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?

Daughter - 60% of the children in the UK live in poverty? That's horrific! Where did you get that figure from?

DWP says its 17-27%
Barnados says almost a third of kids.

33% is still dreadful - but it's not 60%.

I didn't have time to look at what the stats actually mean in real terms - our idea of poverty is, I'm sure, a hell of a lot different than for someone living in Iraq or Sudan. And Barnados is a charity after all, so will show the worst case scenario.

I think it's obvious that some businesses will move if there's a yes vote so it's hardly a surprise to mention it. An uncertain future for Scottish currency is a huge risk for a business to contemplate. I'm a fan of the American liberal economist Paul Krugman and I think his analysis on the Scottish economy is worryingly accurate.

www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

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.

I wasn't thinking of that in fact, though it is very relevant. I was thinking of the major EU investment that has been in place since Ireland joined. As nothing of the sort is likely for Scotland, it isn't a valid comparison.

If we got into the EU in the first place. Can you imagine what would happen without the EU and National lottery money coming in?

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.

Really that makes the case for a No vote very neatly. You can't credibly vote for a "Jam tomorrow" programme when no-one has put forward anything remotely resembling a plan for how it will happen, and when there has been a wholesale failure to address the issue of currencies and businesses pulling out.

"What kind of business does DH work for and hopw many people have been told this? I would go to the press about it ...."

Quite a few companies have already made public announcements about this. So the press may well not be interested. Even if some specific companies' intentions haven't been much reported on, it's not news that leaving can/will happen.

Bizarre to think that the only country which has left the United Kingdom isn't a point of comparison for Scotland. There was 50 years of independence for Ireland before any EU investment.

Unless I've misunderstood your point?

Some businesses will need to move their HQs from a 'foreign' country. No choice. The salmon hasn't thought of that (or he would have been cosying up to them before now).

Its like arguing with a toddler about why they can't have a puppy. It looks cute and fluffy but will grow (don't know what yet because its a heinz 57). It will shit, eat and get sick, and possibly bite people. But hey, its cute?

Also not everyone will chose to move with their companies, relocating like that would mean if the employees don't want to move they will be entitled to redundancy, so a lot will take that, of course if all the local competitors are doing the same thing they might worry about finding another job so might consider taking a relocation package as long term they might need to move anyway.

Chunderella my example of several countries, list them if you want, leaving the USSR was simply to show that life does go on, things are possible and people can succeed when going through a sudden and very dramatic and unprecedented political, economic and social change.

Fear of the unknown is not a good enough reason to undermine this historic opportunity.

Of course things will change, there will be ups and downs. But the Scottish people choose which way the changes go.

The point I was making was fairly clear this isn't a court of law and perhaps you should think if something more constructive to say rather than pick holes in a point that you generally agree with anyway. Ie, that exiting a group of countries for independence can sometimes be a good thing.

Jeez. And I have done all that explaining without being rude to you which is something you found impossible.

In response to an earlier point, the exact figure is 61% of children from working households are living in poverty. Joseph Rowntree 2010.

Child poverty has fallen to 27 per cent,

Is the correct figure from them Daughter

www.jrf.org.uk/publications/monitoring-poverty-and-social-exclusion-2013

Here is the article

'JRF defines poverty as when a person’s resources are not enough to meet their basic needs. This includes the need to be part of society, by being able to participate in common customs and activities – like buying a
birthday present for your partner or sending your child on a school trip.'

27% of children are classed as being in poverty - in accordance with the above definition - in the 2014 report.

So not good - but I initially thought we were talking about 60% of the children in this country not having food and shelter. I suppose it's all down to the definition.

If businesses DON'T follow the money, please explain why Google, Amazon etc have arranged their affairs in such as way as to minimise the tax they pay?

Do you think they are in a tiny minority?

A business's first responsibility is to its shareholders - it's the law.

Bizarre to think that the only country which has left the United Kingdom isn't a point of comparison for Scotland. There was 50 years of independence for Ireland before any EU investment.

There was but there was also 50 years of fairly grinding poverty for a lot of people and a large percentage of the population emigrated (primarily to UK) right up to the rise of the celtic tiger. I'm sure economists and historians could argue whether Ireland would have been better or worse economically if it remained in the UK. (Certainly Irish women suffered in not having access to contraception for many years. And both men and women had no access to divorce.) Most Irish people would probably agree that the positives of autonomy and independence outweighed any economic or social negatives but I don't think you can just say look at Ireland it did just fine economically immediately after independence. A better comparison might be look at Ireland it may not have done so well for years but no one ever wanted to go back to the union.

By the way I have no opinion on Yes/No for Scotland one way or the other.

Former Eastern bloc countries being lauded as an example of success? I thought Lithuania and Latvia had severe recession and depopulation problems?

Surely the problem is not just businesses moving, but loss of customers for the businesses that remain?

I have a friend with a small holiday lettings business. She has barely any bookings for next year and far lesser enquiries than usual.

jrf measure of poverty: "The most widely used measure of poverty is based on household income. A household is considered to be in poverty if its income, after taxes have been paid, and adjusting for the household size and composition, is below 60 per cent of the national median that year. As the median income rises, the amount of money required to be above the poverty line rises."

So no matter how high the average income in a country is, a certain percentage are always guaranteed to be in poverty by that measure.

Unless you have a near communist system where redistribution of wealth via personal taxation causes the vast majority to take home a very similar amount.

I think the Rowntree Foundation has a similar measurement of measure of poverty.

Yes, I'd go along with that Canyouforgiveher, except to add that emigration, poverty and a raw deal for women (much more restricted access to divorce, for example) were all in place under the Union in Ireland and as such were not a product of independence per se. But you're right - notable that no matter how bad things were, there was never a plausible political movement for re-union.