Vingt-et-un - Winner takes all.

The Grauniad, that ever so liberal, ever so brave champion of truth, equality and liberty, still haven't quite come to terms with the concept of civic nationalism and the desire by many in Scotland for complete Independence from Westminster government.

This morning sees yet another 'Salmond Challenged' headline. This time it's Severin Carrell, an amiable sort of cove, with a nice line in pppppanic raising, who declares, "In an unusually strong intervention the (Electoral) commission said that thorough, independent scrutiny of any question in the referendum was essential to ensure it was clear, fair and neutral and to guarantee that the final result was reliable."

So far, so common sense. Ah but wait here's the crunch. Following Salmond's perfectly succinct and understandable, "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" there was almost a grudging acceptance that the question was fair. None of the anti-Independence parties made much of it, accepting it as fair. Ruth Davidson, the Just William character in charge of the Scottish Tories, said in Holyrood:

"What the first minister posited today is a fair and decisive legal question, which I welcome, and we now need to ensure that it is asked in a legal referendum."

Well, she was the new girl, who momentarily lost all sense of proportion, she'd forgotten that most basic of credos, 'never agree with a Nat'. The other Unionists in Holyrood, didn't like that it was there, but none saw it as an unacceptable question...that is until the arch unionists like Telegraph North Britainshire correspondent, Simon Johnson, pulled Professor of Psychology and err Marketing, Robert Caldini of the University of Arizona out of his 10 pint stetson hat. The good professor declared that the word 'Agree' is in actual fact pejorative... yeah me too, I'm afraid to agree with that in case I've been bullied into it... Naturally, Professor Heinz Wolff of Strathclyde University, sensing a rival on his turf, jumped in and agreed with Prof Caldini, thus preserving his role as Newsnicht's expert-in-residence-for-life.

Following this 'loaded' question, polling agencies began to test it, using the as written question and lo and behold, it was suddenly deemed an unfair question, as those polled responded positively to it. Shock horror, don't the simplistic fools know that agreeing to something is raw manipulation, worthy of the vilest propagandist?

Which brings us back to Severin's report of alleged ppppanic from the Electoral Commission. John McCormick, a dashed fine fellow, I've met many a time, who hails from Saltcoats and is the former head of BBC Scotland, (back when they actually put out decent TV shows from Scotland) is the commissioner for Scotland, he said:

"A clear process for agreeing the question – that includes sufficient time for it to be independently tested with voters – will be particularly important.

"The people of Scotland face an historic decision and the referendum must take place in a way that is transparent, open to scrutiny, gives voters confidence and delivers a result accepted by all."

Now, to use the pejorative, I agree, with that, it's a simple statement that calls for considered thinking, and certainly calls for time to be given to the process. An independent thinking journalist, might have taken the slant, that the Electoral Commission were resisting calls for a rushed referendum, and asking that due consideration be given to the question that will affect all of us forever, but hey this is the Grauniad, the last bastion of following Westminster's lead in all things concerning Scotland. Oh how we long for the days of Peter Preston, when it was a genuinely liberal socially progressive broadsheet, not afraid to challenge the hegemony of the day and take on unfashionable causes like the right to self determination around the globe, but just not up the road...

Anyhoo, I got to thinking about the actual referendum questions, and as always history teaches us to look at other examples of the wording of referendum questions from around the world.

Here's a few.

“Should the Union with Denmark be abolished and a new republican constitution adopted?” (Iceland)

"Should the Republic of Slovenia become an independent and sovereign state?"

"Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?"

"Do you support the restoration of the independence of Georgia in accordance with the Act of Declaration of Independence of Georgia of May 26, 1918?"

 Do you want the Republic of Montenegro to be an independent state with a full international and legal personality?

and the extremely wordy and quite confusing.

Do you want the Republic of Moldova to develop as an independent and unitary state, in the frontiers recognized in the day where Moldova declared sovereignty, to promote a policy of neutrality and to maintain mutually-benefiting economic relations with all the countries of the world, and to guarantee its citizens equal rights, according to international law?

Followed by the last proper one in this country:

I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.

I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.

All of them were successful, a mixture of 'do you', 'should' and 'agrees'. The lesson to be learned is, that people are not stupid, they do not need to be lead to the polling booth like a reluctant toddler. The question boils down to the simplicity of a game of Blackjack.

Do you want to vote for the promise of a better future or stick with what we've got?