Sir, I was intrigued by the YouGov survey indicating that only 19 per cent of Scots were in favour of independence (report, May 1). The devil lies in the detail of how the question is asked, which in this case was if individuals were in favour of a “completely separate state outside the UK”. This is, of course, rather a negative question to ask, and implies a state of total isolation from the rest of the UK — far from the truth.

This question also bears no relation to the one that would be asked in any independence referendum.

Other recent polls, asking the question that would be put in a straight two-way referendum, have pointed to support for independence climbing to match those who would back the Union. A study of the seven most recent opinion polls shows support for independence has gone up from 27 per cent last May to 41 per cent this month, while opposition to Scottish independence has dropped from 47 per cent to 40 per cent.

Depending on the answer you want, the question can be phrased accordingly, and in this case respondents have been steered towards responses that bear no relation to reality, as recent polls indicate.

Alex Orr

Edinburgh

Sir, In quoting various polls in Scotland to support his own theory that Scotland is really ready to go, Alex Orr (letter, May 5) omits one vital detail — which is that any referendum on Scotland seceding from the UK, must, constitutionally, be open to the whole of the UK from which they may wish to secede.

Despite the optimism for independence he sees in Scotland, maybe the English, Welsh and Northern Irish will not view a Scottish departure in similar fashion and insist that they stay.

Chris Wheeldon

London SW13

Sir, It is relevant to ask whether Scots, such as myself, who live outside Scotland, will be allowed to vote in any referendum? In my view they cannot be denied a vote, in which case, the complexities of establishing an electoral role will be daunting, to say the least, while polls of public opinion conducted in Scotland cannot be a reliable guide as to the likely outcome.

Alistair Lang

Winchester

Sir, I do hope that neither Tim Luckhurst (Thunderer, May 7) nor Mr Wheeldon (letter, May 7) were serious in their assertion that the question of Scottish independence was one that the UK population as a whole must vote upon.

Do they realise that by the same token Kosovo would remain part of Serbia? Do they think that appropriate? Similarly, would they also wish the UK’s continuing membership of the EU to be determined anywhere other than within the shores of this isle?

If the question is put, it should be put to those resident in Scotland only; it is us, after all, who will be subject to the laws of an independent Scotland, if that is what is decided.

Angus Easton

Aberdeen

Sir, Alistair Lang (letter, May 7) may well be successful in having a vote on Scottish independence, but what about me? I have lived in Scotland for 40 years, but still regard myself as Welsh. As soon as I retire I intend to leave Scotland. If the sentimental view prevails, and Scotland becomes independent, do I lose my nationality? Do I have the right to go home?

Mr Lang is confusing ethnic identity with national identity, as is Mr Salmond. Are we to become like the Balkans?

Mary McIlroy Hipwell

Dunfermline

Sir, I support the call by Alistair Lang for Scots living outside Scotland to have a vote on the question of Scottish independence. But while my father was a Scot, my mother was English. Will this at least allow me to have half a vote?

Graham McKenzie Young

Fairford, Glos

Sir, Tim Luckhurst argues that the Treaty of Union of 1707 reflected the wills of both English and Scottish parliaments, which is undeniable.

At that time, however, neither parliament reflected or represented the views of their people. That is why the professor’s argument is worthless.

Today’s parliaments do, to different degrees, reflect the views of their people. None of those voters would agree that they should have to stay in any relationship if they wanted to leave. All that would have to be settled were the terms of the divorce.

Y. Y. Rubinstein

Manchester

Sir, Chris Wheeldon stops short of describing the nightmare scenario where Scots vote for Scotland to remain part of the UK yet the English dominated non-Scots electorate votes for Scotland to secede.

What chance Scotland being forcibly ejected from the United Kingdom?

Kevin Newman

Northiam, E Sussex

Sir, The political furore after Wendy Alexander’s call for a referendum on Scottish independence (report, May 12) suggests that if the Scots vote “yes”, they would automatically become independent. Not so. The most that a referendum initiated by the Scottish Parliament could achieve is to authorise the Scottish government to open negotiations with the UK Government.

Those negotiations would cover a wide range of complex issues that could take a long time to conclude. The Czech-Slovak “velvet divorce” in 1992 required 31 treaties and more than 2,000 agreements. These would constitute the terms of independence on which the people of Scotland deserve a separate vote.

The Constitution Unit has long argued that Scottish independence requires two referendums. The first reason is a question of law: under the Scotland Act only Westminster could authorise the second referendum that would grant Scotland independence.

But there are also reasons of principle why there should be two referendums. People in Scotland might support independence in principle but would think again when confronted with the terms of independence. The terms will include not just issues like North Sea oil, but division of the national debt, Scotland’s continued membership of the EU (not automatic), and the future of the UK’s defence bases on the Clyde.

There can be no doubt that the first referendum, if passed, would give the Scottish government authority to demand independence, and compel the UK Government to enter into negotiations. But the Scots are entitled to know the detailed terms of independence before making the final, momentous decision.

Prof Robert Hazell

Director, the Constitution Unit, School of Public Policy, University College, London

Sir, I have been following with interest the debate about just who should vote in the Scottish referendum. As a Londoner, I felt aggrieved that I wasn’t allowed to vote in the recent mayoral elections. I was born in London, went to school there, married there. My grandmother was born in Soho and, if ancestry is to be believed, my family on both sides have lived in London for at least 200 years. My career has taken me away from London, it is true, but my French friends, who have been away from France for almost as long, were able to vote by going to the consulate. Same thing for Americans.

Could not polling stations have been set up in leading cities where those who could produce a birth certificate, do a Tommy Steele impersonation and respond to questions in rhyming slang get to vote? Many newcomers who can barely speak cockney were given a voice. Is the same injustice going to be visited upon the Scots?

Michael Freeman

Bristol

Sir, Can we please ignore the siren calls of English and Scottish nationalists wanting the dissolution of our United Kingdom? We don’t need our fellow Britons to do Brussels’s work for it.

Eric Brown

Bromley, Kent

Explore Letters

• Feedback