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?

"Nothing is forever"
Not the most glowing recommendation for independence, sounds like Ross from friends "we where on a break".

Why they assumption they will want to come back. The UK isn't exactly flourishing

It was in response to Daughter that nothing is forever and that Scotland may want to 'get back together' with rUK

Earthwind you don't know how things will go. You also don't know how things will go with the UK, but one thing you will know is that every political decision made at the moment is made mainly by the English.

We could end up a nation of ukippers, in a Faragian paradise of downtrodden migrants and bonkers localism, lost without Europe and even more at the mercy of bankers.

The UK could end up with even more debts as our commitment to the flawed banking system leaves us with no escape and no recovery.

How much debt do we owe again? 3trillion at last count. The UKs future is destined for sale to the highest bidder, rising inequality and currently has 60% of children living in poverty. Still want a piece of that action?

But you don't know that would happen either.

Saying that if it doesn't work we came reunite etc highly dangerous. It isn't devolution. It's a one time think. We don't get to 'change our minds' in five years time. Sadly for whatever reason that is why some folk are voting yes. They think that it's a try it and see option. It isn't.

It at the moment isn't thought through enough IMO. We don't even know what currency we'll have.

Lots of typos again but you get my drift

The UK could end up with even more debts as our commitment to the flawed banking system leaves us with no escape and no recovery.

Sorry, whose banks were flawed? Lloyds £17 billion and RBS £46 billion bailout. Which country do these banks actually belong to again?

I think it is absolutely ok to tell voters that.

The banks moving their registered HQ to England is clearly the first step.

Their responsibility is to their shareholders and their customers. They may be saying that they do not intend to make any operational changes at the moment but they are considering their next steps. I think we would be completely naive to think that doesn't mean shifting operations and jobs to England in the event of a yes vote. It would be a great thing for England - relocating operations just south of the border would help with employment in areas that have struggled economically for a while - look at Virgin Money - HQ'd in Edinburgh - big operations in Newcastle / Gosforth - easy to see where that would be headed.

I can't believe the yes campaign are in denial over this. In the event of a yes vote - shareholder and customer needs and demands would be in direct conflict with employee needs...and it is obvious who would win

Earthwind, it's not that it's a try it and see, I think the yes campaigners are trying to prevent people voting No out of fear of the unknown. They are trying to say we can make it work. Which they can, as grown up adults with their very own educated politicians.

Saying No out of fear because something might go wrong is just burying your head in the sand. Things have gone horrifically wrong in uk.gov and you have a chance to get out of the mess.

Most of the Eastern bloc countries are doing a lot better than they were before, as Scotland will.

For the Eastern bloc countries, the comparison is with a very low base. That just doesn't apply for Scotland.

Littlepea the banking system is flawed, it was deregulated by the UK government.

I feel like I'm trying to sell coals to Newcastle here...

Perhaps it would be better to compare new scotland with an old Empire country?

Well, you could. Zimbabwe or Uganda perhaps? Things went well for them, didn't they?

Don't you mean by Gordon Brown and his mates who then gave his other mate Fred The Shread a Knighthood? And before we throw Thatcher in, Gorden had 13 years to reverse anything he disagreed with!

Or perhaps the most apposite example might be the one country which has actually left the United Kingdom?

They are trying to say we can make it work. Which they can, as grown up adults with their very own educated politicians.

But what everyone is still waiting to hear is how they think they can make it work. Vague references to keeping the pound and "We'll be fine in Europe" and "Please stop the nasty businesses saying they'll pull out of Scotland because we don't want to listen to it" - simply don't cut it.

So are you saying that the Empire countries should have stayed British and that the USSR was safer and therefore better than now?

Janine, do you mean the country which has been very heavily bailed out by the EU?

So are you saying that the Empire countries should have stayed British and that the USSR was safer and therefore better than now?

Please don't try to frame the argument in terms that no-one has mentioned - it just makes it clear that you can't meet the argument that has actually been made.

Yes! Feel free to concentrate on the last 6 years since the worldwide recession though, and ignore the 90-odd of independence before that, if it serves your purpose.

DaughterDilemma - of course there's the possibility technically of Scotland rejoining the UK or joining up with other countries, but the point is, it isn't something Scotland gets to decide by itself at that point. Right now, Scotland has a pretty good 'deal' in the union, in terms of how much money it gets per head, how much devolved powers it has and how many independent systems/instiutions (NHS, education, legal etc), and a lot of control on how they are run. If Scotland leaves and then wants to rejoin the UK, it won't be Scotland who are setting the terms and it's unlikely the rest of the UK would consider it to be a good enough deal to them to agree to it.

Let's face it, if it's all the land of milk and honey the Yes campaign are saying it will be, they wouldn't want to rejoin. A public/political will to rejoin would only be if it went seriously tits up, and why would the rest of the UK, or any other country, want to take that on unless there was something in it for them?

This is a one way deal. If Scotland goes alone, it stands or falls alone. There's no "let's just try it and then go back to how things are if we don't like it" option. That was a possibilty with devolution or devomax, but not independence.

Saying "nothing is forever" is wrong, this would be. So it's important that people are 100% aware of the probable downsides (even if just in the short term) of those choices.

As I said, I think long term Scotland would be OK, it's never going to be a super power, or particularly rich unless it goes the tax haven route (which there doesn't seem to be the political will for), but it'll be OK, it's just stuff like banks and major companies shifting out (either completely or just scaling down in Scotland) for the first 5 or so years while things settle down, are predictable and should be planned for, not denied.

Saying No out of fear because something might go wrong is just burying your head in the sand. Things have gone horrifically wrong in uk.gov and you have a chance to get out of the mess.

There is this huge assumption that no voters are doing it out of fear. You could say on the other hand that all yes voters are promising the land of milk and honey. It isn't the case on either count.

rUK will fight very hard in negotiations if a yes vote as they have millions more people to look after than Scotland, and quite frankly who can blame them.

I WILL have to move if it is a Yes vote. My DP has already been told that by his employers.

Most if all I hate how this whole thing has split a country in two. Half the country or there abouts on Thursday won't be getting what they want. That to me is very sad.

What kind of business does DH work for and hopw many people have been told this? I would go to the press about it because it is effectively vote-rigging. I wouldn't want to work for a company that stoops so low. This is where Scotland has a real chance to make a difference.

Why is it vote rigging? It is fact. Not everyone where he is is voting No. Many are voting Yes!

It isn't about stooping low.

Veritata they simply cannot say how things will be different exactly because the processes haven't begun yet. It would be false of them to come up with a magic programme that they know is going to change the moment the vote is cast.