The latest row over Premier Alex Scott?s claims that crime would improve if Bermuda was independent will not die.

Acting Home Affairs Minister Terry Lister?s statement on Wednesday, in which he said the Premier was right, sort of, was a classic example of damage control.

Mr. Scott was widely quoted in the broadcast media last week saying that crime would improve if Bermuda was independent and the Government had direct control of the Police, who currently report to the Governor.

That suggested that Government was hamstrung in tackling crime and begged the question of just what it was that Government wanted to do about crime and was being stopped from doing by Sir John Vereker.

The answer in effect, was nothing, based on Mr. Lister?s response. Presumably, his statement came after a free and frank discussion with Government House. Mr. Lister said the Government and Government House had a working relationship that strived ?almost always successfully, to find common ground to enable policing functions to reflect the wishes of Bermudians?.

And he added that ?we are not suggesting that the Governor would insist on operations that are contrary to the wishes of the Government?, before noting that the fact remained that policing operations remained the ultimate responsibility of the Governor.

In other words, there are no real practical problems in the relationship.

Mr. Lister then went on to chastise the Opposition for inferring that Government accepted high levels on lawlessness while waiting for Independence. ?This was at best mischievous and at worst irresponsible?.

But what other inference could be drawn from Mr. Scott?s statements? He said what he said.

With regard to the Police, there would be good reasons for it to remain accountable to the Governor, if Bermuda chose to remain an overseas territory, or to a Governor General, if Bermuda chose Independence. Not the least of these reasons is the problems the Police would face in investigating members of the Government if the Police Commissioner reported directly to the Cabinet. This has occurred under both the United Bermuda Party and the Progressive Labour Party, and having the Governor as a buffer has helped to guarantee the integrity of those investigations.

When Mr. Scott launched a national debate on Independence, he said he wanted an open and frank discussion. That discussion should be based on facts and reasonable conjecture.

Unfortunately, many of the reasons that have been given for and against Independence have been neither. Some have been malicious and have been nothing less than scare-mongering (like the idea that the Bermuda dollar would go into instant free fall if the Island chose Independence) while others have been just plain far-fetched, like Mr. Scott?s notion that an Independent Bermuda would attract a flurry of United Nations conferences that would save tourism.

The reality is much more mundane. For example, some, but by no means all, exempted companies would be more comfortable in a British overseas territory than in an Independent Bermuda. On the other hand, after a brief flurry of national pride, most residents would get back to the national pastime of blaming one another for the Island?s problems, which would be as pressing after Independence as they are now.

The real question is whether there is a compelling reason for the Island to change its status. The real advantages need to be weighed against the true disadvantages and a decision made.

But it is time to stop muddying the debate with fantasies. And so far, that?s about all the community has heard.