Such a quandary seldom confronts politicians. Today was an exception as the First Minister faced an ambush from his Labour opponent. A very effective ambush.

Johann Lamont's chosen topic was the provision of drugs for cancer. But she kept the reveal until her fourth question to the First Minister - when she disclosed that a woman, Maureen Fleming, who has been denied cancer treatment was sitting in the public gallery.

You could see the realisation dawn upon Alex Salmond. He was defending the provision of cancer medication - with a patient who feels let down sitting directly above and behind him.

Mrs Fleming has been told that a particular drug, Cetuximab, could prolong her life. But funding for the treatment has been denied. She now faces a choice between scraping together £10,000 for three months treatment - or moving to Newcastle because the drug is available, free, in England.

To be fair to Mr Salmond, he handled the situation calmly, no doubt contemplating that political challenges, even the tough ones, are as nothing compared to coping with cancer.

Ms Lamont compared the treatment denied to Mrs Fleming with the standard medication readily available, free, on prescription.

If you had a headache, she said, then treatment was free. Not so with cancer. And, once again, she ratcheted up the rhetoric, arguing that Scotland was "in danger of exporting health refugees."

SNP backbenchers - and one or two on the front bench - growled angrily at that one. But Mr Salmond knew that his tone was crucial - and he kept it controlled.

Labour, he pointed out, had backed free prescriptions. (It was also argued later that Ms Lamont's comparison was bogus, that painkillers are only prescribed for long-term, acute conditions - not a passing headache.)

Labour, he also noted, had backed Scotland's balanced approach to the provision of drugs - and not the cancer drugs fund in England. Plus that fund had been subject to criticism and was due to end next year.

These were, he noted, hugely difficult issues which had been reviewed. There was, he added, always room to improve.

With Ruth Davidson, the Tory leader, the topic turned to Europe - and the disclosure on BBC Newsnight Scotland that Scottish Ministers had now received legal advice on the issue of accession to the EU by an independent Scotland.

Ms Davidson challenged him, in vain as it turned out, to disclose the advice - and said the whole affair was becoming an "embarrassing pantomime". It was all just too easy for the FM.

On that latter point, there is a shorthand version occasionally deployed by those, particularly from a left of centre perspective, who advocate the Union.

That is to the effect that the demands for social justice are just as valid in……at this point there will usually be an alliterative list, a technique familiar to those who recall Tam Dalyell's speeches on what became known as the West Lothian question.

Remember? Blackburn, Lancashire - not Blackburn, West Lothian etc. And indeed etc, etc. In this contemporary version, the speaker will commonly say that social justice is warranted in Bristol as much as in Broxburn, in Liverpool as much as in Linlithgow.

As an argument against independence, that particular version has always struck me as somewhat limited and limiting. To extend the alliteration, one might as well say…..in Dundee as well as in Dublin, Dusseldorf and Dubrovnik.

In short, taken as it stands, it is an argument for world government, for values that straddle not just borders but continents.

To be very clear, Gordon Brown did not deploy such an argument. He argued rather that there were values of social justice which had historic Scottish resonance, referring to such Labour politicians as Maxton and Hardie.

He argued further that such values - as past Labour leaders had acknowledged - were best delivered, on a pragmatic basis, across the wider economy and polity of the UK, with the greater canvas providing greater scope for redistribution.

And he argued still further that the Tories - and even their UK coalition colleagues, the Liberal Democrats - were resistant, intrinsically or in practice, to such values.

In short, he was suggesting that the Nationalists could not deliver social justice via the limited scale of the Scottish economy - and that the Tories would not. (In echoing that, Johann Lamont said she would back independence if it delivered social justice. But it did not - and so she would not.)

This was the particular reason Mr Brown gave for launching a Labour campaign to counter independence, rather than adhering purely and solely to the cross-party group, Better Together.

There are others. For one thing, Labour does not want a message which works solely for the referendum - but leaves nothing for the subsequent UK and Scottish general elections.

As one put it to me privately, a resolutely negative campaign could win the referendum but leave Labour looking slightly lame for the subsequent contests. So Labour wants to establish a distinct voice now, in preparation for battles to come when the main rivals will include their current buddies in Better Together.

There is another reason. There are, frankly, some inside Labour, including in the trades unions, who find it extremely uncomfortable to be working directly alongside the Tories - whom they regard as not just rivals, but enemies.

