There are arguably two main factors that will, and already have, destabilised the SNP’s push for a second term at Holyrood.

These are:
(1) The perception that the SNP failed to address the financial crisis with the appropriate rhetoric, language and policies.
(2) The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi.

The party has noone to blame for the former electoral liability with Salmond’s ‘spivs and speculators’ line still painfully cringeworthy, particularly when set against the pragmatic backroom manoeuvres from Gordon Brown that assisted HBOS being bought over by Lloyds and saving Scottish (and UK) jobs.

For the latter, the SNP still has a battle on its hands and, as the latest Wikileaks revelation on the matter shows, it is around other backroom manoeuvres from then Prime Minister Gordon Brown that a public discussion over Megrahi, and scrutiny into the events leading up to the release, remains outstanding.

The Sunday Telegraph has revealed tonight that “Britain helped Libya secure Megrahi release” and that the Middle East and North Africa Minister assured the Libyans that the Prime Minister did not want Megrahi to die in prison. Even the fact that UK Government Minister provided legal advice to Libya regarding how Megrahi could be released on compassionate grounds is highly concerning in light of the furious reaction that we witnessed after Kenny MacAskill made his decision.

I remain of the view that any civilised society does not keep dying people incarcerated but that view was probably in the minority amongst the Scottish public, a fact that Iain Gray exploited at the time with his assurance that “if I had been First Minister, Megrahi would not have been released”. An easy hit from the Labour leader at the time, but how that statement sits against evidence that seems to point to Labour helping Megrahi be released from prison deserves consideration.

Anyone who disagrees with MacAskill’s decision are of course still welcome to do so and perhaps it was the wrong decision. However, who is more to blame, the person who was legally obligated to come to that decision or individuals who tried to move events in that direction?

The whole furore regarding Megrahi got very old very quickly, and I’m sure it would do again if the same press hysteria was to reemerge. However, if one party is being hung out to dry while another party that facilitated the decision that caused the outrage is getting away with it scot free, then perhaps the whole issue needs to be revisited and any blame or disappointment be apportioned more appropriately across a highly judgemental Scottish electorate.

Watching the sharp, amiable Douglas McLellan and Better Nation’s very own wonderkid James Mackenzie have a fine elongated debate over the progressiveness (or otherwise) of LVT got me thinking about that word that sprang out of nowhere last year and has been used recklessly with error-strewn abandon by members of all parties. Yes, word of the year 2010 – “progressive”.
 
Douglas states categorically that LVT is regressive while James argues the opposite. Sidestepping the specifics of that particular policy (if possible), can something, in isolation, even be progressive or regressive?
 
As part of an MSc in Statistics, what feels like a lifetime ago, it was made abundantly clear from various dry professors that regression analysis could only be conducted once you have 2 points on a chart. With 2 x-axis numbers and 2 y-axis numbers you can go as daft as you like calculating all sorts of statistical formulae to ascertain whether there is a trend going up the way, down the way or no trend at all. If you have one point on that chart, you can’t even begin to put pencil to paper, finger to keyboard or, my personal favourite, thumb to statistical tables.
 
My point is, one cannot look at Local Income Tax, Land Value Tax or even Council Tax in isolation and judge that it is either progressive or regressive. It is only in comparing two of the policies and judging which direction one is in relation to the other can a conclusion on progressiveness be reached.
 
Say the Government was to charge lower rate taxpayers 10p every time they bought a carton of milk. That sounds rather regressive to me. However, what if higher rate taxpayers were charged £1 and the financial benefit was used to subsidise dairy farmers in the country meaning that milk cost, in total, 11p for lower rate taxpayers and £1.01 for higher rate taxpayers. It suddenly sounds a bit more progressive.
 
That other buzzword, fairness, is a tricky one too. Can a policy in isolation truly be deemed fair?
 
In terms of closing the equality gap between rich and poor, which is really all that ‘fairness’ and ‘progressiveness’ relate to, we are where we are; we have a point on that x-axis and a point on that y-axis based on our income taxes, our NI, our VAT rates, our Council Tax and many other factors that make up the status quo.
 
How progressive policies are in the upcoming election should be compared against this benchmark and compared against each other.
Douglas and James have started a debate based on facts and figures that hopefully Patrick, Tavish and Alex et al will finish.

 
£33bn, spending that directly impacts millions of Scots, a decision from which the shape of the election campaign will no doubt be formed and a deep-seated entrenchment of party positions borne out of 4 years of bad blood that borders on out-and-out hatred. Roll up, roll up, it’s the final big vote and Holyrood Battle Royale before Parliament closes its doors and we get to have our say.
 
Now, there are two comparisons to be made when each of the opposition parties consider John Swinney’s proposed Budget:
 
(1)     Is it more or less better than what I would do?
(2)     Is it better than doing nothing and reverting to last year’s budget?
 
Many of the parties have already decided that the answer to the first question is No. The Greens are steadfastly against the meek ‘passing on’ of Tory cuts without raising revenue to safeguard public services and jobs. Labour believes it would create a budget that is more focused on jobs, regeneration in Glasgow and growth. The Lib Dems seem to be pushing for support for poorer students and a stronger clampdown on high pay in the public sector.
 
All perfectly valid and perfectly reasonable pitches to a watching public but I do worry that each of the three parties above have not fully contemplated the second comparison, the 2011/12 budget reverting to 2010/11 in the absence of any deal.
 
One needs look no further than the bald fact that last year’s budget has £1bn too much in it for it to be applicable to the year ahead. So, from a Green, Labour and Lib Dem perspective, they must all surely conclude that to accept John Swinney’s budget is better than to use the prior year’s. Whether this philosophy can find its way through the fog of parliamentary war and manifest itself in the voting next week remains to be seen.
 
And, well, if Patrick, Iain and Tavish all gamble that public perception will be that it is SNP obstinance that is blocking a Budget deal rather than Opposition intransigence, a damaging deadlock may yet be realised.
 
The Greens are seeking to mark themselves out as different to all four of the main parties in the coming election on not just environmental factors but economic concerns too so perhaps their opposition has a more understandable slant to it, if no less forgivable in the event that no budget actually gets passed at the end of the day.
 
I cannot see Labour doing anything other than voting against anything that the SNP proposes between now and May and so it will be the Lib Dems, I strongly suspect and certainly hope, that will blink, abstain and thus allow the Budget to proceed, as long as the Tesco Tax element is stripped out that is.
 
However, misjudged brinkmanship is something that Scott, Gray and Harvie are well capable of and a flaw that their respective parties have naively already displayed at Budget time during this parliamentary term. There’s not much of a safety net for the coming few weeks and if these opposition leaders focus on the gains that can be made from gambling on everything rather than the losses for us all if no deal is reached, then Parliament’s standing may be about to sink to an all time low.
 
Hold on to your hats, it could be a very bumpy 9 days up to the final vote.