I’ve written before (ok – quite a lot) about the generally poor level of political  commentary in Scottish newspapers. It’s not that I’m obsessed by this, but I really do believe that we could be doing things a lot better.

Working as a lecturer I’ve now started to become interested in the academic aspect of political opinion – particularly the contribution, if any, that newspapers make to the achievement of a deliberative democracy – the kind of engaged, inclusive democracy that the founders of the Scottish Parliament had in mind.

But for that to happen, we need at the very least to have a greater understanding of the political process.

This post in  The Steamie – a decent enough contribution to the political blogosphere in Scotland -  is an example of real misunderstanding masquerading as insight.

Political journalists were interested, reasonably enough,  yesterday in why Nicola Sturgeon, rather than Kenny MacAskill was chosen to front the launch of the SNP’s drive against Scotland’s booze culture.

David Maddox, in The Steamie, suggested that it was in part due to the desire to present Sturgeon, rather than MacAskill as the SNP leader in waiting:

“ Mr MacAskill …… is the most likely figure that any challenge from the so-called fundamentalist wing may gather around, if things were to go pear shaped in the next couple of years. ”  

I want to say this as politely as I can – but that is just daft.  Having worked for John Swinney during his leadership I would not deny that at that time there were painful divisions within the SNP.  But it was far too simplistic to present these divisions as fundamentalist versus gradualist.  It was really the result of the move by the SNP from being a party of protest to becoming a party of government.  There just isn’t a big fundamentalist/gradualist split anymore.

But even if there was,  Kenny MacAskill would probably be the least likely senior figure in the SNP that the fundamentalists would “gather round.”

After the election of 2003, Kenny wrote some interesting articles about the future direction of the SNP. You can get a flavour of this, by reading this piece in The Times, which includes the line:

 ”Shouting “independence” louder is no more likely to increase the vote than would wearing a darker shade of wode.”  Hardly a fundamentalist rallying cry I would have thought.

In truth SNP has developed into a thoughtful movement – is it too much to ask for political hacks to keep pace?

For years politicians in Scotland have bemoaned our national addiction to alcohol.

“Something must be done,”  has been the cry.

Now that the Scottish government does propose to do something Labour, the Tories and LibDems all decide that this represents a great opportunity to kick the SNP.

How much better it was when governing politicians wrung their hands and made speeches and told us all how terrible it was without actually trying to do anything about it.

Those, like me, who are sick to death of seeing children’s playparks covered in broken bottles on Saturday mornings from the excesses of the night before would prefer to see some action.

More seriously, those who have to work in our A and E departments must be disgusted by the the drink-fuelled violence that they witness every weekend.  

But, for our opposition politicians, that matters much less than having a go at Kenny MacAskill and Nicola Sturgeon.

It is occasions like these that remind you just how unfit Labour, in particular, is  for office.

It’s been tough without her, but  Sunday Times columnist Jenny Hjul is back this week after her Christmas/New Year break.

 I imagine the conversation between between Hjul and her boss, Carlos Alba, discussing the content of her columns this year, went something like this:

Hjul: Hi Carlos, Jenny here.  It went so well last year that for 2009 I thought I’d devote every single column to the theme – why Scotland is crap and why the SNP is making it even worse.

Alba: Every column?

Hjul: Yes – every one.

Alba: Ok, but don’t you think there are other things you could write about – just every now and again?

Hjul: No. This saves time – I only have to change a few words each week.

Alba:  Don’t you think our readers might be getting a bit bored with this stuff – I mean it’s nothing more than crude propaganda that would make even Jim Murphy wince – isn’t it?

Hjul: He’s way too soft on the Nats – they’re dangerous. They’ve got to be stopped. Imagine what this country would be like if people living in Scotland were actually running it?

Alba: Can’t argue with that I suppose.

Hjul: Good.

Alba: By the way – we’re working on a feature for next week – why Scotland has the worst education system in the world: “From Kames and Kelvin to Klowns” – what do you think? After that I thought we’d go for why Scotland is the unhealthiest nation on earth and after that, why Scotland is the most violent country on earth and then maybe, why Scotland has the worst politicians in the world and then to round it off something along the lines of what has happened to this once proud nation of ours that has turned it into the worst in the world?

Hjul: Fantastic. Makes me proud to work for this paper.

REMEMBER that crazy Independence thing? You know – the idea that Scotland should leave the Union and establish itself as an Independent state.

I know it seems odd now but people actually used to believe that stuff. Before Iceland imploded and the great Scottish banks were rescued by the London Treasury the issue even dominated political debate here. Thank God then for financial meltdown. At least it has brought people to their senses. No-one takes any of that separatist rubbish seriously anymore.

That anyway is the current dominant mood among so much of the Scottish political classes. But far from sealing the nationalists’ fate, I believe the banking crash and in particular, this week’s Pre Budget Report have actually, to coin a phrase, killed stone dead the number one argument deployed against the SNP – the so-called structural deficit.

