Tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be George Foulkes...

I mentioned earlier my foray into the lion's den by arguing about gun control on Rachel Lucas' blog. Even as I speak, other posters on the blog are busy archly agreeing with each other that I am 'dishonest' and comparing notes about exactly what point in the discussion they had first realised I wasn't 'arguing in good faith'. One of the posters even noted Ms Lucas' patience for allowing the discussion to go on - the implication being that my 'behaviour' was so beyond the pale that she had been extremely generous in even permitting me to have my voice heard. Since I was, in fact, being very honest and arguing from deeply-held principles throughout this is obviously rather hard to swallow, but this time I'm going to resist the temptation to respond because I've finally realised what a monumental waste of time it is. There just seems to be something in the mindset of many right-wing Americans that refuses to acknowledge legitimate philosophical or ideological disagreement - as you can see from the relative tolerance shown at the start of the discussion, you're fine as long as you're a good boy or girl and argue within certain acceptable bounds (bounds which of course they and they alone are permitted to define), but once you step over a certain mark what you say just 'does not compute' and you are automatically transferred to the 'liar'/'bad faith'/'troll' zone. At one stage I tried to introduce an alternative concept of personal liberty (one, which as it happens, I genuinely and passionately believe in) that doesn't define itself so narrowly as being entirely dependent on the capacity to defend yourself with a gun - that, it was immediately pointed out to me, was a "bridge too far".

Anyway, winding down from what I now realise was an utterly pointless discussion, a couple of reflections -

1) The sometimes bemused, sometimes angry 'does not compute' reaction I stirred up was so intense that I began to realise that the posters on that blog simply have very little exposure to the type of arguments I was - for the most part in a fairly restrained manner - putting forward, even though millions of people in their own country (let alone beyond their shores) would broadly agree with me. And, when I think about it, that actually makes perfect sense. If you look at the average American political blog, it's either conservatives talking to other conservatives or liberals talking to other liberals, and never the twain shall meet. It's little wonder the cultural divide in the US is so sharp - left-wingers and right-wingers in this country may disagree and may sometimes even take a dislike to each other but at least they can bear to engage in some kind of dialogue (or should that be perpetual slanging match?).

2) What is it about arguing with right-wing Americans that temporarily transforms me into George Foulkes? No-one who's read this blog can doubt my nationalist credentials, but over the last few days I veritably started waving the Union Jack at them! At one point I even referred to the UK as "my country". AM2 would be proud of me...

Death of an SNP great

I'm not quite sure how it happened (these things tend to have a life of their own) but I've spent an unhealthy proportion of the last three days on a right-wing American blog having one of those Alice in Wonderland debates on the topic of gun laws with people who seem to believe that black is white, and that the huge quantities of guns washing around in their society somehow prevents violence, rather than being in any way responsible for their appalling murder rate. Anyway, having finally had quite enough of that, I naturally looked to AM2's blog for something else to react to as some light relief! Tragically, all I found instead was his sincere condolences at the death of Professor Sir Neil MacCormick.

This is a particularly upsetting loss - he was one of the SNP's finest, but he's a loss to a great many walks of life other than politics, and of course most of all to his family and friends. I'm proud to say I voted for him not only as an MEP, but also in his unsuccessful attempt to be elected Chancellor of Glasgow University a few years ago.

YouGov : Labour lead in Scotland slashed

I'd started to lose faith that such a thing could exist, but at last here is a YouGov poll with some moderately good news for the SNP! Labour remain ahead in the Scottish sub-sample, but their lead has been halved from twelve to six points.

Labour 36% (-)
SNP 30% (+6)
Conservatives 19% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 11% (-5)
Others 4% (-2)

Meanwhile, the debate on the UK-wide figures is whether Labour should be enthused or in a state of despair at their modest bounce following Gordon Brown's G20 'triumph'. Mike Smithson at Politicalbetting.com falls into the latter category, but Frank Luntz - who to be fair was spot on in his prediction of a boost of 3-4 points - seemed to feel on Friday that such an outcome would be sufficient to bring a snap election onto the horizon! I remain dubious, but it is true that a Tory lead of just seven points is not sufficient for David Cameron to be fully confident of securing an overall majority.

Decisions, decisions...

American polling expert Frank "John Reid will be the next PM" Luntz appeared on the BBC News channel on Friday morning, and indulged in some startling speculation that the outcome of the G20 summit has been so positive for Gordon Brown that he might even consider calling a snap general election. Hmmm. Let's assume for the sake of argument (on past form probably dangerous) that Luntz is correct in predicting Labour are about to see a temporary bounce of 3-4 points in the polls. That means that Brown will effectively be faced with the following two options when weighing up any decision about an election in June -

Option 1 : Relinquish the office of PM almost immediately, having held it for only two years, and hand over to a Tory government with a small majority.

Option 2 : Relinquish the office of PM in one year's time, having held it for three years, and hand over to a Tory government with a potentially landslide majority.

Option 1 would undoubtedly be in the best interests of the Labour party, option 2 would undoubtedly be in the best interests of Brown and his place in history. Knowing what we know about Brown's character, which do you think he is most likely to choose?