Appointing David Frost as the National Security Advisor throws up a lot of questions. (Thread), 1.

The NSA is supposed to line manage the intel and security agencies, setting their tasks and holding them to account. Can a political appointee do that? If not, who will? Will he be overseeing the Single Intel Account (i.e. the budget), that's usually a civil service role. 2.

Why is this being double-hatted again? The NSA is a full time job. Frost is doing a good job managing his Brexit negotiating brief, this risks diluting both. 3.

Can the NSA give independent advice if they're a political appointee? The NSA is supposed to provide impartial advice on security risks. If policy decisions threaten national security, would Frost be willing to relate that to the PM? 4.

How will Frost get up to speed on the NSA brief given his lack of security experience and time constraints? In the absence of the Intelligence and Security Committee, there is a risk of accountability gaps. 5.

How will Frost be held accountable? Would he be covered by the Ministerial code? Having a political appointee in this position, as it stands, is a major challenge to normal lines of reporting and accountability. 6.

What about the Integrated Review? Having an outsider managing the process has its advantages. They might question things from first principles, challenging ingrained ways of thinking. But would they grasp nuances of procurement, force postures etc? 7.

How does Gove and Cummings' call for deep knowledge and critical thinking square with their ousting of McDonald and Sedwill, two of the most experienced and knowledgeable individuals in Whitehall? Strong leaders welcome debate and pushback. Current signalling discourages that.Fin