THIS General Election campaign seems to be spiralling into a chaotic spectacle of sensationalism and absurdity. I can’t wait for it to be over; there is only so much stupidity one can handle in a day, and as this campaign drags on, my blood pressure seems to rise accordingly.

As a journalist dedicated to fostering meaningful political debate, I find myself teetering on the brink of disbelief and exasperation at the state of affairs. The recent uproar over First Minister Humza Yousaf’s remark about a “Tory-free Scotland” after the General Election perfectly illustrates just how low our political debate has sunk.

Yousaf has faced criticism, even from within his own party, for using this phrase during an SNP campaign event over the past weekend. Later, he staunchly defended his stance.

But seriously, let’s take a moment to really think about this: How does expressing a desire for political opponents to lose elections suddenly become hate speech?

READ MORE: BBC responds to anger at Holocaust text on Kaye Adams show

Disagreeing with policies, politicians, or ideologies doesn’t automatically make someone hateful. I may vehemently oppose plenty of values, but that doesn’t mean I wish harm upon those who uphold them. I know we haven’t been the best with nuance over the past few years, but my goodness, this latest episode is a stark example of just how far we have fallen.

During a BBC Radio Scotland broadcast on Monday, a concerned listener went as far as comparing the language used by the First Minister to the language employed in 1930s Germany. In a text message aired live on the radio, the listener expressed alarm, questioning whether the SNP’s approach could lead to the marginalisation and eventual banning of political opposition, alluding to Hitler’s “final solution”.

Now, does this mean that the SNP’s election message is the best ever? Absolutely not.

As I have previously discussed, the SNP’s messaging isn’t without its flaws. This upcoming General Election is presenting significant challenges for the SNP, especially with the Labour Party establishing itself as their main contender. That is why it strikes me as somewhat misguided to mainly focus on ousting the Conservative Party.

The National: Humza Yousaf wants the SNP to be Scotland’s voice at Westminster

Frankly, it feels like a distraction from the more pressing concern: the risk of losing seats to Labour. While gaining seats from Conservatives might seem like a win for the SNP, it is vital to keep the real conversation centred on their capacity to hold onto their own seats amidst tough competition from Labour.

That being said, that doesn’t excuse the language used by the guy who texted on the radio.

Let’s be crystal clear: Drawing parallels with the Holocaust to score cheap political points is not just absurd; it is downright repugnant.

In a world still reeling from the tragedies of history and grappling with the resurgence of antisemitism in the aftermath of Hamas’ massacre in Israel last year, such callous comparisons are not only disrespectful but dangerous. To trivialise the horrors of the Holocaust for political gain is an affront to decency and a betrayal of the memory of those who suffered.

READ MORE: A look at refugee women giving birth in Scotland

As journalists, we have a crucial duty to maintain the integrity of public discourse. However, when we provide a platform for baseless and inflammatory rhetoric, we inadvertently normalise absurdity and legitimise the illegitimate. It is baffling that equating a political slogan, however ineffective it may be, with genocidal ideology is even considered worthy of discussion.

What I truly struggle with is the fact that this text was deemed acceptable and reasonable as a starting point for a conversation. The presenter did say it was “a very dramatic parallel being drawn there”, but this feels so underwhelming.

By failing to adequately comment on or contextualise the egregious reference to the final solution, by allowing such language to go unchallenged, we perpetuate a climate where extreme views are tolerated, if not encouraged, further eroding the foundations of civil debate and mutual respect. It is imperative that we confront and reject such reckless language, ensuring that our public conversations remain grounded in facts and decency.

Neutrality in journalism should never mean turning a blind eye to the erosion of civility and reason in public discourse. If our neutrality is complicit in perpetuating a culture where absurdity reigns supreme, then we have failed not only as journalists but as custodians of democracy.

READ MORE: Jamie Stone: MP panned for wild Scottish NHS claim on campaign flyer

We owe it to the public, to ourselves, and to the integrity of political debate to draw a line in the sand and refuse to dignify such nonsense.

The normalisation of absurdity and extreme comparisons in political discourse is a worrying trend that has gained momentum over the years.

It is depressing to see how certain expressions and comparisons, once deemed outrageous, have now become all too common.

Take, for example, the aftermath of the 2015 Paris attacks. In the wake of such horrific events, politicians were shockingly liberal in their use of the word “hostage”, especially in discussions about strikes involving teachers or transport workers.

Describing striking workers as “holding people hostage” went beyond insensitivity; it implied that those exercising their right to strike were criminals, using force to coerce innocent victims.

In 2019, President Emmanuel Macron’s use of the term “hostage-taking” to describe certain teachers who refused to grade baccalauréat exams, taken by students at the end of high school before they start their higher education, epitomises this skewed rhetoric. By equating strikers with kidnappers, it not only demonises legitimate protest but also portrays it as a violent act rather than a lawful exercise of rights.

The National: Emmanuel Macron

It is a gross oversimplification that undermines the principles of democracy and the right to peaceful protest. Such rhetoric diminishes the suffering of real hostages and erodes the foundations of civil discourse.

And here’s the thing – the more extreme and crazy political debate becomes, the more ordinary people, who I truly believe make up the majority of the population, start tuning out.

And who can blame them? When all they hear is this nonsensical rhetoric flying back and forth, it is no wonder they would rather switch off and not engage. And then, it gets worse and worse.

When only the loudest, craziest and most caricatural are left participating in the conversation, it becomes this vicious cycle that just keeps feeding into itself.

It’s about time we redirected our focus to the issues that truly hold significance – although the irony of not delving into these matters in my column this week isn’t lost on me.

READ MORE: Owen Jones meets Humza Yousaf: Gaza, Keir Starmer and independence

With a General Election looming, there is a plethora of pressing concerns that warrant our collective attention: poverty, healthcare, education, climate change, just to scratch the surface.

Instead of getting caught up in nonsensical distractions, let’s harness our energy for meaningful conversations and productive engagement.

We can’t afford to let ourselves become numb to this degradation of language and discourse. It is on us to challenge this kind of talk and hold those responsible – including politicians and us, journalists – to account.

As ordinary citizens as well, we can refuse the terms of such “debates”. It would do us all a world of good to put an end to the normalisation of absurdity and start restoring dignity and respect to political debate.