 Sir Winston Churchill once said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."  as we near the end of the tortuously long and often profoundly frustrating election campaign for the fourth Scottish parliament, we would do well to bear in mind these wise words. We may have found much of what our would-be MSPs had to say evasive, populist, cloying, sometimes bordering on the dishonest, but recent events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria should remind us how fortunate we are to live in a democracy, with all its flaws. Given this, what can we make of the 2011 election campaign which will result, lest we forget, in the formation of a Scottish government for the five-year term of the next parliament, thanks to the move to avoid a clash with the next Westminster election, due in 2015? What have we learned about those who seek to govern Scotland and what can we conclude in terms of what is best for the national interest?  This newspaper has consistently been in favour of home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom, or devolution as it came to be known. as far back as the first debates over home rule, which divided the then Liberal Party, editorials on these pages have advocated the creation of a body elected to represent Scotland, a distinct nation within a larger union. We did so on the basis of addressing what in modern terminology became known as a democratic deficit, and not for partisan political reasons of support for a particular party. In this context, the arguments put forward by Labour in this election that Holyrood was created merely to resist Toryism in London or, deployed by some in the Scottish National Party, that it is the inevitable forerunner to independence, do a great disservice to the democratic ideals of the founding principles of devolution.  Which brings us to today and the battle for Holyrood. The third Holyrood parliament was remarkable in at least one respect, in that it produced Scotland's first Nationalist government under First Minister alex Salmond. It was also Scotland's first minority administration as, after he boldly claimed victory on the basis of winning just one more seat than Labour, Mr Salmond found it impossible to form a coalition, encountering particular hostility from the Liberal Democrats.  O, IN looking at the record of the Nationalist Scottish Government as it seeks re-election, we have to acknowledge that its hands were tied by virtue of being a minority administration. This meant key policies on everything from local income tax to the referendum on independence were defeated or abandoned because of a lack of a parliamentary majority. Other key pledges, such as wiping out student debt or cutting primary school class sizes to 18, which did not need the consent of parliament, were not delivered and, even for a minority government, can be classified as broken promises.  In other areas, the SNP had more success. Populist policies, such as the council tax freeze, abolishing bridge tolls, phasing out prescription charges and increasing the numbers of police, were delivered, as well as a reduction in the burden of rates for small businesses. In criminal justice, a presumption against jailing those convicted of relatively minor offences was achieved.  So, the SNP's record is mixed. It failed on some big-ticket items but delivered in other areas. What has been more important, however, has been the style of government, and particularly of Mr Salmond as First Minister. He has dominated his party for many years - his party's fortunes in the years he stepped back from the leadership are in stark contrast to its success today - and he came to dominate the machinery of government in a way that some believe is overbearing, even bullying. But dominate it he did. He grew in government from the astute street fighter of opposition to become the most popular First Minister since Donald Dewar, a fact our Scotsman/YouGov polls confirm. Like him or loathe him, Mr Salmond is, as we have said in these columns before, the only Big Beast of Holyrood politics.  The question for this election must, therefore, be whether he deserves to continue in Bute House. The SNP manifesto was a masterpiece of Hello!-style propaganda, complete with soft-focus pictures of various SNP worthies and their babies. But it contained a series of proposals that most objective analysts viewed as optimistic to say the least. Student tuition fees could be avoided by a bridging a supposed funding gap with England of just GBP93 million - the figure is at least double that, probably more. Putting off the introduction of local income tax, it promises to freeze the council tax for the full five years of the parliament. It says Scotland's entire energy consumption could be met from renewable sources in less than a decade. The NHS budget would be protected. and there would be a referendum on independence at some point in the next parliament, probably nearer the end. Other benefits in the gift of the Scottish Government, such as free bus travel for all those over 60, would remain.  at a time when Holyrood is facing a huge cut in its budget from a Westminster government having to deal with the aftermath of the banking bail-out, and when an excellent report by SNP-leaning businessman Crawford Beveridge commissioned by Mr Salmond shows a projected cut of 12.5 per cent in real terms in the Scottish budget, such promises are rash at best. Funding them on the basis of cost savings on a construction project that hasn't even left the drawing board - the second Forth road crossing - sets new standards in creative accounting.  