It rang a bell - but I had to look up the details. On the web, of course.
There, I was reminded that "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer" is a 1970 film starring Peter Cook as a manipulative schemer among malleable politicians.
So why, I hear you ask, am I blethering about an unjustly neglected movie? Because a senior Labour figure invited me to compare the cinematic Rimmer with the decidedly real and present Alex Salmond.
Rimmer thrives for two reasons - he is plausible; and politicians, of various parties, fail to spot his emperor-style absence of outer clothing.
From neglect or laziness, they fail to see through him to the (lack of) substance.
Our contemporary, real-life politicians, I was told, aren't so daft.
They hear Mr Salmond say that his "national conversation" on Scotland's future contains a wide range of options. But they know, I was assured, that the First Minister is only truly interested in one option - independence.
There's a dose of truth there. Yes, the First Minister wants to tempt rival politicians into a debate in order, partly, to legitimise his favoured option of independence. He is luring them, he is gulling them.
Ultimately, though, independence wouldn't happen by stealth or guile. It would only happen if and when the Scottish people vote for it, openly, both in a Parliamentary election and in a subsequent referendum. Not really Rimmer's style.
So, will the Opposition parties take part in the "national conversation"? Mostly, no. I believe they could no more take part in this, predicated upon independence as the ultimate goal of the originators, than the SNP and the Tories found themselves able to participate in the Constitutional Convention set up by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and others.
It appears, however, that there will be a wider conversation. For one thing, I feel certain that the good and sensible people of Scotland, England and elsewhere will pitch in online and at the various public meetings planned by the Executive.
For another, the three Opposition parties at Holyrood are now committed to having a shufti again at the devolution settlement.
That means various things to the Big(gish) Three. For the Liberal Democrats, it means control of taxation and other new powers. For the Tories, it means strengthen the Union by strengthening devolution.
For Labour, it means…….well, what exactly? The opposition statement was deliberately imprecise - although it's hard to imagine that any review would culminate in lessening the powers of Holyrood. For now, it means that Labour would rather we listened to them rather than A. Salmond. Any detail will have to await the election of a new Scottish Labour leader.
Today's document, though, is substantive. It is plainly a government publication, not party.
It sets out in considerable detail the options for further enhancing Holyrood's powers and specifies with great care the precise routes to be followed, should the popular mandate ensue.
The civil service has worked hard - and thoroughly - for their new political masters.
Whither Scotland? Despite all the words, despite all the arguments, it's really simple. Whither Scotland? You, the voters, will decide.
If you would like to join the executive debate go to http://www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/a-national-conversation
PS: Any chance of another Executive review - into the scandalous state of Scottish football refereeing? That red card for Kalvenes at Rugby Park last night was a disgrace!
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~39~RS~)