Breast-boosting hypnosis? Attempts to dig dirt on politicians worthy of Sherlock Holmes but not voters

This is my latest Scotsman column, published in today's paper (14th April 2026).

Antecedents are among the key components of any murder investigation. The careful examination of the life of the deceased can give clues as to how they met their end.

Likewise, the same exercise for the accused often offers strong indications of how and why their behaviour led to catastrophe.

Carrying out a detailed ‘antecedents’ investigation is a skill-set that must be learned and is often a job given to young detectives joining a major inquiry for the first time. Birth certificates, early years, family relationships, schooldays, hobbies, and, of course, personal relationships are all scrutinised so that an accurate ‘pen portrait’ can be presented as background to the case.

For the accused, any previous convictions are minutely scrutinised for clues as to behaviour or a course of conduct. It’s a skilled job, one which I learned as a young detective, and I admire those who do it well.

Which brings me neatly to the current election campaign and the supreme efforts of all our political parties to dig up whatever dirt they can to smear their opponents. The results are remarkable. One party leader was exposed as having told an off-colour joke at a rugby dinner ten years ago.

How on Earth was this transgression uncovered, or even remembered after a decade? The level of investigation would have put Sherlock Holmes to shame. But was this really all they could find? I can see the tabloid headline now: "Man tells rude joke at rugby dinner – shock horror."

Then we had the allegation that one of our MSPs behaved inappropriately towards a senior naval officer at a free-flowing drinks reception. Again, a remarkable piece of antecedent investigation...

So far, so what, but for the ultimate hilarity it’s hard to beat the report that one party leader down south once said he had managed to increase the size of a Sun reporter’s breasts using hypnosis (a claim she apparently supported, but for which the politician later apologised). You really couldn’t make it up.

As well as the remarkable skill at antecedent investigations on show, there’s also been a fair bit of pre-election re-invention going on. In one remarkable interview, a party leader well known for 30 years of dour managerialism, promised he would morph into an ‘activist' vehicle for change, despite the fact that nothing in his past performance suggests any such transformation is possible.

So as we approach the last few weeks of campaigning, I have a heartfelt plea. I cast my vote for the candidate and party that I judge to be the most credible and competent. I do not want to hear how others have failed or behaved at a social event a decade ago. I want to hear what the candidates and their parties will actually do during their term of office. And I want the truth.

Like most of the electorate, I am not stupid, and I know that our national fiscal deficit is deep in the red. If we ordinary folk handled our finances like this we would be declared bankrupt.

So no more digging the dirt, avoidance, or fairy stories. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think we can handle it and, what’s more, we deserve it.