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.

Aye but oor pensioners dinnae live as long,lower life expectancy so will balance oot.

No, but Scotland will have more pensioners and a lower amount of tax payers to fund pensions and other benefits

Agreed. IScotland will have a higher population %age of elderly. However, as fanny said, they will die sooner, so less pensionable years, and as already alluded too Scotland will make savings in other areas which could potentially help to fund pensions.

Banking on your population dying young is a bit grim, is it not?!

The IFS calculate that spending per person is 4% higher on old-age benefits such as the state pension in Scotland. www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn139.pdf

Pensions are also part of a greater system of benefits. The same report calculates that, overall, benefit spending per person in Scotland in 2011–12 was £3,238 per year, 2% higher than the average for Great Britain (£3,176).

The proportion of the population claiming, and thus the average amount spent, are higher in Scotland at all working-age ages than in Great Britain as a whole.

As part of the UK, this cost is spread out, but in independent Scotland, it's over a much smaller population, and an economy which will fluctuate with oil.

So what's the plan if life expectancy increases?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine can you tell me which section of the OECD report you're linking to? I haven't got time to read it all just now but I'd be interested to see the data.

with regards to benefits and pensions
^"Scotland’s Balance Sheet highlights that expenditure on social protection as a share of GDP is estimated to have been lower in Scotland than in the UK in each of the past five years’ and is therefore consistently more
affordable in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.
Social protection expenditure accounted for 14.4% of GDP in
Scotland and 15.9% in the UK in 2011"^
from:
www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00424220.pdf

Scotland has a population ageing faster than rUK because of the immigration of working age people and higher birth rate in rUK. With iScotland we can, and probably will, change our immigration policies (within the confines of EU law if relevant) to fix this problem.
Foe example Scotland had the 'fresh talent' scheme which allowed graduates to remain here for 2 years, a popular policy which was stopped by WM.

Also it is quite ageist to assume that an ageing population is a burden. Most unpaid care is provided by older people. This saves £££.

Actually an ageing population in a country with a high level of public sector employees is going to be a financial challenge. It isn't just a challenge for Scotland of course, but it isn't one that can be ignored, and with a smaller pool of income to draw from there will inevitably be a greater risk of volatility.

Scotland would be unlikely to be able to set its own immigration policy. Both the CTA and the Schengen Zone have their own policies.

It's not age- ist, it's fact. Old people get sick more than young people, and they don't work. An elderly population is a financial burden.

I've just watched Gordon Brown's speech (yesterday?) on BBC Parliament. I'd recommend it. I'm sure that they'll run it again.

You mean the speech based on top secret, completely unverifiable figures? By the man who trashed the UK pensions industry? Yeah, I'd recommend that, and totally intend to vote no after hearing it.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine can you tell me which section of the OECD report you're linking to? I haven't got time to read it all just now but I'd be interested to see the data.

Warning: links trigger downloads
DX.doi.org/10.1787/888932907224
DX.doi.org/10.1787/888932907243

Thanks. On phone so will leave for later.

Fanny Aye but oor pensioners dinnae live as long,lower life expectancy so will balance oot

Christ, that's not much of a selling point it it?!!!!!!

That's a bit scary. And surely along with that lower life expectancy, will come caring for (and paying for) the illnesses which cause it.

What would be useful would be the figures which show at what age the average worker gives up full time work in Scotland, as compared to other European countries.

Though surely since an independent Scotland is going to be so wonderful, the pensioners will start living longer and the pensions bill go up? Otherwise whats the point?

Health in Scotland is generally poorer, hence the low life expectancy. After independence if health were to increase, and life expectancy were to increase, then presumably productivity would also increase, helping to pay for the pensions.

weatherall For you to insinuate some kind of racial motivation is such a below the belt accusation. I think you should retract that and apologise

Absolutely not - you hit on the right note too. There are elements of the independence campaign I find borderline racist. I cannot see how it is not racist to constantly state that Scotland should be more like a very Aryan, blond, Nordic part of the world, while ignoring other less blond, Argyan, Nordic parts of the world which are of a similar size in population terms and still located in Europe. It makes me uncomfortable.

In fact, all this "Scotland is the best, Scotland is wonderful" stuff makes me dubious that all this nationalism is healthy. If you had for example a German stating the same things along the lines of "Germany is wonderful. It is the best country on earth, with the best people, best education system and best countryside" you would at best groan, and roll over and try to ignore it until it went away, and at worst feel a sort of terror that it was getting out of control. You could do that for any country and feel the same thing, I see no reason why Scotland should be exempt.

Its easy not to notice these things or to excuse these things if you are caught up in an obsessive passion.

wetherall your link shows £800 more tax per head, whilst this link shows over £1,000 additional spending per head - net loss.

here top result if the above link does not work.

TheRealYellowWiggle

All British people resident in Scotland (whether born in there or not) will have the option to take Scottish citizenship in addition to their British citizenship.

Health in Scotland is generally poorer, hence the low life expectancy. After independence if health were to increase, and life expectancy were to increase, then presumably productivity would also increase, helping to pay for the pensions

But Scotland is already quite a rich country, richer than most world countries and with a very generous benefits system, which independence seems to wish to increase, paid for by higher taxes. This sounds like creating more of the same conditions but more so, which resulted in lower life expectancy. Because increasing productivity isn't just a matter of improving health, is it?

Didn't that programme on Scottish tv "Our Friends in the North" about the Scandinavian countries, find that they were mostly more right wing in their policies than Scotland and the UK were currently, despite paying higher taxes and having a reputation as socialists?

After independence if health were to increase, and life expectancy were to increase, then presumably productivity would also increase, helping to pay for the pensions.

Not necessarily. You can live longer but still be unable to work.

Although it's about a tenner for a pint in the Scandinavian countries, which would go some way to cutting the alcohol problem...

I cannot see how it is not racist to constantly state that Scotland should be more like a very Aryan, blond, Nordic part of the world, while ignoring other less blond, Argyan, Nordic parts of the world which are of a similar size in population terms and still located in Europe.

The Nordic states are referred to as they are geographically close,small countries rich in natural resources, excellent welfare state and more socialist principles. Not because Scots aspire to be tall blonde and Aryan.

If you can name other comparative European countries that are geographically close,small countries rich in natural resources, excellent welfare state and more socialist principles I would be very interested.

If you can name other comparative European countries that are geographically close,small countries rich in natural resources, excellent welfare state and more socialist principles I would be very interested.

Croatia.

grovel

Keeping the Queen has nothing whatsoever to do with "not wanting proper independence". Independence would reverse the 1707 Act of Union, which unified the two parliaments. The Union of the Crowns took place in 1604 when James VI of Scotland also became James I of England, Wales, and Ireland. That fact of history cannot be changed by a separation of the parliaments. The Queen is the head of state of Canada - are they not truly independent?

An independent Scotland could theoretically become a republic at some point in its future, but that would be a totally different and unrelated referendum.

If you can name other comparative European countries that are geographically close,small countries rich in natural resources, excellent welfare state and more socialist principles I would be very interested

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia and Slovenia, no? I would also say Portugal is quite similar, though with a slightly higher population.

So can I ask the independence supporters (go easy on me, I am a fence sitter but increasingly sceptical), why is it that Scotland is so poor? And has so many unhealthy people living in poverty?

When it has such rich natural resources, excellent education, regularly exports its people to positions of power in the rest of the UK, is so left wing and with such a generous welfare state, and has such cultural identity?

Is this really supposed to be solely due to English oppression? What if its something else? And what could that something else possibly be?

Christ, even Ireland! But Ireland lost favour with the SNP when the economy burst, didn't it?