and I would not take part in any on the street polling either!
Doesn't change MY (read MY opinion on the matter)

and while you may claim you hardly ever post here, every chance you get at putting others down is taken, you do not "participate" in discussions but rather try to take them over and demean others in doing so. While you did not (thank you) take this discussion over, you did once again attempt to belittle others after not reading what had been said.

On Scotland, I could make plenty of arguments why they might vote yes, and they very well may! I just seem to think the no will win by a small majority for my reasons stated.

whatever the outcome, i believe this occasion begs for a game on either "HeptarchyIV", "Celtic Britain" or "Anarchy in the UK" :D

I don't think an independent Scotland not being in the EU is as big a deal as some make it out to be. They'd be better off with their own currency if independent (so they can make central bank decisions with their own country's priorities and circumstances in mind), and hopefully trade treaties with the EU would cover part of whatever benefits I assume would be lost without membership.

An independent Scotland would be free to screw up its own self, instead of blaming Westminster for it however rightly or wrongly. Given England's resources to potentially shore up Scotland if it falls on hard times, that may have its downsides. I think Scotland does fine as part of the union, but I'm also aware of the historic grievances.

If they gain independence but not their own currency, I'd be concerned.

But Tom, the only part of your post stated as opinion was the result. You stated the polling as a reason for hour opinion. In other words, you stated this as if a fact when it simply is demonstrably not a fact. I accept it is your opinion. But please realize, that opinion, which is influencing the greater opinion of the outcome, was demonstrably and probably flawed. That's all. I'm not trying to put you down, but enlighten you to the fact that your own and for evidence is proven to be statistically wrong. Most people, when approached on the street, will give an opinion. This can be statistically shown by tracking pollsters approach counts and completed polls.

Demonstrably and statistically flawed... Odd typo.

nope, you are wrong. I gave my personal opinion and why I felt that way. I never stated it to be factual or statistically accurate. It is what I have seen and have observed, The Florida situation later referenced helps back this up however, leading to YOUR call that polls are always accurate as being wrong. Your statement "most people when approached on the street will give an opinion": do you have proof of that? You make a statement YOU find to be accurate and expect us to embrace your opinion while my opinion (stated as my opinion not as fact as you do) is to be questioned?

I have been approached on the street (in a shopping Mall actually) a few times, I have ALWAYS said I was not interested and guess what...watching as I walked away, MOST did the same. I am not claiming this to be factual but rather anecdotal, you instead simply post nonsense and expect us to assume it truthful?

Nope, you are the one making up "facts" not me!

read again
"MYSELF, I THINK..."
It is what I THINK, nowhere was it stated as being factual, it is MY OPINION.
Yet you simply want it to be different and say what simply is not there and add to that lie by making up facts that suit your position. You failed, move along...

If the vote fails, I think the SNP has a case to make that it was not a fair vote, as the No campaign used a lot of dirty tricks and economic sabotage to mess with the outcome.

"I'm getting the picture that the Yes vote is primarily seen from through emotive point of view. Whereas the No vote is predominantly being portrayed as from an economic perspective. Does inclusion into the EU really that important? "

That's an interesting point, and the reason why I think the Yes campaign has gained so much traction so quickly. It's rather astounding than the No campaign hasn't been able to formulate any real positive case for staying in the Union. It's entirely a campaign of economic scaremongering. There is apparently nothing to be said for the historic ties between England and Scotland. That says a lot about how doomed the union really is, regardless of the vote.

Your scope was not clear Tom. You stated your opinion about the outcome. But there was no such clarity to the reasons behind that opinion. Most people base an opinion on facts, not other opinions, so it isn't unreasonable that one would see your two reasons (stated as reasons) for your opinion on the outcome as being presented as facts. But it's all a matter of perspective.

@Schwarzenberg....that was my take as well.

In general, let's presume that Spain would try actively to blackball Scotland from EU membership. Could such tactics be used to deny Scotland treaty status in line with Switzerland? BTW, my Catalan friends are ecstatic. How to escape the EU (with the aim of Switzerland-like status) has been one of their quandaries.

