Hi All,
I do think people are looking for arguments here where there aren't any. It would be shame as we had a constructive face to face discussion on Saturday and this should not take a backwards step once we're all back on our keyboards

For what it's worth, it was an MIA rally and I for one felt rather nervous in attending it - especially when going up to ask a couple of questions on behalf of the 'Yes' lot. However, I was not shouted down or booed and David Hoyle responded in a polite fashion. At very least it allowed people there to hear a different point of view.
Another member of the 'Yes' group did have a pre-prepared speech but it was clearly not on the agenda for the rally. There was a little confusion as to whether it would be fitted in or not (due to some stormy clouds overhead and the politicians in attendance inevitably going on a bit). If I was to put myself in MIA's shoes then I for one would not be too happy having my rally ended by someone from the other group getting the last word, but overall it was nothing more than a mix up when they said the speech would be allowed. I don't think there was any malicious intent in any of this at all. It certainly should not be used for points scoring.
Oh, and we were also told that the Area Committe meeting in October will be the open forum for everyone (Yes/No/In between) to have a say - and this will be a lot more appropriate than the MIA rally.
Anyway, that's my take on it. I have some more thoughts on Saturday which I'll try and share when I get some more time.