN for complaints about house prices in SE and 0hr contracts

-after iScotland we will have fewer politicians (MPs) saving £60 million pa -the Tories have 11% of seats in Scottish parliament- are you calling them left wing?

beastofburden I have yet to hear a Yes supporter saying they dont want to be friends with people in the rUK

grovel There is a Labour for Independence group. Yes is a cross party movement. The chair of the advisory board is an Ex Labour MP and MSP

ToysRLuv The Queen will remian head of state so there will not be a President

OOAOML Trident will be part of the negotiations. Across Yes supporters there is a mixture of CND people, people against Trident for financial reasons, indifferent people and people pro Trident. Ive not heard anyone say it is their only reason for voting Yes. Therefore in the short term concessions may be made.

Uni fees- giving rUK students free tuition would cost £50 million pa- £10 million less than what we would save on WM MPs so not a problem. Anyway aren't No saying we wont be in the EU? they cant have it both ways!

I've never lived in Edinburgh but your experience of schools isn't what my friends across Scotland have experienced. I really don't think you can compare Edinburgh's house prices and rents to London's!

The CT freeze is an example of Scotland initiating a popular policy which is then taken up by WM. I believe this trend will continue post iScotland, which could benefit rUK as with past policies.

The forth road bridge had a toll until the Scottish Government axed it, I'm surprised you not knowing this living in Edinburgh.

In my area I know of 3 new schools being built so cant relate to that point either.

Scotland is investing in much more social housing then rUK. Not as much as is needed but this could change in iScotland.

Yes I did know the Forth bridge used to have a toll. I wasn't suggesting the new one would I was suggesting that the record on major transport projects isn't good (HS2 not shaping up well down south either to be fair) and even if there aren't tolls we will still bear the cost. I'm glad there are areas of Scotland with good school provision. I was merely pointing out that in Scotland's capital city there is no guarantee of a place at your local school whereas you had suggested that was the case throughout Scotland.

Not having a UK passport is the least of my worries. (I haven't had a passport for years)

I worry about our standard of living. How we treat our poor and old and disabled neighbours. A passport is just a piece of paper. People are dying because of WM policies. That is where my priorities lie.

Weatherall, you're right to worry about those things but it's all academic if there's no money.....

Here's a reference for my 'Scottish accents are valued in call centres' comment

FPC- This should save money in the long term. It encourages and enables people to stay at home thus saving on care home fees. It also creates more demand for care jobs and thus a higher tax take. FPC also encourages saving as people dont have to worry about their savings being used to pay for at home care.

a)To save money in the long term you have to spend it in the short term. The first four years of FPC cost £1.8 billion.
b) Scotland is facing a demographics crisis because we have too many older people. It will arguably cost more for FPC over time, not less.
3) This is already being implemented, we don't need independence to do it.

renewables- To use the term 'subsidised by WM' is ignoring the higher tax take WM gets from Scotland than rUK.

1. Scotland accounts for around 10% of electricity sales in the UK but received 28% (£560 million) of the total paid by all UK consumers to support renewable generators through the current Renewables Obligation in 2012-13. Here

2. GERS figures for last year show that Scotland either had 8.2% of revenue (per capita view of oil) or 9% (geographical split of oil).
   However, Scotland also accounted for 9.3% of total UK public spending in 2012-13.

3. GERS figures have constantly shown that Scotland has more spent on it than it pays in tax. As a percentage, the two figures may not be the same, but in real terms, because the UK spends more than it earns, Scotland has always received more than it's contributed.

F &D -rUK does not promote Scottish food and drink as well as it could abroad. It is not a priority of theirs so is neglected.

1. Whisky is the biggest UK food and drink export, so clearly it's doing pretty well. It made 4.3billion in 2012, and exports have grown by more than 80 per cent in the last decade.

2. Whisky, like all Scottish food and drink companies, has the benefit of the UK Trade & Investment support, as well as diplomatic support from the UK.
   iScotland would have double the number of MEPs and a commissioner. Therefore we would have more influence than atm over EU F&D and agriculture policy.

3. To promote anything requires investment on both sides. The promotion will have to be funded and investments would have to be made by potential clients. This largely depends on the financial situation of Scotland, its currency, whether or not it is in the EU and any trade agreements made.

Creative Scotland isn't a UK body. Neither is SAAS.
I didn't bring either of these up so I don't get your point.

Tourism- I wasn't referring to APD. The world's media will have its lens on Scotland in Septmeber. Huge free publicity. A historical event such as the creation of iScotland will draw tourists in through curiosity, at least in the short term.

Again, tourism requires investment.

at a,b,3! Excuse me!

