To think its ok to tell voters that businesses will move south if its a yes?

[Loopylala7]

If these businesses do intend to shift south of the border if its a yes, shouldn't the voters know this is a possible outcome? Why is it considered unfair for this information to be out? Can somebody please explain? Am I being a bit dense?

I'm sorry to say that many of them do seem to have fallen for it Veritata. They would receive a nasty awakening if there wasn't a No vote tomorrow.

Apparently, 'Scotland is one of the richest countries in the world' says the sturgeon.

Why does no one question this? If she said that to me I would say 'where the hell did you hear that?'.

There are a lot of very poor countries in the world and a lot of them are quite small, particularly when you look at income per head, so statistically she is probably right. Its the conclusions that you can draw from that statistic that are a bit suspect.

"We want to join the eu now but we might not want to use the euro".

"No"

"But I checked on Wikipedia and I worked out that scotland is one of the richest countries in the world"

"That was when you were part of the uk, and we're not too fussed about them either".

"But you know Scotland is one of the richest countries in the world"

"Still no - fill in these forms and we'll let you know when we've processed everyone else".

"I can do you a lovely holiday in the highlands???!"

"Great I love game of thrones"

"Actually that was filmed in Northern Ireland...."

Out on a "no" stall today. Nice atmosphere from both sides which was refreshing.

Good to hear.

Regarding Scotland's wealth I understanding the ranking is based on GDP per capita, which as we know does not necessarily translate to wiping your arse on £50 notes. I'm not an economist so may be way off base but see it like the difference between turnover and profit for a business, I could have turnover of a million but still have no profit or be making a loss.

Very fat fingers tonight, sorry.

GDP does not measure important things like education, mental health, happiness, loyalty, caring, voluntary work, environmental stability etc.

It is not the be all and end all of success.

Just remind me where Scotland came on the PISA study of comparative education again?

And for "loyalty", you might as well read "intolerance".

I believe they told the citizens of the USSR that they were happier, healthier, more caring, fairer and more equal, etc. than anywhere else, when in reality that meant bare shelves, sharing kitchens with your neighbours who were spying on you at the same time and not being allowed out of the country (unless you were a member of "the party").

Oh hello Chelsy

'negative downturn' or, to put it another way, 'dissenting opinion' ...

Oh hello Chelsy

**

Please stop being so rude, there really us no need.

GDP does not measure important things like education, mental health, happiness, loyalty, caring, voluntary work, environmental stability etc.

It does tend to result in well funded state education, good health services and the ability to make long term plans for the environment instead of doing whatever you have to do to avoid starvation.

Having said that Salmond does seem to value a high GDP. It's just unclear how he is going to square a tax haven/financial centre/fossil fuel dependent/green zone/socialist state with all his supporters and potential allies.

I agree that fundamentally you have to govern by consent and that if Scotland does not want to be part of the UK it should not be part of the UK. However, you have to govern an independent Scotland by consent too, and at this moment it really isn't clear who is agreeing to what or if anybody has agreed anything.

However, you have to govern an independent Scotland by consent too, and at this moment it really isn't clear who is agreeing to what or if anybody has agreed anything.

That about sums it up.