How do we break the deadlock?

Sir Tom Farmer businessman
I think common sense will prevail. The general opinion among people is that they want to be more in control of things like raising our taxes and spending our money. That will only come about by discussion and agreement between the Scottish and Westminster governments. To achieve that, every party has to sit around a table. To allow political differences to get in the way is wrong.

Archie MacPherson broadcaster
Turning your back on someone who, courteously, and in Alex Salmond's case, with great emollience, wishes to engage you in conversation, might seem churlish, but one man's bad manners could be seen as another's stand on principle. The SNP objective is to split the union. Many of us who find that an absurd proposition should not feel in the least ill-mannered in turning a deaf ear to a movement which offers benign chat, with perverse intention. Sadly, Scottish Labour, with its constitutional review, is reacting to Alex's voice like a driver listening to satnav - assuring him of the road to take, but which is more likely to end up in the mire.

Duncan Bannatyne businessman
The most important thing is to be British, as well as being Scottish, English and Welsh. Living and working together, we need to make our roads better, make our schools better, make the country better as a whole. News of this debate over the constitution hadn't reached me. Although an independent Scotland would not be better for business. Absolutely not.

Chris Thomson constitutional commission
The Constitutional Commission for Scotland - not to be confused with the Wendy commission - has been arguing since it was set up in January 2007 that deciding Scotland's future has to be independent of any party political agenda, inclusive of all options - including independence - and fully participatory. The commission is exploring all the options for Scotland and we will put this to the people of Scotland, because it is the people of Scotland as a whole who must decide their future.

Murray Ritchie, JOURNALIST
The Scottish parliament has a unionist majority, for the forseeable future, and a Nationalist government.

No accommodation of each others constitutional ambitions is likely.

It must follow, therefore, that the Scottish people, who are sovereign, should take the matter from MSPs' hands and decide our future in an independence referendum.

Elaine C Smith ACTRESS
As chair of the Scottish Independence Convention I am obviously very interested in the whole debate. The polarisation of the real debate between the parties is a problem, though I believe the success of the present SNP government has a lot to do with it. In my view, the constitutional commission is a non-starter: it excludes anyone who believes in independence and looks like it'll be run by Gordon Brown from London. A campaign for a referendum would force the discussion to take place and the people would be informed, educated and ready to decide our nation's future.

Alex Orr, Our Say, campaign for referendums
The debate needs to be progressed by a process that is not politicised and involves us, the people. That means taking the debate to the people and listening to them. Establish a well-funded, well-publicised constitutional convention, comprising the people, civic bodies, the churches, trade unions, the voluntary sector, the business community, under a high-profile, politically neutral chairman. This may produce a number of options - trust the people again and put these options to them in a referendum.

Dave Moxham Deputy General Secretary OF THE STUC
Responsibility for breaking the deadlock lies with civic Scotland - a wider debate organised by, and held in, the communities and institutions of Scotland. The STUC will play its part organising and promoting such a debate, as we did two decades ago in the Constitutional Convention. This time we must promote public forums and innovative forms of involvement to engage the widest possible number of citizens and groups across Scotland.

Sarah Kyambi, Scottish Council Foundation
The division of the debate into the national conversation and the proposed constitutional commission makes it difficult for the non-partisan majority to get a look-in. Without a more open debate, the danger is that the performance of the current government will be used as a litmus test for independence. This is not the best way to make such a complex decision. Constitutional reform must be treated as a public, national process. We need to actively steer towards a cool consideration of what model will benefit us in all areas of our lives.

Jack Irvine PR boss
There is no deadlock. Alex Salmond holds all the cards so if there's any talking to be done it will be part of his national conversation. Far be it from me to advise an old hand like Mr Salmond but if we had a conversation on the future of Scotland I'd need to hear very few words - such as "tax cuts", "end to planning red tape", "supporting excellence in our universities and not mediocrity". As for the word "independence" - deliver the former and we'll have a sensible conversation about the latter.

Gerry Hassan former Head of the Demos Scotland 2020 and Glasgow 2020 programmes
Most people are more interested in asking what kind of society we live in - whether independent or in the union. But this question is, strangely enough, one that most politicians would prefer to avoid. This is exactly the sort of conversation we need to encourage - and one we explored in the recent Scotland 2020 and Glasgow 2020 projects. We found that people are not only up for such discussions, they yearn for a deeper, more meaningful set of explorations than that of the soundbite world of party politics.

Dominik Diamond broadcaster
This deadlock can't be broken. Labour refuses to give the SNP's plans the time of day because two-thirds of Scots are content with our current constitutional ties with England. But two-thirds of Scots are probably content with their pants, too. It doesn't mean we love them. We'll just keep wearing them until they fall apart because we're lazy, the pant shop is miles away and Strictly Come Dancing's on the telly. Deadlocks only matter when two sides have equal power, but Alex Salmond's unstoppable just now.

Professor Tom Devine
I would doubt whether this difference of approach can be regarded as a conundrum - it can more accurately be described as an inevitability. There is no way unionists and nationalists can agree on the future of the union. The Nationalists refused to take part in the Constitutional Convention in the 1980s but their absence did not impede the movement towards a devolved Scotland. Similarly, in 2008, I welcome the fact there are two competing discussions going on. Their results should give the Scottish people a clearer idea of the implications for the different constitutional routes they might follow in the future. The conundrum then will be predicting Westminster's reaction to any proposals.

David Watt Director, Institute of Directors
For business people it's a bit of an intellectual debate that doesn't feature at the top of a list of concerns. I do think it's essential to have discussions around fiscal autonomy and fiscal control, because business can't understand how you can have a parliament that just spends money.

Pat Kane, policy blogger with www.scottishfutures.net
It's a classic farce moment of Scottish politics. The SNP and the unionists know the result of any new referendum on Scottish self-government would be something close to the federalism of the Steel commission. But the four hard-bitten political parties can't get to "yes''. I think it's vital that some outside, non-party-political actors restart the constitutional convention, and provide a crucible in which all the forces that wish to reform (and transform) Scottish governance can get a voice.

Mark McGhee Motherwell FC manager
In order for people to make informed judgements and to encourage ordinary Scots into the debate there has to be a much wider public discussion. The internet has provided us with a medium for discussion previously unavailable to ordinary folks. Investment in a campaign of debate, education and information, in a world never better suited to delivering that, is urgently required. The press, TV, radio and the internet need to be employed to host the required public forum.

Nicol Stephen, leader of Scottish Liberal Democrats
The deadlock will be broken by the commission delivering a more powerful Scottish parliament.

This is what a significant majority of people in Scotland want. The national conversation has only one aim - independence. Most people in Scotland simply do not want separation but more power for the parliament.

Canon Kenyon Wright, founding chairman, Scottish Constitutional Convention
We need a constitutional commission that begins with the principle of the sovereignty of the people, and their right, not Westminster's or even the Scottish parliament's, to decide how they will be governed. It should look at all options and present all the implications to the people, not be tied either to a unionist solution (like the Wendy commission), or to a Nationalist one and one that is not totally in the hands of politicians, but is a citizens' initiative. The issue of how we are governed affects all the bread-and-butter issues that trouble people. The key question to be asked is: can the union give the people of Scotland what they want and need? I'd say it possibly could, but only a radically reformed union with a new constitution, under a confederal system that includes an English parliament.