The parties of the Union have a battle to fight tooth and nail this year and next.
No quarter will be given. Historians are on stand-by. For now, those parties have to wade in the trenches of First Minister's questions. It's a grisly affair and sometimes tedious. Each week, the anti-Nationalist alliance attempts to solve the same tactical problem.
How do you prove the SNP isn't fit to govern when, weekly, England provides a glimpse of an alternative? How do you show Alex Salmond has failed when he can blame the Coalition for nicking his budget, or warning anyone voting the Westminster way?
This is particularly tough – but don't grieve – on the Tories and the LibDems. Salmond tars and feathers them weekly with what their Coalition is doing in England. It's not much easier for Johann Lamont. Once she would have been on firm ground on the NHS. For generations, Labour owned the issue. Now a party toying with prescription charges is fighting to get in the game.
Lamont said calamities are unfolding. There are hidden waiting lists, ward closures, staff cuts, a billion pound repair bill and authorities being forced to borrow. It's quite a charge sheet. If nothing else, it suggests not all is for the best in the best of all SNP worlds. It is an attack, chiefly, on Nicola Sturgeon, Salmond's deputy and ex-health secretary.
But what does Salmond do? What he does best: he boasts. The First Minister says public satisfaction with the NHS in Scotland has increased. He invites you to wonder where else this could be true. Then he casts his party as the last defenders of a health service free at the point of need. He means prescription charges.
Lamont's actual point – that all in health is not well – is lost. We are returned always to Salmond's ground: look at the Westminster alternative.
Beyond the historic blethers and the trench warfare, that will be 2013's big argument. Is it possible for Scotland to be different and better? Perhaps a real debate is in order.
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