For them, today's launch - which was presaged by Johann Lamont when she agreed to cross-party co-operation - offers a conduit to campaign for the United Kingdom without endorsing the present UK political leadership.

Labour says this provides another leg, another underpinning to the case for the Union. By contrast, their Nationalist rivals suggest it is more likely to ca' the feet from the entire structure.

Nicola Sturgeon lampooned the creation of an independent Labour campaign - which was designed to counter independence.

The deputy first minister was also in Glasgow, spelling out potential new welfare policies for an independent Scotland. She said a post-independence government could reform welfare in order to assist women who are in receipt of benefits or moving into work.

The reason? She cited elemental fairness. But, as with Labour, there is a tactical calculation at play. Polls suggest that women are more sceptical than men towards independence.

Ms Sturgeon said there was a "natural majority" for independence in Scotland - if people could be convinced of the proclaimed economic gains. She acknowledged that the Yes camp had "work to do". But then they all do: both sides, all parties.

Today, at Holyrood, a new suggestion emerged. A perfectly simple game, one you can all play at home. You simply name an MSP - anyone, doesn't matter - and decide which character from "The Simpsons" they resemble.

Willie Rennie got the game going today. He compared the First Minister to Homer Simpson. Both, he said, took the view that if a thing was hard to do, then it wasn't worth doing in the first place.

The justification for this? Mr Rennie was trying - yet again - to persuade the First Minister to emulate the UK government in enhancing nursery provision for two year olds.

Alex Salmond seemed to find the whole thing hugely amusing. Perhaps he appreciated the Rennie wit. Perhaps he plans to play the Simpsons game in Cabinet - and was already thinking of names.

Or just perhaps he had spotted that Mr Rennie's colleague, Nick Clegg, has now voiced considerable doubts about the UK government's childcare policy. You know, the government in which he is deputy Prime Minister.

The more Mr Rennie persisted, the more the First Minister chortled. "This is Kamikaze!!", he opined at one point.

Unabashed and smiling broadly, Mr Rennie said he had anticipated that the First Minister would expect him to steer clear of childcare. So that was it! A double bluff! Dashed cunning! Montgomery Burns, step aside.

Earlier, the Labour leader Johann Lamont has also pursued a persistent narrative - to the effect that the SNP's aims of independence are airy fantasy by contrast with what she argued were the grounded concerns of people in Scotland.

Her particular topic was time spent waiting in Accident and Emergency - which, she suggested, was being prolonged, according to the figures. Ms Lamont then deliberately prodded the SNP benches by arguing that Mr Salmond cared little for hospital patients by contrast with SNP slogans.

As the Nationalists protested loudly, Ms Lamont offered a new slogan - to the effect that Scotland is on a hospital trolley while the independence campaign is in intensive care.

OK, it was contrived. Ok, it was choreographed. But, on the day, the overall attack was effective. To the extent that Mr Salmond was offered advice simultaneously from the Health Secretary Alex Neil and his predecessor in the post, Nicola Sturgeon.

They leaned over towards Mr Salmond, like two consultants discussing a diagnosis. In the event, Mr Salmond proved well able to rally and mount a defence. The SNP had protected health spending (unlike, he said, Labour in Wales); there had been a specific initiative to bolster A&E; individual problems were investigated; and, overall, patient satisfaction was on the up.

For the Conservatives, Ruth Davidson also pursued a familiar narrative, that of sentencing. On this occasion, she cited the case of Thomas McCulloch - who had been released on parole after earlier challenging a whole life sentence under European human rights legislation.

In certain cases, she said, life should mean life. She acknowledged that there could not be retrospective action but she challenged the First Minister to act to prevent any such cases in future.

Mr Salmond noted that the rules on parole had been drawn up by a Conservative government - and were binding upon Ministers. He said that he was willing to listen to precise proposals if Ms Davidson advanced them. Ms Davidson has now contacted the Justice Secretary with a view to doing just that.

Was this the Sovereign entering into the debate about Scottish independence? Older heads cast an eye back to a speech by the Queen in 1977 in which she appeared to question the plans, then extant, for devolved self-government.

However, older and wiser heads noted a key difference between the two remarks - and concluded that in today's speech the Queen was simply following the counsel of her ministers, as is customary and indeed constitutional.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill - A variety of measures to tackle anti-social behaviour and other issues (applies to Scotland in part)

Care Bill - Cross-border provisions in relation to care and support and on reform of the Health Research Authority (applies to Scotland in part)

Defence Reform Bill - Designed to improve the procurement of defence equipment (applies to Scotland)

Deregulation Bill - Reduces red tape and unnecessary regulation (applies to Scotland)

High Speed Two Hybrid Bill and HS2 Paving Bill - Allows the UK Government the right to construct and maintain HS2 (applies to Scotland in part)

Immigration Bill - Reforms immigration law, strengthening enforcement powers and protecting public services (applies to Scotland)

Intellectual Property Bill - Protects design rights for businesses (applies to Scotland)

Mesothelioma Bill - Applies to Scotland

National Insurance Contributions Bill - Reduces the cost of employment for firms (applies to Scotland)

Northern Ireland Bill - Applies to Scotland in part (Constitutional Bills apply across the UK)

Pensions Bill - Introduces a single-tier pension and other measures (applies to Scotland)

Water Bill - Reforms the water sector, providing industry resilience and wider customer choice (applies to Scotland in part)

The speech in 1977 was an address by the Queen to both Houses of Parliament, marking her Silver Jubilee. It was, thus, the view of the Palace - not directly of the government. In that speech, she reflected upon the aspirations for a degree of self-government in Scotland and Wales.

She then went on to note: "I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

That was interpreted then - rightly - as a Royal rebuke to the more fervent advocates of self-government. However, after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, the Queen repeatedly stressed the concept of people in Scotland choosing the system of governance which suited their wishes.

Today, in delivering the Gracious Speech, Her Majesty was reading out words written for her by others, by her Ministers and their advisers.

In so doing, she was no more offering a personal endorsement of the campaign to counter independence than she was backing the UK Government's stance on immigration and pensions - which feature elsewhere in the Speech.

Those advocating the Union may well feel that it helps their cause to have the issue featured in the Queen's Speech as evidence of the prominence attached to the topic by Her Majesty's Government. But, strictly, we can read no more into it than that.

Back at Holyrood, we now have the date for the Aberdeen Donside by-election. It is to be on Thursday the 20th of June.

Will that turn into a dry run for the referendum, particularly as the leading contenders in the constituency are the SNP and Labour, the two largest parties on either side of the Scottish constitutional division?

Folk locally think not. It will feature of course - it is at the core of current Scottish politics. But the view from Aberdeen is that there are huge constituency issues - such as roads provision - which will predominate.

The contest, in that sense, may be between two political records, as they impact upon Aberdeen: the SNP Scottish Government and the Labour-led city council.

That has, understandably, been overshadowed, for two reasons. One, the citizenry and certainly the commentariat are anxious to get on with the arguments about independence.

Two, much of the contention in the referendum rules has already been addressed, largely through the thoughtful guidance of the Electoral Commission.

Still, it is important to get the regulations right. To which end, a Holyrood committee under the stewardship of former minister Bruce Crawford has been labouring mightily.

We have now received their thoughts on the franchise for the referendum. They agree, by majority, that convicted prisoners should be excluded from voting. They urge "effective joint working" with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that qualifying service personnel can vote.

And, broadly, they endorse the Scottish Government's plans which involve, for the most part, using the same electorate as for local elections, Holyrood - and the devolution referendum in 1997.

For the most part. The big change is the plan to establish a separate and discreet register which would allow those aged 16 and 17 to vote in the referendum.

Again by a majority, the committee has backed that notion, declaring themselves "generally content" with the plan to protect young identities through that distinct register.

"Have you thought about signing up to be in the audience of my weekly Big Debate for Radio Scotland?

"I'm in Perth this Friday at 12 noon and in Milngavie on Friday, May 17 (same time).

"Click on the link here and fill in the application form...."

But how about the electoral impact of such a change? Might it make a real difference in the referendum? The esteemed psephologist, John Curtice, reckons not.

Firstly, he notes that the totality of 16 and 17-year-old voters - some 120,000 - is relatively insignificant alongside the millions of older electors.

Secondly, the indications are that youngsters are less likely to turn out. Thirdly, he notes that it is difficult to produce precise evidence which confirms that the young teens are particularly swayed, despite expectations in some quarters that they would be intuitively pro-independence.

John's take is this. Assume that turnout among the new voters matches that elsewhere in the electorate.

Assume further that 60% of young teens vote Yes. Even then, the Yes camp would still require at least 49.7% of the remainder of the population to offer support for their proposition to carry the day.

These, of course, were not matters for Bruce Crawford's committee. They have simply concluded that it is right for young teens to be given a say in the future of Scotland.

The Franchise Bill now faces further line by line scrutiny. But the referendum committee will now also begin work on the big Bill, the main legislation setting out full detailed plans for the ballot itself.

Examples of that latter tactic were on display at Holyrood today. In pursuing the issue of the currency today, Labour's Johann Lamont noted in passing that her rival, Alex Salmond, used to work for the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Cue mild indignation on SNP benches? What point, what relevance? Protestations of innocence from Ms Lamont - had the FM forgotten his CV?

Of course, what she was doing was associating the First Minister with a fallen Scottish icon, linking him directly with economic failure.

Willie Rennie of the Liberal Democrats went further. Was the First Minister, he asked, turning into the Margaret Thatcher of Scottish politics?

How so? Mr Rennie recalled her speech: "U Turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning." Similarly, he said, the FM was showing stubborn determination to back a post-independence sterling zone when other supporters in Yes Scotland were positing alternatives.

Mr Rennie got his metaphor just a fraction tangled when he went on to ask if the FM intended "wobbling" at any point. Mr Salmond rose magisterially and suggested that he would leave wobbling and flip-flopping to the Lib Dems, plainly regarding them as experts.

Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

Download the reader here

For the Conservatives, Ruth Davidson piled in by inviting the First Minister to offer reassurance in the light of potential problems identified by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland with regard to pensions, post independence.

Again, she misfired very slightly in asking the FM to identify which European nations he had consulted regarding the prospect of removing the EU requirement for full funding of any cross-border pension schemes.

Only a little wearily, Mr Salmond replied that there was no need for a derogation from the EU rule - and that the ICAS report had also set out potential solutions to the problem they identified.

But, still, the overall impression left from this session of questions to the First Minister was of a sustained attack by supporters of the Union against the principal proponent of independence.

Some of the ammunition had been supplied in advance by Mr Salmond's colleagues in Yes Scotland.

Ms Lamont, for example, drew attention to Dennis Canavan's BBC interview in which he challenged the concept of a sterling zone.

Alert to the sensitivity of the issue, Mr Salmond and his cohorts declined to step into traps laid by the Labour leader.

Firstly, she deployed the familiar tactic of inviting Nationalist members to put their hands up in support of the First Minister's currency position.

Mr Salmond said, dismissively, that a comparable gag had been used by Ed Miliband - with minimal success. (Me, I remember Michael Foot using it in the Commons in the early 1980s. It worked then.)

Secondly, Ms Lamont deployed an equally familiar strategy. She gave Mr Salmond the chance to rule out a separate Scottish currency. Once again, Mr Salmond refused to follow her lead - preferring instead to stress his preference for a sterling zone.

In all, the Labour leader was in rather good form, deftly adapting her content instead of relying solely upon prepared material. She drew laughter with a neat sally about Fred Goodwin and banking regulation. (OK, maybe you had to be there.)

And, of course, the First Minister replied with vigour, partly by defending his own approach, partly by drawing attention to what he regarded as inconsistencies among his opponents, partly by pointing out that Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories were now occupying common ground.

But the session once again pointed up the pressure imbalance generated by the referendum. Supporters of the Union need only point up potential problems, identify pitfalls.

Alex Salmond has to provide complete reassurance, with details and sums. Their brush can be as broad as you care. He has to show his working; all of it.

But, then, that is the nature of a referendum in which a single proposition is being tested, by contrast with an election which subjects competing manifesto packages to scrutiny.

Yes, it will be entirely legitimate and right to challenge Unionists on their thinking for the future of Scotland - but the question under immediate decision remains: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

Already, I discern Nationalists leaping to their feet and declaring: "All that volatile oil". But set aside for a moment the argument as to where the balance of economic interests lies.

Consider foreign policy. Consider global strategy. Consider status. These and other matters feature in a report from the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.

The substance of their conclusion is that there would be many uncertainties and problems associated with independence in the areas of the EU, wider diplomatic links, intelligence and the prosecution of foreign policy aims.

They complain, further, that "seemingly unfounded assertions" are being presented as "incontrovertible facts" in pursuit of political objectives.

Nicola Sturgeon, the deputy first minister, was on the wireless this morning talking about the MPs' efforts.

She questioned the selection of evidence and noted that their endeavours were scarcely detached in that they all belonged to parties adhering to the Union and decrying independence.

So much, so familiar. Those advocating the Union pose doubts about the independence project - which is in keeping with their overall strategy.

