Former MP Stuart Hayward has fought back against the director of a Washington think-tank by vigorously defending his column in last Friday?s Bermuda Sun which maintained that a report on Government?s Independence agenda was unbalanced.

Council on Hemispheric Affairs director Larry Birns, responding Monday to Mr. Hayward?s argument in his commentary last week, suggested that Mr. Hayward had made very little attempt to ?critically engage? with what COHA?s article actually said, while also alleging that some comments attributed to him had been fabricated.

But this newspaper was permitted to listen to a tape-recording of the interview between Mr. Hayward and Mr. Birns, and can report the column was an accurate reflection of their discussion.

Mr. Hayward ? a Member of Parliament in the early 1990s ? said he felt moved to respond to the claims as his ?integrity was being questioned?.

?I have shown that Mr. Birns handles the truth rather carelessly and this speaks to the credibility of him and his organisation,? he said. ?I don?t have any problem with him taking a position on an issue. I am not in the business of telling people what position they should take. But I do have a tremendous problem with somebody moving from one position to another and then declaring me the villain.?

The article, written by COHA intern Ashley Rasmussen, argued Premier Alex Scott is committing political suicide by foisting Independence upon a reluctant public while Mr. Birns, a self-confessed advocate of the principle of self-rule at heart, has nonetheless pointed out that the history of independence worldwide is hardly littered with success stories.

Mr. Hayward continues to insist, however, that COHA?s study was flawed.

?I was concerned that a piece that went under the label of ?research?, that was written by somebody called a ?research associate?, was a) not as well researched as it should have been in that in contained a number of errors and b) was more like an opinion piece,? he said.

?When I looked at the work they have carried out more generally, my gut feeling was that much of the writing was inclined towards sensation (rather) than towards analysis and fact.

?This is a journalistic trait and if they want to be considered as another journal than this is fine. But if they going to do this kind of writing and call themselves a research organisation then I have a problem,? Mr. Hayward continued.

?I have no problem with the debate on Independence, and I would love for the issue to be discussed widely. But my experience of the last week leads me to be a little wary of what they might do and write.?

Mr. Hayward also went on to say he was concerned the research undertaken by COHA appeared to be merely a perusal of the ?often unbalanced, often sensationalised? articles in the local media ? an exercise which he believes has many drawbacks academically and further undermines the credibility of the study.

Regarding Mr. Birn?s suggestion that he had failed to ?critically engage? with the debate in his Bermuda Sun article, Mr. Hayward countered that he had written at length about Independence and its potential consequences for many years.

Mr. Hayward also pointed out he was one of the founders of an organisation active in the 1980s called ?Indinfo? ? an independence information service.

Regarding his own views on sovereignty, Mr. Hayward was somewhat more guarded, saying he had been ?swayed? in both directions since first joining the debate.

He argued, for instance, that Independence is a ?natural step in the social, cultural, political evolution of a country? ? while also conceding he is not certain Independence will breed greater social cohesion or that Bermudians will materially be any better off.

?I want my opinion to be dynamic,? he said. ?And when it comes time to make the decision, I want to have had the experience of being swayed and moved and adjusted through new information and new insight. I look forward to that.?