IS Alex Salmond the most maligned citizen of this increasingly divided and delusional Disunited Kingdom?
Don't bother replying. As this remarkable campaign reaches its denouement, the opprobrium that has been heaped on the First Minister has gone well beyond the pale and made a mockery of the defamation and libel laws.
If one were to believe much of the rubbish one reads, Mr Salmond is a monster with an agenda that is designed to serve only his own nefarious ends. He is, moreover, a xenophobe and an anglophobe, a bar-room bully and a belligerent fool. When his name is not linked to that of Nigel Farage, it is conjoined with Robert Mugabe's. It can only be a matter of time before some wag puts him in the same bracket as Assad of Syria.
In many quarters this is what currently masquerades as fair comment. That it bears no relationship to the truth is of no matter to those who prefer character assassination to mounting a coherent case for their argument. But in the teeth of such provocation, Mr Salmond has been admirably circumspect and restrained.
Where his opponents howl with outrage at the tearing down of a poster or the throwing of an egg, the figurehead of the Yes campaign never deviates from his script. As the months have gone on, he has exuded calm and presented a statesmanlike front. This is surely one of the reasons why the battle over our future has been verbal and not violent. For that Mr Salmond deserves considerable credit.
That he is the subject of such bilious attacks is, I suppose, a compliment to him. Even his most ardent adversaries would concede he is a formidable foe. Not so long ago we used routinely to refer to the "big beasts" of Scottish politics, namely those who slid down the greasy pole to SW1.
That we don't now is recognition that Mr Salmond is one the great politicians of the early 21st century. In any country, he would be a major figure and capable of the highest office.
Had he been in the Labour Party, he would undoubtedly have been a candidate for its leadership and, who knows, may eventually have occupied No 10. Labour's loss, however, was the SNP's gain and, for that matter, Scotland's. For let's not beat about the bush. Without his considerable political nous, quick wit and tactical acumen, there would be no referendum tomorrow and no opportunity to reboot the nation.
In all the years I have known him, he has exuded patience and optimism. That he loves campaigning is obvious to anyone who has followed him on the trail. In his early days, in the north-east of Scotland, he used to travel round his sizable constituency by caravan, in which he would hold surgeries.
He is most at ease in small halls in the boondocks where there is time to meet and greet whoever has turned out. Once, at a Burns Supper in rural Aberdeenshire, I watched as he turned on the charm, telling jokes at the expense of the local farmers and ticking off the women in the audience for seeking partners through lonely hearts columns when there were so many eligible, if bald and toothless, men in the vicinity.
This is Mr Salmond as he's rarely seen when the cameras are trained on him. He is a natural performer, as Alistair Darling discovered to his cost during the second televised debate.
He is also a risk taker, as too few Scots are, and is always prepared to lead from the front, as he did at Gordon in 2007 when he pitted himself against the incumbent Liberal Democrat MSP who was defending a healthy majority.
Had Mr Salmond failed at that hurdle he would not have become First Minister and he would not be who he is today.
More importantly, perhaps, he has always been a gradualist rather than a fundamentalist, which put him at odds with some in the SNP who wanted to run before they could walk. Here, it was his understanding of the temperament of the Scottish people that proved crucial.
He knew instinctively that, if independence was to become an option, there was a need to take one cautious step at a time. Thus here we are, a day away from the decision that will define us all. Should Scotland be an independent country? You bet.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article