FLIRTATION is always fun to watch, especially when it is between two old slappers like George Reid and John McAllion. The politics of coalition is about to hit Scotland and, away from the sectarian posturings of Westminster, the chat-up lines are being rehearsed.
With Strathclyde University's redoubtable John Curtice between them on Saturday to chaperone their fumblings, the SNP veteran and the Labour maverick gave us an impressive demonstration of the kind of ''new politics'' we are told will develop as a miraculous by-product of home rule.
''A Parliament Without Majorities'' was the right starting point for the weekend's deliberations on the future shape of Scottish politics, society, and culture.
Scotland's home-grown brand of proportional representation means we can't be too sure who will form that first, crucial administration. One thing is certain: elected dictatorships are not on the menu.
If we assume, as Curtice argued, that the Conservatives are a non-coalition party, then that leaves the three others to work out the permutations.
Labour and the Lib-Dems are in semi-coalition already, but the likelihood of any kind of co-operation between Labour and the SNP grows more remote by the hour, no matter how often we hear the kind of billet doux Reid aimed in his opening remarks at the ''many, decent'' Labour members who ''share my view of a just and egalitarian Scotland''.
For the benefit of the political junkies perched among the spooky-looking funfair art of the Sharmanka Kinetic Gallery, Reid was at his statesmanlike best. He articulated a vision of Scottish democracy which stressed - to my ears at least - the democratic above the Scottish.
He did his best to avoid the slanging which now dominates the Labour-SNP debate, but couldn't resist a dig at New Labour, and the obsession with command and control demonstrated by its ''Christian democrat'' leader.
McAllion, for his part, demonstrated yet again why it would be a tragedy to exclude his voice from Holyrood. He's had his interview with Stalin and family - ''it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be'', he told me afterwards - but you will hear nothing from him that is critical of the leadership.
Instead he stressed the importance of ending Labour's hegemony in Scotland.
''Proportional representation will destroy forever the myth of Labour Scotland,'' he said. Far from being a heartland for Labour, Scotland is proof that first past the post just isn't democratic enough: 56 out of 72 MPs, with 54% of the vote, is hardly representational.
Reid focused on the actual workings of the Parliament - more committee work, pre-legislative scrutiny, and the development of cross-party relationships - and the prospects for greater public involvement in the legislative process.
He suggested a form of politics by petition, where the number of signatures triggers a statutory response from the administration: 25,000 names, say, would mean a parliamentary question to a Minister; 100,000 would trigger a single issue referendum.
McAllion concentrated on an appeal to his colleagues to avoid the confrontational ''mindset'' of first-past-the-post. ''This is a clear opportunity for a new kind of politics which is not about demonising the opposition but which treats voters as being intelligent.''
Differences between parties, he pointed out, are few and far between: which party wants runaway inflation or is proposing to use the tartan tax?
Both politicians expressed hopes that ''new politics'' might find room for new groupings, if not new parties.
But Curtice deployed his psephological skills to remind us the Scotland Bill and its electoral system makes it nigh on impossible for Highland Independents, Old Labour refugees, or even Tommy Sheridan to secure the necessary share of the votes without a considerable party structure.
As for fears that the Scottish Parliament will be peopled by carefully groomed clones, even McAllion warned against such a pessimistic projection.
''It goes against the national character to be clones,'' he said.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article