If you’ve seen the inside of the People’s Pantry in Govanhill you will know that it is so small, so tiny, so infinitesimally miniscule that there is no room inside for the First Minister to answer questions from newspaper journalists. This is a new one on me though: politicians can now apparently only answer questions from the newspapers if the room is of a certain size.

In case you’ve missed the point I’m trying to make here, what I’m saying is that the defence Nicola Sturgeon attempted to mount for not inviting newspapers to a campaign event last week does not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, her excuse is so small, so tiny, so infinitesimally miniscule that you might even think she’d made it up retrospectively and on the spot.

The reason Ms Sturgeon had to scramble for an explanation was that writers from The Herald and other newspapers turned up to the People’s Pantry regardless, even though they hadn’t been invited. When asked why the newspapers hadn’t been told about the event, the First Minister said it was “because of the tightness of the space in there … that's why it wasn't an open invitation to everybody because it wouldn't have been possible.”

Pressed a bit more, Ms Sturgeon went on to claim it was odd that the papers were asking questions about her not answering questions when she was standing there answering questions. But wasn’t it actually the First Minister who was guilty of cognitive dissonance? There she was saying it was impossible to answer questions at an event while answering questions at the event (this apparently impossible feat having been achieved via the act of walking through a door to the street where the litter and the dumped fridge were).

I also think, if we’re going to be honest here, that we should acknowledge that this sort of behaviour is part of a pattern from the Scottish Government and the SNP, although I also think, if we’re going to be honest, we should acknowledge it’s not entirely Ms Sturgeon’s fault. She shouldn’t have done what she did – and her excuse was feeble – but the problem of politicians and the press is a much deeper and longer one than the First Minister wriggling on a stick in Govanhill.

In fact, if we’re looking for someone to blame, we should probably look back to Tony Blair. Before Blair, politicians in the 80s and early 90s were just as guilty of trying to avoid stories getting into the papers – of course they were – but Blair’s victory in 1997 was a turning point. Suddenly, his main press man Alastair Campbell was using much more heavy-handed tactics for managing the press, and the media managers who’ve followed him have sought to turn the screw even tighter.

The result, when combined with the rise of social media, is that you have a government in Scotland that is simply unwilling to engage with the press in a meaningful way. I wrote a story the other day about Pepsi seeking to export potatoes to Russia in a deal facilitated by the Scottish Government and the contrast between Pepsi’s behaviour and the Government’s was striking. Pepsi called and emailed me regularly, confirmed what was true and what wasn’t, answered all my questions, and then, when the story was published, phoned me up to tell me they were cancelling the exports. Compare that to the government, which simply issued one of their infamous “statements”: sentences designed to say nothing.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying Sturgeon and the SNP are unique here – in fact, I’m saying exactly the opposite and that they’re part of a trend that started in the 90s, has been accelerated by social media, and is now pervasive in politics. In fact, Boris Johnson – to whom Sturgeon is supposed to be different – behaves in much the same way: keeping newspaper journalists at bay, doing pooled TV clips and generally making himself inaccessible. Clearly, the rooms that Mr Johnson frequents are as small as Ms Sturgeon’s.

Bearing all this in mind, my message to the First Minister would be that engaging with the press in a more meaningful way might actually get her more of the kind of press she wants, but in any case seeking to control things merely allows things to get further out of control. Relying on pooled TV clips is also unlikely to be much better because if there’s cynicism among nationalists about newspapers, it's just as bad about the BBC. One of my strongest memories from an independence march I attended in Glasgow was the anger about BBC Scotland. One woman told me the C in BBC didn’t stand for corporation but another word entirely.

So why then does the SNP keep behaving in the way they do? The answer is because they think they can get away with it, but in that case I would urge them to look at the results. Ms Sturgeon went to Govanhill to urge voters to "send a message to Boris Johnson" at the local elections and sought to tightly control what was said, how it was said, and to whom it was said. Instead, she ended up with a car crash on social media about a “media blackout” and headlines comparing her to Donald Trump (which is utterly unfair but that’s nevertheless what happened).

As I say, maybe the SNP doesn’t mind so much because they judge that they can get away with it and perhaps in the end the polls prove them right: they are, after all, still way ahead of the other parties. However, it’s not enough: what the SNP really needs if they are to get their second referendum, is a surge and the truth is that (albeit in a small way) their support is going down. As BMG’s head of polling Robert Struthers told The Herald the other day, compare support for the SNP now to a year ago and it has fallen back some six per cent.

Mr Struthers also told The Herald that such a slip in the polls might make some in the SNP a little nervous and you have to wonder if the nerves could lead to them thinking again about their strategy. Certainly, they should realise that, however hard they try, they will never be able to control the media, or the public. The public is also quite rightly going to laugh out loud when they’re told the newspapers weren’t invited because the room was too small.

Better, I would say, to be as open as possible and see what happens. Better to answer a question when you’re asked it. Better to be honest about when things are going well and when things are going badly. Who knows: people might actually appreciate the effort. Who knows: the relationship between the Government and the press might actually improve.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald