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, straightforward and understandable question ("Watchdog demands a say on independence question", The Herald, August 20. 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 per cent 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 and prohibit money and resources funnelled from outside Scotland by political parties and prevent any company or organisation donations seeking to influence a peoples 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 EH9.

THE Electoral Commission intervention is a strange one, given it quotes “context” as a reason. Yes/No is undoubtedly the easiest and best question on independence. Leave/Remain doesn’t really work, as Scotland would be joining the world, yet would have to vote Leave to do so. And voting Remain just as the UK departs the EU? Sorry, but this does not make sense, and makes the Electoral Commission look like a “player” when it should be neutral.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

IF Nicola Sturgeon attempts to press ahead with another independence referendum without taking on board the views of the Electoral Commission, then she'd be adopting a high-risk strategy.

It's inevitable that, were Westminster ever to grant a Section 30 order enabling a second independence referendum to take place, a prerequisite would be that the Electoral Commission's views on wording on the ballot paper and timing of the vote must be adhered to. So far, so obvious.

This blows out of the water Ms Sturgeon's insistence that Yes/No wording is fair because David Cameron allowed the SNP to get away with it in 2014. Of course, the Commission subsequently ruled prior to the 2016 EU referendum that Yes as an option builds in bias. It also means the SNP leader's preferred timing next year (unlikely anyway) is starting to look optimistic in the extreme.

But what should concern Ms Sturgeon even more is that voters may gain the impression the SNP is rigging the vote – and so an outcome in favour of independence would undoubtedly be rigorously challenged, particularly in the event of a close result. Without adhering to the Electoral Commission's views, she risks years of post-vote argument that would make the constitutional crisis regarding Brexit seem like a passing contretemps.

Martin Redfern, Edinburgh EH10.

WITH Police Scotland spending £7 million in contingency planning for Brexit and the SNP's Stephen Gethins predictably bemoaning a "Tory prime minister taking Scotland off a cliff edge”, it makes me consider how much planning the SNP-led Scottish Government would have had in place for a "Scexit" had the Yes vote won.

It's far to say that Scotland seceding from an over 300-year union with the UK, with integrated and seamless health, currency, financial, pension, distribution and economic systems would have proved troublesome to say the least.

As well as this, we would have crashed out of the EU, unable to rejoin as our deficit would be significantly too high and may have needed a "hard" border with England, where one hadn't existed for centuries.

Indeed, it would appear that any conundrum over Brexit in Scotland would appear to be mere administrivia compared to what the SNP had planned for us.

David Bone, Girvan.

ALASDAIR Galloway claims the letter to the Scottish Parliament from Viviane Reding of the European Commission on continuing EU membership for an independent Scotland in 2014 was just a personal opinion and not an official determination of the treaty position.

I can only suggest that your readers find that letter via the search engine of their choice. They will see a letter on official Commission-headed notepaper signed by Ms Reding in her official capacity.

How much more official does anyone want?

Peter A Russell, Glasgow G13.

SCOTS who still think we should be part of a United Kingdom should answer the question: who is their preferred Prime Minister: Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnston? Answers please through these columns.

Dave Biggart, Kilmacolm.