Less than meets the eye?
I suspect - but cannot, frankly, be sure - that there may be less to this than meets the eye.
"This" being the stushie generated over the question of whether Scotland should match the new protection against repossession planned for householders in England and Wales.
I suspect - and this time I am decidedly sure - that this controversy reflects, at least in part, the febrile atmosphere generated by a by-election in a place beginning with G, as Alex Salmond described the Fight for Fife in his weekend conference address.
Herewith the basics. Southern courts are, broadly, to bring in revised procedures which ensure that other avenues are exhausted before repossession of a house is granted.
Not needed here in Scotland, say ministers. Already covered by the Mortgage Rights Act passed by the previous executive.
The SNP adds that Labour and LibDem critics appear to have forgotten their own legislation.
"Astonishing complacency", says Labour.
Not a good enough answer, adds Mike Dailly, of the Govan Law Centre in Glasgow.
Scottish courts rely upon lawyers asking the court to look for alternatives. There is no element of compulsion.
But, in practice, won't it amount to the same thing?
In the current climate, won't courts - under whatever compunction - seek alternatives to repossession while taking account, ultimately, of the right of lenders to seek redress for unpaid debts?
As billed above, I frankly don't know the answer to that one.
Perhaps you guys out there could enlighten me. Hard, practical answers only. No partisan tosh.
Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.