Vote for a new era

Most notably, the emergence of the leaders' debates further undermined the constitutional notion that a general election is not about electing a national leader, but about selecting a local representative to form a parliament at Westminster, from which a government is then assembled.

The SNP anger at being shut out of the television events is but one symptom of a constitutional problem created by the debates. Whether Alex Salmond was standing for the Westminster parliament or not, or whether an SNP leader could be prime minister, misses the point – in a Scottish and Welsh context, a major player was excluded from a process which has dictated the entire campaign. That cannot be right.

However, the constitutional implications are for another time, though the impact of the shows – for that is all they were – will be felt tomorrow. The three debates proved what everyone knew already, that they would turn the most vital political contest for 30 years into a beauty parade in which genuine substance would play a very poor second fiddle to style and presentation.

This is all the more regrettable because this election is taking place when we have the biggest budget deficit and government net debt in peacetime history. None of the leaders set out convincing deficit reduction plans. But this urgent requirement will dominate the life of the next parliament – and almost certainly the one after that.

Gordon Brown was always going to fail the style test, while the "take home to meet mum" charm of Nick Clegg was likely to prove a winner once he had even billing with the big two, instead of his usual position stage left of the Commons dispatch boxes. If Mr Clegg maintains the momentum he gained from the debates, then a hung parliament is probable, with all the implications for the United Kingdom that brings. If a hung parliament is indeed the outcome, then proportional representation of some kind for Westminster is more likely.

Although the City fears instability, favourable comparisons have been drawn between the supposedly more consensual Scottish Parliament and the so-called "ya-boo" politics of Westminster. Those who argue that Holyrood's proportional system shows the way can point to the fact that Scotland has sustained both coalition and minority governments without the country collapsing into anarchy. But Holyrood is not Westminster, where decisions are made that have an impact on the economy and the currency. So a move to PR, or more immediately instability during post-election negotiations between parties, is uncharted territory for the UK and those elected tomorrow must recognise the dangers.

The performance of PR-elected Holyrood might be better than Ukraine, but in the past three years at least the ya-boo boys and girls have been alive and well, even though Holyrood essentially just decides how to spend the block grant handed down from the Treasury and has no say over how it raises its cash.

If the Conservatives do emerge as the biggest party in a hung parliament, David Cameron is already being advised to resist the Lib Dems' demands for PR as the price of a coalition, and from a Tory perspective it is easy to see why: it would inevitably mean the days of an absolute Tory majority are over. Nevertheless, the logic of some sort of proportionate system is difficult to resist, and as long as the connection between the MP and a defined constituency is retained, then public demand – especially if Labour comes third but has the most seats – will be irresistible. Just don't let anyone believe it automatically brings better government.

But the more pressing question is what voters should do tomorrow. None of the big four Scottish parties has articulated a strong vision of the future, or been honest about the need for ruthless action to bring sanity back to the public balance sheets.

As nation within a larger state, Scotland has a substantial amount of control through home rule and increasingly seems to be distant from the rest of the UK in areas as diverse as the role of the public sector, immigration and education. Scotland lacks a balanced debate, and since the Tory obliteration in the 1997 election, the voice of the centre-right in Scotland has been weak. Even though saved by the Holyrood PR system they opposed, the Tories have struggled to articulate a distinctively Scottish right-of-centre vision for the country, for which there should still be an appetite.

Democracy can function properly only when there is a strong opposition which, in Scotland, would make the case for less bureaucracy, a smaller state and greater freedom from regulation. The Scottish Tories have failed to do so in a way which captures the imagination – or even commands the respect – of enough voters.

So if Scottish politics is to be truly realigned, it is time for the Scottish Conservative Party to be put out of its misery. In contrast to Wales, the Scottish Tories have made no headway and the brand decontamination successfully undertaken by David Cameron in the south has made no difference here whatsoever. No wonder he is frustrated. Although Annabel Goldie and David Mundell are not the best sales team, most Scots cannot see past memories, distorted or otherwise, of the poll tax and industrial collapse of the Thatcher years. Whether it is anti-Thatcherism, anti-capitalism, or simply anti-Englishness, too many people cannot bring themselves to endorse the Tories and a new platform for the Scottish centre-right is badly needed.

