More on the SNP's independence poisoned chalice/paradox, er, thingy

Professor Chris Harvie has countered yesterday's Scotsman news article on his criticisms of the SNP's direction of travel with a fairly flaccid letter in this morning's edition. In it he largely ignores the substance of yesterday's piece and instead employs a classic diversionary tactic by extolling Alex Salmond's virtues and saying in effect that he supports the election of an SNP Government.

No attempt to address the issues there then (but presumably the content of the forthcoming book chapter wasn't supposed to appear quite yet), one of which was of course the good old gradualist/fundamentalist dichotomy within the Nationalist movement on the best path to independence, and a letter accompanying the professor's missive - from maverick Jim Fairlie - addresses some of the same issues, and of course recent contributions from both Mr and Mrs Sillars also come from a fundamentalist stance.

Of course, these latter people are no longer SNP members and thus are unrepresentative of mainstream Nationalist thinking. But as with new Labour in its earlier years, Alex Salmond's party has been remarkably good at presenting a largely united front on the independence issue, with the historic first SNP Government at Holyrood being sufficient to proffer the hope that the Nationalist raison d'être is within reach, and to that extent quell dissent on the precise path to the big 'I'.

Thus both the gradualists and fundamentalists were to an extent at one, but perhaps Professor Harvie's criticisms illustrate that this can't last forever, except in the unlikely event that independence is just around the corner.

Which brings us back to the question of what will happen as regards an independence referendum on the assumption that the SNP forms the next Holyrood administration.

Of course, the lack of a majority last time round was enough to placate the fundamentalists on the issue insofar as a referendum wouldn't have gotten through parliament, but it seems unlikely that this rapprochement will last forever, whether or not the next Scottish Parliament consists of a pro-referendum majority of MSPs.

Also, there are those who question the commitment of Alex Salmond and the upper echelons of the SNP to the goal of independence, and this is particularly so in an era of supra-national organisations like the European Union and the European Central Bank, the increasing globalisation of the world economy and, perhaps more symbolically this weekend, the SNP leader's apparent commitment to retaining Queen Elizabeth (and her successors?) as monarch.

But disregarding these nuances on what precisely constitutes independence and the related question of sovereignty (as addressed in Mr Fairlie's letter), there seems little doubt about the commitment of Mr Salmond et al to an independent Scotland. The Nationalist faultline is more about the means to the end, rather than the minutiae of what the end itself will look like, which again reverts us back to the gradualist/fundamentalist divide.

Thus Mr Salmond would no doubt like to pass legislation enabling an independence referendum, but only on the basis that it's winnable, and to that extent he was probably secretly relieved that during the past four years he's been able to posture to the fundamentalists about independence while relying on the fact that the referendum Bill wouldn't pass muster in Parliament.

And no doubt at the outset of his term of office he held out the hope that a Nationalist administration would swing public opinion in favour of independence - which after all seems to be the rationale behind gradualism - but when events such as the 'arc of insolvency' intervened it was then clear that a referendum couldn't be won, and thus it was a blessing that there was no majority for the necessary legislation, hence the various delays and eventual abandonment of the Bill.

Which brings us nicely to the possibility of a pro-referendum majority come next month, and thus a possible poisoned chalice for Alex Salmond, who will presumably be realistic enough to know if a referendum could be won, and therefore whether it's in his and the Nationalist movement's interests to lose one at this stage.

Thus in the unlikely event that a decisive Nationalist victory next month proves to equate to a significant rise in support for independence, this could spell trouble for Mr Salmond and his key lieutenants as fundamentalist impatience rises to the surface, particularly if there's a pro-independence majority in Parliament. Would Mr Salmond want a referendum even if he could have one, knowing it would be lost? What excuse could he find not to have one?

Of course, in a couple of years' time the memory of RBS/HBOS will have faded and an unpopular Westminster Government could bolster public support for independence, which would nicely fit the gradualist narrative, hence a referendum would seem a more plausible proposition: even if lost, a narrow defeat wouldn't derail the independence cause in the way that a decisive one would.

Thus paradoxically an overwhelming victory for Mr Salmond next week could spell more trouble for him and his party than another minority administration. Either way, the next four years seem unlikely to be as plain sailing for the SNP as their first term of office, even disregarding the likely myriad problems of government certain to arise in the forthcoming 'age of austerity'.

It's often claimed that government generally will be something of a poisoned chalice in the next few years both in the UK and Scottish contexts; in some ways losing an election at this time might be a good thing. By the same token, a majority might be considered a particularly bad thing because it's more difficult to blame others for the inability to implement important measures and other problems arising.

For example, the lack of a Conservative majority at Westminster has enabled the Tories to avoid the worst of public opprobrium for unpopular decisions, with the Lib Dems apparently shouldering the lion's share of the blame.

