Devolution a warning on independence, or simply not enough?

While I'm sure she would say otherwise, Margo MacDonald's claim today that "disillusioned Scots are ready for independence" seems slightly at odds with her assertion earlier this month that the main parties' Holyrood manifestos are "stupid" and "near-fraudulent".

Of course, the manifestos and debate thereto are about the nearest thing we have to real substance in an election campaign dominated by celebrity endorsements, scorn and ridicule, and opinion polls, with a new low perhaps reached yesterday with Asdagate. Equally, Margo is perfectly correct in her assessment of the manifesto gloss and glamour, and what has been called the Hello magazine tone of the SNP's tome in particular, but if this is as good as it gets in Scottish politics then it hardly bodes well for an independent Scotland.

Thus while she's also correct in saying that Scots are disillusioned with Westminster, the corollary surely isn't necessarily support for independence, since Margo herself ably articulates the public disillusionment with politics generally, with Holyrood amounting to little more than a Westminster 'mini-me', but still in gestation and with insufficient powers to do too much damage, hence slightly less public alienation regarding devolved politics at present.

But Margo's basic thesis - and the fundamentalist argument for independence generally - seems to echo that of other compelling sceptics of the Scottish political establishment - such as Gerry Hassan and the Burd - who paradoxically seem to think that independence is the answer. However, this reminds me of the arguments from both the left and right of the political spectrum, who think that if Labour and the Conservatives were only a bit more left and right wing then the public would fall at their feet and we'd all live happily ever after. Of course, the problem there is that public opinion tends toward the centre ground and to that extent lurching to the extremes policy-wise merely alienates rather than attracts.

But while few north of the border feel compelled to say positive things about Westminster, on the other hand surely the criticisms of Holyrood politics articulated by the likes of Margo, Gerry and the Burd ring alarm bells as regards independence rather than encourage Scots to take the plunge.

Indeed, this morning's article seems designed more to exploit Margo's increasingly likely pivotal position in a hung parliament - and thus garner some self-publicity in the meantime - rather than tell us anything of great import, since the other main point she makes is that she'll only support an independence referendum if a "full public information campaign" is undertaken before one is held. Well somehow I don't quite think that if a referendum is held then no one will actually mention it beforehand.

Of course, as I babbled here the other day, whether the upper echelons of the SNP actually want a referendum will depend on whether they think it's winnable, and to that extent they may be a bit more sceptical on the issue than Margo MacDonald, as demonstrated by a floundering Alex Neil on Tuesday's Newsnicht. It's all very well posturing about a second term SNP administration having the moral authority to hold a referendum when there's no prospect of the other parties acquiescing to it, but when a plebiscite is a realistic possibility then things perhaps become a bit more awkward.

Meanwhile, the CSPP's Ross Martin brilliantly expounded the sceptical view of Holyrood politics in the Scotsman earlier this week. The first response in the comments section was woefully predictable: I N D E P E N D E N C E.

As far as I'm concerned the likes of Mr Martin's article - and devolved politics generally - provide a warning rather than a compelling rationale for independence.