to wonder how the country will cope with hundreds of thousands more people each year?

[evilcherub]

If the UK is going to continue to have immigration of hundreds of thousands every year (which is more likely if we don't leave the EU) and the Tories apparently having no real interest in building more genuinely affordable homes (because lower house prices do not bring in votes for the Tories), then where are the millions of extra people and families going to live (when there is already a massive housing crisis and homelessness is going through the roof)? Also, what about all the extra schools needed, the extra hospitals (when at the moment they cannot cope and the Tories want to privatise them anyway), the jobs etc? Unless you are well off/bought your home years ago and have a well-established, well paying job, then immigration means extreme and expensive competition for housing, school places, healthcare, jobs etc. I just don't see it ending well.

To be clear, I think there should be tax disincentives for empty houses - but I shudder when I hear 'wealth tax'.

From a purely personal and selfish perspective, I LOVE how green the uk is. I like that we have lots of empty space. It won't be the same when it's covered in new towns.

Yes.

Farmers land being squeezed

Don't worry too much, there's plenty to squeeze:

www.ecifm.rdg.ac.uk/setaside.htm

The UK and the rest of the the EU normally produce more cereals than are needed by their own consumers

apple how will we deal with the migrant crisis. Please tell me, it's a genuine question.

lumela - I would argue that what we need is a government-led programme of social housing, to rival what was built after the war. It needs to be dense, and to be sited on low-grade land (brownfield where possible) and not on species-rich ecosystems or high-grade farmland.

However, we also need a national conversation about housing need and population because at the moment there is a LOT of resistance in many communities to any change, some of it very justified because the plans make no sense (e.g. destroying ancient woodland to build a motorway service station just yards down the road from another service station), but in other places there is a huge amount of unreasonable NIMBYism ('Our village won't be a village any more' kind of thing). Yet if you offered the alternative: a cut to pensions that are no longer sustainable in a scenario of falling population, there would also be uproar amongst those same communities. Yet you cannot have it both ways.

A couple of years training is all it will take.

Angelos I don't question this country's ability to train nurses if willing candidates are available, but I don't see the willingness in the local workforce, or long-term planning on the part of the government. I'll put this as mildly as possible so as not to be inflammatory - I don't see that there is an appetite among the British workforce to take low-skilled, low-paid jobs.

There are various carrot and stick methods the gov't might use to remedy this - from being even harsher with benefits to offering much higher pay and better working conditions for NHS staff to draw people into the profession, a la Teach First - but I don't see them doing that. Would that they were.

From a purely personal and selfish perspective, I LOVE how green the uk is. I like that we have lots of empty space. It won't be the same when it's covered in new towns.

Hear hear.

However, we also need a national conversation about housing need and population

Trying to address the pull London has would be a start.

We need a seat at the table on these discussions!

The EU does not listen to the UK. Cameron's recent "deal" is limited and not even binding at this stage.

We're routinely outvoted on anything we object to. The UK has been outvoted in the Council more than twice as often as any other country. Since David Cameron became Prime Minister the UK has been outvoted 40 times, more than all other PMs in total.

If the UK is only on the winning side when they vote "yes" to something, and loses when they vote "no", that would seem the same as the UK not having a vote at all.

Our infrastructure struggles to cope as it is. We are a small island. Where do you propose to put everyone?

What I'm saying is that the continued flow of migrants into the UK and other wealthy countries is going to continue regardless of short term policies and whatever ideas may be dreamt up ostensibly to deter further migration. (Or should we be more precise about this? Unskilled migration = undesirable; skilled migration = desirable.)
The option of not building more homes, schools, etc through reducing or even reversing migratory trends is simply not available.

Migration from poor to rich countries is inevitable, and unrelated to membership of the EU, NATO or any other club, although being the Commonwealth Motherland does have some impact - another element over which noone has any control any more. It is merely a consequence of the sins of the past.

UK self suffiency in food has been declining. Let's not allow the politicians to fritter that away further as they have ( all parties) done with security of electricity supply. Or lack of planning for Industry - whoops there goes our steel!

wheelofapps

What a pile of pish your post is-

Under the 'Curriculum for Excellence' my kids are given Irn-Bru in School on St Andrews Day

Yes on St Andrew's Day..... you know the patron saint of Scotland. At Chinese New Year my son was given noodles and rice to eat - are the Chinese trying to brainwash him???

A whole new generation of SNP clones is being raised. And Wee Eck gave 16 yr olds the IndyRef vote. My local High School is plastered with voting posters and in Primary the teachers wore SNP badges (as did many kids). This is just a lie. NO primary school teachers walked around wearing SNP badges because they would have lost their jobs. If you did see this in ONE primary school I suggest you report it. In my experience, it was actually the other way around - lots of scaremongering about independence and my nieces primary school teacher actually told her that Scotland would be a third world country if it gained independence.