But a majority for Mr Salmond next week could expose his administration, unable to hide behind the excuse of a minority in Parliament. As regards the independence question in particular this could open up old wounds within his party, as per new Labour when the ideal of grabbing power after years of Conservative rule turned out to be slightly less attractive a proposition than had been hoped for.

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.

Roll on the (independence) referendum!

Well that wasn't as drawn out as we all thought it would be. Once the Easter holiday weekend is over there's just the Royal wedding to ignore and then it's straight on to Alex's coronation. Of course, there's the small matter of a couple of TV debates, when the nation gets yet another chance to ignore Tavish, have a wee laugh with Annabel, have a big laugh at Iain Gray and look for a chink or two in Alex's armour, but other than that it's all over bar the declarations.

Thus the big issues of the campaign seem to have been the celebrity endorsements, which parties the newspapers - the Sun in particular - are supporting and Iain Gray's handling of a protester who seemed a couple of sandwiches short of a branch of Subway. Oh aye, there was a frisson of excitement every now and again about the opinion poll figures. And now the blogs and papers are full of analysis about the size of the SNP's majority, the magnitude of Labour's wipeout and the various coalition permutations.

Of course, there was a wee bit of policy along the way, with Labour stealing the SNP's clothes, the SNP merely upping the ante a bit to take them back and, voilà, it's a second term for the Nationalists.

Indeed, there has been a wee bit of substantive critique along the way as well - in particular regarding the crudity of Labour's knife crime policy - but what about the anointed one and his party? What about the affordability and deliverability of the five-year council tax freeze, the reality of the student funding situation and the fact that climate change targets belong on planet earth rather than planet soundbite. Something will have to give with that lot, surely, but of course it'll be a few years down the line, whereas all that matters now is short-term electoral advantage.

And what about the SNP's record in office such as the Scottish Futures Trust failure, the kicking of local income tax into the long grass and the party's addiction to spending while heaping all the blame onto Westminster when the bills have to be paid?

Naturally there has been some debate regarding these meatier issues, but otherwise it's all been lost in a miasma of celebrities, ridicule, opinion polls and manifesto gloss, with that clearly being sufficient to move electoral mountains in a couple of weeks and render the contest cut and dried with the best part of a fortnight until the vote itself.

Thus roll on the independence referendum - assuming Alex doesn't bottle it again - which might actually engender some substantive debate.

A pro-independence majority Salmond's poisoned chalice?

With that latest opinion poll hinting at the possibility of an SNP majority - or at least a pro-independence majority with the Greens - Alan Cochrane is raising the spectre of an independence referendum and thus the break up of the Union.

This seems an unlikely prospect, since Cochers himself posits that the reason for the SNP's stratospheric poll ratings is that voters are being offered an "Eck lite" shorn of his "separatist tendencies", which of course is why he's being afforded the (qualified) support of prominent unionists like David Murray and the Sun newspaper.

To that extent any attempt to introduce a referendum Bill would be met with some hostility from voters and these "political ingénues", particularly given that this would be happening slap bang in the middle of the age of austerity - which will in itself be difficult enough for the next Scottish Government - and with the public presumably thinking other matters should be prioritised. Indeed, it should be recalled that in a recent BBC poll an independence referendum was well down the list of issues that voters considered important, not to mention the historic lack of support for independence per se.

Thus the probability is that Alex Salmond would lose any such referendum. Equally, he would be well aware of this and would thus in all probability once again bottle the issue, since a lost referendum - and hence the independence question put to bed for a generation - would not exactly be the kind of legacy sought by Mr Salmond. Therefore perhaps his biggest problem would be how to explain to the independence fundamentalists why attempting to push a Bill through parliament would be a bad idea.

Of course, a lot could happen between now and then, and the cuts agenda and the state of the economy generally both here and elsewhere could be fundamental to future support for or against an independent Scotland. After all, who could have objectively forecast the opinion poll swing to the SNP over little more than a handful of weeks?

Equally, the likelihood is that the final vote will be a lot closer than the latest poll suggests. During the latter part of the Thatcher era polls tended to underestimate her support because people were reluctant to admit to voting Conservative. Perhaps some of the apparent Lib Dem support hemorrhaging to the SNP stems from a reluctance to admit to supporting Nick Clegg's party, and their vote will hold up better on the day than the polls suggest. Likewise, the ridiculing of Iain Gray could mean that Labour support is understated, because no one likes to be seen standing up to the playground bullies. Of course, as per usual the poll could merely reflect short-term campaign factors such as Iain Gray's Subway moment and the SNP's late manifesto launch, thereby flattering the Nationalists, but there's no doubt that the momentum is theirs to either consolidate or lose.

Or maybe voters really do love Alex Salmond and think Clegg's party and Iain Gray's Scottish Labour are pants. And if that poll is anything like correct then it would certainly make for an exciting five year parliament insofar as the SNP would be in a better position to enact major legislation like that enabling an independence referendum.

