On 18 September, there will be a referendum in Scotland to decide whether it should become an independent country. As scientists and members of the campaign group Academics Better Together, we feel that Colin Macilwain gives an incomplete picture of Scottish science (Nature 493, 579; 2013): we strongly believe that its brightest future is as part of the United Kingdom.

Scientists in Scotland benefit from being part of the large, efficient UK research community, in which competition and collaboration drive high-ranking research. As a small independent nation, Scotland would be forced to drop out of many research areas because it could no longer afford large-scale infrastructure. Collaborative research is likely to be more difficult across a national border. Also, Scotland would lose its disproportionately high block grant from the UK government, allocated in part to fund research and education in its universities.

The Scottish National Party's White Paper recognizes all this. The party wants Scotland to remain in the UK research-council system, but there are political indications that this may not be an option. The Wellcome Trust and the Association of Medical Research Charities have declared that it would be hard to fund research in another country. Scottish medical research would also be affected by restricted access to large UK clinical trials.

In our view, separating from the United Kingdom would leave scientists in Scotland with much to lose, for imperceptible gain.