The test for the Independence Commission was always going to be whether it would be able to fairly and fearlessly present both sides of the Independence issue without appearing to be biased one way or the other.

Given the near impossibility of anyone achieving perfect objectivity, coupled with the challenges of predicting the future, that was always going to be a difficult task, and one that was perhaps beyond the ability of any group of mortals.

Nonetheless, that was the what was set, and the Commission appears to have struggled mightily and worked hard to achieve it. In the end, it failed, not so much with because of what was contained in the report, which is probably accurate, but because of what was not.

This newspaper has already reported on two key omissions. One is the efforts the Commission claims to have made to find any country that made a decision on Independence via a referendum. It said it could not.

Leaving aside, Bermuda itself, which rejected Independence in the 1995 referendum, the United Bermuda Party, in its written submission, presented a series of examples of countries that had used referenda more recently. Not only were these ignored, but the UBP?s own submission was not included in the report?s? hundreds of pages of annexes.

Those two omissions immediately throw the credibility of the rest of the report into doubt because it begs the question of what else in it is accurate in the report, and more importantly, what else has been left out.

That?s a shame, because sections of the report are valuable.

It does, to some extent, frame the debate better than had been the case up to now.

In a section entitled ?exploding the myths?, it makes it clear that international companies will not abandon the Country overnight, nor that Bermuda will become Haiti or some other example of an independent country the minute the new Bermuda flag replaces the Union Jack.

And it points out that Bermuda could afford to become Independent if it so wished.

That is all correct. Bermuda would probably survive, and could well thrive, if it was Independent.

The question is whether that is sufficient reason for the Island to change its current status.

And it is here that the report fails. While it explodes the supposed myths of Independence and listed the potential benefits of sovereignty, nowhere in the report are the advantages of remaining a British Overseas Territory listed in the same way, although they are acknowledged from time to time in different places.

This is intellectually dishonest, and suggests that much of the undoubted hard work of the Commission has been wasted, since its credibility and objectivity must now be questioned.

The Commission is right to say that Bermuda can afford Independence. That does not mean that it should afford it, any more than a person who can afford to buy a Ferrari or a bigger house should do so simply because he or she can.

Still, those who want an objective look at the issue still have a chance, since Premier Alex Scott, having released this report, announced that the Government will now write its own Green Paper outlining the pros and cons of Independence, presumably in an objective manner.

And so this debate will go on and on, presumably until the Bermuda public, exhausted by this apparently never-ending exercise surrender and agree to sovereignty.