But perhaps a pro-independence parliament could represent something of a poisoned chalice for Alex Salmond as regards a referendum Bill. But bring it on, I say!

Heralding the Sun's U-turn

Today's anti-Iain Gray story in the Scottish Sun is titled 'It's all a matter of mistrust' and opens "Labour leader Iain Gray can't be trusted to be First Minister - because of a series of extraordinary U-turns..." The next paragraph starts with the words "Flip-flopping Mr Gray".

Well it's nice to know that U-turners and flip-floppers can't be trusted.

Ironically this morning the Herald uses the headline "Tabloid in Holyrood U-turn as The Sun comes out for Salmond".

Talking of headlines on the Herald's website, since they presumably use the same people as Scottish Labour uses for its election literature - and that's not to make a political point! - it's always interesting to read some of the headlines and other, um, inconsistencies on the site, but a particularly good one appeared this morning. It actually does make a bit of sense if you read the article!:

Hope triumphs over fear, or fear Labour's only hope?

At the weekend Scotland on Sunday's Kenny Farquharson claimed "the political orthodoxy today is that you win elections by being more optimistic than your opponent" and "this Holyrood campaign is shaping up into a classic contest between optimism and pessimism, between hope and fear".

To that extent, he says, the SNP's campaign has propelled them to pole position in the opinion polls.

But this approach clearly hasn't cut much ice with Brian Monteith, who in yesterday's Scotsman suggested that Labour should target the SNP's renewable energy targets thus: "More windmills mean more subsidies and higher bills - causing greater fuel poverty that will leave old people dying."

Hence the apparent triumph of hope over fear is perhaps replaced by an approach implying that fear is Labour's only hope. Indeed, surely battle-weary voters are not taken in by the hope factor alone - in extremis perhaps neatly encapsulated in the term 'vision' - but instead regards the likes of the SNP's manifesto launch as being another triumph, this time of gloss and glamour over substance.

For the crude opportunism of the SNP's surprise extension of the council tax freeze and its ludicrously optimistic renewables targets have been widely pilloried. Likewise Labour's magpie-like approach to policy formulation and the crudity of things like its knife crime policy.

Indeed, although the Tory/Thatcher factor highlighted by Labour is regarded as being over-negative during this campaign, in last year's Westminster poll this seemed to win the day for the party in Scotland.

And while this morning's Scottish Sun has declared early in favour of "Play it again, Salm", in characteristic style its campaign coverage so far has arguably been dominated by negativity towards Labour in general and the lampooning of Iain Gray in particular.

Of course, Brian Monteith's suggestion could turn out to be an unmitigated disaster for Labour if attempted, and perhaps the likes of the Sun's attempt at character assassination could backfire.

And no doubt everyone is swayed by both negative and positive factors, with perhaps the average voter placing more emphasis on the latter. Indeed, while this blogger is of the disposition which says that the more optimistic the scenario depicted by a politician the further from reality it's likely to be, perhaps the average member of the public isn't quite so cynical.

But the if the accepted wisdom is that political optimism will trump pessimism then there's clearly a paradox between this and the perception of public distrust regarding politicians.

Perhaps the key to squaring the circle is to recall that the Holyrood victors only require the endorsement of around 20% of the electorate. Most of these votes they would probably garner anyway. Thus the proportion of voters who have to be enthused by the 'vision thing' is small, and certainly not representative of public opinion generally.

And anyway who precisely is aware of the likes of the "socially-networked manifesto...full of images of iPads and renewable energy, of technological miracles that will transform the country" - the evidence suggested by Kenny Farquharson as symptomatic of the SNP's "slick, upbeat and positive" campaign?

This of course is only one facet of an extremely complex dynamic, but what are essentially little more than brand image and marketing gimmicks shouldn't be allowed to obscure the substantive merits of the product itself, which unfortunately is very often best characterised as shoddy goods.

Labour floored by another 'bigot'?

Gordon Brown's description of Gillian Duffy as a "bigoted woman" regarding her concerns on immigration policy was seen as a personal disaster for the former prime minister during last year's Westminster election campaign. Iain Gray's recent encounter with another hostile member of the public - who Gordon Brown might well have described as a bigot due to his anti-immigration stance - has similarly attracted a significant amount of adverse publicity and comment for the Scottish Labour leader.

Of course, the episode was a gift for his Nationalist opponents, and although many have made a bit of a meal of the sandwich jokes and suchlike, this is surely an incident that has been afforded by some a notoriety way out of proportion to its importance, and which should have been dead and buried days ago.

While there's no doubt that Iain Gray could have handled things better, his reaction to a boorish and juvenile group of protesters hardly merited the subsequent response. SNP list candidate and Sun journalist Joan McAlpine suggests that the episode may have cost Labour the election. If so then it says little for our political process if this kind of non-event decides votes and governments and thus the future direction of the country.

