I don't see any problems with such questioning. If anything, a simple yes/no is in favour of the segregationists. Wanting the advantages but not the disadvantages is just wrong.
They could pose a question like "Do you endorse Scotland becoming independant and becoming a shitty third world country? yes.no" and it would still accurately reflect the situation.
All that stuff about breaking up the UK is rubbish, spread by people who haven't got a clue about how countries are run. Petty smallminded regionalism has never helped anyone, it won't start doing so now.
...where to start...i could take serious offence if i was thusly inclined...but then i'm not "a nationalist" per say...its probably enough to say Ireland (which both has and had less people) didn't become "a shitty third world country" in the 1922 nor did Sweden or Norway when they split from their prior union in 1905.
i don't know how you think "countries are run" but "small countries" are not inherently "worse off" than that larger countries. that is hugely overly simplistic economic thinking. the real key to understanding countries "standard of living" is wealth generated per person and the idea that "small countries" are inherently poorer per capita is a fallacy.
Scotlands in/outs are no where near as imbalanced as you may have been led to believe by the near consistently hostile English right wing press*. indeed Scotland economically out performs most of England with the only constantly glaring exception being London (which is continually subsided by the rest of the UK).
the Scottish economy is a vibrant and diversified modern post industrial service based economy (just like England), its percentages of public/private sector work and employment/unemployment are within a few percentage points of virtually any nation in modern Europe.
our infrastructure is not "third world", our education system is not "third world", our people are not "third world", thus our self created and drawn in 3rd party jobs are not "third world". we do not economically depend on English "hand outs" or exporting natural resources or the few physical products you can personally relate to as coming out of Scotland. in short the chances of us ever becoming a "a shitty third world country" are almost practically non existent.
we cannot raise the same gross amount from personal and business taxation as the UK as a whole does that is true but the thing is we don't need to spend that amount to deliver roughly the same level of government to our "small" population either.
"wealth", "standard of living" and population numbers do not line up as being straight line equivalences. a country is not a simplistically a magical pot of money from which everyone withdraws a share. people both create money via their labour and represent a market in which there is money to be made by others.
simply compare these two lists:
and it starts to fall apart.
the worst the UK treasury could suggest after just recently examining the figures under the governing coalitions direction was to suggest that Scots would be personally 1 pound worse off a year if the country left the union....a single solitary pound...
and Scotland IS NOT "a region" (as in "smallminded regionalism") any more than your country is.
as for "regionalism has never helped anyone, it won't start doing so now." tis funny that because i read stories every day now about how public services in England and Wales are being ripped apart buy the torys ideologically driven privatisation and cuts agenda and then...well and then i often relax...because i'm a Scot and our institutionalised "petty regionalism" means that we decided not to institute those particular ideologically driven policies and guess what ? we're actually doing just fine doing other things to deal with the problems at hand that we find more politically agreeable to ourselves instead (*and this is one of the reasons the English right wing press so consistently hostile towards Scotland. they cannot stand the plurality in implemented policy because its very existence invites comparison.).
now you can call that "regionalism" or "local democracy" or even "state rights" under libertarianism but i find the underlying suggestion that politics is "one size fits all" the world over (which is what you're suggesting if taken to its ultimate extension) deeply troubling.
at the end of the day if the USs Constitution is still a valid document around which political debate should take place in 2013 then so to is the Act of Union (a document with far less inspiring history and "democratic" legitimacy).
for the record "Devo Max" is a "Unionist" policy and its simplistically about the majority of taxation being raised in Scotland staying in and directly funding Scotland and the Scottish Parliament gaining control over said taxation and its spending rather than the current and oft misunderstood Barnett system where Scotland pays its all "wages" to the UK treasury in the form of all our tax revenue and then we are handed back what they decide our "pocket money" should be in the form of a block grant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_fiscal_autonomy_for_Scotland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula
one thing is certain: the UKs current constitutional set up with 4 "parliaments" of varying powers (one of whom has total control over the all the others) and an upper house of "lords" as it currently exists is not going to settle down comfortably into the status quo any time soon because it is a fundamentally broken mess of half-assedness and undemocratic gerrymandering and what's more ALL the political parties acknowledge this fact...when they are in opposition.
imho if the UK cannot grab the problem by the balls and institute a system akin to federalism (which to me seems the blindingly obvious way to reincorporate the Union on a modern, democratic and "fair" footing) Scotland will eventually break away.
the oft suggested idea that if the individual personification of Alex Salmond is defeated in this particular referendum cycle "Scottish Independence" with somehow be wiped from the political landscape in Scotland is completely laughable.
indeed i could quite easily see another vote, dependant on circumstance, returning an overwhelming "yes" vote in less than 5 years.
the vast majority of Scots when polled are actually in favour of independence IF they are sufficiently satisfied they would not be affected in the negative. you can call that a few things but underlying political support for the concept of "the Union" is not one of them.