Those advocating independence condemn such comments as baseless scare-mongering - which is in keeping with……..you get the concept.

But look a little further into the report, particularly the nuanced analysis of what might happen to the remainder of the UK (RUK). (Last week's Treasury report spoke of the "continuing UK", thus asserting the legacy role which today's report says is probable.)

The MPs on the Select Committee conclude that it is not in the gift of either government, RUK or Scotland, to declare unilaterally what would happen to the rights and responsibilities of the current state: how they would be apportioned.

However, they note that the preponderant view is that the RUK would be very much in the lead, not least in global opinion - while Scotland would have to start anew. They posit problems associated with that fresh start, not least with regard to EU membership.

But look further still. The report also comments upon the status of the remainder of the UK, noting that it might not stay entirely unchanged.

In particular, they speculate as to whether there would be a change in its power profile. Might there, for example, be a challenge to Britain's current position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council? (Regular readers of these meanderings will have seen that point raised before.)

Might such a diminution of status particularly apply in the event that Scottish independence prompted a challenge to the nuclear weapons deployed from these islands, at Faslane? Might other states regret and deplore such a change?

Further, might the RUK face alterations to the rules governing the current UK's membership of the European Union? It would seem evident, at the very least, that a smaller state, which the rest of the UK would be, might expect fewer MEPs and budgetary changes.

To be clear, the bulk of the report deals with challenges and problems which the MPs see accruing to an independent Scotland.

They presume, to a large extent, that RUK could continue unsullied.

But they do pose the questions. They posit - but largely discount - the possible loss of "soft power" or status from a dissolution of the existing UK.

They posit - and examine - the possible loss of "hard power" or Trident, with a concomitant impact upon foreign policy, not least among anxious allies.

And they speculate about possible trade-offs. If Scotland were to back rest of the UK as the continuing state in the UN, then they reckon that Scotland's application for UN membership would be "swift and unproblematic".

Is there another trade-off? The report notes how unwelcome unilateral nuclear disarmament would be to RUK, adding that it would have "a significant effect on the willingness of the UK to co-operate on other issues upon which Scotland may need assistance".

The report notes further that the commitment of the Scottish government to remove Trident is "not in question. So, might that mean that the RUK goodwill would be dependent upon a flexible timetable re Trident? Perhaps, as the committee notes, deferring the goal of a nuclear-free Scotland for a generation.

Ms Sturgeon's point was that the Scottish government and SNP were "responsible" politicians who would not pursue a course that was hazardous. In such circumstances, might Trident - or, more precisely, the related timetable - be a bargaining counter should independence arise?

The consensus itself is not accidental. It has emerged from detailed discussions involving the party leaders and also reflects, at least in part, the evidence given to a Parliamentary inquiry.

However, the consensus is interesting - with several intriguing facets.

Firstly, the fact that Holyrood is prepared to attach itself to a UK-wide scheme. I think that reflects the cross-border nature of the modern media - together with a plea from Scottish newspaper editors to the effect that a stern, distinct system in Scotland would be costly and, arguably, unfair in that most of the excesses occurred in England.

Secondly, that Holyrood has turned its back upon the approach suggested in a review commissioned by the Scottish government, led by Lord McCluskey. That called for statutory regulation on a universal basis in Scotland.

The Culture Secretary Fiona Hyslop praised his Lordship and his team, thanking them for their unpaid work - but then proceeded, ever so gently, to bury their endeavours once more. Compulsion, she argued, was not appropriate at this point - although it might have to be kept in reserve.

Thirdly, the tone. Consensus on how to deal with the press does not mean that MSPs are uniformly delighted with the media. Very far from it. The debate was peppered with repeated examples of complaints about the press raised by members' constituents.

And the deal? That MSPs broadly back the proposal advanced by the UK government, following talks, that there should be a new system of self-regulation for the press - and that this should be underpinned by a Royal Charter which would, in essence, set the criteria for this system of regulation.

To that end, MSPs agreed to advance plans to amend the UK system to make it compliant with Scots Law.

In addition, they agreed to push for sensitive treatment with regard to reports featuring the recently deceased where the only public interest is the circumstances of the individual's death. That is in response to a particularly contentious case pursued by a Scottish mother, Margaret Watson.

So the framework is there for the Scottish dimension of press regulation. Which brings us to the fourth intriguing element. Are MSPs attaching themselves to a mirage?