And to contrast it all with Alex Salmond's decision to meet the protesters face-to-face a few days later is equally pointless. What would anyone expect him to do in view of what happened with Iain Gray? Run away from them into a nearby curry house and later claim that he wasn't at all fazed because he's had to face Iain Gray at FMQs?

But at least we now know that all we have to do is to seek an audience with Alex and it will be granted, particularly if we try to disrupt one of his walkabouts or photo opportunities.

Of course, the fact is that politicians are selective about who and which issues they engage with, and Iain Gray's problem was that he didn't have the guile to turn his very public encounter to his advantage - or at least better limit the damage - leaving an open goal for his opponents, with Alex Salmond afforded ample opportunity to kick the ball home when the former SNP candidate Sean Clerkin U-turned on his promise of "hit squads" to disrupt speeches and photocalls during the campaign.

The SNP deserve their lead in the opinion poll reported by Scotland on Sunday this morning, but let's hope it's down to factors other than the latter day Battle of Sandwich.

Dishonesty or delusion?

It's fortunate that the election campaign is only six weeks or so in length, and that the parties only have one crack at publishing their manifestos, because otherwise my recent caricature of the campaign promises - for example, council tax frozen until 2112 - wouldn't have been too far from reality as the politicians crudely tried to outbid each other.

But such cynicism was neatly displayed yesterday on the occasion of the SNP's manifesto launch. Having had its two-year council tax freeze emulated by the other parties, Alex Salmond exploited 'last mover advantage' to trump the others with a five-year freeze.

Question marks over the affordability of this, and the fact that it's ultimately local authorities that decide council tax levels* are, of course, irrelevant, because all that really matters at the moment is electoral advantage, although whether the likes of this could break the back of voter tolerance of such opportunism is a moot point.

But opportunist it is, because there's no compelling rationale for extending the freeze to the whole of the next parliamentary term from the "clear and firm" pledge offered last October. Clear and firm, of course, until crude electoral politics dictate otherwise.

But this lack of realism and affordability is a corollary of upping the electoral ante, and this was also neatly demonstrated by the SNP's latest promise regarding renewable energy sources, another corollary being widespread incredulity from many of the experts on these matters, except, predictably, the renewables industry itself.

But the kicking into the long grass of the party's 2007 promise to replace the council tax with a local income tax represents one example of an ill-thought out policy which merely underlines that the characteristic Salmond confidence is perhaps more credibly viewed as chutzpah.

And to blame the LIT shambles on factors like the state of the economy and the Scotland Bill represents the usual crude blame-shifting: history demonstrates that the latter is merely a convenient excuse, and if LIT can't withstand an economic downturn then what's the point of introducing it?

Thus while the SNP's manifesto and 'launch party' may have topped the polls in relation to gloss, glamour and glitz, as regards the substantive commitments it's simply the usual question of deciding the extent to which they're based on dishonesty or delusion, or a bit of both.

*Therefore fiscal autonomy is clearly OK when it suits, but the SNP's inconsistency on this was neatly exposed by Gordon Brewer on Newsnicht last night when Nicola Sturgeon seemed quite happy with the idea of controlling local government funding and certain policies, while leaving awkward questions of possible job losses to local authorities.

I'm a celebrity...get me out of Scotland!

By definition a celebrity won't have much of an idea about life in the real world, thus the celebrity endorsement of political parties tends to make me simmer ever so slightly, but presumably the politicians must think that it impresses the average member of the public, since otherwise they wouldn't be so keen to associate themselves with such people.

This time round the celebs seem to be queuing up to lend support to the SNP, with Mark Millar - yes, him! - being the latest in a long line to join the Nationalist-supporting bandwagon, along with such luminaries as Michelin chef Andrew Fairlie and award-winning cook and food writer Lady Claire MacDonald, which will of course encourage me to think about the independence cause when next tucking into my venison, beans and chips.

But at least these people actually live here, whereas a fair proportion of the others don't, and the irony is that these others tend to support the Nationalists.

And the Scottish Sun predictably wheeled out the daddy of them all this week in the shape of tax exile and knight bachelor Sir Sean Connery.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with moving abroad to work or study, or whatever - in an earlier life I lived in a foreign country called England for over six years - and indeed still having an opinion on how Scotland should be run, but depending on the circumstances there must come a time when the ex-pat's opinion becomes of less relevance, and at some point becomes an irritant to some of us actually still living here.

Sir Seanny has lived far away for quite some time now, with no obvious intention of ever returning*. But there's no obvious professional reason why he shouldn't return here now, and with his wealth he could of course live a very comfortable life in Scotland as compared to current residents forced to live on a run-down housing scheme, say.

So all that pash about him "sharing a dream" with Alex Salmond and his "Scotland forever" tattoo just feels like another kick in the teeth from someone who basically doesn't have a clue and should keep his opinions on Scotland to himself. End of.

*Of course, Sir Seanny claims he'll return to Scotland following independence, thus a good reason not to vote SNP next month.

