With only a few decades to try and iron out these issues, and only a few million lines from the spin-doctors on what to say, one of the sheep has upset the entire flocking debate.
If there had been less emphasis from SNP HQ on obedience, and more on intelligence, when selecting candidates then this sort of problem wouldn't have arisen, but instead there is now a huge an unnecessary debate about a non-topic that has suddenly been given legs.
With 25% of oil revenue taken out of the equation, John Swinney's numbers look ridiculous, and that axle will be ground for the next two years.
But it is the phrase allowing an opt out for communities:
“if there was a big enough drive for self-determination”that really intrigues.
If 75% of Edinburgh voters opt to reject independence, does that mean they remain part of England (with the Parliament in a foreign country?!)?
As in the 1979 Referendum, is there to a be a 40% of the potential voters hurdle to prove "a big enough drive"?
Would 30% of all voters for independence versus 25% against be enough of mandate, or would 70% not supporting be "enough of a drive AGAINST self-determination"?
Can Point cede from Scotland?
Can of worms. Both barrels shooting through both the feet in the mouth. Idiot.
The focus of the debate has now moved to oil and the economy, and not in a good way for the SNP.