Will the UK government's Royal Charter go ahead - when it has been sharply criticised by sections of the newspaper industry as a back-door method to constrain press freedom. Those newspapers have advanced an alternative plan.

Might Holyrood's efforts be in vain? No, says Ms Hyslop. Whatever system emerges - and she prefers the UK government one - then it requires to be adapted to Scots Law.

Every political leader who intervened responded with dignity and decorum to the sad news that Brian Adam, the MSP for Aberdeen Donside, has died after a prolonged battle with cancer.

The news was announced from the chair by Tricia Marwick, the presiding officer.

She confirmed what our eyes had already witnessed: that parliament's flags were flying at half mast. And she announced plans for a book of condolence and for a full session next week, reflecting upon Mr Adam's significant contribution.

Alex Salmond described his Nationalist colleague as an "exceptional MSP" while also praising his personal strengths. Others remembered a man of strong conviction, a family man, a friend.

If I may add a personal note, Brian Adam was a thoughtful, diligent, friendly man - with a keen sense of humour.

All around Holyrood today, there were exchanges of quiet reflection: from the MSPs who had, like Brian, been in the Scottish Parliament from the outset - to the recently elected MSP who told me that Brian had taken particular care to offer advice and support to the newcomers.

Knowing that there will be a formal opportunity next week to reflect upon Brian Adam's life, parliament continued today with a semblance of normality.

The exchanges in questions to the first minister were rumbustious, informed, highly contentious, occasionally droll - mostly on the subject of the economy and the currency, post independence.

Brian Adam would have loved it. He will be missed.

George Osborne says that the SNP argues that an independent Scotland would retain the pound in order to lessen public anxiety over the project, in order to depict independence as a continuum from prevailing circumstances rather than a sharp departure.

Finance Secretary John Swinney says that UK ministers argue that there would be grave difficulties in establishing a post-independence sterling zone between Scotland and the remainder of the UK (rUK) because they want to forestall that prospect from arising.

The intriguing thing is that, in this remarkable battle, both might be right.

Political battle over Scotland's currency

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, says that the SNP argues that an independent Scotland would retain the pound in order to lessen public anxiety over the project, in order to depict independence as a continuum from prevailing circumstances rather than a sharp departure.

Finance Secretary John Swinney says that UK ministers argue that there would be grave difficulties in establishing a post-independence sterling zone between Scotland and the remainder of the UK (rUK) because they want to forestall that prospect from arising.

The intriguing thing is that, in this remarkable battle, both might be right.

Yes, there are economic and statistical arguments adduced in support of both propositions.

But, politically, it is in the interests of the chancellor to sow doubt about independence. It is in the interests of the SNP to offer reassurance.

In pursuit of these parallel aims, both attempt simultaneously to query the credentials of their opponents.

The chancellor notes: that Mr Swinney used to support the euro; presently states that Scotland could use sterling unilaterally, without a cross-border deal; and declines to rule out absolutely the creation of a new Scottish currency.

Mr Osborne adds his view that Scotland, post independence, might be obliged to adopt the Euro as part of the price for EU membership. His general point? That the SNP position on the currency is uncertain, unstable and vacillating.

In response, Mr Swinney says that, while other options are possible, it is the very clear aim of the SNP to maintain sterling as part of an agreed deal with rUK, conceding that this would involve a stability pact which would impinge upon such matters as debt.

Mr Swinney then seeks to undermine the chancellor, arguing that his economic record in office is not such as to command confidence.

For example, the Scottish government paper on the currency, also published today alongside the Treasury analysis, notes that any economy faces constraints from external factors - such as credit rating agencies and the verdict of the IMF.

Astute observers will spot that the UK has received criticism from precisely those quarters in the past week or so.

They mean you, George.

In response, Mr Osborne insists that his long-term stewardship of the UK economy will prove valid and sound. He argues further that, whatever the immediate arguments over economic matters, the issue of independence is irreversible.

I attended the event in Glasgow this morning at which Mr Osborne and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, addressed a business audience in the splendid surroundings of the Trades Hall.

This venue, in the heart of the Merchant City, is redolent of both history and commerce. Mr Osborne did not neglect to stress both points. Scotland, he argued, had thrived down the centuries within the Union. It would be feasible, but unwise, to alter that.

Mr Osborne's core point is that it would be "unlikely" that rUK would agree to a sterling zone with an independent Scotland.