(An interesting byline for the Sun's Sir Sean piece - Joan McAlpine. Not Joan McAlpine, journalist and SNP Holyrood candidate, surely? Talk about a newspaper nailing its colours to the mast!)

An intoxicating debate

Tavish Scott got a bit of a roasting from Newsnicht's Gordon Brewer yesterday on Lib Dem flip-flopping at both Westminster and Holyrood, but at least the party's Scottish leader demonstrated a bit of backbone during Sunday's stairheid rammy, aka the BBC's Politics Show (Scottish bittie).

On the issue of alcohol Mr Scott pointed out the almost universal lack of enforcement of the prohibition against liquor licensees selling booze to the already intoxicated, while the other party leaders concentrated on distractions like minimum pricing, which of course has the modest aim of reducing an alcoholic's or binge drinker's consumption by something like a nip and a half pint a week.

By coincidence a Herald 'news' article the next day highlighted the widespread abuse of the prohibition during recent Old Firm matches, with no prosecutions arising at all. Naturally Strathclyde Police refused to comment, as of course do the politicians normally, perhaps because highlighting the issue would in turn underline decades of creeping neglect from police and licensing councillors.

And the word 'news' above in relation to the Herald article is in inverted commas because this should hardly be news to anyone, although of course the newspaper should be commended for actually highlighting the issue.

A related issue is police accountability, or at least the almost complete lack thereof in relation to scrutiny from councillors on local police boards. Which is slightly ironic, because the Lib Dems are making a big play about the issue of accountability in their opposition to the proposals to centralise police forces in Scotland, which is indeed doubly ironic because of Tavish Scott's supine parroting of the chief constables' claim that the plan would cost 3,000 front line officers, by which they probably mean a few dozen desk bound senior officers would lose their jobs.

And here's a good recent example of what probably passes for accountability on Planet Lib Dem Councillor, this on community policing from one of Mr Scott's north east Fife colleagues: "I wanted to give a balanced view of community policing, but I couldn’t think of anything negative to say, which is wonderful."

Well perhaps it is all wonderful, but why do I get the impression that if Fife Constabulary said they couldn't care less about community policing and that the whole thing was little better than a PR exercise then the good councillor would be waxing lyrical about how realistic, frank and honest these amazingly, wondrously stupendous police officers are, what with their incredibly shiny buttons, huge big batons and all their other magnificence.

Indeed it was the good councillor's neck of the woods where I was blanked by a couple of these remarkable and awesome officers recently when complaining to them about someone's abusive and threatening behaviour, as mentioned almost ad nauseum on here before. ('Engaging with the community is police priority' my backside!)

And indeed the authorities in that part of Fife are equally indifferent to the widespread abuse of the liquor licensing provisions mentioned at the outset, even pandering to some of the worst offenders by providing them with a monopoly on extended drinking hours (although in the Lib Dems' defence I think these matters are now controlled from Glenrothes rather than by the party's stronghold of the old area licensing board in Cupar, thus it would perhaps be more appropriate to blame the SNP).

And the other elephant in the room as regards the alcohol problem is the hands off approach of police to drunk and disorderly behaviour, again by coincidence highlighted by the Sun in an article published on the same day as the Herald's piece mentioned at the outset.

And although the Sun's article relates to south of the border, there's nothing to suggest any fundamental difference in approach up here, with no doubt the main difference in the last few years being 1,000 extra pairs of blind eyes being turned.

Abnormal politicians insulting voters

I know the Scotsman's Bill Jamieson recently suggested that the Herald and his own newspaper group could share the likes of horoscopes and cookery columns to secure the future of the two titles, but presumably he didn't have in mind a slightly bizarre convergence seen at the weekend in the respective groups' Sunday editions.

Regarding the Holyrood election campaign thus far, a Scotland on Sunday leader column on Labour's displacement of Alex Salmond with Margaret Thatcher was titled 'An insult to voters', while the Sunday Herald harumphed that the 'Party manifestos are insult to voters'.

To underline this the latter cites a news article in the same edition which quotes the Scottish Government's recently retired permanent secretary Sir John Elvidge as saying that the increasingly unrepresentative nature of politicians meant they were "not normal", were increasingly "disconnected" from voters and that Scottish devolution was still "in nappies".

So nothing new there then, but as Scotland's former most senior civil servant what's perhaps slightly more interesting is his view regarding the increasing reluctance of mandarins to challenge their political masters: "The degree of risk that individuals in the public service take with their own careers, if they seek to follow a traditional approach to full exposure of their analysis and consequent advice, has grown considerably.”

Which seems to represent a change in direction, because I thought the conventional wisdom previously was that politicians wishing to initiate change were often thwarted by obstructive civil servants.

Of course, the perspective adopted on this presumably depends on what side of the fence you are on, but it's certainly of little comfort either way to the public to know that civil servants are effectively ruling the roost, or that their voice of experience is not being listened to by increasingly aloof and arrogant politicians.

