The question is so vague as to be meaningless. Since Scotland is to a large degree independent, it could at one extreme be taken to mean an endorsement of the status quo. On the other extreme it could mean leaving both the UK and the EU.

So I think the Westminster government's position should be that a yes vote for Salmond's question would not lead to any negotiations about separation from the UK.

Unionists could campaign for a yes vote arguing that it means the status quo whereas a no vote would mean ending the Scottish parliament.

You are clutching at straws, George. How stupid do you think the Scottish electorate are? Here's a question you might like:

"Do you think that Scotland should risk eternal penury by rejecting the largesse of their betters in Westminster?"

Tell me-what exactly is your problem with Scottish self-determination? Have you ever looked at any other nation's debate on political independence from a larger neighbour with the same perspective? Somehow I doubt it. So I can only guess that your disapproval of Scottish nationalism reflects a fear of the effect on the likelihood of Labour government for England in future, or else that you have some irrational attachment to a completely redundant concept of Britishness.

When I first read the question I actually thought it wasn't strong (or as they call it "leading") enough.

Rather than *should* Scotland seek independence, I'd use "Do you *want* Scotland to become independent?".

This gives a voice to those Scots who want an independent Scotland despite thinking that perhaps it shouldn't happen. That might be a minority (in fact I'd bet money on it) but doesn't a referendum seek people's wishes rather than their undemanding opinions?

I don't think it matters that it's a leading question. The professor gives examples of polls that have shown bias. Well, naturally, careful use of language can steer people in one direction or another if they are possess limited knowledge or understanding of a topic, or if they have no pre-decided opinion either way. Such influence would happen to some people when they are polled out of the blue but to think that a 2014 referendum is going to be a surprise, or that people won't have been exposed to a lot of information prior to polling day, and that they won't have at least some idea of where they stand, is rather naive in my view.

I'm not neutral like the professor. I'm British and I don't want Scotland to initiate a break-up of our union. However, despite that bias of my own, I have no problem with the strong form of the question that I put above. That's because I don't think the benefits match the disadvantages for Scotland and I believe that enough Scots will see that to outweigh the "leading question" effect, if any.

There is nothing wrong with the question. Those pretending it is biased, or worrying about a "cognitive chute", really should get a life.

@Hal really takes the biscuit, though. Yes means no, indeed! What a joker. The Scottish people are not fools.

We certainly live in exciting times, I see nothing wrong with the question but then I agree with the entire break-up of this warmongering Union.

I have a feeling that politically, that its going to be fun over the next few years.

The question is perfectly adequate for anyone who has half a brain. Maybe that is the Unionists' problem.

Speaking as someone who will be among those voting in 2014, there is nothing wrong with the proposed independence question on the ballot paper...

However, I would prefer the choice to be between... independence and devo-max... rather than the dumb "no" option.

If it is to be a rigged vote... a choice between "no" and independence... then without question I will vote for the latter option, irrespective of the outcome.