Smear Tactics and Scotland’s First Minister: I smell something that isn’t only putrid, but toxic.

This blog doesn't often jump on political band wagons. Because that particular form of transport goes places I don't usually like, and creates the kind of predictable self-promotoing music that has most interest to those who are playing it. A second disclaimer; I am not an apologist for the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. I have considerable ambivalence about Nationalism as a political vision, though that doesn't stop me applauding the good things achieved by a Scottish Government dominated by SNP MSPs. A third disclaimer; I watched only some of the debate last week, and like many others hoping to be given grounds for positive hopefulness, I was left disappointed and even concerned at the lack of political vision, intellectual integrity and informed weighing of argument, and these replaced by rhetorical blah de blah I expect to see in a slapstick theatre not in a debate about the future of our country.

But I do think Nicola Sturgeon sounded like a real person. The feedback was generally positive on her performance, her stated intentions, her claim to befriend those sick of austerity and the social injustices perpetrated in the name of this recently constructed idol of the rich. Still, I understand why the current coalition partners fear and hate the possibility that the SNP may provide a deadlock to those two parties being able to continue their austerity policies into a second term. I also understand why Labour can't afford to say publicly they would tolerate some of the painful compromises needed to get their hands on the key to 10 Downing Street. And I hope I'm not being naive in thinking that yes, social justice is still a vision to be pursued and a right of people in our society whether or not it suits the vested interests of big business, big institutions and the usual defenders of laissez faire.

So when a leaked memo with the dodgiest of provenance, content, and evidential integrity, suggests the First Minister of Scotland is on record as saying she would prefer Cameron to Miliband as Prime Minister, and therefore keep the Conservatives as a continuing foil to her Nationalist ambitions, I smell something that isn't only putrid, but toxic. Interesting that the two used to be big players, Conservative and Labour, become allies in character assassination, co-operate in supporting a risible lie, collaborate in their shared fear to smear a political rival with muck of their own making. The cynicism of the Westminster machine is nearly as bad as the patronising nonsense they expect the electorate to read and hear and accept like unintelligent plebs so many of them think us to be.

So with the media bandwagon rolling along throwing up the dust of misinformation, and sounding out its lines of lies and tunes of untruths, I find myself, for moral and socially responsible reasons asking, "Why should I vote for any party that uses lies and despises truth in its quest for power?" Wouldn't it be more responsible to vote for someone who at least sounds as if the truth is important, and who actually believes people who vote should be treated as intelligent participants? And wouldn't it be more socially creative to support a politician and a Government whose policies are at least an attempt to redress the obscene imbalances created in a society governed from Westminster for the past 5 years by a UK Government that dares to say with a straight face, "We are all in this together".

If other people are as sickened as I am by the recent smear campaign against our First Minister, then perhaps the phrase "protest vote" might mean protesting against such a crass lack of that essential probity required to gain public respect; and perhaps "tactical voting" should be on the basis not of party allegiance and party advantage, but perceived moral seriousness and strengthening of social capital in relation to honesty, respect and integrity.