Welcoming to 'forriners' - only if you integrate fully!

It's my experience that people in Scotland tend to be welcoming and respectful of cultures regardless of 'integration'.

Sounds like either your kids go to a terrible school or you have a massive chip on your shoulder.

If the UK is only on the winning side when they vote "yes" to something, and loses when they vote "no", that would seem the same as the UK not having a vote at all.

What actually happens here is that all countries negotiate what turns out to be the final outcome, and all countries of the EU have a say roughly commensurate with their size. The UK is joint second largest, but is likely to be larger than Germany in the future due to population growth here, and decline there. The number of decisions taken against the wishes of one or more country in the EU is tiny. Most of these are cases of the UK being outvoted, but they make up an infinitesimally small number of the whole. In almost all cases, a common negotiated position is achieved, all countries are 'on the winning side', and the UK has a big voice in that. Outside the EU, the UK will have no voice.

Crabbit tbh it depends where you are, it's SNP central where I stay!
Was your niece in Edinburgh?

I don't think any reasonable person objects to the idea of skilled migrants filling jobs and thus paying taxes, but it appears fairly obvious that most of the people coming to the UK do not fall into that category - a foreign-born nurse/doctor wishing to work here does not need to hide in a lorry at Calais, but has official routes to pursue. As someone in favour of Brexit I find it a bit frustrating when it's implied that ALL migrants, whether economic migrants or genuine refugees, will somehow immediately be net contributors. It's just not so. Brexit would also make it easier to bring in skilled workers and professionals from non-EU countries.

Also find it annoying when those who are against Brexit point out the numbers of Brits living in other European countries - they are there from choice, yes, but they do not go there to live on benefits/get council houses etc, they are working or retired and living on their UK pensions.

I have lived in different countries and while there neither expected nor received any form of state benefits/welfare etc, and had to have a medical/provide proof that we had enough money to live on/CV/job offers and so on before being allowed to settle. What's wrong with that? Don't hear too many people slagging off Australia/NZ and other countries which have the this kind of system. The EU as it is today is a total disaster, so far from what it was supposed to be, and as many other posters have pointed out, as long as there is disparity in wealth of the countries involved, movement of migrants will only ever be one way.

So are all non-EU countries Xenophobic then?

The arguments for leaving the EU are political, social and cultural, not economic. The EU is irredeemably anti-democratic.

Upon arrival to a hospital, the patient should do the English test first. Spelling, grammar, history and literature. No admittance under 70% pass rate.
2. Similar procedure for housing, especially council housing.

There'd be a lot of British-born people dying & homeless.

So are all non-EU countries Xenophobic then?

You beat me to it. Is the concept of a sovereign nation-state now inherently racist?

Alas I can't see how the fact that you employ all foreign nationals to work for you is good for the British unemployed. How is it?

hilda no, it was Glasgow!

I have a couple of thoughts on this issue:-

1. There are wars and ghastly economic conditions in large parts of the world that mean parents have to watch their children die or only have the prospect of a miserable, short life blighted by poverty and disease. Whilst these conditions remain, the desire of human beings wanting to escape is not going to end anytime soon (regardless of whether we are in or out of the EU btw). These refugees are going to keep looking for refuge and it seems to me, our only option is how we choose to manage this. We cannot 'close our borders' or 'stop the flow' without barbed wire, gun towers or letting people die on perilous journeys to richer countries, I don't want this myself. Personally, I would like to see richer nations coming together to share out who accepts their fair allocation of refugees rather than trying to prevent them coming (as I previously noted, I think this is impossible). There may be a good economic case for mass immigration as well but that is irrelevant as these people are going to keep coming.
2. According to the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA), the urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales. (www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096), which suggests that lack of building land or over crowding is not the reason for restricting house building. The only impediment is the political will to invest in a massive house building programme that would benefit us all.

This is Great Britain, not "little England".

Even Cameron has admitted that Britain would survive and "do okay" outside the EU.

UK would do okay outside the European Union, David Cameron says

“Some people seem to say that really Britain couldn’t survive, couldn’t do okay outside the European Union. I don’t think that is true”

“Let’s be frank, Britain is an amazing country. We’ve got the fifth biggest economy in the world. We’re a top ten manufacturer. We’ve got incredibly strong financial services. The world wants to come and do business here."

“Look at the record of inward investment. Look at the leaders beating the path to our door to come and see what’s happening with this great country’s economy. The argument isn’t whether Britain could survive outside the EU. Of course it could.”

Alas it sounds as though you're an affluent Bremainer, benefitting from cheap, imported labour while branding those who care about the effects of unfettered immigration on the less advantaged 'xenophobic'.

In other words, typical.