I think there are two main reasons for exaggerated conflict between two parties – either they’re ideologically extremely close (and therefore vying for the same votes, making one-upmanship and petty bickering more frequent), or there is something really fundamental they disagree on. It just so happens both are true of the SNP and Labour – both vying for the centre-left voters, but also bitterly opposed on the constitution. None of that is helped by the fact Labour still can’t accept they’ve been knocked off their perch in Scotland…

Contrast this with Westminster, where the Tories and Labour get their core support from opposite ends of the right-left spectrum (despite Labour’s complete abandonment of left-wing ideology) meaning they don’t have to battle quite so much, and also the complete lack of ideological differences for them to bicker over. In Holyrood, Labour and the SNP can have a right good rammy over independence; but Miliband’s scope for attacking the Tories is curtailed by Labour’s absolute acceptance of the Tories’ cuts agenda, leaving him to moan about the speed and depth, rather than the substance itself.

I think there’s hope for the future though. Post-indy, I envisage Holyrood growing up to be far more like the European parliaments the chamber was so clearly modelled on. Without the big dividing issue, there will be less polarisation of votes, therefore a more equal spread of seats, far more need for co-operation, and hopefully a better quality of politician too, since the SNP and Greens will (presumably) cease being the only ones not to treat Holyrood as a nursery/retirement home/dumping ground.

Until then though, you could put Humza Yousaf and Jenny Marra in charge of the two parties, and nothing much would change.