THE 2014 referendum question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” was proposed by the Electoral Commission, not by the SNP, and provides a clear precedent for a simple, straight-forward and understandable question. Both sides accepted it and No won it – so what is the problem in repeating it?

Having a Leave or Remain response in an early independence referendum will be confusing for many voters and there is no valid reason to change the internationally accepted, normal practice of a Yes/No decision or a 50% plus one result if this is agreed by the Scottish Parliament.

A proper election watchdog would ensure that donations are only acceptable from individuals who are registered to pay Scottish Income Tax, prohibit money and resources being funnelled from outside Scotland by political parties, and prevent any company donations seeking to influence a people’s vote.

It singularly failed to do this during the EU referendum, and having had three years to resolve the issue it has no justification in seeking a nine-month delay in order to work out the rules of engagement.

The Electoral Commission should also crack down on the possibility of people voting twice, as it was claimed that in 2014 some students and holiday home owners abused the anomaly whereby you can be registered to vote in two constituencies.

Fraser Grant
Edinburgh

WHO woke up the Electoral Commission? They’ve been quietly snoozing in the corner for years, failing to act when Aaron Banks and co bought the EU referendum result – but now they’ve suddenly woken up and are demanding to set the question in the next Scottish independence referendum. Why?

They were involved in the wording of the last one and most folk appear to accept it will be a simple Yes/No question in the future – what’s the problem with this?

The Electoral Commission are good at turning a blind eye to anything dodgy happening, but when something as straightforward as a Yes/No vote for Scotland’s indyRef is raised, they suddenly start moaning about needing to set the question!

Until the Electoral Commission actually do something serious about the fraud committed in the EU referendum, I think we should simply ignore them.

Cllr Kenny MacLaren
Paisley

IT has been some time since I penned a letter to your pages, and I have been content to watch from the sidelines as the debate has developed and the options have become more focussed. My activities of late have been directed at the social media, hopefully helping to shape thinking and influence opinion.

The contribution of your correspondent, David McEwan Hill (August 17) has roused me from my torpor and I feel compelled to express my alarm at his narrow approach to achieving what we all wish for: to live in a truly free country where self-determination is the natural state.

His single-minded approach relies on Westminster “allowing” us to hold another referendum on independence. For me this is a profoundly flawed approach. It presumes the attitude of a supplicant and “sticks in my craw”. We do not have to seek permission – we have the right to self-determination as expressed in the United Nations charter and Scotland’s laim of Right, which has been acknowledged by Parliament as recently as July last year.

If Westminster refuses (don’t give them the chance, don’t ask them) what would he do then? Surely he is not suggesting that he would walk away and accept defeat. I would ask him to remember The Bruce’s spider, and renew the fight on other fronts and with heightened resolve.

Some years back in your pages I advocated that the independence campaign had to be waged on all fronts – at Holyrood elections and Westminster ones – and that if a majority of Scottish MSP/MPs supporting independence was returned, that would provide sufficient mandate and authority from Scotland’s people to negotiate terms of separation

I suggested that in failing to take advantage of Scotland returning 56 SNP MPs of its 59 seats, the SNP had failed in their principal duty, their very raison d’etre, to bring about independence. My views were received with a mixed reaction by your readers. Nothing has happened since to make me change my mind; on the contrary I am more convinced than ever that the right course of action is a multi-lateral one that means campaigning on all fronts, including a (fall-back advisory option) referendum.

And so I am greatly encouraged to witness the growing opposition to the refusal to allow a Plan B in event of Section 30 refusal by Westminster, and I would certainly support Angus MacNeil’s motion being debated at autumn conference.

I am more convinced that this is the best way forward and I would urge that all those with faint hearts or weak resolve to get behind the multi-lateral approach. Our cherished goal is tantalisingly close, but it will need a final push from all who yearn to live in a free Scotland where we are beholden to no others for our own decisions.

John F Davidson
Bonnyrigg

I WAS left speechless at your front page headline on Monday (SNP warning of ‘havoc’ after No-Deal leak, August 19). Does the SNP seriously believe that we still need to be warned about the damage of a No-Deal Brexit? Words, words ... when will we see some constructive action? I am certainly fearful of the future, and am relying on Scotland’s first party to ACT on our behalf.

Grace Dunn
Glasgow