DO YOU agree that Scotland should be an independent country? That is the ­question Alex Salmond wants to put on the ballot paper in the independence referendum and it is now the focus of debate. The Scottish Government has asked the Electoral Commission to test this wording, while emphasising that the final decision will rest with the Scottish Parliament, which effectively means the SNP since it commands an overall majority. There are grounds for unease in this situation. What is the point of submitting the question to the adjudication of an authoritative and neutral body if there is no guarantee that its advice will be accepted? By retaining the ultimate decision on the referendum wording in its own hands, the SNP is inviting charges of partisanship in this crucial decision. If the Electoral Commission were to recommend a change in the format and the Scottish Government accepted that advice - as may happen - such concerns would be allayed. But it is unsettling that, with the pro- and anti-independence campaigns already launched, uncertainty still surrounds the question the electorate will have to answer. Arguably, it would have been preferable if the wording of the question had been part of the settlement reached in the Edinburgh Agreement between ­David Cameron and Alex Salmond. As it is, the Electoral Commission will engage in a 12-week exercise to test the proposed format. It will consult voters across Scotland, as well as academics and specialists in accessibility and plain language, along with politicians. Central to this assessment is the neutrality of the question to be put and that is where controversy arises. The pro-Union camp has denounced the wording offered by the SNP as biased. There is plausibility in that charge. The preamble "Do you agree..." invites the voter to join an apparent consensus, in psychological terms; it is a recognised fact that respondents intuitively prefer to say "yes" to a question put in this way. But the alternative proposed three months ago by the pro-Union commission chaired by Lord Sutherland - "Scotland should become an independent state: I agree/I do not agree" is also open to criticism for containing the wordy and possibly loaded "agree" terminology. The preferred formula should be to devise a brief, clinically objective question that invites the straightforward answer "yes" or "no." It is to be hoped that is what the Electoral Commission will provide and that Holyrood will accept it. There could be no less auspicious beginning to the referendum that will decide Scotland's future than the ruling party at Holyrood using its majority to reject the formula proposed by the Electoral Commission. Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon signalled at the SNP conference that she intends to override the Commission's recommendations on funding in the final months of the campaign, which is not a reassuring precedent. The Scottish Government claims the procedure being followed accords with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, a UK statute; it is also a fact that the Commission only has the power to advise, not to enforce. In moral terms, however, rejection of its proposals on anything except the most practical grounds would leave the whole referendum process under a cloud. There is ­potential here for a controversy that would carry a resonance of the divisive "Forty Per Cent Rule" in the first devolution referendum. The independence referendum is the point at which the politicians of all stripes must give way to the voters, who will resent any attempt to manipulate their decision. Weighty issue SCOTS can, once again, take pride that medical ­science is being pioneered in one of its famous universities, with the development of an artificial liver that will lead to effective new drug treatments, as we report on page five. But although hi-tech solutions are welcome, the lo-tech route can also bring results. Health boards in Scotland will launch a pilot scheme in the New Year in which GPs will confront patients - particularly those with weight-related conditions - in the nicest possible way about a lack of exercise that may be contributing to their condition. To some, this approach may rankle as the latest manifestation of a "nanny state" intent on interfering in the minutiae of everyday life. Yet as Professor Nanette Mutrie, one of the scientists behind the project, points out, some action needs to be taken with physical inactivity now reaching "pandemic" proportions in countries such as Scotland. Cases of weight-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes are rapidly increasing and these can shorten life spans as well as drain the NHS of resources. Telling many patients they need more exercise may appear to be a statement of the obvious but, with advice given impartially, and with an easily followed action plan put in place, it may have a significant impact on the health of the nation.