Grovel-why would there be no money? Scotland has many thriving industries.
Scotland would one of the richest per capita countries in the world.
We've been subsidising rUK for decades. This money could be much better spent.
On priorities Scottish people have such as equality rather than vanity projects like HS2, the Olympics, Trident et al.

Both Scotland and rUK are running at a deficit. But Scotland's deficit is not as big a % as rUK's. Therefore our economy is stronger and certainly strong enough to be independent. How do you think other normal sized nations operate? Scotland would just be like most European states. The disproportionate pull of London's economy is not benefitting Scotland. WM governments have had decades to fix the inequality in the Union and have done nothing. They don't need to. They don't need our votes so ignore our voices. Independence is our only solution to this rotten system.

Weatherall you asked for a debate, and then you produce ridiculous statements like 'We've been subsidising rUK for decades'.

What the hell? Who do you think you're helping making ridiculous facts like this up?

Is this referendum not a vanity project, held on the anniversary of Bannockburn, with Independence Day on the anniversary of the signing of the Act of Union? And what about Alex Salmond parading around America in tartan trousers and hiding a flag in his wife's handbag at Wimbledon? All that was done at the taxpayer's expense.

You cite the Olympics as a vanity project a post after using the Commonwealth Games as an example of how to boost tourism. Make up your mind.

weatherall, you might be right -

if Scotland has a respected currency
if Scotland is in the EU
if the SNP's estimates of N. Sea reserves are right
if major corporates think it's worth investing in an independent Scotland

I've never mentioned the commonwealth games

Weatherall substitute your earlier "list of reasons why people wouldn't want to leave Scotland" for another country and it makes you realise just how ridiculous it is.

Imagine an Austrian, or a Belgian or a Swiss saying a similar thing about Austria, Belgium or Switzerland (all of which currently probably offer a rather higher standard of living than Scotland, independent or not). Most people would fall about laughing.

If you want a proper debate, surely you need to be debating the proper issues (e.g. currency, EU membership, economic difficulties) and finding proper solutions, rather than making childish lists of why you think other people who should think the same way as you. Its something most people would grow out of beyond primary school I imagine.

I can only assume that many independence campaigners consider their target audience to be really thick.

The referendum was a policy pledge of the party who won the election, voted for by people in Scotland. Are people's votes vanity projects?

What other timing do you suggest? 2016 is the next election so the timeline has had to be worked back from that.

My statements about the economy are based on GERS (ie WM) figures. Scotland more than pays its way. Yes there's a deficit but that is the case for most countries atm, it doesn't preclude independence.

I don't make these points to denigrate the Scots. Of course they can govern themselves. I'm simply saying that iScotland can't fix these things unilaterally.

Currency needs the agreement of rUK
EU membership needs the agreement of the EU
North Sea drilling is down to BP, Statoil, Shell etc
Corporate investment is down to Boards/Shareholders

I've said above that I wish Scotland well however the vote goes.

melonade and who decides what the 'important' issues are?

How many door have you knocked on? How many public meetings have you attended where people have asked questions?

In my experience of this campaign people are more worried about WM's austerity policies, public services, employment, their children's future than currency and EU membership. These are important but are quite 'distant' to some people.

The yes movement is a broad collection of people, not all if whom agree with the SNP's white paper and stance in currency union and EU membership. There are still solid arguments for iScotland even if we aren't in the EU and have our own currency. Lots of people look to Norway to see how this could be successful.

Norway has a Sovereign Wealth Fund of $850 billion. iScotland will start with debt.

My statements about the economy are based on GERS (ie WM) figures. Scotland more than pays its way. Yes there's a deficit but that is the case for most countries atm, it doesn't preclude independence.

GERS is a Scottish government figure, for a start. And their figures don't support your wildly inaccurate claims that Scotland is subsiding rUK and giving more than it takes.

And people talk about the patronising tone of the no campaign.

Standard and Poor have said that iScotland will have a AAA rating. More than the UK.

here's a reference for what I said about the Scottish economy.

Sorry for the blooper on the GERS source- there is a lot to keep up with in the debate!

Peach- patronising? As opposed to the xenophobia of the OP?

Standard and Poor said nothing of the sort. Here's the actual report.

The views expressed herein have not been determined by a rating committee and do not constitute a rating or an indication of any potential Standard & Poor's rating on an independent sovereign Scotland

It is very balanced and points out the positive and the negatives of many of the currency options.

The reference to AAA comes from: Scottish wealth levels are comparable to that of the U.K. ('AAA'), Germany ('AAA'), Ireland ('BBB+'), and New Zealand ('AA-').

Businessforscotland....