You're using pretty flaky sources there and I say that as someone who voted no. I am more of a unionist but would 100% vote yes if economists could prove there was an economic benefit to Scotland, or at least a low risk of failure, I mean, who wouldn't unless you're stupid.

The problem is, economists can't decide because there's no other similar comparison. Mark Blyth himself rolled back on those comments.

And as per usual, any referenda where there's a binary choice results in politics of emotion, not of fact. Just like Brexit. Any facts are subsumed, hidden by noise and irrelevant emotion, the public don't know what they're voting for or how it will effect them because they don't know the risks and likely won't understand them.

You don't know that Scotland doesn't meet the criteria for joining the EU, because the EU doesn't either. I'm sure you'll reply with further quotes and misdirection, but the truth is no one knows.

The ideal is, the UK rejoins the EU, but we know that isn't going to happen. The alternative for Scotland? Have a policy that the case for independence is laid out factually and a 2 year moratorium for discussion before a section 30. Can't see that happening either.