TODAY’s the day, where we are asked to make what may well be the most important vote of our lives.

We’ve had a referendum debate that has sunk to new lows of personal attack, vilification, scaremongering, hyperbole, and the occasional downright lie.

The most heated arguments have been around immigration and the suggestion that leaving the EU can solve the ‘problem’.

Leave have effectively ‘sold’ immigration as a problem, even through the evidence is that migrants come here to work and put more into the economy than they take out.

Indeed, in an ageing population like Britain’s, it is arguable they are vitally needed, particularly in areas like health and elderly care.

It should be noted that Leave leader Michael Gove is himself an advocate of immigration, because he knows the economic importance as much as anyone.

Half the immigration into this country has nothing to do with the EU anyway. The British government allows them in because they are needed to fill employment gaps and skills shortages, and the idea that leaving the EU will suddenly bring immigration to a shuddering halt is not sustainable.

The Brexiters also made it a referendum about sovereignty, and quoted a host of ‘facts’ about how many laws are made in Europe. But Britain has a veto on most of these laws, and in the case of majority voting, has been outvoted precisely 2% of the time.

There is also a deep irony in a campaign that asks a political union of countries with central law-making powers - the United Kingdom - to leave a political union of countries with some central law-making because it isn’t democratic.

If there is logic in leaving the EU on that basis, then there is surely logic in Scotland (and others) leaving the UK - logic which has a strong risk of becoming a reality. Out of the EU, and no longer Great Britain. Is that where we want to go?

We have always believed that the EU debate was about trade and economic strategy in a growingly interconnected, pluralist, globalised world.

Remain told us that, imperfect though the EU may be, we could not afford to leave economically.

Leave told us this was rubbish, Britain was the fifth biggest economy in the world and could trade with anyone if it freed itself of the EU’s shackles.

And the money ‘saved’ on the EU membership fee could save the NHS and every other public service anyone cared for.

Appealing though this sounds, we suggest this is less sensible economics, more wishful thinking.

If the economy ‘bombs’, there is no financial bonus, and even if there was, would you really expect the right of the Tory party, who will be in the ascendancy after a Leave vote, to pour money into public services. Really?

But the extra money is surely illusory. Not once has the Brexit side actually provided anything but hope or wild assertion that Britain’s economy would flourish outside the EU.

On the other hand the vast majority of serious, independent economists say leaving will cause short, medium and long-term damage to the economy - and guess who picks up that bill?

Economic forecasts can be wrong, say Leave. Yes, but they can be wrong both ways. It may be that Leaving could be even worse than the forecasts, especially if a run on the pound and the Euro undermine world trade.

The truth is, Leave want us to take an enormous gamble with the economy and the future prosperity of the country.

We’ve just been through years of austerity caused by a worldwide recession.

Why would we gamble on something that could bring a repeat - a self-inflicted repeat.

We should Remain, and take our rightful place leading the EU and helping to lead the world.

*Follow our coverage live right through today