But which all helps explain last week's fantastical manifestos, in turn increasing public cynicism and the disconnect between the political/bureaucratic class and voters.

Which again tells us little of value other than to reiterate the downward spiral of cynical politicians begetting public cynicism.

Of more value, of course, is to ask how we get out of this, since clearly the politicians show little interest or inclination to start afresh. And to an extent they're trapped in the self-serving circle, thus it's difficult for individuals or parties to take a stand, and the visceral hatred between the parties means a joint approach is unlikely.

No easy answers, obviously, but what's equally self-evident is that by next month the only victors will belong to the political class, with both the Holyrood and AV votes likely to alienate rather than inspire those that the politicians are supposed to serve.

Why the DamaSun conversion?

While this blogger doesn't normally pay much attention to the political allegiances of the newspapers, of particular interest recently has been the Scottish Sun's apparent Damascene conversion to the SNP cause.

While I don't habitually read the newspaper, and it doesn't actually seemed to have formally declared its support just yet, the accepted wisdom seems to be that its coverage has been supportive of Alex Salmond and his party, while as an obvious corollary it has put the boot into Iain Gray and Labour in a manner that only the Sun can manage.

Of course, this is particularly noteworthy in view of the paper's notorious 'Vote SNP and put Scotland's head in the noose' front page in 2007, which was itself reminiscent of its UK-wide anti-Labour/Neil Kinnock splash on the eve of the UK general election almost two decades ago.

So why? Well to a large extent the SNP's first term has been eminently predictable; Scotland hasn't fallen into the sea, but the heather hasn't been set alight either. Hence this surely can't explain the change. Or is it perhaps the Labour/Iain Gray factor? Well this is perhaps a more plausible explanation than a more positive one, but is the party and its leader really that much worse than Jack McConnell and his team in 2007?

Well perhaps the Sun will eventually provide a rationale for its stance. And no doubt others more knowledgeable than myself could provide a plethora of facts and theories, however compelling or contrived.

However, what's of particular interest in this regard is the explanation provided by the Sun's bitter rival the Daily Record, which of course is the Scottish Labour equivalent of the Torygraph as regards the perception of being associated with a particular party. The Record's rationale goes something like this: Ed Milliband wants a Labour Holyrood victory as a stepping stone to control of Westminster. Thus David Cameron wants to give Milliband a bloody nose. Cameron can tell the Sun what to do. So the Sun is told to get behind the SNP. Alex Salmond is thus pulling his punches regarding the Westminster coalition, and that's also why he and Annabel Goldie appear to be having an extra-marital affair (as a political metaphor, of course!).

Oh aye?!? And this isn't some swivel-eyed anonymous Labourite blogger, this is from a Daily Record leader column and its political editor Magnus Gardham. As conspiracy theories go it's a cracker, but of course the truth is often stranger than conspiracy theories.

But whatever the truth, News International and the SNP as bedfellows certainly makes for an interesting spectacle. However, as the Brian Souter factor demonstrates, Salmond & Co certainly don't seem fussy about whose shilling they take or who they cosy up to if it equates to success at the ballot box. But perhaps the great unanswered question is this: will Iain Gray get the Kinnock treatment?

Answers by voicemail to Rupert Murdoch, please.

Dishonesty is the only real policy

It was a classic Newsnicht line-up last night, what with anchorman Gordon Brewer and the stellar cast of the Scotsman's Bill Jamieson, the Herald's Alf Young and Gerry Hassan - always inexplicably described on the programme these days as a mere 'blogger' - with the irony of the latter's critical point about the "small world" of Scottish politics perhaps slightly lost on them.

But the discussion was about the otherworldliness of the 'commitments' being made by the parties in the current election campaign, with the consensus of opinion seemingly regarding the manifestos and promises largely as unaffordable, unrealistic and ultimately undeliverable 'wishlists'. Clearly nothing gets past these erudite fellows.

Of course, the likes of these chaps and journalism more generally does us amateur commentators a great service in that they do actually pay a bit of attention to the minutiae of what the politicians are saying and, shock horror, may even go to the trouble of reading the manifestos and press releases that the parties churn out.

Which means that sceptical members of the public like myself don't actually have to endure the purgatory of reading the damn things (I wonder how many do, apart from people with some sort of professional interest - in other words, they're paid to read them) to gain a reasonable impression of what's on offer.

Thus with the two main protagonists allegedly stealing each other's ideas and in general terms something of a policy convergence becoming evident as they promote their wares and compete for the affections of 'middle Scotland' (which of course is more progressive and public sector-oriented than 'middle England'), it looks like we're being offered something along the lines of:

A guaranteed apprenticeship or free education until the age of 70. Or if you're lucky and manage to wangle a job in the public sector then there's a 'living wage', no compulsory redundancies and a public holiday on Dennis Canavan's birthday. And oodles of jobs will be created in the private sector, but we don't really know how, because it's the private sector, see? And if you're over 70 then, er, everything is free.