The last few weeks have clearly been uncomfortable for Independence supporters. The unrestrained joy of Unionist commentators at the difficulties experienced by Scotland’s banks may have been distasteful but their euphoria did appear to have some justification. The success of RBS in particular used to be held up as an example of what we in Scotland could achieve. The spectacular fall from grace and profitability of what the First Minister called our greatest company was clearly good news then for the opponents of Independence, who in the final analysis, have to rely on crushing Scottish self-esteem to ward off the nationalist threat.

But then came the Chancellor’s statement to Parliament and in particular his borrowing forecasts. By 2010, Alistair Darling told us, the UK would be facing a deficit of #118 billion. This figure has changed everything.

For years Labour and the Conservatives have been trading on the alleged deficit that Scotland would inherit post-Independence. The result, we were told, would be massive spending cuts or equally huge tax rises. Indeed since Labour’s success in the 1999 election this has been the main tactic deployed against the SNP.

As an SNP strategist I remember being superficially amused at the numbers Labour appeared to pluck out of the air as an estimate for Scotland’s deficit. It might be #2 billion one day; #3 billion the next or even as high as #8 billion.

The figures may have been ludicrous, but I did not doubt their political effectiveness. After the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, under the leadership of both Alex Salmond and John Swinney the SNP tried to move the economic debate away from arguments about subsidies and deficits and on to the more dynamic ground of how to boost Scottish growth and living standards.

But despite some intellectual success, the basic political attack was hard to overcome. Fear is an important weapon to deploy in a negative campaign and scare stories over the deficit proved powerful.

Even the demolition of many of the “subsidy junkie” arguments by independent investigations failed to counter the power of the subsidy myth.

But at at stroke, as Tony Blair might say, the rules of the game have changed. The sheer scale of the actual UK deficit makes redundant any guess at the imagined shortfall facing an Independent Scotland.

And it’s not just the eye-watering number that is important – it’s the argument deployed by both Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Mr Brown and Mr Darling argue that by 2014 the UK will once again be borrowing only to invest. In other words, even deficit financing on this scale is perfectly possible for a government to carry out. It does not mean that the UK has failed as a political or economic entity and should be wound-up. It would seem difficult therefore to argue that Scotland’s independence is impossible because it may or may not face a deficit.

Interestingly the OECD this week set out its growth forecasts for member states over the next three years. These forecasts show countries of a comparable size to Scotland are poised to weather the storm rather better than the UK.

What all this tells us is that in general countries tend to increase borrowing when times are tough but improvements are made during an upturn. In addition, we can say with some confidence that the management of the UK’s public finances look particularly poor compared with other countries. More than anything, perhaps we can now move on to a serious discussion about the merits or otherwise of Independence instead of subjecting the people of this country to a demeaning culture of fear based on fantasy figures.

Before getting on to the politics, two odd things about BBC Scotland’s coverage of the Glasgow East by-election. First of all, and in a truly bizarre editorial decision, last night’s 1030pm Reporting Scotland seemed to virtually ignore this massive developing story. No insert from a reporter at the count; nothing with a political corr, just a trail to Newsnight on BBC2. It was left to the network news to suggest that something spectacular was on the cards.

Then today on Radio Scotland, there was massive excitement that David Cameron was calling for an election. This started to lead the news from about 0830 on. On a night when the story was all about the SNP/Labour you can’t blame Cameron for wanting to get into the story – but did his intervention really justify the top line?

As for the politics, once again this contest showed how out of touch the commentariat can be. Margaret Curran was an excellent candidate apparently – really? She’s a skilled politician used to dealing with the media, but her never-ending mantra that she would be fighting for the East End cleary irritated voters who knew that she and the Labour Party as a whole had taken them for granted for decades. 

The other main media misconception is that there was no demand for Independence. In fact the SNP established that a large number of Labour voters (maybe a majority) actually backed Independence even if they weren’t voting for the SNP. If there had been a mini-referendum on Independence in this seat, my guess is that there would have been a big Yes vote. That, however, is not part of the media narrative – protest vote, disaster for Gordon Brown – so it gets ingored. If journalists actually started to talk to voters their stories and comments might be rather different and more accurate.

There’s a scene in The West Wing when a brilliant news reporter, temporarily seconded to the White House, picks up a story about who said what to who, which could prove hugely damaging to the Bartlet administration.  In the end the reporter doesn’t bother filing the story because basically he thinks verbal gaffes and gossip about Washington insiders are not worth bothering anyone about.

That scene came to mind when I was thinking about this story. Do political journalists really have nothing better to do than engage in a bout of  Kremlinology over Alan Johnson’s Wimbledon analogy? Today the Westminster Health Secretary has been forced to put out an excruciating explanation of what he really meant.  I don’t want to sound like Alastair Campbell, but it’s all so utterly pointless – a clumsy phrase from a Cabinet minister trying to allude to a current sporting event.  So what?

