IT beggars belief that we have got ourselves into such a mess that we are seriously considering the destruction of two countries.

Independence for Scotland will certainly destroy Britain, and it will inevitably deplete Scotland. The consequences for England, Wales and Northern Ireland will likewise be anything but positive.

How can one comprehend the lamentable incompetence that has led to the inequity and bias of the single question on offer on Thursday, a question which constrains voters to make either a positive or negative choice, and which therefore encourages the natural psychol­ogical tendency to be positive?

The appropriate, unbiased and objective format would have offered a choice between two equally positive statements: "Scotland should remain part of the UK" versus "Scotland should be an independent country".

Not only would this format have removed bias, it would also have prevented the accusations of negativity that have been directed at the Better Together campaign, and which have been much to the detriment of the public debate. These accusations of negativity have allowed the nationalists to tritely dismiss hard economic facts as scaremongering.

And what of the future? Investment in Scotland is crucial to its success, but until the result is known, such investment is understandably hesitant. Many investors and financial institutions are indeed suggesting that a Yes vote will reduce their commitment to and investment in Scotland. But will a No vote reduce that uncertainty? If independence remains an issue for the nationalists, as it may well do, will they seek a further referendum in years to come? Which companies will risk investing in Scotland when there is the chance of more uncertainty down the line?

David Warden,

24 Kilmardinny Avenue,

Bearsden.

WHILE berating the Yes campaign for failing to learn the lessons of history your correspondent Bill MacDonald (Letters, September 13) asks why there was no option for greater devolved powers on the ballot paper.

Had he had a grasp of more recent history he would have recalled that the SNP Government was quite prepared for a ballot offering greater powers as a third choice, but Mr Cameron wasn't for it. As I recall he seized on an opinion that a three-question ballot would be confusing to the voters.

If he doesn't feel a fool now for that piece of misjudgment, he should.

Tom C Graham,

48 Firth Road,

Troon.