[sparkzilla]

There's a reasons Scots engineers like me left the country: no jobs.

It is highly unlikely that an independent Scotland will become any kind of tech powerhouse. Both parties are deeply socialist. If the Scottish National Party win expect a further move to the left. If the vote is Yes there will be a huge amount of political and economic instability.

[matthewmacleod]

This is FUD.

The SNP are arguably economically to the right of Labour. If they were in power post-Yes, you'd likely see a cut in corporation tax, for example.

There will be loads of instability, but there's an opportunity in there, and a guarantee that there will be an effort to find new economic specialties. I'd bet tech will be one of those. However,as you say, many Scottish engineers currently leave the country, particularly for London - so, how could it get any worse?

[sparkzilla]

It can get a lot worse.

The key word in your post is "arguably". The plan is to use oil money that may or may not exist to give more and more freebies to those in government jobs or on welfare. If there is less oil money than expected, where will the money come from? More debt and higher taxes. Not a good environment for any business. The banks have already started moving their head offices and other companies will follow. the market is too small and the risks too high.

The corporation tax cut is window dressing. It doesn't matter to a company if they get less tax if there is political instability, and anyway the costs of dealing with a different currency and cross-border transactions alone will drive up costs.

You talk of guarantees and bets in the same sentence. Who is making these the guarantees? I haven't seen any realistic pro-business plans on offer. While you may place your bets, many people will just walk away from the table.

[smcl]

"The plan is to use oil money that may or may not exist to give more and more freebies to those in government jobs or on welfare" - that sounds rather extreme, where in the independence whitepaper is this outlined?

"The banks have already started moving their head offices..." Which banks, sorry? Do you mean RBS (who talked about how they may or may not move their registered office to London leaving their operations intact in Scotland) or Lloyd's (already headquartered in London)? If not these, then which?

There's maybe legit reasons to think about voting "No" - you needn't muddy the waters by just simply making things up and talking nonsense.

Remember you're talking to fairly smart people on HN so the FUD is unlikely to hold much water here, save it for Facebook.

[sparkzilla]

Your condescending tone, which is so typical of fact-challenged Yes supporters, belies the weakness of your arguments.

RBS moved their registered office to London. That means that not only will the banks profits move to England, but its taxes will too. Sure, some branches will stay, and some jobs will be maintained, but the main business will be conducted elsewhere. There is simply too much political and market risk.

Anyway, I have better things to do than debate with random strangers on HN. Enjoy your socialist paradise.

[smcl]

You may accuse me of having a condescending tone and that is up for debate, but your lies speak for themselves. RBS have not moved their registered office.

Apparently you don't have better things to do, but enjoy pretending you have taken the high road.