Letters: Text and context

PART of the technique of effective academics and politicians is to explain quite complex issues in language most people can understand.

I sympathise with Bill Jamieson’s despair at the amount of analysis not just about the impact of independence, but how to get there (Perspective, 15 March).

Teachers were once trained to call this “cognitive overload”. There is only so much the average mortal can take in at the one time. Even the political anoraks are beginning to tire of the constant speculation.

By the time the poll date arrives in 2014, voters might be excused for seeing it not as a historic opportunity, but as a blessed relief.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court

Glenrothes

IN THEIR admirably succinct quest for clarity over the wording of the referendum ballot paper (“Let’s be clear about this”, Perspective, 14 March) it is clear that, in championing a plurality of questions over a single question, the authors have ignored one important point.

Their citing of the referendums of New Zealand and Puerto Rico proves this. These countries voted for electoral reform in one case and will vote for a reduction of parliamentary numbers in the other – both entirely suitable for multiple question instruments.

Scotland’s position is different. It concerns a proposed irrevocable change in our nationhood, one which would alter the status of the United Kingdom within Europe. Gravitas of this order demands a logical, irrevocable, single question. Anything else would be a distraction, possibly leading to endless reinterpretation over decades to come.

Peter Laidlaw

Bramdean Rise

Edinburgh

THE apparent problem in devising appropriate independence referendum wording is one of simplification.

There always seems to be a quite low opinion as to the basic intelligence of the electorate inherent in this approach to any form of vote wording. This “superiority complex” is perhaps also requiring of some respectful scrutiny. There have recently, particularly in Scotland, been some relatively complex vote options in elections, multi-choice etc, for example the list-voting procedure for MSPs.

None of this has seriously destabilised the voting public as far as I can establish. Maybe a bit more respect for the electorate wouldn’t go amiss in all of this. By all means simplify, but mind not to overly underestimate basic public intelligence. It is worth acknowledging there could be every bit as much common sense outside on our pavements as inside in parliament.

Ian Johnstone

Forman Drive

Peterhead