WILL Mr William Waldegrave and Sir Nicholas Lyell survive the Scott report?
On the face of it, they must. The Chief Secretary and the Attorney General claim complete vindication from Sir Richard Scott's five volume epic. Having done nothing wrong, they see no reason to quit their posts. The Prime Minister agrees. It is therefore Mr John Major's authority which is on the line. And should either or both fall, the consequences for Mr Major could be catastrophic.
When he originally appointed Sir Richard, this might not have unduly worried Conservative MPs. Mr Major was already awash in a sea of domestic troubles. Backbenchers were desperate to be rid of him.
Things have changed somewhat since then. The party detects the beginnings of a recovery in its fortunes. The economic indicators are excellent. There are tax and mortgage cuts to come. And the general election draws ever closer. Any hopes they have could be blown away by an ambush over the "Arms for Iraq" affair.
Mr Ian Lang, in an exuberant and impressive Commons display, proclaimed the good news that Scott had cleared the government on the key charges. They had not armed Sad dam Hussein. They had not conspired to send innocent men to jail in the Matrix Churchill case.
And while Sir Richard believed government guidelines on arms sales had been changed behind parliament's back he acquitted Mr Waldegrave of any "duplicitous intent."
Sure, there were criticisms of the attorney general. But there is a good argument to be had about the legal precedent which he thought obliged ministers to sign Public Interest Immunity Certificates. Maybe the full extent of Mr Heseltine's reservations weren't adequately conveyed to the Matrix Churchill prosecutor. But the decision, in the end, was for the trial judge. And justice, after all, was done.
The government will be happy to get into the minutiae of legal argument. The Byzantine rules governing the conduct of ministers and ministerial accountability suggest equally rich pickings. The public will yawn as MPs endlessly discuss the delicate balance to be drawn between obligations of disclosure, and the need for confidentiality where matters of commerce and espionage are involved. Having picked out all the good bits, ministers will now seek shelter in complexity. The party whips, meanwhile, will maintain the pressure for unity come the Commons debate on Monday week.
However, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have plenty of time to cut through the fog. And there are signs already that greater clarity is causing restlessness on the government benches.
Mr Richard Shepherd was first to break ranks identifying in the charge of "sophistry" against Mr Waldegrave something going right to the heart of the democratic system. And yesterday, Mr Rupert Allason cast doubt on Sir Nicholas's survival.
Sir Richard held the attorney personally at fault for failing to properly advise about Mr Michael Heseltine's misgivings over the use of PII's. The preparation of the certificates which would have prevented release of documents crucial to the defence in Matrix Churchill contained a number of "defects." And, according to the Scott report, the practice of using PII's as they were in Matrix Churchill "had been prescribed in civil cases and had no authoritative precedent in a criminal trial."
In crude terms, the charge against Sir Nicholas translates into one of incompetence. Mr Robert McCartney made the point on Thursday "If ministers are to be lauded for their honesty and good faith, should they not be punished for their incompetence and negligence?"
And while Mr Waldegrave believes Sir Richard established his good faith, many others are having difficulty accepting it.
In a classic establishment fudge, the report concluded that ministers "designedly" and "deliberately" misled MPs about the change in the arms sales guidelines effected in 1988 while remaining sincere in their belief that the policy had not actually been changed.
Mr Waldegrave maintains this is a matter for honest disagreement between himself and Sir Richard.
But Sir Richard is clear that ministers changed the guidelines in a policy "tilt" towards Iraq, and deliberately withheld that information from MPs for fear of the public reaction. Their decision prevented informed debate on an important policy issue. Of the endless letters sent to MPs and members of the public by Mr Waldegrave, then at the Foreign Office, the report says "Mr Waldegrave knew, first hand, the facts that in my opinion rendered the no change in policy statement untrue.
Mr Major yesterday ordered an extensive shake up of rules governing arms exports and an investigation of ministerial practice to meet key criticisms in the report. But he said Sir Richard had "comprehensively dismissed" damaging allegations against senior ministers.
Labour's Mr Robin Cook took a contrary view. "Mr Waldegrave did not just mislead MPs, he did it 30 or 40 times. If he does not resign from this government, no minister from the government will ever be believed again."
The Conservative answer, thus far, has been to suggest that Mr Cook should resign for leading a campaign of "smear" and innuendo.
They should wish. After just three hours' study of the report, Mr Cook delivered a bravura performance in the Commons on Thursdays. He will be at his best come the big debate, after 10 days in which to hone his fine forensic skills. It is a prospect no thinking Tory should relish.