RULE 23 of good government – if you are going to commission an expert to write a report on a controversial subject, best make sure he agrees with you.
Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary, could be forgiven for kicking his Scotland Office desk after the expert in question, Professor James Crawford of Cam-bridge University, lauded as the authority on international law by Whitehall insiders, was asked, in the event of Scottish independence, about the SNP Government's ambitious transition timetable and the prospect of an independent Scotland having to apply to international organisations for membership.
The view from London SW1 is Alex Salmond's 18-month timetable is "fanciful" and the prospect of applying to bodies like the EU, with 27 members, will hardly be "a piece of cake".
Yet the good professor suggested the 18-month timetable was, in fact, "realistic" and applying to a range of international bodies would not be difficult "in most cases".
Nicola Sturgeon, appearing on the radio alongside Mr Crawford could barely believe her luck when the eminent academic backed up her political line instead of Mr Moore's.
With a deal of understatement, she declared Mr Crawford's contribution had been "helpful" and the UK Government had been guilty of a "huge own goal". Perhaps Mr Moore will ask for his money back.
In contrast, the First Minister's Fiscal Commission concluded an independent Scotland would be better off with sterling and it would, by the way, also be good for the UK; which just happens to fall in line with Mr Salmond's own thinking on the subject.
However, their assertions about an Independent Scotland sharing management of a sterling zone with a key role in the Bank of England might have Chancellor George Osborne choking on his beef lasagne and suggesting the FM is being a mite presumptuous given Scotland, post-independence, would actually be a foreign country.
The commission says there would have to be extensive negotiations with Whitehall, underlining again how the once smooth highway to independence envisaged by the Nationalists is now looking full of difficult twists and turns.
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