Robbie Dinwoodie

looks at the

post-Salmond

leadership stakes

Either Alex Neil has developed a severe case of candidate's fever, or the SNP is about to defy the usual rules of politics and leap back a generation instead of forward.

Alex Salmond has retired to the back benches after a decade at the helm and his unofficially anointed successor, John Swinney, at 36, is a year older than Salmond was when he became national convener of the party. In terms of political party leadership, Neil is relatively young, at 49, but his election would still feel like a step back.

And in some ways Neil is a throwback. He has the fire and passion and oratorial flourish of an old-style barnstorming politician - and that, at times, has been his undoing. The SNP returns to Inverness this week, to the very stage where Neil's oratory got the better of him four years ago as he likened the then Shadow Scottish Secretary, George Robertson, to Lord Haw-Haw.

That is why, despite Neil's protestations to the contrary, it is the cautious, relentlessly well-organised Swinney that Labour really fears, and ultimately why Swinney remains on course for victory in the leadership stakes.

In the way of these things Neil insists he can still do it: ''The conference works at two levels - in the pubs and bars and ceilidhs, which are very important - and on the floor of the conference, where the performance of John and I will be judged.

''Most important of all will be the final hustings on Friday night, where uncommitted delegates could well be won over. The gap between us is close and narrowing.''

Neil claims: ''We have got to appeal to the heart as well as the head. We need someone who can discuss the PSBR with Jeremy Paxman, and then go out and light the fire of independence in the Scottish belly. My style of leadership would be dynamic, forceful, winning over converts, whereas John's is more cautious, and when that happens support stagnates. Under me the party would be directed to winning in Labour's heartland; under John it would be about holding what we've got.''

Not surprisingly, Swinney could not agree less. ''The SNP needs somebody who can persuade, who can win the trust of people. People need to be reassured about the road to independence. I have been able to inspire people to vote SNP and persuade them to vote for independence.

''Yes, I have played a part as deputy leader but, as leader, the passions and anger will start to come out more. I am passionate about the justice of independence and angry about the injustices inflicted on our people. That's why I should lead the SNP.''

Neil points to his achievement in turning Kilmarnock and Loudoun from rock-solid Labour into a marginal. Critics say he knocked on the door of a promising seat for long enough and failed to open it, with the result that most local SNP branches have turned against him.

He also claims that his running of the 1992 General Campaign, which resulted in Scotland failing to be free by '93, has been wrongly maligned, and actually achieved more than

the 1997 and 1999

campaigns which were run by Swinney.

Swinney points to the hard facts of his wresting North Tayside from the Tories, holding it at both General and Scottish Elections and building a formidable constituency organisation using methods which he then exported to produce impressive

by-election performances in Hamilton and Ayr.