Crucial details

What Sigmund Freud once described as the “narcissism of minor differences” goes a long way to explain the current brouhaha over the responsibility for, timing and wording of an independence referendum.

These issues themselves are relatively simple to resolve compared with the substance of the case for and against autonomy for Scotland.

Brian Wilson (Perspective, 11 January) makes a fair point: the pros and cons of the argument ought to gain a higher priority over what are really procedural matters.

Those matters could be resolved amicably in a one-hour meeting between representatives of the Holyrood and Westminster governments.

Only the egos of the main players involved seems to be getting in the way of this. Alex Salmond has a strong point in suggesting the poll should be deferred to the autumn of 2014.

The new Scotland Act – due to become law later this year – ought to be given some time to work. Secretary of State Michael Moore has an equally strong point that any referendum should not be vulnerable to legal challenges from whatever quarter.

Whether 16 and 17-year-olds have a vote should not become an insuperable barrier to progress. The question, “Do you wish Scotland to become an independent state?”, will only have credence if all the things that are concerning people are laid out in coherent form.

The future of the military bases, the monarchy, representation abroad and the new state’s status in Europe are just some of the concerns. But so too are more basic matters like pensions and salaries, taxation, transport links and paying off a share of the national debt.

Sooner or later the the political class will have come to terms with real questions like the impact on family income, jobs and benefits.

The case for either the Union or independence will not be enhanced by protracted legal wrangling that only serves to alienate people from politics.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court

Glenrothes, Fife

Whether or not David Cameron can be accused of interfering with Scottish democracy, what he and all the other parties need to do urgently is to come clean about what independence or non-independence will actually mean for the everyday life of Scots.

It is fine to shout passionately that Scotland would be better off independent or remaining in the United Kingdom, but without any substance to consider, voters will not be adequately informed. Just as Alex Salmond cannot take “ yes to independence” for granted, David Cameron would be unwise to assume that everyone in Scotland is happy with the status quo.

If we are expected to make such a major decision, let us have less party political posturing over the timing and wording of a referendum and more substance about what the potential outcomes will mean. Scottish voters deserve nothing less.

Elspeth Porter

Henderson Row

Edinburgh