When I worked for John Swinney when he was leader of the SNP, particularly towards the end of his leadership, some of the interpretation put on totally innocent remarks, was just ludicrous. Almost anything anyone said was implied to be an attack – which meant it was impossible to make any sort of a serious political argument. If political journalists got out more - spoke to more people outside the Westminster/Holyrood circuit – their sense of news values would surely change for the better.  

One of the great ironies of the fall of Wendy Alexander as Scottish Labour leader is that after a year of disastrous political communication, she and her supporters have finally managed to get across a line – albeit one that has no basis in reality.

I write today in The Guardian that her resignation has far more to do with Labour’s inability to cope with opposition than her breaking of the rules regarding donations. However, she, her brother, Douglas, and David Whitton are putting it about that she’s gone because of a vendetta by nationalists who have  basically hunted her down over an honest mistake and a trivial one at that. Maybe it’s sympathy but that argument is getting a decent hearing in the press and on TV and radio.

It’s also utter rubbish of course. It seemed at times that there were far more people in the Labour Party keen to do her damage than in the SNP. Her inept political judgment over the referendum, her appalling performances at FMQs and her inability to offer a coherent opposition were problems that no leader could survive.

One side-point: it’s now virtually impossible to have a political contest without political journalists writing it up as a feud, a bloodbath, in-fighting etc. I don’t doubt there are real personality clashes between the candidates to take over from Wendy but a leadership election can also be about ideas, strategy and the future. But such is our political culture it’s maybe too much to hope that the forthcoming election (if there is to be one) will be written up in that way. 

The news that the French president, Mr Carla Bruni, is seeking to tighten his grip on France’s state television service  seems alarming. The proposal that he and his Cabinet, rather than an independent body,  appoint the head of the public servcice broadcaster opens the door to direct political interference.  Opponents of Mr Sarkozy are already making comparisons with Silvio Berlusconi’s, albeit more direct, control of national TV.

Thanks goodness that there could be no question of the government of the day and the state broadcaster in this country colluding to damage the government’s political opponents.  Except that  perhaps the most blatant example of such a thing in any western democracy has taken place at the very highest level of the BBC. When the idea of a Scottish Six was first mooted – replacing the BBC’s six o’clock news with a programme produced from Scotland, the then director-general John Birt worked closely with Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson to scupper the plans, with the sole purpose  of damaging the SNP and Scottish Independence.

Birt subsequently boasted about this in his autobiography. Imagine if such a thing happened in France (or even Italy) – the Prime Minister of the day conducting a joint campaign with the head of the state broadcaster in order to damage an opposition party.  It all makes Mr Sarkozy’s plans look tame in comparison. 

Under Magnus Linklater (who I used to work with at the BBC) The Times Scottish edition sometimes makes the Daily Record look like the voice of reason when it comes to the SNP. Today in his column Magnus just engages in a rant and manages to include references both to Nazi Germany and Mussolini when discussing the SNP government.  Wow, even Brian Wilson would surely struggle to do that.

Another day, another disastrous poll for Labour, this time in The Guardian (which today also includes a fascinating article on Gordon Brown’s style of government). It’s not that the Westminster government is embroiled in John Major-style chaos, it’s just that most voters are giving a “Yea, whatever” response whenever Mr Brown or any of his ministers say anything. That’s why the Prime Minister is in such deep trouble. Global initiatives to bring down the price of oil, locking up terrorist suspects, action to tackle struggling schools, increasing social mobility are all surely popular, but the government is not engaging people, because basically they want Labour out.

As a senior strategist for a struggling party (the SNP in the run up to the 2003 Scottish Parliament elections) this is all quite familiar to me. I remember the BBC conducting a poll at the start of the 2003 campaign asking voters to rank policies in terms of importance. Voters were not told which policies came from which party. In the event, our key pledges – such as class sizes, nurses pay, halting private involvement in public services – came top. But ultimately  that didn’t matter. The voters may have liked our policies but at that stage they didn’t much like us – and didn’t (yet) want us in government. 

Sometimes parties just have to accept something that goes against the political DNA – there are occasions when the public mood is such that there is not much a single party or leader can do. Parties usually overestimate their ability to shape change and need to come to terms with that reality.

But, as the SNP showed in 2007, circumstances can change relatively quickly.  What this means is that parties need to put themselves in a position where they can take advantage of those changed circumstances. In the SNP’s case this meant focusing almost always on the positive,  having a popular leader and  devising messages that resonated. Interestingly the SNP did not  talk explicitly  about change in 2007 – the slogan was ”It’s time”, not “It’s time for change.” This allowed the party to add positive messages to the end of the slogan  – It’s time to: cut class sizes, axe the council tax, bring our troops home from Iraq etc.

So for Labour what this means is: elect a new leader, stop short-term positioning and try to find a positive reason to vote for you.  But remember – don’t assume any of this will do the trick.