The absence of such a credible force means Scotland faces the next phase of the economic crisis in denial. The SNP, even though it has a core of pro-enterprise, low-tax supporters, has stretched credibility beyond breaking point with Alex Salmond's ludicrous insistence that Scotland can somehow be better insulated against cuts simply by voting Nationalist. Though they may not admit it in public, most sensible Nationalists – and most are sensible – accept that Mr Salmond's case makes no economic sense.

While the UK makes a clear demand for change, a focused and aggressive argument for independence would at least have given the campaign here a dimension lacking elsewhere. Yet the Salmond vision for the future entailed little more than making life difficult for Westminster, something he has already delivered.

As for Labour, our polls indicate that Scotland in large part is unable to envisage life without them. The collapse of the economy on Gordon Brown's watch aside, the past 13 years has seen no real improvement in Scottish education, thousands of young people piling into new universities to earn qualifications with little value in the workplace, thousands of fit and able people avoiding work by clinging to benefits, more people in jail and an expansion of the state and public spending we couldn't afford even before the banking crash. And that is after they brought the devolution for which this paper long campaigned.

And as for the arguments that the crash was a global phenomenon for which Mr Brown bore no responsibility, we can only point to the deliberate exclusion of house prices from the measurement of inflation against which the Bank of England was asked to set interest rates. For political reasons, the inflation in the system which ultimately brought the likes of Northern Rock crashing down was masked to keep interest low. And as public spending soared, private pensions were plundered and gold reserves flogged on the cheap. For Mr Brown to wash his hands of blame beggars belief.

Labour still enjoys a commanding lead in Scotland despite all this, and "Cleggmania" has not taken off as it has elsewhere. Maybe the same distrust of Old Etonian Cameron applies to Westminster School product Clegg – the Lib Dem leader, despite his attempts at laying claim to an earthy "Ee-bah-goom" Sheffield background thanks only to the location of his Westminster seat, is after all the well-connected son of an extremely wealthy banker. And maybe more Scots see through his bid to portray his opponents as playing politics, while he plays politics.

What really lies behind Cleggmania, other than an appealing TV persona and not being a Tory, is a bit more difficult to discern. Alarm bells should sound about some of the key Lib Dem policies, most notably local income tax, a double whammy for the wealth generators already braced for a tax hit. Although their programme for tackling debt seems a fraction more advanced than either Labour's or the Tories', their preference for taxation, as opposed to spending cuts, is more than apparent.

So what should Scottish voters do tomorrow? A large chunk are likely to make their minds up only once they are in the voting booths. Labour has failed after having had more than a decade to get it right. The Tories are unelectable in Scotland, the SNP has displayed no vision in this General Election and the Lib Dems are incoherent. It's no surprise people are confused and the polls are so volatile.

For the reasons outlined above, The Scotsman regrettably finds itself in the unusual position of not being able to endorse any of the big four parties with any enthusiasm, although, despite reservations over his lack of experience and the weakness of shadow chancellor George Osborne, David Cameron has made a considerable effort to reassure Scotland he respects the country's distinctiveness to the extent that spending cuts here would be delayed by a year; has recognised the need for a rapid reduction in Britain's indebtedness; and has the desire to loosen the shackles of state dominance which so limits Scottish ambition.

The answer lies in what the television debates have all but destroyed. You are not appointing a prime minister tomorrow, but electing your representative to Westminster. That this is a time for change is not in doubt and the expenses scandal means the whole rotten stable needs a thorough cleansing. So when making your choice don't just look at your candidate's party, but at their records and their promises. Look, too, at the effort made to woo your vote, not in the past four weeks, but in the months and years before that.

You must ask who offers most to a new parliament and who can help bring refreshing change. Or who will just give you more of the same? If you have a candidate who ticks the first two boxes, no matter who they represent, give them your vote.