Curiously, though, the article finishes with a quote from Malcolm Harvey, who back in the day was one of the leading pro-indy bloggers (he was one of the founding triumvirate at Better Nation, and before that had his own blog Malc in the Burgh).
"Turnout would be about 50% and the thing would be even less legitimate than holding an un-sanctioned referendum in the first place. It's a mad idea."
My jaw dropped to the floor when I realised he wasn't describing the boycott as mad, but the idea that we should hold a referendum that might be boycotted. Is anyone spotting the slight flaw here? There'd be nothing to stop the Tories boycotting absolutely any referendum, even one brought about by a Section 30. It's hard to think of a better definition of 'madness' than giving our opponents a veto on every move we make.
You know the bit at the end of Life of Brian when the Crack Suicide Squad turn up, stab themselves, and say with their dying breath "that showed 'em, huh?" If Malcolm and Pete Wishart had been in charge of the Roman troops that day, they'd have reacted to that seemingly futile gesture by saying "well, that's it then, we can't possibly go ahead with these crucifixions now..."