Just for comparison,

Ken, and now Boris, dominate the local media (TV, radio and print) in London, and with a population greater than Scotland’s, the comparison is valid.

Nonetheless, when Ken lost to Boris last year, it was in spite of his leadership and track record and not because of it. He certainly did not invite his party leader to help his campaign.

I don’t doubt that in 2012 when Boris come up for re-election, he will need to display all his personal charms as he will be fighting a mid-term backlash.

Having said that, the SNP has one added advantage. Since they will never be in government at Westminster, Salmond and Sturgeon (sounds a fishy pair to me) will never have to contend with defending their party’s record at UK level.

From my vantage point I cannot really be sure but I am told that the Scottish Parliament dominates political coverage in the Scottish media and therefore your admittedly interesting analogy with a large Council cannot hold good.

No Council I can think of is in that position except perhaps the ill fated Hatton led Liverpool in the 1980s.

Therefore I think we can assume that the SNP Government is being judged on its merits. We can also allow for the facts that Labour are in the doghouse while the Tories will take another generation to re-connect with the Scots. That leaves the Liberals.

The Lib Dems are totally opportunistic and widely disliked by polticos across the spectrum but that doesn’t stop them conning some of the people some of the time elsewhere. What stops them in Scotland?

And why do the SNP shrug off the negative publicity from a deeply hostile press corps?

I think it comes down to leadership and if anyone has the recent ratings from ICM for Salmond and perhaps Sturgeon I would dearly like to see them.

Salmond and Sturgeon are the ideal combination – much stronger together than as individuals. He is the bright but likeable bloke. She is the thoroughly modern young women. Between them just about everybody can see something to admire.

Compare Salmond and Sturgeon with Brown and Harman or Cameron and Osborne – get the point!

No offence taken since you did cause me to review my impression of the breadth of the SNP position. I can see that SNP will indeed be first/second in all but a handful of Scottish seats. The most interesting aspect of this is that the exceptions are of two very different kinds.

On the one hand we have two LD/Con seats – Borders and Fife NE, one of which is marginal, the other not (as yet). These contrast with two other historically LD/Con contests which are now 3-way contests which SNP may well win (Argyll & Gordon).

On the other, we have two Lab/LD/Con 3-way marginals where the SNP are currently fourth, but may not be that far behind the pack. It may well be that come polling day these turn out as close 4-way marginals, and SNP may not necessarily be 4th (though I doubt that they can muscle their way up to second, still less win).

As to why the SNP are doing so well at present, I think there are a range of factors in play, the most important of which is that the SNP are simply not the Labour party. One could ask why Con and LD have not benefited to the same extent, but I think it is true to say that the SNP are now seen as the principal alternative to Labour in Scotland, hence they have benefitted most.

When we talk about “mid-term blues” this has historically been in relation to a poorer performance by the governong party in local elections 2-3 years into their period of office. But that has also always been by way of reference to the government at Westminster.

It may be that despite being in (minority) government at Holyrood, the SNP have not suffered from “mid-term blues” because the electorate are not looking primarily at Holyrood, but at Westminster, when venting their spleen.

In a way, their position is not that disimilar to a large Council held by the opposition. In some cases the opposition has only taken control because they are not the government, in others, they have been the “natural” party of control in that area. Either way, they do not suffer a reaction in their own mid-term. Look for example at the Metropolitan counties in the 1980s.

This is not to denigrate Holyrood, but a simple question of hierarchy.

As to what implications this has for future elections, I suspect that the response may be markedly different as between Holyrood and Westminster.

Indeed, Salmond may be a trifle concerned that Brown is going to hang on to the bitter end. I am sure that he would much prefer to fight the 2011 Holyrood election in the context of a national Tory government 18-24 months into fiscal austerity (aka public spending cuts) than one which has just delivered its first non-emergency budget.

You are not as out of touch as I thought.

You are correct and I wrong about the number of local authority areas where the SNP came third – it was one (Borders) not two as I thought.

However I think I have the main point which is that with a Euro total of 26 firsts – 5 seconds and one third the SNP will be challanging in just about every seat around Scotland come the election.

There will be exceptions but not many on current form.

I am still searching for a definitive expanation as to why this should be so. I can see the reasons for Labour weakness but why should the SNP in mid term
be in record breaking form?

Your comments about SNP targeting of LD votes is interesting – and reinforces the point I was making earlier about the variety of scenarios applicable. As an aside, SNP progress in areas like this makes it easier for Cons to take LD seats. You couldn’t organise such a campaign in St Andrews could you ?

As you note, Borders is an area wher Lab are clearly out of contention, and there is little of their vote left to be squeezed. This will become progressively true across the Highlands, Grampian and Tayside, with Labour support confined to the main cities.

We will undoubtedly see a large number of 3-way marginals in Scotland, and the SNP will be among those 3 in almost all – possible exceptions being Edinburgh S and Aberdeen S – though these could become 4-way marginals as Inverness was in 1987-92.

Indeed, it may well be the case that 3-way marginals are more common in Scotland at the next election than the traditional two-party marginal with others a long way behind. There will also be a large number of seats where one party is way out in front despite being on under 40% purely because 2-3 parties are vying with each other in the 17-24% range.

This of course will make it even harder to predict outcomes based on share in Scotland wide polls !