Food prices in an independent Scotland
It is a statement of the bloomin' obvious that businesses behave differently in different countries.
It is equally obvious that if Scotland becomes a separate nation, businesses that straddle the borders of Scotland and the rest of the UK will - over time - assess questions such as where they invest and how they price on the basis of national conditions.
So far, so uncontentious.
The problem is that almost anything that a company says in public about the nitty gritty of all this becomes stunningly contentious - because emotions in the political class are running high about the merits or disadvantages of Scottish independence.
As an illustration, here is what the boss of a very big FTSE company told me about a recent meeting with representatives of the Scottish government:
Britain's curious consumer-led recovery
On the Office for Budget Responsibility's analysis of what's going on in the British economy, there is a bit of a mystery about why the recovery is happening now, as opposed to last year or next year or some other time.
What I mean by that is that the recovery has been driven, on the OBR's analysis, by households spending a good deal more than it and other economists anticipated.
But, says the OBR, this has happened at a time when growth in real household disposable income has fallen from 1.6% to 0.5% - which, for what it's worth, is less than the growth in the real aggregate spending power of the household sector in the immediate post-Crash years of 2009 and 2010.
And, of course, these aggregate numbers paint a misleading and too rosy a picture of what's been happening to living standards for most British people; according to official figures, median or typical household income for those who haven't retired has fallen 6.4% since the 2008 debacle.
However the OBR's real household disposable income calculations and forecasts are a guide to the direction of travel, and the point is that 2013 is a year of slowdown in the recovery as it affects people.
Chancellor’s return to 1948
There are a number of striking assertions by the Office of Budget Responsibility, whose forecasts underpinned the chancellor's Autumn Statement.
One is that by 2018-19, when the OBR expects the budget to be in surplus, as a result of a projected fall in the annual deficit by a remarkable 11.1% of GDP, government's "consumption of goods and services - a rough proxy for day-to-day spending on public services and administration - will shrink to its smallest share of national income at least since 1948, when comparable National Accounts data are first available".
This is pretty amazing. And it is because, on the OBR's analysis, around 80% of the reduction in public sector borrowing is "accounted for by lower public spending" - by what we have come to call austerity.
To be clear, these are predictions, not this moment's reality. And they would require a government after the 2015 election to stick to this administration's targets for taxing and spending, and translating those targets into budgets for individual ministerial departments.
And the hypothetical nature of those longer-term targets are made clear in the Treasury's Autumn Statement book, because it does not - for example - make any provision for Nick Clegg's cherished, £755m-a-year policy of providing free school meals to the youngest school children beyond 2015-16.
Treasury argues for tax cuts
Last night the Treasury published a two-page summary of new analysis it has carried out on the "dynamic" effects of cutting taxes.
What it shows, says the Treasury, is that the cuts the chancellor has made, and is still making, to the rate of corporation tax will, over 20 years:
a) increase the long-run level of GDP by between 0.6% and 0.8%
b) and boost business investment by between 2.5% and 4.5%
c) such that between 46% and 58% of the initial loss of revenue to the Exchequer will flow back from taxes generated by the increased economic activity.
UK economy and Tesco diverge
Tesco this morning announced that in the three months to 23 November, underlying or like-for-like sales in the UK were down either 1.4%, or 1.5%, or 1.6%, depending on which of the three blinkin' measures published by the giant grocer is the most reliable.
There is no point in getting into the nuances of the calculation of this measure of sales, since they all tell the same story - sales down.
Now these figures are obviously not seen by investors as a disaster, since the share price is up a bit this morning.
But at a time when rising household consumption is driving the UK's recovery, according to the official statistics, it is slightly odd perhaps that the UK's biggest retailer should be struggling.
So what is going on?
UK education: Average won't do
The impression created by the OECD's triennial assessment of educational performance - its Programme for International Student Assessment, or Pisa - is that the UK is a slightly lazy and spoiled rich kid, that does a bit of last-minute cramming to scrape a pass, but disappoints relative to its economic advantages.
Or to put it another way, the performance of UK 15-year-olds is pretty average in respect of outcomes - bang on the international average for maths and reading, a bit above in science - but that doesn't look great, given that the UK spends well above the average on education and its students are significantly richer than in many countries where attainment is much higher.
The top of the league table is dominated by Asia, and China in particular: Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taipei, Korea, Macao and Japan, in that order.
Which means that the gap between per capita wealth in the rich West and in the developing economies of the East will continue to narrow, all other things being equal, given the link between prosperity and education.
The gap between the mean maths attainment of Shanghai adolescents and British ones is a particularly stunning 24%. That's almost as unbridgeable a gap as between Barcelona FC and AFC Wimbledon in football.