Premier Alex Scott made it clear this week what he thought the framework of the Independence debate should be; Government will tell Bermudians what to think and then Bermudians will make the decision.

He didn?t quite say that. He said Government, through the Independence Commission, will give Bermudians the tools to make an informed decision, and then Bermudians will decide.

But the inference was clear; opinions that do not come from the Independence Commission should be ignored. And if they come from foreigners who are either not in favour of Independence or support a referendum, they are not worth a hill of beans.

He made the statement in response to a column by retired Caribbean diplomat Sir Ronald Sanders, who, having given a fair and balanced analysis of the whole issue and having neither supported nor opposed Independence, threw his support behind holding a referendum on the issue.

That?s not good enough, according to Mr. Scott, who said Government, and only Government, had a mandate and a right to ?give Bermudians the requisite tools? to make an informed decision on Independence.

That?s not to say that the Commission won?t give a fair and reasoned analysis of the pros and cons of the issue. It might, if only to prove it?s not the Government?s poodle. And Mr. Scott is of course right in saying that in the end, the decision will be up to Bermudians and Bermudians alone.

But Mr. Scott?s increasingly strident responses to those from abroad who have weighed in on the question is at odds with his claims to want a wide and free discussion on the issue, in large part because the views being expressed contradict his own and those of his party.

Mr. Scott went on to say: ?Until that effort has been completed there is no further discussion required. The Bermuda Independence Commission and its work will not be usurped by external opinions on what we should or should not do.?

This is clearly wrong. The Independence Commission is quite capable of carrying out its work while others talk. This is, after all, the Government that can walk and chew gum at the same time. And Bermudians are grown up enough to be able to listen to different opinions and then make up their own minds.

Indeed, later this month, the United Nations Committee on Decolonisation will visit the Island. Its mission, according to its own statement, is not close a deal on Independence, but to ?provide information, inform the population and evaluate the situation. An envisioned interactive approach should maximise the time spent with the people of Bermuda, with the aim of assisting them, as they made an important step towards a full measure of self-government.?

That visit has the full support of the Government and the Independence Commission. Why is that acceptable while the views of Sir Ronald are not? Is it be because Sir Ronald supports a Referendum and does not come down wholeheartedly in favour of Independence, while the odds are good that the UN will eventually come down in support of full sovereignty?

Earlier this year, Mr. Scott mocked the qualifications of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and that?s fine. But who is to say that Sir Ronald brings less knowledge of the issue than the representatives of such far-flung nations as Bolivia, Congo, Congo, Dominica, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Neste who make up the UN mission.

Sir Ronald was twice Antigua?s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, he was Antigua?s permanent representative to the World Trade Organisation, London for Antigua and he has advised the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States on political union.

And yet, because he has said he favours a referendum, Mr. Scott says he must be ignored. So much for a free and fair debate.