As a comment on the single majority vote conversation, hasn't the EU repeatedly used single up or down majority votes to ratify irrevocable structural changes? In fact, haven't they demanded re-votes when the irrevocable structural change in question was not endorsed as designed? Perhaps 2/3 super-majorities on these plebiscites ratifying major structural changes is a good idea; however, the sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

Spain had a better case for blackballing the illegal UDIs of Croatia and Slovenia from the EU. They did not do so. The Catalans already had plenty of precedents before the Scotland case, and the Scotland case is really not a very good precedent for them since it was actually done with the consent of Westminster. I don't get why Spain is issuing statements about Scotland. That seems like interference to me. The US has done this also.

Officially, the US stance is neutral. Is it true we would prefer the status quo? Of course. Wall street will take a hit and NATO will be having to sort out a mess involving a nuclear weapons program that has them sitting on Scottish land at the Royal Navy Base. But other than Obama's tweet about a United UK, our stance has been "stay out of it.". I saw this compared to a divorce where the friends want to remain friends with both parties. A pretty apt comparison.

Bill Clinton is openly being used in the "Better Together" campaign. Hillary has issued a public statement opposing independence. Obama issued a statement back in June opposing it. Dem and GOP politicos across the board have done so.

Bill isn't part of the US Government any more, neither is Hillary. Neither holds office at the present time.

And what I'm saying is nothing official (Obama made a faux paux with the tweet, if you ask me) has been issued. But yes, some people in power and some formerly in power and with influence have made statements. That does not make it the official stance of the US.

Obama appeared with Cameron in Brussels in June and publicly stated his support for the union.

The State Department can 'officially' declare whatever it wants, behind the scenes the US through its various proxies is meddling in Scotland's affairs.

Behind the scenes, no doubt. I was talking official positions. Honestly, a yes vote hurts us as much as it hurts England because of the NATO damage. After all, Scotland won't be eligible for entry in the EU as a full member (no central bank) and all of the financial sector currently in Scotland is pro-UK and already said they will pull out of Scotland completely. It's economic suicide and will drag the UK, US, and EU down with it.

Scotland would be better off without NATO, the EU, and the banksters.

Sadly, looks like the scaremongering may have worked.

What better off means is subjective. Scotland has I'm sure just extracted a boatload of goodies for the central government just as Quebec periodically does. Scotland has a relatively old population which is more dependent on central government transfer payments. A never really industrialize Ireland had a pretty easy time building a post-modern economy on a blank slate. Scotland seceding would have ended up much more like Wallonia than Flanders. Scotland is largely a post-industrial Rustbelt with a Dutch Disease inducing oil field attached. The Norway comparisons were similarly imperfect as they build a very modern oil services economy on top of an economy that was not much more than fishing fleets. Aberdeen has not been treated well by Scotland or the UK in trying to compete less than successfully with Houston and Stavanger.

Ireland had a pretty easy time because nobody seems to mind that they are a haven for tax cheats from the USA like Apple. I highly doubt Scotland will get the goodies the Tories "promised" them, because the Tory backbenchers will never go along with it. And we all know how well Cameron keeps his promises anyway.

The economic arguments have merit but the fact is plenty of absurd and much less viable territories than Scotland are independent states.

Being a tax haven doesn't really get Ireland much. It's not like those companies provide much employment for the Irish. And being a tax haven means by definition they don't get much tax income from them.

Unemployment in Ireland is 12%, vs 6% for Scotland.

Vote's going 'no' for the moment: http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/results

and so the kingdom stays united - together for better or worse :)

It wouldn't be a proper political analysis with gopher's wonderful additions. Love it!

I mean without... d'oh!

Sanity prevails! Now maybe we can get back to thinking about what to do about the troglodytes sawing off people's heads.

and Tommy was right!
The polls I had seen were at only 3% in favor of staying, it ended up 10%
even MORE than what I had predicted. Any reasons as to why? I stand by my reasonings, they prevail yet again!

The American Pharmaceuticals Industry is vastly more important to Ireland than Apple or Google. Compaq did have a major employment presence back in the day. Ireland is however the number two foreign trading partner of my current state after Canada, with which we share a border, and ahead of Mexico or China.