I'm not sure that I would necessarily describe it as an ethical one. I think it's a necessary part of our job to listen to all sides of any argument and come to a view ourselves as long as we feel that our view is being honestly held and we can defend it and that we've listened to what has been told to us from lots of different sides.
We're in a different position because we serve a small country, and it's not in our interests to drive a particular -- a narrow agenda because even from a practical point of view we don't have the readership mass to be able to take a niche of our readership and say we're going to agree with this section of readership and not this one.
Obviously there are lots of people who would challenge me on that because so far the Scotsman has not been a cheerleader for independence and no doubt you could find not a small number of members of the SNP who would argue that we are taking a position. We have previously set out our stall in favour of fiscal autonomy, for instance, which is not a policy favoured by any of the parties particularly right now because the SNP's policy is for full independence.
So we will take a balanced view given what we think the majority of readers will empathise with, and we will take a view what we think is the right position to take, but not necessarily follow any particular party political line, but it's part of the warp and weft of a political newspaper operating in that sphere that there will be things that people agree with and things that people don't and we have to take cognisance of lots of different views.