THE notes I take at football matches resemble spiders crawling out of an ink pot and lurching across the page to die; looking back it's never easy to decipher what seemed so worthy of writing down at the time.

On Saturday, there doesn't seem to be anything in the notes from the Cetic-Aberdeen game between Stefan Scepovic scoring an "offside" goal and David Goodwillie sclaffing a shot so wide it might have landed on one of the police horses on London Road.

Something did happen between those moments, though. A rumble of applause rose up in the stands, people stood and cheered, a few saltires emerged and were waved around. Not everyone knew exactly what it was all about and not everyone joined in, but it was loud enough and a point was made.

This was support for Yes, expressed in the 18th minute as a nod to the date of Thursday's referendum. Some of those supporters have doubtless voted already by post, given that a few will be following their team to Salzburg on polling day.

The referendum is in squeaky bum time, as Celtic supporter (and No campaigner) George Galloway has said. The phrase is stolen from football but it can be accurately applied to this knife-edge vote. Others have said it could be so close it goes to penalties. Plenty have marvelled at the level of public engagement with politics over these last few weeks. Entrenched tribalism, raw, visceral passions, wildly-conflicting interpretations of the same information to suit an agenda: it is usually only football which stirs Scotland like this.

A few days ago the New York Times carried a piece titled "Soccer Fans Supply Strong Voice in Scottish Independence Debate". It was well-informed, although it argued that football stadiums had become key battlegrounds for the Yes and No campaigns. That has not been my experience, not at all.

Politicians have not tried to exploit supporters or assume that any club's fans would naturally gravitate to one side or the other. There has been some activity around grounds and games, but then there has been activity just about everywhere. Football has been largely out of the debate.

There have been pro-Union banners at Ibrox and a Yes card display at Parkhead, as might be expected, but the positions have been more nuanced than that. There is a Yes Rangers faction, too, and Celtic supporters who will vote for Better Together. In a country broadly split down the middle, it could be no other way.

In Dortmund, the Tartan Army had a predictably visible endorsement of Yes on flags and shirts. Football men like Michael Stewart and Steve Archibald have been vigorous proponents of Yes. Far heavier firepower endorsed Better Together when a "team" was announced with Billy McNeill, Walter Smith, Willie Miller, Denis Law, Barry Ferguson, Bertie Auld, Davie Provan and Jim Leighton among those supporting No. Sir Alex Ferguson is on their side too.

How do fans tend to react when their heroes come out for the other side? They quietly ignore it. Current players and managers don't want the hassle of declaring either way.

It is surprising how few consequences there would be for football if Scotland became independent. Scotland is already recognised at international level by FIFA and UEFA. Would Scotland's voice on the International Football Board (in which the four "home" nations sit with FIFA to annually tinker with the rules) be at long-term risk from independence? Probably not, but who would care anyway?

English clubs would be no more or less likely to sign young Scottish players if a border goes up. Every English club must have eight "home-grown" players in their squad but that means a player who's been registered with English or Welsh clubs for three seasons/36 months before turning 21. The boy's nationality is of no consequence.

The television deals would be unaffected - the market rate is the market rate - and although UEFA has said it will have to review aspects of Glasgow's bid to co-host Euro 2020 if there is independence, only minor clarifications of any legal consequences would be required.

One topic independence could affect is the future viability of Hampden. The Scottish Football Association's rental agreement runs out in 2020. Would public money be forthcoming for the renovation needed to modernise the ground?

There is no mention of Hampden in the Scottish Government's White Paper, but then there is barely a word for football at all. In the 670-odd pages of "Scotland's Future" football is mentioned only three times. Once to say 23 new pitches have been created since the Scottish Government came to power, once to say the national team would be unaffected by independence, and once to say the clubs would still compete in the UEFA tournaments.

That surprised and disappointed some within the SFA. The governing body has to stay neutral on independence. It has no vote, for one thing, and it represents many disparate views. If the SFA openly supported Yes, lottery funding and Westminster subsidies could disappear. Support No and the Scottish Government's investment in women's and recreational football could dry up and plenty of the Tartan Army would desert.

Better to say nothing. The time for football to make its voice heard in Scottish politics is after the vote, not before. Euro 2020, funding, lobbying for more hours of PE in schools, Hampden's future: the game has been quiet, but the Yes or No people will hear it soon enough.