Panelbase poll : SNP have five-point regional list lead

For the first time since the Ipsos-Mori survey a couple of months ago, a poll has been published with figures that would be just about sufficient to give the SNP most seats in the next Scottish Parliament. The party is level with Labour on the constituency vote, but has a five-point lead on the all-important regional list vote. Here are the full figures for the main parties -

Constituency vote :

SNP 37%
Labour 37%
Conservatives 13%
Liberal Democrats 8%  

Regional list vote :

SNP 37%
Labour 32%
Conservatives 11%
Liberal Democrats 7%
Greens 5%

This is now the sixth Holyrood poll in a row to show the SNP up on its winning 2007 share - by four points in the constituencies, and six points on the list. It suggests a completely different pattern to the recent YouGov poll, with the SNP vote proving much more resilient on the list than Labour's, which would be more in line with what has happened in previous Scottish Parliament elections. The seat projections quoted would give the SNP 54 seats, and Labour 52. It's possible these numbers might nudge the SNP closer to favouritism with the bookies, but Panelbase is an untested pollster, and in truth it's now anyone's guess which way this election is headed.

Meanwhile, the most amusing detail of the poll is that Tavish Scott's profile is apparently so abysmally low that no fewer than 6% of the electorate believe he is none other than six-times world snooker champion Steve Davis!

Snooker rediscovers some zing

I'm heartened to see that during my absence from the country all seems to have suddenly come right with the snooker world once again. The short-match format of the World Open at the SECC really seems to have put a bit of zing into what would otherwise have been a routine and quickly-forgotten second-tier event, Ronnie O'Sullivan's antics have yet again given the lie to the hoary old complaint that "there are no characters in the game anymore", and most importantly of all, the nightmare of the world number one being handed a lifetime ban from the game for match-fixing has been averted. Many will be sceptical about the circumstances in which John Higgins' name has been "cleared", but personally I've always been much more troubled by the many cases where sportsmen and women have seen the principles of natural justice turned on their head, and have found that they were essentially guilty until proved innocent. A classic example from our own shores was Alain Baxter, who for making an innocent mistake with a nasal spray had his career blighted, lost his Olympic medal, and had to suffer disgraceful slurs from senior administrators who really should have known better, all the way up to the IOC chief Jacques Rogge.

*

There was a bizarre incident in Stephen Maguire's match last night, when he was warned by the referee for conceding a frame in a situation where he did not yet require snookers. Now if ever there was an irrational rule, surely that must be it. Warnings are appropriate for non-specific offences like unsportsmanlike conduct, but if you don't want players to concede too early, where is the barrier to simply banning it? A rule stating that a player cannot concede a frame in those circumstances without also conceding the match ought to do the trick.

Snooker sickener

Of all the professional snooker players I might just have thought capable of corruption, John Higgins - seemingly the gentleman of the game - would have been the absolute last. The apparent revelation today is a real sickener for his legion of supporters just at the moment he was due to once again become the official world number one after a vintage couple of seasons. His impeccable reputation is one reason why I (perhaps naively) think his explanation that he was "spooked" by the way the conversation was going, and just went along with it to make sure he "got out of Russia" in one piece, might just about be theoretically plausible. I wouldn't say it was likely on the balance of probabilities. But there's the rub - is the burden of proof in a disciplinary matter like this the same as in the criminal law? If so, it's hard to see how his version of events can be entirely disproved, unless there's more to come out.

But the real loser here is, of course, the nation of Ukraine. Nineteen years on from independence, and John Higgins still thinks Kiev is in Russia. Tut, tut.

A sport snookered by too much talent

So it seems snooker is back for the new season, with the Grand Prix currently taking place in Glasgow. Although I won't hear a word said against the game (it's a matter of national self-interest as much as anything - what else do we regularly excel in?), it always strikes me that it suffers from an inbuilt problem that must be virtually unique in sport. In a nutshell, it's this - the more talented the players are, the duller the game becomes. OK, I appreciate that Pete Sampras winning seven Wimbledons out of eight, most of them in a canter, didn't exactly make for thrilling viewing, but that wasn't the fault of his ability - it was the lack of serious competition. Imagine how compelling a match between Sampras and Federer at their respective peaks could have been. But in snooker, the same principle does not apply. When you have two players showing their absolute top form, you in fact have the perfect recipe for tedium. The cue-ball under perfect control, no difficult pots. Not for nothing was the most exciting break in the sport's history - Alex Higgins' impossible clearance against Jimmy White in 1982 - described as "the worst break I've ever seen". Higgins only needed to pull out the outrageous pots because he kept running hopelessly out of position.

So in looking to secure a bright future for the game, perhaps World Snooker should focus slightly less on superficial things like relaxed dress codes and round robin formats, and instead reflect on whether the fundamental rules of the game can be modernised. Increasing the size of the table might be the simplest solution.

Snookered by the cynics

It was refreshing to read this article in the Sunday Herald reflecting on the ongoing therapeutic and life-affirming effect of watching snooker. I know, I know, I feel quite stupid for even having written those words. But the thing is, it's become a bit depressing each year at this time (and it's felt like this for at least fifteen years now) to read the ritual articles about how the glory days of the sport are long since past. Apart from anything else, it always leaves me with the alarming feeling that I'm wasting my life spending hours being gently hypnotised by something that's just so 1980s and past its prime. I'm also tormented by the knowledge that I probably failed one or two important exams in the 1990s because I was too busy willing Stephen Hendry or John Higgins to victory at the Crucible. There I part company with the writer of the Herald piece, though, because during the same period she was apparently willing the likes of Higgins and Hendry to fail against the so-called more 'charismatic' players like Jimmy White and Ronnie O'Sullivan. But if O'Sullivan's probable third world title tomorrow is what it takes to make others start to nod in agreement with her more general sentiment, I might just say it's worth it.