HYPERBOLE has always been a staple of election campaigns.
If one party promises voters the moon, another is sure to trump it by offering the stars. The electorate are used to seeing through such overblown claims.
But sometimes the language takes on a darker tone, and cannot be brushed aside.David Cameron's recent attacks on the SNP fall into this category.
There is nothing wrong with parties knocking lumps out each other over policy. Vigorous debate is the lifeblood of politics and in this election, with a £120bn gap between the Labour and Tory plans, and the SNP urging an end to austerity, there is no shortage of issues to thrash out.
But Cameron's insinuation that it would be beyond the pale, almost undemocratic, for the SNP to influence the next government is another matter. If that government was led by Labour with fewer MPs than the Conservatives it would lack "legitimacy", goes the cry, as panicking Tories try to frame the narrative that could give them a second election this year.
Nick Clegg was at it too yesterday, saying voters would question the "birthright" of a government in which a second-place Labour party was assisted by the SNP. Not only does this wilfully ignore history - half the 20 British governments of the 20th century were coalitions or minorities - it also ignores basic politics.
Voters elect parliaments not governments, and that means a myriad of combinations. Although they have been rare in recent decades, hung parliaments are not a perverse outcome but perfectly legitimate and to be expected.
Cameron and Clegg may only want to whip up votes, but by demonising SNP MPs as a hostile takeover force they risk whipping up anti-Scottish sentiment south of the border too. It is to her credit that Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson is having none of it.
What we heard this week was ugly, but bearable so long as it ends on May 8. It would be unforgivable if the same attacks continued after the election. Parties refusing to recognise results they dislike - now that would be undemocratic.
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