Jennier Dempsie: Borderline rumours may fail to hit the target Scaremongering over Scotland being swamped by terrorists is unlikely to raise the level of debate on the referendum, writes Jennifer Dempsie Theresa May - what a woman. I have always admired the Home Secretary's fierce commitment to leopard print. But her weekend outburst at the Scottish Tory conference made me seriously consider ditching my leopard print pumps as they always attract an inherent "Theresa May" subtext in political circles. According to the Ms May, an independent Scotland could be forced to have checks at the Border, we may be more at risk from terrorist attacks, forced to join the Schengen agreement - which allows for the free movement of citizens between countries - and have waves of immigrants flooding into the country. Let's put this in context. Ms May presided over the biggest immigration fiasco in recent history, accidentally allowing passport checks at Britain's borders to be relaxed. That is the background, now to address the points the Home Secretary raised. First, an independent Scotland will be more safe and secure - because our foreign policy will be ethical and legal, staying clear of illegal foreign invasions like Iraq. The Iraq war made the UK more of a terrorist target and independence would help distance Scotland from such disastrous foreign policy choices. Scotland has the opportunity to carve out a more ethical and visionary future model of foreign policy, based on our strong social democratic values. During the Cold War the Nordic countries" approach to international relations was cited by academics as the ideological "middle way." Scotland could use its status as a small social democratic nation to work towards reducing superpower tensions, pursue engagement with international organisations and promoting peace. Secondly, there is already free movement for all citizens across the EU, including the UK. An independent Scotland and the rest of the UK (rUK) will both be successor states - and will therefore inherit exactly the same status within the EU, including not being in the Schengen area. Ireland opted out of Schengen via a protocol to the Treaty in order to preserve its Common Travel Area Arrangement. Scotland would follow this precedent. Just like Ireland, Scotland will also inherit the Common Travel Area, which exists across the UK and Ireland, and provides for no border controls for the citizens of these islands. We would not face a flood of immigrants as we would not join the Schengen agreement, and even if we did, this is unlikely to happen. Implementing the Schengen rules involves eliminating border controls with other EU-approved Schengen members while simultaneously strengthening border controls with non-member states. Finally, an independent Scotland will have responsibility for our own migration policy. This is critical, given Scotland faces very different challenges and migration policy could be tailored to address the economic challenges of demographic change and address skills shortages. The Scottish Government has made clear the "independence prospectus" will be published towards the end of 2013 once a full consultation with the people of Scotland has taken place outlining the policy platform of these issues. A further aspect of this debate involves the security services, and The Scotsman's sister paper Scotland on Sunday this weekend posed some questions about how McMI5 and McMI6 would operate. Yet why wouldn't the talent already at work be utilised as part of a Scottish intelligence agency? Scotland already has special branch and counter-terrorism officers who work closely with MI5. Having spoken to experts working in these areas, there are many people in UK roles such as foreign service, military and foreign office who would wish to transfer and work for an sovereign Scottish Government. Scotland will not be short of talent or inherited assets. And the question should really be why wouldn't a Scottish intelligence agency work closely with MI5 and MI6 to ensure the security of the British Isles? I can't think of one single reason why they wouldn't when they already do so. We also know that the UK government plans to spend £100 billion on new nuclear weapons to protect their borders whilst an independent Scotland would choose to use its £8bn share more ethically. With a £250 million annual saving from no longer contributing to the cost of the UK's existing nuclear weapons, the costs of setting up new Scottish departments such as Treasury and Foreign Affairs to ensure Scottish decision-making would be more than offset by savings. The SNP have made their position clear, Scotland would remain an EU member, be part of the British Common Travel Area which covers the UK and Ireland and the Single European Market would mean that there will be no border controls and customs post between an independent Scotland and the rUK. We would work as equal partners with the rUK government on all areas, including security, as an independent nation instead of as unequal lodger. What now remains to be seen is whether the Home Secretary and her government colleagues will take the same serious and mature approach to Scotland by answering important questions too. Can Ms May confirm that the rUK government will work as an ally, ensuring her security forces co-operate responsibly with an independent Scotland's security forces to protect the British Isles from any potential threats? Can she confirm that rUK would, like Scotland, continue to be part of the Common Travel Area? And will she promise to take a more serious approach to an independent Scotland's future security proposition? The Home Secretary should know better than play politics with matters of security.