How about that it was possibly illegal?
I've no idea what constitutes legality around leaks but can't see any great harm. It came out maybe 8.5 hours earlier than it probably should have done (at 10pm they were only taking about rumours on the news at 10:30 is was sounding firmer). I'm sure if RBS deliberately leaked it themselves it's against Stock Market rules but not sure whether that makes it "illegal" as such and not sure what that means if the Treasury leaked it or the Government "briefed" it. Not like anyone confirmed it until this morning so it might just be a journalistic coup. It just caught Salmond off guard and unprepared with a positive spin, hence the bitching about enquiries. Seems unlikely Salmond will get the results of an enquiry before next Thursday anyway.
How do you feel about changes in goal posts after people have already voted and in contradiction to the Edinburgh agreement of the last 28 days?
Personally, I don't think the goal posts have really changed but they might have shifted slightly. As an rUK'er I thought there had always been talk of more devolved powers to the Scottish parliament on the table, in the event of a No vote. I grant you, it's still not entirely clear what those increased powers may actually consist of but then I don't think anyone is, as yet, as they're likely to need to be agreed on.
If there has been a fundamental change, then I can only see the "Yes" side as the net winner as the "No" vote has presumably just become more attractive than it was three weeks ago (or whenever the postal vote started) to the more centrist people who may already have voted "Yes" in the absence of a devomax option. I honestly don't think it's hurt the existing Yes vote. "No" shot themselves in the foot, me thinks, with the late campaign and should have made it clear months ago.