Then there's the free bus travel to anywhere in Europe for the over-12s, all of course in a shiny new fleet of low-emissions, ultra-sustainable buses. And the kids go free.

Oh aye, there's also 1,000 new community police officers on every street corner and an A&E department nearby which will never be closed, even if everyone's dead. Which, of course just won't happen, because prescriptions are free and you'll be able to see a cancer specialist within five minutes, who will dutifully arrange a home visit if required.

Of course, this will all come from efficiency savings, 'cos council tax will be frozen until 2112*, while if Scotland ever gains a bit more fiscal autonomy corporation tax will be set at zero to attract all those private sector jobs. And fuel duty could sustainably be abolished completely.

And please don't mention the cuts in the meantime.

As regards the competence and leadership required to deliver all this, the SNP are more than content to fight the election along the lines of 'Alex Salmond for President', while for obvious reasons Labour are equally content to ignore this and to portray the contest as one of Iain Gray v Margaret Thatcher.

Thus rather than honesty being the best policy, dishonesty is perhaps the only real policy on offer, but as usual it's maybe better to be charitable and put it all down to the other d-word - delusion.

On the other hand, the Tories are perhaps being a bit more candid and realistic about their promises - despite Annabel Goldie's exaggerated attempts to take the credit for the SNP's 'middle Scotland' successes - while the Greens are arguably being similarly frank.

Of course, these more open approaches are coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum - the former attempting to rein in spending, with the latter promising to raise taxes to maintain it - but the common thread is electability, or lack thereof. Neither the Greens nor the Tories will be forming the next Holyrood administration, thus they can afford to be frank and distinctive, presumably in the hope that they can maximise the appeal to their own limited pool of potential voters.

Meanwhile, the big beasts in the centre ground conform to the usual smoke and mirrors/snake oil salesmen clichés in their attempts to appeal to floating voters and those waverers amenable to change.

Thus all ultimately helping perpetuate public disillusionment with politics, in particular as regards another two well worn clichés: 'politicians, they're all the same, and you just can't trust them'.

*We've taken care of everything
The words you hear the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes.

It's one for all and all for one
We work together common sons
Never need to wonder how or why.

Labour snare celebrity backer

(Apologies in advance for the self-indulgent frivolity of this ridiculous post, but I'm not in the mood for anything too serious!)

Following a string of celebrity endorsements for the SNP and Alex Salmond - including one from a politically schizophrenic former MSP - Scottish Labour have been buoyed by support from Queen guitarist and rock legend Brian May, who is backing the party's pledge to ban the use of snares to trap animals.

In response Labour leader Iain Gray expressed his gratitude for Mr May's endorsement, clearly relieved that someone more high-profile than a Glasgow councillor had backed his party. In a highly personal statement, Mr Gray said:

"There's no denying that I've been 'Under Pressure' in recent weeks. I've never wanted to be 'Flash' [Gordon], but to be called 'The Invisible Man' is hurtful, as is the view of the numerous commentators who claim that 'Another One Bites The Dust'. Some critics refuse to 'Play The Game', while the 'Innuendo' is plain cruel.

"As a consequence I've often thought that 'I Want To Break Free', that perhaps 'I'm Going Slightly Mad', and in darker moments I've even asked, 'Who Wants To Live Forever?' "But 'It's A Hard Life', and 'Now I'm Here' it simply has to be said that 'The Show Must Go On'.

"In Brian I've found 'Somebody to Love', and I can only say to him that 'You're My Best Friend'. (Although 'Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy' and 'Crazy Little Thing Called Love' would be taking things too far; let's just say that 'Friends Will Be Friends')

"And while it's too early to say that 'We Are The Champions', Brian's endorsement represents a definite 'Breakthru'. I can only say 'Don't Stop Me Now', and to underline that our manifesto will be 'A Kind Of Magic'.

"However, don't expect 'The Miracle' or 'One Vision', because I can't really think of one."

(All song titles from Queen's Greatest Hits and Greatest Hits II, but unfortunately it was not possible to readily incorporate such ditties as 'Bohemiam Rhapsody', 'Seven Seas of Rhye'' and 'Radio Ga Ga'. As for 'Fat Bottomed Girls', let's not go there.)

'Secret squirrel' SNP LIT plans disappear down black hole

The SNP dumped plans for a local income tax during its first Holyrood administration, citing the inability to reach a parliamentary consensus on the issue, but promising to revive it for the current election campaign with a view to legislation in the next parliament. Last week the Telegraph splashed on Alex Salmond's last minute dash to the Court of Session to thwart a freedom of information request from the newspaper regarding official advice on the economic impact of introducing LIT.

