I shall be voting NO - maybe just to prove to Nick Clegg that Dinosaurs can think !!

Given that it is likely that whatever decision is taken will affect the next half century or more, what Clegg, Cameron, Milliband, Reid at el think is largely irrelevant. Ditto, Billy Bragg, Frederick Forsyth and all the rest. And opinions expressed here of course. Also whether or not the voting system costs more (which is disputed), since whatever it costs will be dwarfed by the first significant decision that would change if the power balance was different.

There is one and only one question of relevance: which voting system delivers the better government? But to answer that, you need to have decided what constitutes a better government in the first place. "More decisive and able to take decisions" is not the whole of it - a single party or dictator is a better way of achieving that. Equally being too responsive to the public runs the risk of government by media. So there are real and deep issues here that people lives in fundamental ways that deserve careful and intelligent considerations. Don't expect to get much useful from either campaign on the evidence so far.

In my view, the 'yes' supporters have presented their case here in a way that has not really relied on the somewhat trivial material in the campaign material. Although I accept the views of the 'No' supporters here, I don't feel they have really presented a case beyond what is in the pamphleteering, and I for one would welcome it.