The possibilities at the door of the referendum in Scotland are quite equal, and there is nothing clear about what is going to happen. How do you see the situation?

The time comes from the 'yes' campaign, thanks to the work on the street and the role of Alex Salmond in the last TV debate. The position of the Scottish media of London stabilishmint and possession will become even more desperate in the coming days, and without principles.

I'm entrusted with a memory of the year 2000. So I ran for election as a SNP candidate, and local media predicted a 14 percent result for our party. In the end, we got 29% of the votes. Independentists say independence would be beneficial to Scotland’s economy. The Unionists, on the other hand, have opposed it. How do citizens know who to believe?

It's a matter of trust. The Scottish Government, in the hands of the SNP, has demonstrated its skill and honesty since 2007 and has made it clear that it agrees with the interests of the Scottish people. Meanwhile, the various governments in London have brought Scotland low growth rates over the past 50 years, equating them to the rest of the United Kingdom and other small developed countries. Inequalities between rich and poor have increased, population growth has slowed, many talented people have emigrated, and the OECD has had the lowest life expectancy. The governments of Turi (UK Conservative Party) have shamefully denied the 1979 promises to give Scotland more power.

Why should it be beneficial?

Because it would give us all the powers of an independent state to be competitive and free ourselves from this crazy situation in which, among other things, the same tax collection rate is used in central London and in Scotland.

And what is the basis for the economic survival of a possible independent Scotland?

The basis for Scotland’s economic success is plural and complementary. We are self-sufficient in energy (hydrocarbons and renewable energies), water and food production. We have a very good education system, a very improved health system, we have the international attention and will on our behalf, smart people and strong industrial sectors. And also, we have a network of Scots who live internationally and are motivated to help the “old homeland” succeed abroad.

There are conflicting views about the amount of oil reserves that may remain in the North Sea. How much more can Scotland explode?

Stocks can never be fully counted, but we know that the benefits are enormous. The number of barrels of oil in the North Sea ranges from 16.5 to 24 million, and estimates so far have underestimated stocks and prices. Now, moreover, we have the prospect of new and improved oil recovery techniques, as well as the exploitation of new reserves in different parts of Scotland.

What does the SNP want to do with that money that's going to get from oil?

We want to follow the Norwegian model, managing the financial transition and creating the Oil Fund for future generations.

What is that?

It would be a Scottish equivalent to the Norwegian Pension Fund. It would be designed to ensure that the Scottish economy will not overheat the prices of other sectors, as well as to protect and enrich future generations.

In any case, oil will one day end. What is the alternative to Scotland?

We have 1% of the European population and 60% of Europe’s oil and gas reserves. We want to make the best use of this resource to contribute to the transition to Scotland’s independence and to make it an exporter of oil and gas related skills. This phase can last about 50 years.

We also want to promote the development of renewable energies. Thus, we want to exploit 25% of Europe’s offshore wind energy and 25% of Europe’s tidal energy.

Scottish independentists claim that independence can lead to another economic and social model. How does it differ from what it is today?

The main objective is to help employers, trade unions and workers in the creation of a more consensual framework. This is clearly a clash with the American model that Westminster has developed over the past 25 years.

The wealth of a country does not necessarily imply the wealth of its citizens. Scotland, in fact, has huge social differences between rich and poor. Can independence ensure a fair distribution of wealth?

Yes, and it can help more people take trust, personal and community ambition, skills, work, satisfaction and well-being.

Salmond has insisted that Scotland will continue to use the pound. Unionists, on the other hand, say no. What if London closes that door?

I do not agree with the logic of unionist rejection of monetary unity. They deliberately and astutely prefer to ignore the benefits of monetary union.

However, both Alastair Darling, the leader of the Better Together Unionist campaign and other powers have recognised that they cannot prevent Scotland from continuing to use the pound through the United Kingdom. Bodies such as the Adam Smith Institute or the Citigroup have also agreed that it would be better for the United Kingdom to participate in the monetary union in question. Everyone is assuming that, if the opposite is done, the London Government would be responsible for the United Kingdom’s national debt in Scotland.

And if the pound is shared, is there no risk that the decisions of the BOE (Bank of England) will limit the policies of Scotland?

The Scottish economy would enter a new era. We, the peoples, will be able to vote on governments committed to prosperity and financial honesty; we will obtain the necessary guarantees to maintain the agreement on monetary unity negotiated with England. In the same way, we would repatriate all the powers that England did not want to give us, particularly by gaining powers over taxes, welfare and indebtedness.

You said that small countries are more likely to achieve economic success. Why?

In these cases, the government is closer to the people, there are fewer regions to consult, interaction is more transparent, dialogue is more effective and representative, and there are more countries like them to learn from and compete with them.

Does this also apply to small nations such as Euskal Herria or Catalonia?

In 1945, there were 74 states in the world, and now it's 196. There is a trend in the world, and I am convinced that the people of Euskal Herria and Catalonia will be very aware of this and of the factors that have driven that trend.

Why does the Scottish Government propose to continue under the British crown?

Changing the Constitution is a great movement, and many are concerned about more changes and the risk of other heads of state, who would be the former unelected politicians. That is why I do not think there is a need to address this issue.

What will happen on September 18 if the yes win? What if he wins the no?

If he wins the yes, a new daring era opens up for Scotland. A better, fairer and more prosperous future that will enable us to play an ethical and positive role at global level.

If no, Scotland will be lost economically, socially and culturally in the short term. In the long term, in order to break down the promises of unionists and live in poor results, the road to independence will be deepened. As Charles Stuart Parnell said in the Irish context, “no one has the right to set limits on the path of a nation.”