Yesterday the Sunday Herald reported on Labour accusations of a 'black hole' in the SNP's local government tax plans, claiming that the Nationalists were unable to say what would happen between the end of the proposed council tax freeze in 2013 and the planned introduction of LIT in 2016.

But today the Scotsman reports that the SNP has abandoned plans to legislate for LIT in the next parliament, meaning that they intend introducing the new tax after the (probable) elections in 2016. The next parliamentary term would be used merely to "build support" for the proposals.

Which effectively means that the SNP now plan to implement LIT from around 2020 at the earliest. But since this was a commitment in their 2007 manifesto, surely if a consensus on the issue was a possibility then something would have emerged by now? If a consensus was possible then why not construct it during the five years of the next parliament and pass the requisite legislation before 2016?

Thus it's probably realistic to say that the SNP has effectively abandoned plans for a local income tax. Of course, there have been numerous opposition claims in the past that the proposals were unworkable, and perhaps the secret advice to ministers contained unpalatable facts in that regard.

All of which merely lends weight to the increasing impression that the next few weeks of the campaign will amount to little more than a de facto presidential election between Alex Salmond and Iain Gray, with policy taking a backseat to a personality contest.

Which of course increasingly seems to be the preferred Nationalist narrative.

Iain Gray the opposite of Nick Clegg?

In his Scotland on Sunday column Duncan Hamilton examines the implications of last week's Holyrood leaders' debates for the election campaign. He compares Iain Gray's poor ratings and performances in the debates to the possibility that he could become first minister and concludes: "That's why I have always struggled to see Labour turning a poll lead into electoral victory. In modern, televisual elections leaders with those ratings just don't win."

Indeed. John Kennedy/Richard Nixon. Sweaty, unshaven and all that. But wait a minute. In the last UK televisual election the undoubted star of the show was Nick Clegg. However, by the election itself - rather than in the instant News at Ten polls and the like - the Clegg effect had evaporated, and the votes seemed cast more on what the voters thought about the substance rather than style.

And then Nick Clegg led his Lib Dem party into a rather opportunistic and unprincipled coalition with the Conservatives. Almost a year later and if the Lib Dems as a party and an electoral force isn't slowly imploding then it's definitely looking a bit frayed around the edges.

Thus in the final analysis the UK election debates told as little, so to that extent it would hardly come as a surprise if Iain Gray performed poorly in all the Scottish debates but ended up as First Minister - if voters really want a Labour victory then this will happen despite rather than because of Iain Gray, and of course the polls still suggest that that's a real possibility.

So to continue the reverse comparison with Nick Clegg, Iain Gray would run a highly effective administration, radically transform Scotland for the better and reserve his rightful place in the annals of the Labour Party in Scotland, a sort of Keir Hardie for the new millennium.

Er, perhaps not.

Keep soundbite politics off the ballot paper

Further to Thursday's post about the 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' slogan used by the SNP for the list vote, several of the contributions left in the extended discussion helped highlight the encroachment of soundbite-level politics onto the regional ballot paper.

Of course, the Scottish Socialist Party previously tried a similar trick by including 'Convener Tommy Sheridan' beside the party name, thus both exploiting the dominance of a single party figure in the public's mind and downplaying the relative invisibility of the other candidates on the list.

Hardly surprising, then, that George Galloway is utilising a similar ploy this time round in Glasgow,while the Greens are using "Patrick Harvie for MSP" (ditto Alison Johnstone in Edinburgh). Which makes Patrick Harvie's claim that the SNP's tactic could "risk the integrity of the vote again and put their self-interest ahead of the democratic will of the Scottish people" seem a tad hypocritical, because there are other Green candidates on the list who could be elected, even if that possibility is at best theoretical. Thus voters could think they are voting only for Mr Harvie but also end up with someone else.

On the other hand, at least in the case of the Sheridan, Galloway and the Greens there's nothing that might delude voters into thinking they're voting in some sort of quasi-presidential election, and in the latter case the named individuals are actually candidates on the list in question, thus in both these regards they aren't quite as misleading as the SNP's slogan.

Likewise, there are other phrases being used in this context which represent little more than trite and empty soundbites on a ballot paper. For example, in Edinburgh and Glasgow there are "Against coalition cutbacks", "Fight the cuts", the slightly ironic "Coalition against cuts" (seems to be a theme developing here!) and "Proudly Scottish, proudly British" (oh well, at least it's different!).

While taking issue with all this may seem pedantic, there are at least two issues. First, people are fed up of slogans, soundbites and skulduggery from politicians, and there seems to be more than an element of that apparent here.

Second, all the evidence suggests that many voters are confused by Holyrood's additional member system, both as regards the ballot paper per se and in terms of the precise consequences of how they vote.

There are clearly no easy answers to this, but in the interests of the integrity of the system the ballot papers should be made as straightforward and transparent as possible. The current rules are deficient in this regard, and voters shouldn't be potentially misled or distracted by slogans and soundbites.