Matt - the same could be said for the No voter Agenda/Campaign....

Matt - the same could be said for the No voter Agenda/Campaign. There are two broad views that everyone is expressing here and that is what a forum is all about.

You are the master of creating stories as you attempt to join dots with a bit of information here and there. It cannot be done. There is a myriad of possibilities and twists and turns. Your guesses are just that. If posters believe that you have this all worked out (or me) then they are either inexperienced or wishful thinkers.

As I said, your heart is in the right place but I think you are starting to lose your grasp. But I think you would make a good scriptwriter and create some new James Bondish fiction.

You need to understand that all of us can only see past the first row of trees in this forest. You are too adamant that your version/imagination is correct as in your mind it must be so.

The smartest thing you and your mates could say is that you dont know what you dont know. That is my position. You can only deal with what is in front of you. As tomorrow you get another curve ball and need to rethink. I could create another story, opposite to yours on the facts which would be just as plausable. Waste of time.

You have created another story about the motives of the Yes voters. To you the explanation of "hey its tough, not much demand, things shaky, Sovereign risk, get 45 while you can" is not acceptable.

We both would like more for our investment. You want to roll the dice, I don't, simple as that.

You are waging a campaign against Yes voters accusing them of waging a campaign on behalf of who knows who. We are debating and sharing information. I am fearful of the funding as that is uncertain, not the Yes vote. You are not fearful of the funding, and that is your right.

Time for you to start to be less "certain" about things and a little more open to the plus and minus of the situation.

Cheers