Stealing others' clothes was one of the phrases of a vibrant political week now coming to a close. In policy terms, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, was accused of the practice when unveiling the Westminster Government's plans for inheritance tax and taxing wealthy non-domestic residents in Britain. The Conservatives had made the running on both and Labour stood accused of playing catch-up for political expediency. Can the charge now be levelled at the Scottish Government on a different policy?

Stealing others' clothes was one of the phrases of a vibrant political week now coming to a close. In policy terms, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, was accused of the practice when unveiling the Westminster Government's plans for inheritance tax and taxing wealthy non-domestic residents in Britain. The Conservatives had made the running on both and Labour stood accused of playing catch-up for political expediency. Can the charge now be levelled at the Scottish Government on a different policy?

As The Herald reveals today, Fiona Hyslop, Education Secretary in the SNP administration at Holyrood, has moved to inject greater rigour into the process which determines whether rural schools should be closed. She has sent revised guidance to education authorities ahead of planned legislation that will introduce a statutory presumption against school closures in the Scottish hinterland. When the legislation comes into effect, the SNP will find itself in the unusual situation of following the English lead, where such a presumption has already been adopted. There will be a certain piquancy when the two countries converge on this policy. It will be a rare occurrence for the Nationalists which is unlikely to be repeated.

However, it should not cause the Scottish Government embarrassment. Criticism, either on grounds of political opportunism or hypocrisy, would be unwarranted. The truth is that the presumption should have been in place long before now. Primary schools are often the glue that sticks rural communities together. Closing them runs the risk of these communities falling apart and dying. Scotland's distinct identity is weakened when that is the outcome. Ms Hyslop is correct to identify quality of education as the priority when a rural school closure proposal is in future referred for ministerial consent. There has long been an inkling, in the case of urban as well as rural school closures, that cost has been the overriding criterion (suspicion has been fuelled by the drive to go down the PPP route in school new-build and refurbishment programmes).

Of course, making educational considerations the priority can cut both ways as rural primaries can be in need of repair and often operate composite classes of children of different ages because their rolls tend to be small. It is best for children when they are educated with others of the same age but, if or when the presumption is in place, the other factors that affect them and their communities will be given greater prominence.

The pluses of being educated at a local rural school invariably outweigh the minuses (for instance, primary-aged pupils benefit from being taught near home). The guidance to councils to be smarter in weighing up the pros and cons of closure as well as the eventual presumption will also have implications for urban schools facing closure. The long-term decline in the number of school-aged young people means that rationalisation programmes will not go away. Plans to close urban primaries can be as emotive and controversial as in rural areas and parents in towns and cities will sense a lifeline in the guidance and legislative proposals should their child's school come under threat. The matter cannot be avoided. At last, in future, decisions should be taken in a more thoughtful and sensitive way. That has to be for the good.