Let's do the rotten jokes first. Four politicians were yesterday helping police with their inquiries. Whether they offered any actual help is a matter for forensic examination. Meanwhile, holes appeared in certain policies. Officers are looking into them.
The Scottish Police Federation is not as other trade unions. Ask a polis, if you doubt me. For one thing, members of the SPF cannot go on strike. For another, precious few unions - make that none - can demand a command performance from the leading contenders in Scottish political life.
You can't blame the officers of the law for that, necessarily. All the polling of which the parties are neurotically aware says that the membership of the SPF command a status of which politicians can but dream.
Annabel Goldie, Alex Salmond, Cathy Jamieson and Jeremy Purvis did not need to be told twice.
It made for an odd spectacle at Peebles Hydro yesterday morning. On the one hand, the forces of law and order command general appreciation. No one - Tory, Nationalist, Labour or Liberal - will tell them they are anything less than wonderful.
On the other hand, cuffed and in custody, no politician will say that the SPF speaks on behalf of a vested interest, that it has grown accustomed to being placated, and that it is less than grateful.
Example: both Goldie and Salmond came to Peebles armed with that old favourite, "more bobbies on the beat". A thousand, said the man from the SNP. Fifteen hundred, said the keeper of the Conservative handbag. A joyous tumult? One delegate called the numbers "a joke". Such a figure, he said, would be insufficient for Strathclyde, far less for Scotland's other cop shops.
He knew that they knew what he knew: policing is facing a "retirement bulge". A lot of officers are approaching a well-earned farewell. The hall's consensus said that a figure of 3000 might just, possibly, be getting warm.
In a different world, or facing a different union, a radical politician might have raised the issue of retirement and pension rights. Former cops in their 50s tend to find fresh fields. Why make a special case when other middle-aged veterans face insecurity and uncertainty?
Perhaps because the police do stressful and important jobs. Perhaps - as Jamieson and Purvis observed - because they are the service of last resort. Perhaps because they are valued, and valued highly, by the people who pay their wages. But should they be forever unchallenged?
A fruitless question. If the SPF counted as a political party they would strike terror in the hearts of the usual suspects. Salmond charmed them - a genetic predisposition - but he did not convince, least of all when the salary consequences of independence became an issue. Goldie made her usual mistake of mistaking law and order with "law n'order". Jamieson, the relevant minister, was given tepid politeness. Purvis spoke, according to my notes.
Lesley Riddoch, off the radio, was "facilitating" after the set speeches. This allowed the audience (fashion note: apparently they all use the same barber) to amuse themselves with light torture. One delegate wanted to know where policing sat in the parties' lists of priorities. Translation: how much do you love us?
Salmond offered that cop work, along with health and education, is in his top three. Jamieson said, bravely, that education is Labour's real big deal, but argued that schooling and the defeat of crime connect.
Goldie went like gangbusters, as lawyers who have been "victims" (of crime, not David Cameron), must. Purvis found himself in a fankle over the existence of Liberal priorities.
Would anyone legalise drugs? This was treated as a trick question. Would anyone defend community wardens when real police could find a use for £20m? This was one for the ruling coalition to deflect.
So would anyone think harder about justice, crimes against society, an ever-swelling prison population? In general - Jamieson even offered "seven quick references to challenges" - but not in particular. Here was consensus at its most hideous.
Lesson: never cheek the polis.
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