Things can only get better?

It is a fact seldom mentioned that the Salmond administration could be turfed out of office tomorrow (or, to be more accurate, as soon as parliament resumes). The mechanics of the procedure would not be difficult. All it would require is a vote of no confidence on the part of parliament (in accordance with section 45(2) of the Scotland Act 1998). If he lost such a vote, Mr Salmond would have to - would be required by law to - resign as First Minister.

So what's stopping them? Why do Ms Alexander, Mr Stephen and Ms Goldie, leaders of the unionist parties with a collective unionist majority, tolerate this bumptious nationalist upstart who is playing fast and loose with constitutional conventions, who has his grubby hands on our nation's budget, who is actively seeking to destroy our nation's defensive capabilities and whose avowed intention is to reduce this country to the status of Lithuania or Slovenia? It lies within their power to put this rash usurper to the sword; so why not get on and do it?

To some extent, the answer lies in the consequences of any such action. To avoid an election (of which more in a minute), the three unionist parties would need to agree to the nomination of one of their leaders as a new First Minister. For reasons of parliamentary arithmetic, two parties would not be enough to secure the nomination; at the very least, it would in addition require one of the parties to abstain in the parliamentary vote. Not impossible, I would have thought - particularly if the new administration were prepared to operate on a care and maintenance basis, putting aside any controversial legislation. OK, it would not be ideal but unionists must ask themselves: would it be any worse than allowing Mr Salmond and his gang to run the country? For the sake of the greater unionist good, should not the three parties sink their differences and reach an accommodation?

Of course, the three parties could have sorted this out immediately following the May election. But, as you will remember, the Tories had pre-announced their intention to abjure formal pacts and the LibDems were doing their Greta Garbo impression ("I vant to be alone"); the Labour party was in shock and in no fit state to decide anything. But life moves on (possibly) and perhaps it is now time to re-visit the matter.

For obvious reasons, the less attractive option (from the unionist point of view) at present would be an election. But, following a vote of no confidence, and failing an agreement to nominate a new First Minister (or, alternatively, if parliament so resolved), there would have to be an election. The opinion polls offer little comfort to the unionist parties about their prospects at such an election if it took place in the near future. Nevertheless, sooner or later, the bloom will fade from the SNP and entropy will kick in. Ministers will make mistakes (as all ministers do); the electorate will realise that they are not actually capable of achieving very much, given the parliamentary arithmetic; the financial squeeze will be revealed as much worse than previously thought; and the council tax demands will start thudding through the letter box. Who knows, the Labour party may even begin to get its act together. The point is that Mr Salmond is living on borrowed time; once his opinion poll ratings start to slip, the days of his administration are numbered. Unlike Gordon Brown at Westminster, Mr Salmond has no majority to back him up when times get hard.

Meanwhile, the next time a unionist politician complains about the SNP administration, ask her why she doesn't do something about it.