Iain AD Mann and David Balfour both make perfectly sensible proposals for a multi-option referendum (Letters, January 17).

It seems to me that if the second question on enhanced devolution makes clear that it only takes effect if independence is rejected, then there need not be any confusion. This is by far my preference for the independence referendum.

If, however, there genuinely is concern that a two-question referendum would be confusing, an alternative would be a guaranteed two-stage referendum.

Mr Mann rightly worries that a "no" vote on a single-question referendum would lead to enhanced devolution being taken off the agenda, despite it still being preferred by most Scots.

However if the act of the Scottish Parliament contained a provision that a "no" vote would lead to a referendum on enhanced devolution six or 12 months later, then there could be no taking the question off the agenda as the action of the people in voting against independence will have been the trigger for the referendum on enhancing devolution.

Westminster could not stop it without attempting to repeal Scottish Parliament legislation without a consent motion from Holyrood, an explosive proposition.

Nor should there be any Unionist opposition to this. I recall that shortly after the SNP's victory last May, there was much talk of two votes being needed for independence, so they can hardly object in principle to two ballots here.

My own preference remains to resolve the question with a two-question referendum on a single day, but this alternative is also acceptable and would give the Unionists their "single clear question" without allowing enhanced devolution to be taken off the agenda.

Iain Paterson,

6 Methven Avenue,

Bearsden.

Any right-minded individual, regardless of legal niceties, inherently understands that a people, especially one with a democratically elected parliament, has the right to self determination.

In addition, any right-minded individual, regardless of political persuasion, understands that a two-question ballot can be absolutely decisive in the result it delivers.

However, any right-minded individual must be failing to understand why the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party (the proponents of federalist Britain) and, in particular, the Scottish Labour Party (who delivered the Parliament) are hiding behind the skirts of a discredited Tory-led Westminster Coalition and not standing up for Scotland by supporting a devo-max option.

Why would any self-respecting politician of any Scottish party believe that it was a good thing to operate within the powers conferred by the status quo and not take any opportunity to enhance them?

Clearly, both parties are still failing to grasp the new Scottish political realities.

Blair Allan,

2 Glasdrum Grove,

Fort William.