A coalition between Labour and the SNP is essential if the city is to be regenerated
There could only ever have been one winner when Alex Salmond had a late dinner with Donald Trump in New York five years ago. In the west of Scotland, "late dinner" really means "significant bevvy session". Let's speak frankly here. Our esteemed first minister looks like he knows how to handle himself when duty calls for him to consume more than the recommended safe alcohol quotient at one sitting. Mr Trump, on the other hand, conveys the impression that he wouldn't know whether to drink it or apply it to his hair.
So if Mr Salmond promised that there would be no ocean windfarms to contaminate the view from Mr Trump's golf resort, then, like a good margherita, it should have been taken with more than a pinch of salt. It's what they teach you in the best Scottish economic écoles: when fleecing a US billionaire, first get him completely howling before dipping him for £1bn of inward investment.
Even with the cheque safely in the pocket of his tartan trews, Mr Salmond, being Mr Salmond, couldn't resist a final flourish. He proceeded to tell Mr Trump that, in any case, the defence ministry would object to windfarm development off the Aberdeenshire coast because it would interfere with shipping lanes. Aye, very good, first minister.
Perhaps the Royal Navy was intending to use them on exercises to improve the navigational skills of some of their more wayward nuclear submarine commanders in the same way that Scottish wingers often used traffic cones to improve their jinking abilities. What are we paying our first minister for if it's not to secure billions of pounds of inward investment for Scotland from rich and gullible American plutocrats?
It's been a good few days all round for Mr Salmond. The opposition attempts to wound him over his relationship with Rupert Murdoch, another obstreperous and rich colonial, sounded merely shrill and ineffective. Labour's howls of outrage were particularly sanctimonious.
Mr Salmond, they claimed, was only cosying up to the media magnate in exchange for the support of the Scottish Sun. For decades though, Scottish Labour haven't so much as used a public convenience without first checking with the Daily Record if it's OK to do so. Two-nil then to the SNP (Salmond 13, 14). It remains to be seen if the wily old snake charmer can take Glasgow from Labour in this week's council elections as easily as he took Trump for a ride.
The whisky stains had hardly dried on their kilts after their landslide Holyrood victory in 2010 before the SNP began plotting to take control of Glasgow at the first available opportunity. That day is now almost upon us. Once, it would have been inconceivable for the SNP even to contemplate taking Scotland's major city outright. Labour's writ has run unchallenged in Glasgow for more than 30 years and, in 2003, the three SNP councillors returned at the local government elections were engulfed by 71 Labour. But the recent convergence of circumstances continues to bode well for Alex Salmond, as it has been since his party's first electoral victory in 2007. His star still hangs above Bethlehem.
Just a few months before the SNP's Holyrood triumph, Stephen Purcell, Labour's charismatic and brilliant group leader in Glasgow, suffered a nervous breakdown and the party's edifice began to sway. A bitter civil and acrimonious leadership election ensued and the winner, Gordon Matheson, has never since been able to command any semblance of outright support from his charges.
There are some in Glasgow Labour who wish that Purcell's demise had occurred before he had time to force through long overdue voting reform in the city. This resulted in the single transferable vote system, which means that, with multi-member wards, Labour now must work far harder for any majority. They need 40 seats out of 79, but currently have only 39, owing to a recent defection.
The prospect of the SNP winning an outright majority remains remote and, though they will point to the unexpected 2010 windfall, Labour activists I spoke to in Glasgow last week are far happier with the numbers than their Holyrood counterparts were with theirs two years ago. The SNP, though, do not need to win control – or even be returned as the biggest single party – to claim victory. Simply to deny Labour a majority and to force it into sullen coalition will be enough for the SNP to begin again to interpret the runes and portents favourably. Another milestone will have been passed on the road to independence, they will claim.
There are still vast wildernesses of multi-deprivation in Glasgow untouched by any of the shallow and half-arsed economic and employment initiatives that previous administrations have launched. Drastic and radical measures must be taken in the next five years to prevent these precincts becoming detached forever. If Labour is the biggest party in a hung administration, it may be impelled to make overtures to the Greens. This would be perverse. The last thing my city needs is giving any power whatsoever to a party whose answer to life's vicissitudes is more cycle lanes and turning George Square into an allotment.
In terms of policy, there has been little to separate Labour and the SNP during the campaign. They have each pledged to freeze the council tax and they are seeking to guarantee a job or meaningful occupational training for all of our young people. Each party has a social conscience. Last Thursday night, a Labour provost welcomed an SNP culture secretary to the new Maryhill Burgh Halls following its splendid £9m regeneration. This is a good and sovereign work and money well spent in an area that has not often had its troubles to seek.
If Labour is forced to seek a partner to help them push through its crucial social agenda in Glasgow it must approach the Nationalists and offer them a few of the big city portfolios. The challenges facing my city are too significant and too imminent for them to be working against each other.