Why would they, he argues, when it would expose rUK to risks from an independent Scotland which they could not control? Why would they, he argues further, when it would involve 58 million rUK citizens ceding a degree of sovereignty to five million in Scotland who would, by then, be part of a foreign country?

To be clear, Mr Osborne is not declaring a veto.

For one thing, he might not be chancellor if and when independence arises and cannot commit a subsequent government.

For another, the strategy of UK ministers is to highlight uncertainty, not to seem to be suggesting that they are placing any block in the path of a decision which, they repeatedly stress, is one for Scotland to take.

But Mr Osborne is arguing that the path would be highly problematic; that Scotland as a small economy might be more vulnerable to currency speculation and shocks; that, consequently, those in Scotland who wish to retain the pound would be well advised to vote No in the referendum.

As well as attending the Treasury event and reading their evidence, I have also scrutinised carefully the paper published by the Scottish government as its formal response to the earlier report by the Fiscal Commission Working Party, set up by Scottish ministers.

It argues: "The pound is currently Scotland's currency and the Bank of England is Scotland's central bank."

As a consequence, it notes, Scotland would be entitled to contemplate and expect the continuation of such arrangements, provided agreement can be reached.

As to those negotiations, it argues that, in practice, it would be in the interests of rUK to create a sterling zone - whatever is said now in pursuit of a political argument for the referendum.

For one thing, they note that Scotland could - stress could, not would - adopt sterling unilaterally in much the same way as Panama uses the dollar.

Given that, SNP ministers say, rUK ministers and the financial system would rationally prefer a stable sterling zone rather than Scotland deploying sterling free from constraint on their northern boundary.

Further, they say that Scotland contributes to the strength of sterling, not least through the hike which oil and gas gives to the balance of payments associated with the currency. That would, Nationalists argue, continue to be true.

And why would Scottish ministers want to maintain sterling?

To provide reassurance to industry and commerce; to ease continuing cross border trade; to help with the allocation of assets between the two states (Scotland and rUK) by conducting those in a single currency; and to assist cross-border financial institutions.

In response to which, Mr Osborne says that all these advantages and more are presently extant - in the sterling zone that is called the United Kingdom.

In response to which, Mr Swinney says that Scotland can have a stable currency - plus other economic levers such as tax, spending, borrowing, competition law, employment policy and immigration with which to boost Scotland's distinct interests.

In response to which... a fascinating contest is fully under way. Deadline, 18 September 2014.

And Malagrowther? That is the pseudonym adopted by Sir Walter Scott when, in March 1826, he launched a spirited and sustained attack against an earlier effort to interfere with Scotland's paper currency.

Sir Walter features on notes issued by the Bank of Scotland - not just because he was a brilliant writer (though he most certainly was), but because his currency campaign succeeded.

Under his transparent pseudonym (the name Malagrowther is a character in one of his novels), Sir Walter wrote three letters to the Edinburgh Weekly Journal. This swiftly grew into a popular campaign across Scotland.

Scott's target was a proposal to forbid private banks from issuing notes of less than £5. This UK government plan was introduced because some smaller English banks were apparently struggling to redeem the promissory notes. (There was a banking crisis at the time.)

Scott reckoned the plan would be troublesome in Scotland where smaller notes were dominant. He believed it was an unnecessarily uniform response to a distinctively English problem.

Perhaps, though, both sides may be able to cite Sir Walter's intervention in their defence. Nationalists will warm to Scott's view that Scottish interests deserved distinctive treatment.

Unionists may argue that Sir Walter's case succeeded because it was heeded in the House of Commons where Scottish representatives were able to persuade and cajole; evidence, they might say, that Scotland's voice in the UK can be influential.

On the wider issue of the currency, anent which more on Tuesday, there is similarly a dual position. The Treasury says that an independent Scotland using the pound would be in a weak position, dependent upon decisions taken by the Bank of England which, by then, would be an institution in a foreign country.

Nationalists say that, regardless of comments now, it would be very much in the interests of rUK (rest of the UK) to maintain a stable currency zone, including Scotland - not least because Scotland could use the pound unilaterally, without reference to London.

Malachi Malagrowther and the Scottish banknote

It was personal and passionate with sound applause lines and occasional moments of dry humour. There was the occasional policy offer such as the proposals on community ownership.

Mostly, however, the speech was designed to set a political environment. Spreading out the canvas, if you like, with the details to be coloured in later. Which, of course, means challenges to come.

