AMBITIOUS is a word that few objective observers would have difficulty in applying to many Scottish Government policies. Realistic? Properly planned? Thought through? Maybe not so much, certainly not all the time.

Take the flagship plan to increase paid-for nursery time from 600 hours to 1,140 hours by August 2020. That is a massive increase, almost doubling the amount of early care and learning on offer, and part of a strategy of supporting children from poorer backgrounds through allowing their parents to start paid employment, work more hours or embark on career-enhancing courses. All of which ought to help in closing the attainment gap.

Who could disagree? Doubts might be raised about it benefitting wealthier families more, or about the possibility of working tax benefits being withdrawn. But the motivation is sound. More care, more learning, it’s nearly all good.

Now: how to go about it? This is where the snags come in. More than just snags: “significant risks” to the plan have been identified in an Audit Scotland report for the Accounts Commission. The public spending watchdog reports that councils might not be able to put in place the staffing and infrastructure needed in the limited time available. It says (and, assuming the foregoing is valid, it is hard to disagree): “The Scottish Government should have started detailed planning with councils earlier, given the scale of the changes required.”

We would have thought that was obvious. Just as predictable was that Government and councils would differ in their estimates of necessary funding, with the former’s figure considerably lower than the latter’s. Equally troubling was the finding that no meaningful mechanism had been in place for evaluating the previous expansion of funded places, leading to questions about whether it was delivering value for money or having the desired outcomes for parents and children.

These are important criticisms, particularly given their source. The Accounts Commission is not the opposition. It does not criticise for criticism’s sake. Indeed, its balanced report notes areas of constructive co-operation between Government and councils during the previous period of expansion. In addition, the Auditor General for Scotland has highlighted how Government planning for assessing the impact of the next expansion of childcare has improved.

But, given the tight timescale, it is imperative that mechanisms for liaison and agreement with councils are put in place urgently if this policy is not to flounder. The Commission’s warnings concern matters that can be put right – but only if action is taken now.

They also – though this is obviously not something the Commission itself would say – give force to a feeling that the current administration is all targets and few guns. The target culture has already come under fire, though in this instance we are talking about an explicit promise of provision rather than a vague aspiration towards achieving dubious figures.

All the same, a feeling remains that, here, the cart of care has been put before the horse of how to provide it. Fairly or unfairly, it’s an image which many people associate with the current administration. Grandstanding policies are greeted with a degree of admiration for the goal and an equal degree of scepticism about how to achieve it.

Doubtless, in these cynical times, it will always be such. However, given the scale of this policy and the potential impact on children’s development, family life, and the attainment gap, it is important to get things right. It is, to say the least, disconcerting to find that no agreement has been reached on funding and staffing.

Everyone of goodwill will surely hope the policy works. Is it ambitious? Yes. Has it been properly planned? On this evidence, not so much.