The No2 Named Persons campaign has claimed a coup after it was leaked an email describing a new push to answer critics of the project to give every child a single point of contact with services.

The controversy over Named Persons - ever more furiously dismissed by opponents as state snoopers bent on interfering with family life - has driven the Scottish Government to panic measures, according to No2NP.

A junior civil servant's email to colleagues said "the Scottish Government is planning a coordinated national public information campaign".

It added: "The objective ... is to help the public, particularly parents, develop their understanding of Girfec and the named person service." People working with children and families were invited to help test an information pack this week.

It certainly sounded like a PR push for the policy, and understandably so. A very vocal campaign against the policy, backed in elements of the press, has battered the concept so that the prevailing perception of what a named person is is entirely different from what is actually being proposed.

Is the policy of providing every child with a named health visitor or headteacher whose duties include looking out for their welfare a good one? Is flagging up those in need of early intervention a sensible idea?

It may indeed be an unwarranted intrusion into family life. That's assuming cash strapped public services such as social work have the resources to live up to the worst fears of the No2NP campaign.

It might be a foolish use of such resources, stretching already busy workers too far. Or it could be a great idea, making meaningful the rhetoric about helping children before problems escalate.

What is not in doubt is that it has become a public relations nightmare for the Scottish Government.

So attempting to fix that is understandable. It might look like pushing the panic button - although Victoria Quay insiders say such an information campaign was always on the cards. But explaining the scheme better to parents is an obvious move.

It's one the No2NP campaign could welcome, having called for months for parents to be given more information and the policy to be more transparent.

In a laboured reference to the No2NP campaign's reversal at the court of session, spokesman Simon Calvert says the Government is defending the indefensible, having 'lost the trial in the court of public opinion'. But a trial involves hearing arguments from both sides. Why is the vociferous No2NP group so anxious about parents hearing the case for the defence?