A respected pro-independence campaign group has emerged as the latest voice to oppose a devo max option in the 2014 referendum.
The Scottish Independence Convention (SIC), fronted by actress Elaine C Smith, has called on Alex Salmond to reject a "meaningless" second question.
The body added that offering voters more powers for Holyrood would make it difficult to produce an "unbiased" ballot and a "clear result".
The SNP won a landslide victory at last year's Holyrood election, with the promise of an independence referendum in their second term a central part of the campaign.
However, since being returned to government, Salmond has said he is open to devo max – effectively financial independence – also being on the referendum ballot. He dropped a bigger hint on the subject recently after he told a US audience that Scots had a "right" to a second question.
The First Minister believes public opinion is on his side, but opposition unionist parties say Salmond fears he cannot win a straight fight on independence. Latest opinion polls show that on a straight one-question referendum 50% oppose independence with 30% in favour. But when a second question is mooted support for independence falls to 23%, support for the union falls to 29%, while support for more powers – devo max – rises to 37%.
Aside from unionist criticism, the First Minister is also encountering hostility to a second question from the pro-independence camp.
Yes Scotland chief executive Blair Jenkins said he would campaign only for independence, while the same organisation's chairman, Dennis Canavan, said devo max was "completely confusing".
The Scottish Socialist Party, also in the pro-independence movement, is against devo max, while Green co-convener Patrick Harvie said the second option lacked "clarity".
It has now emerged the SIC, formed in 2005, is also determined that the referendum ballot should have one question. In a statement flagging up its response to the Scottish Government's consultation on the referendum, it stated: "The SIC is opposed to having two questions on the referendum ballot paper."
SIC vice-convener Kevin Williamson said there were "two important reasons for rejecting two questions", the first being that independence was "qualitatively different from devo-plus or devo-max".
He argued: "It [independence] will create a fundamentally new legal status for Scotland, forever after giving the Scottish people power to make their own choices and ensuring that we have an established place in the international community. This is a decision of a different order from being granted some additional powers from Westminster."
He also claimed that a second question threw up "issues of clarity of outcome", noting: "A second question would be meaningless unless it related to a very clearly defined constitutional scheme which was widely publicised and had the support of a major political party or substantial civic o rganisations. This seems unlikely to be the case."
Scottish Labour's constitution spokeswoman, Patricia Ferguson MSP, said of the split: "When members of the independence movement are saying this you have to wonder why the SNP are try to desperately to muddy the waters."
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie MSP said: "It is clear that the SNP are facing considerable problems over their strategy."
A Scottish Government spokesman said, "Our policy is independence," but added: "We recognise there is substantial support - for increased responsibilities for the Scottish Parliament short of independence.
l More than 26,000 responses were received during the Scottish Government's consultation on an independence referendum. Analysis will be published at the end of the summer.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article