CALLS from former SNP policy chief Chris Hanlon for a third option of devo-max at a future independence referendum have sparked fury among grassroots Yes supporters.

Writing in The National on Wednesday, Hanlon suggested offering a third choice to voters beyond Yes or No to independence.

Referring to reports from before the 2014 referendum, Hanlon argued that support for heightened devolution was and may still be a popular idea among voters. He added that failing to offer this third path was “just plain wrong”.

The proposals sparked anger among senior SNP figures, with minister Kevin Stewart calling the idea “idiotic, foolish, nonsensical” and MSP Gillian Martin branding it a “con”.

READ MORE: Professor John Curtice: What is devo-max and do Scots want it?

Michael Russell, the SNP’s president, said he would not support having a third option on the ballot paper, saying it is the “normality of independence” which will work, as will “constructive EU membership”.

The National put out a call for responses among readers, subscribers and social media users. Here we have compiled some of the hundreds of submissions, the vast majority of which were not supportive of Hanlon's argument.

Helen MacMillan (a Scot currently living in Spain)
Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice shame on us, It is solely another Westminster attempt to shackle us and keep control. We need FULL INDEPENDENCE. Better guid neighbours than abused partners.

We are fully able to make our own mistakes and learn from them. A mistake is only a mistake if you do not take the lesson.

Isabel Macpherson (Aberdeen)
It’s a surefire way to ensure we're shackled to Westminster. Weren't we supposed to get devo-max two years after 2014 No vote? Why would we trust this corrupt Westminster government? Anything short of full independence gives Westminster the power to screw us over as they have for the last 300+ years. Statements like this from Chris Hanlon leave me wondering for whom he's working. Why should we be the only country in the world who can't be independent?

Bill Hunter (Berwickshire)
Absolutely ridiculous. It would only serve to give undecided an easy option which would then cost us our independence. We need to educate undecided not give them an opt-out.

Judy Gauldie (Aberdeenshire)
It’s divisive nonsense. “Power devolved is power retained”. We must get Westminster completely out of Scotland’s life.

Brian McKenna (Stewarton)
I think it is wrong. Scotland must end the union to return democracy to the people of Scotland. Under the Westminster system the electorate is denied this.

Rory Loughran (Glasgow)
It seems like an attempt to sideline and bring in the waivers, the don't knows and the fearties. It's indy being kicked into the long grass. We need commitment for there to be independence.

READ MORE: Leading pro-Union commentators warn multi-option referendum would be a 'trap'

Grant Lee (Brora)
I think it is the most outrageous suggestion since England crowned its first king. With the way that Westminster has been unwilling to hold a promise, give to Scotland, and respect the wishes of the Scottish people, throughout history, to even think they would, now, sounds like a Unionist trying to find their way out of the chicken house, after a long night of partaking in too many spirits.

Angela Lee (Glasgow)
Appalling idea. Scotland should be an independent country like every other country in the world. This notion that we should continue to be governed by not just another country but another country that does nothing but taunt and belittle us while they strip us of our natural assets is deplorable.

Len Bray (Highlands)
No. Keep it simple, one choice, free Scotland.

Alistair MacNair (Perth)
Disgraceful. It should be yes or no. The not proven verdict is being done away with.

Lynn Sheridan (Glasgow)
This is a red herring. We want full independence, nothing less. It would allow an option which no one would know how it would work and distract from the real campaign for full independence

Harry Mills (Edinburgh)
I sort of understand his argument, but disagree completely with it. It's too complicated.  STV would have to be explained, as would Mr Hanlon's circuitous approach to complete independence.

Susan Sillars (Dingwall)
There is no place for this suggestion. Westminster does not respect the powers that the Scottish Government already have in the Holyrood Parliament. Therefore nothing but full independence from England will give Scottish people the security that making their own decisions across all areas of our lives, will bring.

Elizabeth McCallum (Glasgow)
I agree with it. I think anything that brings us closer to indy is good.

Jean Hall (Edinburgh)
The only way to concentrate minds on exactly what is involved is to have an either/or question. In 2014 that is what happened … It got a much larger proportion of the electorate really engaged in paying attention to the details of how the country is governed.

Chris Hughes (Edinburgh)
Not a good idea. There's no guarantee any of its proposals will be enacted, just like the Vow in 2014. Also, if YES does win in a three-way split, but with less than 50%  of the vote, it will never be accepted by Unionists.

Irene Reid (Tarbert)
Very much against it. 1. Who would decide the terms of "devo max"? It would have to contain a substantial amount of detail and, presumably, be negotiated over a considerable time. 2. For Westminster to agree, they would have to retain significant and numerous levers which would limit Scotland's ability to progress socially and economically, and to consider rejoining the EU. I suspect Westminster would also insist on retaining the right to restrict, amend, or withdraw any new devolved powers if considered appropriate in the future.

Marion Paterson (Perthshire)
For those who want to believe in devo max, the idea seems, in principle, a good one. However, in 1707 we created a Union of supposed equals. Time has shown the total failure of such an idea. Devo max is a myth which cannot exist in relations between Scotland and England. It would simply be a question of when not if, the old ways returned. No to devo max.

Joan Coverley (Moray Coast)
I don’t like it. Would still be hosting and paying for nuclear missiles near our biggest city. Would not have control of our own central bank and currency. I don't want to have to depend on Westminster for any policy decisions at all.