THIS is about as febrile as it gets in British politics.
Forget the recent hyperbolic anti-Scots rhetoric of John Major and Boris Johnson. Or the curious serenity underlying the bustling crowds, flags and selfies of the SNP campaign. Look at where criticism of the major parties is coming from, and the desperate tactics being resorted to.
To take the latter first, what can we say about the breathtaking effrontery and highly dubious ethics of Danny Alexander? As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for five years he sat not just in the Cabinet, bound by collective responsibility, but on the Quad, comprising the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, Nick Clegg and himself.
Mr Alexander - one assumes this act of treachery now precludes him from becoming Lord Alexander - commissioned a report on benefit cut options from Iain Duncan Smith whose suggestions were draconian, particularly on Child Benefit, but were rejected. Three years later, just as he is facing being ousted by his Highland constituents in favour of the SNP, he "leaks" the "Secret Tory Plans" discussed and rejected in Cabinet. He may be impressing the actor Hugh Grant but it all smacks of desperation and dishonesty. The party's Scottish leader Willie Rennie is soldiering on; yesterday he was making mince in a farm shop, today it's an event involving therapy pets. We'll let these speak for themselves.
The Conservatives really need to listen to Lord Ashcroft, who does not just accumulate polling data but draws increasingly astute findings from them. Have Labour learned their lessons and proved they can be trusted on the economy? He told a meeting in Edinburgh: "They have not so much failed their test as refused to hand in their homework." On his own party, he is convinced they have yet to shed the impression that they are the nasty party who cannot be trusted with the public services.
He believes David Cameron is an asset as a credible leader but, without naming him, Ashcroft clearly has doubts about Australian strategist Lynton Crosbie.
"It seems to me that if one of your problems as a party is that some of the voters you need think you are 'nasty', then launching personal attacks against your opponent is not the best way to capitalise on one of the few advantages you have," he said.
The fomenting of cross-Border animus is also hampering the Tory campaign North of the Border, as a former party communications chief pointed out this week, but Ashcroft is more optimistic that in time, when Scotland has more control over and responsibility for its finances, his party, under Ruth Davidson, can make a comeback.
Both the main Westminster parties have campaigns which reinforce views without changing them, Ashcroft argues. So the Tories continue with competence and leadership and Labour talk about the NHS, leaving UK polls deadlocked.
Responding to the threat of Ukip has brought out the Tories' nasty streak again and much of that has been aimed at the Scots as a way of undermining Labour and the prospect of any deal with the SNP. They, in turn are praised by Lord Ashcroft for their "powerful and attractive leader" and for the focus of their message of a strong voice for Scotland at Westminster applying corrective pressure on Labour.
As for Labour, Jim Murphy soldiers on, as he must, but the headline on an article on the politics.co.uk website this week said it all: "Has any Labour leader ever run a worse campaign than Jim Murphy?" Categorising the campaign as complacent, uninspiring, counterproductive and purely negative, the article said: "It's usually best to wait until a victim is declared dead before beginning the autopsy. However when it comes to the Scottish Labour Party, it seems wise to get our latex gloves on now."
It is getting late to turn the tide now, but Labour won 15 constituency seats at the last Scottish Parliament election so anything approaching that would be a blessed relief from the near-wipe-out which as of now seems more likely.
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