Given this, one might have hoped the principal opposition party, Labour, would present a more realistic alternative. To its shame, it did the opposite, performing a U-turn on student contributions and matching virtually all of the SNP's impossibilist promises. Labour differed from the Nationalists only on the issue of independence, which it belatedly raised in an attempt to scare the electorate on separatism after our Scotsman/YouGov polls showed their once substantial lead over the SNP disappearing and Mr Salmond moving ahead.  In contrast to the statesman-like presence of Mr Salmond, Labour's Iain Gray, though clearly a sincere and decent man, often looked ill at ease as a front-line politician. His retreat to a sandwich shop when pursued by an anti-cuts activist seemed to symbolise his party's campaign. Instead of being bold on telling voters of the hard choices ahead, Labour tried to hide. For reasons of political timidity, for their failure to spell out any compelling vision for Scotland and for Mr Gray's lack of leadership, we cannot support Labour at this election.  HE Liberal Democrats, once the king-makers of Scottish politics, have suffered an awful campaign, paying the price for the duplicity of their colleagues in London who entered the coalition with the Tories and dumped what was always a foolish pre-election promise not to bring in tuition fees. Tavish Scott, the Scottish Lib Dem leader, is a serious politician with experience as a minister in the coalition with Labour, but he was always on a hiding to nothing. Despite a slightly more realistic manifesto than Labour or the SNP - suggesting some free services may be curtailed and scope for university reform - the Lib Dems seem destined for ignominy. Whilst we have some sympathy for Mr Scott and his party as they try to distance themselves from Nick Clegg and his colleagues south of the Border, this has led them up the dark alley of rejecting student contributions. Further, they still back what would be crippling and unstable local income tax and oppose any reform of police administration. a distinct Scottish entity they may be, but we find support for the Lib Dems hard to justify.  The beneficiaries of the withering support for the Lib Dems may well be the Green party. No-one can accuse the Greens of obfuscating or dissembling. They are clear in their policies, which include increasing income tax, the tartan tax levied by Holyrood, by 0.5p. Their manifesto sets out almost GBP7 billion to be raised through the land value tax, as well as ditching costly transport schemes such as the new Forth road bridge and aberdeen bypass. Thanks to the legacy of their retiring leader Robin Harper, the Greens are often seen as cuddly people, who just want us all to recycle more rubbish. They are not. They are a serious party, but with left-wing policies we believe would seriously damage the Scottish economy. They cannot, therefore, command our support.  Which leaves the Tories. Usually the subject of knee-jerk derision in Scotland, the Conservatives are still battling the legacy of Thatcherism, but they have endeavoured to move beyond that under their feisty Scottish leader annabel Goldie. In this election, the Tories have distinguished themselves as being the only party to come close to telling the electorate the truth: that cuts will have to be made, that graduates may have to contribute to the cost of the education they receive, that everything cannot be free. For this, they deserve praise, and this honesty combined with the very Scottish humour and good sense of Miss Goldie are helping, finally, to rehabilitate the Conservatives. But, despite something of a revival, the Tories cannot hope to be the party of government.  What does that leave in terms of the future administration of Scotland? Like the voters, this newspaper can choose only on the basis of the politicians in front of us, not the politicians we hope to see. There are significant areas of the SNP prospectus with which we disagree - not least in terms of tuition fees, the need for a diversity of provision in public services, and the ultimate objective of independence. But there are other areas where we agree - for example, their commitment to keeping more police officers, the pledge on maintaining health spending, a cut in the number of police forces, a focus on growing the economy and boosting small businesses. Their idea of devolving corporation tax to Holyrood is worth exploring.  But beyond where we agree and disagree, there is a more fundamental point: there is no other credible candidate for First Minister beyond Mr Salmond. Despite his party's apparently staunch commitment to statism, we also know the SNP leader is passionate about the role of business and free enterprise in generating jobs and growth for Scotland, within or outwith the Union. In that, he and many of his colleagues - finance secretary John Swinney is one - share the beliefs of the Tories, and we feel there may be common ground between them.  COTLaND needs a strong First Minister and a strong government, and only the SNP under Mr Salmond has the potential to provide that. However, what the SNP and  