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?

Earthwind, fear of the unknown is what is behind the No vote. It is done to death because that's the only reason for voting no.

No it isn't. Please don't be so patronising!

fear of the unknown is what is behind the No vote. It is done to death because that's the only reason for voting no.

Such a statement makes you sound incredibly dim and uninformed.

There are a plethora of reasons for voting No just as there are a plethora of reasons for voting Yes.

Thanks Sqoosh, I shall remember your kind words. Anything more to add, like the plethora of reasons why a no vote will be better?

Earth, well you tell me then what is behind it!

Show me one ex USSR country that has not benefitted from the EU.

I do hope you remember my words because you're coming across as quite blinkered. People are voting No for many reasons....

-Because they don’t want to live in a small country with an isolated currency

-Because they believe that Scotland is stronger when pooling resources with the rest of the UK

-Because they feel as British as they do Scottish

-Because they don’t believe AS promises stand up to scrutiny

Now you might dismiss these reasons out of hand, go ahead, but for you to say that people are only voting ‘No’ because they’re scared is incredibly facile and unhelpful. You feel strongly about Yes, but many people feel strongly about No. Try and keep a bit of perspective.

I am neutral as I don't have a vote nor am I British. However businesses have moved their HQ or changed their listing oftentimes for tax or regulatory reasons without affecting the operations on the ground. The people that will be affected are those at HQ. For example the recent reversion merger proposals e.g. Pfizer's proposal to take over AstraZeneca was driven by the tax advantage offered by the UK relative to the USA. It does not mean the jobs would have migrated to the UK.

Scotland with its educated workforce and spending power will still be an attractive place to do business. A new Scottish government can offer incentives to attract and retain business.

Squoosh three of the four 'reasons' are driven by fear of the unknown. And some people feeling more British than Scottish? Perhaps they should be less selfish minded and think of the greater good.

My point wasn't facile or anything else, can none of these No voters debate without trying to tear people down?

My point wasn't facile or anything else, can none of these No voters debate without trying to tear people down?

Says the person who is stereotyping and assuming and tearing down.

Perhaps they should be less selfish minded and think of the greater good.

Oh please!!

And some people feeling more British than Scottish? Perhaps they should be less selfish minded and think of the greater good.

It's their identity, who are you to tell them they're being selfish for feeling British. And you talk of No voters 'tearing people down'.

Oh sweet irony.

Sorry no irony intended, but if that's what you choose to see...

Irony doesn't need intent to be present.....

squoosh just beat me to that post.

So just to summarise, if you feel more British than Scottish, you are selfish.
And that message is from a separatist who accuses No voters of tearing people down.

Not irony, no. Just sheer stupidity.

Well it's not me that sees it, just your unwillingness to enter a discussion without having a dig every time.

For that reason I am out. Hope you are proud.

Yup
Scottish, British and a proud.

Easy to run when you have no arguments and cry foul.

a

Pah! You're out because you don't like people pointing out your nonsense arguments.

No. Not unreasonable. Why would it not be? Keep asking questions. Questions are good.

I know I have quoted it before but let me give people an extract referring to the SNP from First Minister Dewar's speech to the Labour Party Conference in - 1999 was it? Even though times have moved on a little they may still find it interesting.

'......It is not just their view of the world which is distorted. They have strange views on dissent. Their standing orders make clear that any unauthorised contact with the press is a hanging offence - well perhaps not hanging, but their Chief Whip has cheerfully gone on record saying that anyone who strays is liable to be dropped from the group. It is their form of deselection. I quote - "It is as if such a person went under a bus. The next one on the list would simply take his place".

It sure gives a certain sinister meaning to the phrase - "next please".

Then there is the puzzling case of the party's economic spokesman. Within the same week he argued that it was possible to be British, to be proud of it, yet vote against Britain for separatism. And then just as quickly changed tack, describing the Union Flag as offensive, - a relic of colonialism. They tell me he is a nice young man - he did eventually apologise - but would you put him in charge of your finances?

I can remember Free by '93. I thought then that it was straight from the great McGonigall school of politics - of dubious benefit but endlessly reusable. And they will use it decade after decade after decade.

Enough of the SNP - the politics of illusion are not for us......'

The full text is here for those who wish to read it.

It's not unreasonable, although we should bear in mind that many threatened the same should Scotland get devolved powers, and then did nothing.

See, I don't understand why you can say on one hand "it's the fear of the unknown that's making people vote no" while on the other hand think that it's ok to reduce the amount of 'knowns' in the debate - that lots of companies will shift HQ out of Scotland is a known, it should inform debate.

The issue is as well that some of these "unknowns" should be planned for, they shouldn't be unknowns, but the SNP's "everything will be sunny and fine" and refusing to think about the problems and say how they plan to deal with those problems makes people nervous, because it looks like they haven't bothered to plan for known problems, or they have and don't think the electorate will like their ideas, so are going to keep them secret until it's too late.

Some people have thought about the downsides to independence and don't think that limited self determination (limited because Scotland wants to be part of the EU so will be joining as a very small country and have to just accept a lot of EU rules and conditions anyway) isn't worth the cost. Refusing to think about the costs to this doesn't make the magic away. You and lots of people voting yes might think the costs are worth it, but they should be aware of what those costs will be.

they shouldn't be unknowns

Exactly. When you're dealing with the future of a whole country and its people you should know what you're doing beforehand broadly.

fear of the unknown is what is behind the No vote. It is done to death because that's the only reason for voting no.

That is a staggeringly simplistic and inaccurate depiction of the facts, and really highly offensive to hundreds of thousands of Scots.

Numanoid - the difference here seems to be they will have to HQ in an EU country, Scotland might not be an EU country straight away, and financial institutions have to be HQed in the country they do most business, it's looking unlikely Scotland won't be in the EU to start with and most financial institutions who are looking to move will have most their business in the rest of the UK so will legally need to move.

How big an office they leave in Scotland might be interesting, even if key functions do have to be shifted to rUK. Plus how many staff go with them and relocate, rather than being unemployed in Scotland.