Scottish independence: Mixed reaction to terms prompted by referendum deal THE DEAL setting out the terms of a referendum on Scottish independence has provoked a mixed reaction from political parties, business groups and charities. A single-question referendum has been agreed between David Cameron and Alex Salmond for some time in 2014 Some organisations expressed displeasure at the terms of the deal, with the SCVO calling a single yes/no question "disappointing" A number of groups voiced their support for allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote Some organisations expressed disappointment at the terms of the deal, while Labour said the debate should not distract from some of the "real problems" faced by people in Scotland. Other groups were keen to welcome the possibility of 16- and 17-year-olds being allowed to vote, hailing the move as a "very positive step." Johann Lamont, Scottish Labour leader, said: "We are pleased that we have finally reached an agreement that should allow Scotland to have a fair and decisive referendum. Alex Salmond has the right to ask the question and now people have right to answer it. But we cannot allow this debate to distract from some of the real problems being faced by families in Scotland, things the SNP could act on now. Alex Salmond offers people only one solution to Scotland's problems - a referendum on independence - but his timetable makes us wait another two years to have our say. Patrick Harvie, co-convener of the Scottish Greens, said: "This deal signals the start of the real debate, and a yes vote in October 2014 would signal the start of a new Scotland. The public appetite for more powers is plain to see and it is essential that both sides put forward a clear vision for Scotland's future. Margo MacDonald, the Independent MSP, said: "The political parties, as always, will try to shout down each other's ideas. But this referendum is not about them, it is about every individual person in Scotland. The parties should give us an idea of the sort of policies they would prefer for defence, EU, and economic management, for example. This is not a recipe for successful democracy However, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said a single yes/no question is "disappointing." Martin Sime, chief executive, said: "A second question on more powers would win hands down, and that's why it won't be asked. A strong majority of people want more powers short of independence but the referendum will deny them the chance to vote for the kind of change they want to see. The politicians are back in charge and now we have two years of yes/no politics ahead of us whilst savage welfare cuts affect the poorest people across Scotland. This is not a recipe for successful democracy. Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson MSP said: "I welcome the agreement between Scotland's two Governments to have a fair, legal and decisive referendum. Now the real debate about substantial issues including the economy, currency, pensions, welfare and defence can begin. The United Kingdom is the world's most successful voluntary union of nations and it is now up to the SNP to explain fully why Scots should abandon it. I will be making a positive case for Scotland's continued place within the United Kingdom, which combines the strength and stability of a G7 nation with pound-for-pound the best armed forces in the world, while retaining complete decision-making powers in Scotland over health, education and justice. "Nicola Sturgeon's disgraceful claim that a vote for the UK will somehow "roll back" devolution belies not only the huge new powers that are coming Scotland's way, but also that the only party to give up powers from the Scottish Parliament is the SNP. All her bluster and misdirection cannot conceal the fact that the vast majority of Scots believe in the UK and that support for independence is dropping. "Pressure is now on unionist parties to explain if no means "no change" or no means "more powers"" The Electoral Reform Society also expressed its disappointment over a single question. Willie Sullivan, Scottish director, said: "This referendum has become a bit of a game with both sides intent on rigging the deck. We now have a deal that suits the interests of a few dozen people in Edinburgh and Westminster and excludes a large section of the Scottish people who want more powers within the UK. "The pressure is now on the unionist parties to explain if no means "No Change" or no means "more powers." If change is what's on offer then it should be more than a politician's promise: we need it enshrined in law before the vote. Iain McMillan, director of business organisation CBI Scotland, said: "We argued strongly that the referendum should be legally watertight and offer one question only about whether or not Scotland should become independent. That has been achieved today. On balance, we would have preferred the referendum to take place sooner than the Autumn of 2014 in order to remove the undoubted uncertainties for business that are arising from this lengthy process. But we accept that the current timetable will provide for a thorough exploration of the issues and questions involved in the independence debate. Jeremy Purvis, leader of the Devo Plus group, said: "As all the parties now agree, the time for discussing process is over and the issue now is to address substance. This makes the case for Devo Plus even more relevant. Since our launch in February, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have indicated their openness to further powers, so it now appears that the real question in 2014 will be a straight question between independence and a form of Devo Plus. Grant Costello, chair of the Scottish Youth Parliament, said: "We believe it's entirely right the young people who are the future of Scotland should have their say on Scotland's constitutional future. Allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote shows society believes these young people, who can marry, work, and join the army, are capable of being full active citizens. At a time where far too often young people are ignored or vilified by society, today is a very positive step demonstrating 16- and 17-year-olds are valuable citizens whose hopes and ideas deserve to be heard.