WHILE the public will apparently have to wait until SMPs are seated before the day-to-day impact of an Edinburgh-based Parliament is known, strategy officials at the Scottish Tourist Board have reportedly focused their minds on identifying what threats their industry might face as a result of devolution.

Truth be told, they should be. While further measures of autonomy will bring many benefits, the machinations of politics always introduce a measure of uncertainty into long-term planning.

Some difficulties are a natural part of the process, while other more onerous problems are unfortunately based on emotional conflicts between egos and self-interest. Regional friction and the instinctive desire to protect one's own turf have to be kept in check.

For example, the woefully tired debate about Scotland's share of Government spending versus tax revenues generated here has been kicked up yet again. The excuse for bringing it to the fore is (as usual) devolution, while seemingly endless efforts at political point-scoring keep the argument on a slow boil.

Practically every Government-subsidised organisation in Scotland - including the tourist board - is being scrutinised by its counterpart down south. The search is on far any signs of spending discrepancies that might be used as evidence of favouritism.

Just as one London-based newspaper recently argued that Scotland gets 25% more cash than England to spend on education, so too have southern-based tourism pundits come up with figures that make their central government support look miserly next to that which flows north.

A recent opinion piece for one of the industry's national trade publications stated that the Scottish Tourist Board's share of tourism funding had gone up from #2.39 per head of population in 1986-87 to #5.07 in the current year. While Wales and Northern Ireland reportedly received similar increases, it was said that England's paltry 28p per head had dropped to an even more meagre 26p for each man, woman and child in the country.

Now everyone knows there are obvious differences in the population density of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Casting that objective aside, there are several other technical points that could be raised to either justify those figures or cast doubt upon their veracity.

To pluck out such bald statistics and present them completely out of context ignores factors such as existing infrastructure and the general level of awareness of Scotland and England overseas. After all, the latter has benefited for centuries as the home of the capital of the United Kingdom.

What is most worrisome is the impact of wantonly brandishing such figures, which in the south must have the same effect as flashing a scarlet cape in front of an already agitated bull. In the above-mentioned article, English readers were advised not to ''just fume at the current situation but look at the scale of the task'' of levelling supposed inequities in the playing field.

The other insidious danger to Scottish tourism which could accompany devolution is the risk of a power struggle at home. Although there have not yet been any public suggestions that a Parliament might want to relieve the Scottish Tourist Board of any responsibilities, the day is coming when the STB will have to report to Scottish Ministers in Edinburgh.

Donald Dewar has promised that all quangos will be subject to SMPs' review. The Parliament will be ''free to restructure, merge or abolish those bodies as it thinks fit.'' It will also be able to set its own arrangements for public scrutiny.

Let us hope that no unnecessary squabbling breaks out. If it does, the English Tourist Board is unlikely to miss the opportunity to snatch back a sliver of Scotland's chunk of the tourism funding cake.