With the Scottish electorate due to vote on the issue of independence in the Autumn of 2014, the issue of an independent Scotland's status within the EU has become central to the debate. Despite the impending referendum, however, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has repeatedly refused requests to reveal whether or not it has even sought legal advice on the matter - a stance that was made a mockery of on Friday when the Foreign Office (FCO), in responding to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request, showed no hesitation in publishing exactly the sort of information that Mr Salmond is so adamant must be kept confidential.
Despite not being able to reveal the details of the advice, FCO official Emma McGuire nonetheless confirmed that: "The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does hold legal advice on the possible impact on UK membership of the European Union were Scotland to become independent".
The SNP, on the other hand, has not been so forthcoming. In a somewhat perplexing response to the FoI request made by Labour MEP Catherine Stihler in May 2011 asking the Holyrood administration to reveal any legal advice it had received on the issue, culture secretary Fiona Hyslop - writing on behalf of the administration - declined to offer up the information on the grounds that: "We consider that to reveal whether the information you have requested exists, or is held by the Scottish government, would be contrary to the public interest" (Section 18).
As a Scot myself, however, I'm inclined to strongly disagree with Ms Hyslop: I think the Scottish electorate have every interest in knowing whether or not an independent Scotland would have to join the EU as a new member state and potentially commit to joining the Euro. I think the Scottish electorate have every interest in seeing the facts placed on the table.
Mr Salmond, of course, maintains that he has given us the facts. According to the SNP, it is "crystal clear" that an independent Scotland would receive automatic EU membership and be able to opt out of the euro by virtue of its status as a successor state to a current member of the EU, the UK.
In a situation where there is no precedent for a devolved part of an EU member state becoming independent and having to determine its membership of the EU as a separate entity, however, the crystal clarity offered by the SNP is decidedly unconvincing, not least because it contradicts crucial legal advice already given to the UK government on the issue. Diverging from Salmond's interpretation, this advice notes that: "Scotland is only part of the EU by virtue of the UK's membership. If Scotland were to leave, it would not automatically assume membership of the EU." Rather, because the treaties do not provide for an increase in the number of member states other than by treaty amendment, EU law would require an independent Scotland to negotiate its own Treaty of Accession, which - taking anything upwards of two tears to complete - would be an "extensive and protracted negotiating process".
In short, the UK's derogation from the single currency would not automatically apply. Instead, an independent Scotland would have to negotiate its own opt-out from the euro with the EU's existing members - a process that would be by no means a straightforward one.
Instead of citing the opinions of a former director general of the European Commission and a judge on the European Court of Justice given over 20 years ago, I would like Mr Salmond and the SNP to come clean and admit whether or not they have sought the proper legal advice on an independent's Scotland's status in the EU - advice that the Scottish electorate must have in order to make an informed decision in 2014.
Mr Salmond clearly has other plans, though. Fighting a landmark ruling made by Scotland's FoI Commissioner, Rosemary Agnew, on 12 July 2012 that ordered the Scottish government to reveal within six weeks whether it had received such legal advice on the basis that "it could have a bearing on how people vote in the referendum" (a period which elapsed on 21 August without seeing the administration's compliance), ministers have lodged papers at the Court of Session to appeal the decision. Mr Salmond - a man who hails the virtues of transparency and government that reflects the interests of the Scottish electorate - has essentially responded by sticking two fingers up at that electorate while handing them the bill (which will be upwards of £100,000 based on how much it cost the taxpayer last time he went to court to prevent the publication of government advice).
'Your Scotland, Your Future', he tells us. Then come clean: have you received legal advice that undermines your understanding of an independent Scotland's status in the EU, or have you not even bothered to find out? Either way, Salmond's steadfast insistence on the need for secrecy suggests that the news is bad for his party's credibility. At best, they reveal themselves as incompetent and ill-prepared for a referendum that is fast approaching. At worst, however, they show themselves to be a party willing even to lie to their electorate in order to keep alive their bid for independence.