PROFESSOR Jim Gallagher has a lot in common with his nemesis, the First Minister.
Both he and Alex Salmond are 59, both started out at the Scottish Office in the late 1970s, both built careers around the politics of devolution and independence, and both claim to know the result on September 18.
But there the similarities end.
While Salmond sprang onto the public stage, Gallagher remained in the wings of the civil service, advising a series of Scottish secretaries and prime ministers.
He also ran the Scottish Prison Service for five years, and was secretary to the 2008 Calman Commission on greater devolution. "My natural place is in the back room rather than the front room," as he puts it.
After retiring in 2010, he seemed destined for sleepy academe as a research fellow at Oxford.
The referendum changed all that.
A dogged indysceptic - he describes the case for the Union as "unanswerable" - he felt compelled to step up and become involved.
In January, he became a key adviser to the Better Together campaign, honing its messages on the economy, currency and the "positive case" for the Union, as well as chipping in to Alistair Darling's debate prep.
"My contribution has been giving some shape to the argument of why you're better off within the United Kingdom ... explaining the risks, but also why you should make a genuinely positive choice to stay in the UK rather than merely reject an uncertain future."
So what's his 10-second doorstep pitch?
"You get the best of both worlds. You get the benefits of being a small country with control over your own domestic affairs, the ability to make choices about public services and, increasingly, taxation. But also the benefits of being a large country, the security of being part of a larger economy, a country that's economically and politically powerful."
He admits Better Together is sometimes seen as "too negative", but adds: "What people call negative campaigning - saying what's wrong with the other side's argument - is just another way of making your own positive argument.
"The mirror image of those [risks we highlight] are the strengths of staying in the UK.
"I've been really struck by the extent that the independence case, rather sadly, is becoming a negative case. It's saying, 'Oh, there's all these things wrong with the UK.'"
Oh, come on, Better Together have been negative from the first minute of this campaign, no? He bridles and says that's not fair criticism.
"Here are people, the Scottish Nationalists, the Yes campaign, saying we should deconstruct the state we're in and create a new one.
"It's only commonsense to say, 'What are the risks?' You can talk about potential benefits, but all these things come with risks. Our job, among things, is to point out those risks."
He has some criticism for his own side, too. Westminster "missed a trick" and "undersold" the 2012 Scotland Act which gives Holyrood new devolved tax powers, he says, leaving the public largely in the dark about the changes already in train in the event of a No vote.
But basically he's a massive UK fanboy. "The UK said to Scots, 'It's entirely up to you: you can stay or leave.' If this referendum was really about whether the Scottish people are sovereign, the very fact of having it says they are. The UK acknowledged that almost without a hiccup. It's an extraordinarily grown-up approach to statehood."
Unlike the hopelessly immature SNP, he says. "I'm totally fed up with them ... it's about time they started being grown-ups. I don't agree with it, but there's an honourable argument to make for independence.
"The problem with the Scottish Government is they say it doesn't carry any risks.
"Nothing will go wrong, everything will be better, taxes will go down, spending will go up, there'll be money in the bank. That isn't true," he goes on. "They know their basic argument isn't where the people are, so they try and tell them something else. It would be better for their self-respect and their long-term project to make a more honourable argument."
What's the referendum result going to be?
"I'm as certain as I can be that people are going to reject independence and they're right to do so. Public opinion has been stable on this for years, if not decades."
Gallagher offers an equally striking take on the indyref row of the week, Salmond's refusal to name a Plan B if there's no currency union.
Sharing the pound wouldn't just be bad for the UK, it would be bad for Scotland, he says.
"Currency union is not just about using the same notes and coins, it's about having a single macroeconomic arrangement. You'd be tying yourself to a macroeconomic system managed for somebody else's economy and you couldn't move public spending back and forth. It's very hard to see why, except for presentational reasons at the beginning, that a Scottish Government would agree to it."
So what is the best Plan B? "The long-term right answer is your own currency. Absolutely no doubt about that. How you get there, God knows. It's not for me to make that one up."
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