Governor Sir John Vereker rightly said at the Speaker's Dinner on Saturday night that regardless of the other merits or risks of Independence, it should not be seen as a solution for the Island's social problems. Sir John was correct to make the point. Independence may or may not bring Bermudians closer together. But it will certainly not, in and of itself, build more houses, create better teachers or doctors, reduce traffic problems or persuade people to use fewer drugs or to swear off a life of crime. Sir John may be accused of wading into the debate. But he was careful to note that the United Nations Committee on Decolonisation made the same observation, and no one could accuse that body of trying to dissuade people from Independence. And he has remained scrupulously neutral ever since Premier Alex Scott called for an Island-wide discussion, following the British Government line that it is a decision for the people of Bermuda. He rightly welcomed the debate itself, if only to reduce uncertainty, and he has otherwise stayed out of it, except to correct misconceptions and to put the British Government's position in perspective. Indeed, his speech on Saturday and the position paper released by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ten days ago have clarified a good many issues. The release of the position paper was done in the interests of transparency and is welcome. Without it, there have been times when the public meetings conducted by the Bermuda Independence Commission have clouded rather than clarified issues. Most importantly, no one should be in any doubt now about what will happen to the British citizenship granted in 2002 if Bermuda goes Independent. Bermudians who do not have a prior claim to British citizenship (such as a British parent or grandparent) will lose their UK passports, and with them the absolute right to work and live in both the UK and throughout the European Union. Similarly, Bermuda would be responsible for its own defence and could not expect to instantly join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; indeed, this could take many years. Instead, it would have to either mount its own defences or negotiate an agreement with a friendly power, presumably at cost to Bermuda. The benefits Bermuda derives from the UK in terms of regulation of its shipping and aircraft registries would also be lost. We now have a better idea of costs as well. Membership of the United Nations would cost about $550,000 per year, while membership of its affiliated organisations like the International Tourism Organisation and so on would push the cost up to about $1 million per year. In all, according to the BIC, external affairs could cost up to $14 million a year, although not the $44 million erroneously reported in this newspaper earlier this month. Against that, Bermuda could gain some advantages in terms of negotiating its own air agreements, although the UK also made it clear that it is doing nothing to block increased air access to the Island from Europe and elsewhere. Nonetheless, there does not seem to have been much regulatory difficulty in recent years in getting increased lift from the UK and Europe; the problem has been more a matter of convincing a European airline than it can make money on a Bermuda route. Recently, Independence campaigner Walton Brown raised concerns about the EU attempting to impose mainland tariff restrictions on UK overseas territories. These are worth investigating, but a cursory examination suggests that the intent of the move would have no effect on Bermuda, although Mr. Brown is right to raise concerns about the principle involved. Aside from that, the arguments for Independence come down to intangibles and hypothetical situations against the very real costs that would come with it. Sir John's comments on social issues, and the valid point that the community needs to get to work on solving them ? with or without Independence ? is welcome and timely.