As Premier Alex Scott points out in this newspaper today, there is always a tendency to shoot the messenger when they bring news or opinions that don?t square with one?s own.

And there is no easier way of doing that when the messenger is foreign than questioning whether they really understand the place they are describing.

Mr. Scott claims that this newspaper and this Editor have done just that in the past when the United Nations Committee on Decolonisation has suggested Bermuda consider Independence. In fact, this newspaper and this Editor have never questioned the Committee?s right to its opinion; it has questioned the credibility of a committee whose members include representatives of countries with democratic and human rights records as, well, diverse as Cuba, Iran, Syria and China in addition to rather more respectable nations like India and a number of Caribbean islands, including Grenada, which has had its own post-Independence adventures.

Still, the Committee has a point of view and a right to express it. So does the ?centre-left? Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington, D.C., which wrote an analysis which received wide publicity earlier this week and was republished in full on this page on Friday.

People from abroad, whether from the UN or from a Washington think tank, can sometimes bring a broader view than anyone in Bermuda can. To some degree, they are more objective than those of us who are involved in the cut and thrust of local affairs. They are able to look at the issues squarely, without knowledge of the individuals involved.

There?s no more famous example of that than Frenchman Alexis DeTocqueville, whose 19th Century book ?Democracy in America? did much to open the eyes of Americans about their own country.

The recent report from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs does not pretend to be as comprehensive or as well informed as DeTocqueville was. But the report should be considered on its merits, rather than dismissed out of hand by Premier Scott and others simply because it was not written here.

In fact, it does not take a hard and fast stand on Independence. But it raises a great many questions about whether Independence makes sense for the Island.

Its most cogent analysis centres on the question of just why Mr. Scott is driving this debate forward when a large majority of Bermudians are not in favour of Independence and when Mr. Scott?s own popularity is plunging.

It makes the valid observation that Mr. Scott may be committing political suicide in doing so, by championing an issue in which most Bermudians seem to have little interest.

Mr. Scott, obviously, does not see it that way. He maintains that opposition to Independence is due to a lack of ?education? rather than sound reasoning, and he makes the case today that it will unite the Island and give Bermudians (for which one should read the Government) the right to appoint a Bermudian Chief Justice and to tell the Commissioner of Police what to do.

Apparently, it will also help tourism by enabling Bermuda to host UN meetings at the convention centre Mr. Scott revealed that Government is now planning for the National Sports Centre.

Now, maybe that?s enough for some people, but there are a lot of good reasons why the Government should not direct the Commissioner of Police, and the idea of UN meetings being a panacea for tourism is laughable.

If that?s the best Mr. Scott can do, then the Council on Hemispheric Affairs has seen things pretty clearly: the Premier is committing political suicide.