In setting the environment, Johann Lamont began by describing herself; the Glaswegian with an island inheritance, the teacher, the mother. This autobiographical section was designed to underpin her emphasis on social justice and her prioritisation of education.

Secondly, in that environment, she reflected back upon her September speech in which she had questioned the value of universal benefits in a context where the genuinely needy were left short.

She attempted to explain that, perhaps even slightly expiate it. Free bus passes, she argued, had limited value if some areas were bereft of buses. Free personal care was just a slogan if carers were so harassed that they had no time to spend with people.

Both points drew prolonged applause. The question lingering, of course, is whether Scotland will still be applauding when Ms Lamont gets round to spelling out her alternative in these and other areas.

To be entirely fair, we are still some way off from the need to draft manifestos for the next Holyrood elections, due in 2016. But, equally reasonably, Ms Lamont's SNP opponents will scarcely sit quietly and take her attacks upon them without demanding answers from her in return.

Similarly, there is uncertainty over Labour's emerging constitutional offer as an alternative to independence. One prospectus features in the interim report of the party's Commission, set up by the leader. That suggests, inter alia, the full devolution of income tax to Holyrood.

Cue contention. Rather a lot of it. See yesterday's posting for the underlying causes of controversy. Ms Lamont set out to address these, in specific fashion.

I interviewed Johann Lamont in a half-hour webcast based on questions you submitted.

Have a look at what she had to say.....

Firstly, she attempted to placate fretting MPs. There was, she said, absolutely no reason why there should be a reduction in the number of MPs from Scotland in the light of a reduced Scottish remit at Westminster (should more tax powers be devolved.)

Secondly, she tackled the concern advanced by unions and others, that this had to be politics for a purpose. Tax powers would be devolved if they improved the prospect of Scotland enhancing social justice. Otherwise, not.

It was a well constructed section, dealing with the chat behind the scenes in an open speech. But, of course, it still leaves considerable uncertainty - at this stage - as to what Labour's offer might be.

Once again, Labour will argue, with some justice, that this is driven by the electoral calendar, that they have time to consult and decide before the referendum. Once again, Labour's opponents will be entitled to challenge the party on detail.

Catching up with the chat around conference is intriguing. The more subtle Labour thinkers know they have to get this right. They know it is not sufficient to argue that Labour's agenda lies elsewhere.

The party lost - and lost badly - in 2011. That is why there is to be a referendum - and mumping won't make it go away.

The more subtle Labour strategists believe the party must sound less curmudgeonly and more positive about Scotland's prospects. As one put it to me, Just Saying No, loudly, to independence risks Labour sounding like the Ulster Unionists of Scotland.

Which means reclaiming the constitutional agenda instead of deriding it. Which means examining, seriously, the prospects for further powers. Which means attempting, thereby, to assemble a clear majority for sustaining a reformed Union.

I opened by saying that this was a personal speech by Johann Lamont. It also closed with a personal attack upon Alex Salmond, arguing that his predilections were different from those of the Scottish people. Indeed, in a "courageous" phrase (c. "Yes Minister"), she said that the referendum would prove to be "Scotland versus Salmond".

As an interested viewer, Mr Salmond might just be permitted one of his trademark wry grins at that one, given the overall majority he won from the Scottish people just a short time ago. Perhaps he might also remind Labour which party was his principal opponent in that contest.

Indeed, I made precisely those points to one or two Labour folk here in Inverness. Ah, just you wait, they said. Labour will reclaim a sense of Scottishness alongside a sense of social justice - and independence will be rejected.

However, the political and electoral contests are characterised, it is, as ever, the people who will decide.

If you were listening to the wireless yesterday morning, you will have heard me blethering on about it. But for those few who, unaccountably, had something else to occupy their time, perhaps a brief recap might help. (The loyal listeners can use the interval to make tea or put the cat out.)

The session of questions to the first minister ended with smiles and an outbreak of consensus, in place of the customary snarl and whimper.

The Greens and the independent MSPs, together, have the numbers to form a collective group at Holyrood. That entitles them, from time to time, to name the topic for debate on particular days.

For the most part, she was adored by her party in Scotland, just as in England. But, even as they worshipped, quite a few Scottish Tories fretted that her politics would prove particularly divisive north of the border and thus electorally unpopular.

For the most part, she was adored by her party in Scotland, just as in England.

Said sandy boundary, you may recall, was drawn by Ruth Davidson as she campaigned to win the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives. A successful campaign, as it turned out.