You see the last line, you present it in such a way to suggest that YES or I or both have no case.
Leo you are not stupid I am sure you have understood perfectly well that the referendum is about Democracy and not policies. First comes the democracy if we vote YES. THEN comes the policies from ALL the competing parties in SCotland in 2016.
Why try to spin that into 'you have no policies only bluster?' That is not a decent argument that is just the very kind of propaganda put out by the NO campaign.
Those are your methods of arguing which as I am no longer a schoolboy enjoying debate for the sake of it, I find very tiresome. As regards the rudeness, yes I have been rude, and blunt but then I have received more from your side than I have given out. I honestly don't want to debate on that level and I admit I should have shown more tolerance at the start of this debate but I did apologise early on. Many on here have not liked the argument I have presented and have reacted accordingly and lets face it there have been posters popping in saying some quite biggoted stuff.
If you wish to debate this subject then some mutual respect would help otherwise why should we bother each other.
My last line reflects the fact that I believe you have not argued the case in the way it should be argued and as for us here it is only you and BB representing the case I would have liked to see you explain the Yes campaign better. It is not spin but my honest take on what you have said. You have quoted a myriad of articles from one side saying that oil is plentiful and given us lists of independent countries - whether they be rich or poor. I accept that there are loads of independent countries - that does not actually mean that they would not fare better as part of a bigger union.
As for oil - there is loads of it but the point you and as far as I can see the Yes campaign have failed to do is to explain how a country that would have oil as around 15% of its tax revenue can properly deal with the wide annual fluctuations that always do occur. For the UK as a whole oil is 1 to 2% of revenue so a halving of it is of little consequence on an annual basis. That just is not the position if it is 15% of your revenue - it means there has to be a strategy to deal with major fluctuations of revenue. I cannot believe the argument that Salmond has not considered this - he is a very intelligent man. So why does he not explain the strategies an independent Scotland would use to iron out the fluctuations. This is certain to happen and it is not acceptable to say the answer will be given after a yes vote. If I am mistaken and the Yes campaign have answered that then explain it to me - please not in another long article but in your own words.
Secondly the EU - I am well aware that post a Yes vote negotiations will start. However you cannot expect anyone to accept that Salmond has not looked at all the possible outcomes - immediate re-entry, re-entry within say 5 years or possibly no EU. Why is it so difficult for anyone to tell us what the Yes campaign position would be in the event of these outcomes. They are all potential outcomes so explain what the strategy would be to deal with each.
Finally currency. I know you can quote 200 countries around the word with their own currencies and Scotland can easily be another. But why will Salmond only tell us he wants a currency union and not tell us the response to an alternative outcome. It will make a great deal of difference to Scotland which currency it uses - so he should outline how Scotland will cope with each. That means acknowledging the increased costs that a new country would face starting its own currency - not least higher interest costs - or the loss of control if it "shadows" sterling and does not have its own central bank.
Those are all legitimate questions and it is not good enough to say they are policies that will be decided after the referendum. Some people will want independence only if some of those outcomes are "favourable" unless the Yes campaign can show it has a successful contingency plan for when not all negotiations turn out as they hope - and as someone who has spent much of my business life in negotiations I can assure you we do not always get what we desire.
None of what I have written here is spin - you are the only one who accuses me of that Spurf. The questions are the sort of questions I have posed to people who have come to me seeking investment in their businesses across the years. If you want people to buy into a idea you have to convince them it is sound. If I have missed the answers to these questions then again please in a few words explain them. You say you do not want debate for the sake of it - but this is not like that- it is debate about all our children's future - not just Scots. We have a right to know that Scotland is not being misled and not voting for an outcome it does not expect.
I think Salmond's reaction to the publication of the RBS intention to move its headquarters demonstrates how he prefers to keep bad news hidden. Whether the Treasury did wrong in confirming it is not relevant - hiding the truth and then complaining when it comes out it just wrong. Salmond implies that all potential bad news are just scare stories so it is important that when businesses like Aviva, RBS and the like are making actual plans to relocate these are aired as fact to prevent it being claimed as just a scare.
I challenge your assertion that this is about Democracy - that is the "spin" the Yes campaign has turned to as they have seen that promising a new social order is popular. I did not hear much of that in the early days of the debate. It is about Independence. How Scotland develops post independence will determine what social order changes there will be - but that will depend on how Scots vote in the future - nobody can promise the outcome of future votes.
I do not expect you to be able to answer these questions properly as I do not think they have been thought through as fully as they ought to have been - which is why the No campaign has kept pressing for answers. I could easily be wrong and if I am then here is your chance to help us understand the truth.
