WHAT a desperate state of affairs it is that Westminster wallpaper is dominating the headlines with less than a week to go until the Holyrood election, and that the “gotcha” questions for Douglas Ross are centred on English personalities rather than Scottish policies. Anas Sarwar must be delighted that he can just sit back and watch sleaze engulf the Tories, safe in the knowledge that his own party boss is a millionaire who will never need to tap friends for a new fitted kitchen.

By contrast, the latest “revelation” that Ross rented a flat co-owned by a pal when he was an MSP are hardly explosive. The fact that he claimed £7000 in expenses to stay there for six months probably says less about his desire to funnel cash into a pal’s pocket and more about the grotesquely over-inflated Edinburgh housing market.

The SNP should probably avoid claiming anyone is “mired in sleaze” for such flimsy reasons, and be careful their criticism of an MSP playing by the rules doesn’t come back to bite them. I hope they checked with their own MSP Mairi Gougeon, who rents a flat from political rival Kezia Dugdale, before crying foul over Ross’s arrangement.

READ MORE: Douglas Ross in 'cronyism' row over rent deal with 'good friend'

Our election is not about contracts for cronies, affairs for access or abhorrent comments about mass deaths from Covid. It’s about policies, not personalities, and here again Sarwar must be breathing a sigh of relief. While he’s been hailed in some quarters as Scottish Labour’s saviour, we must not forget that he was runner-up in the 2017 leadership contest, with just 9500 votes to Richard Leonard’s 12,500. Given he is streets ahead of the mumbling, fumbling Leonard, some might be wondering why he was left on the subs bench from 2018-20.

Part of the answer is that he’s a self-declared “Brownite” and ally of Kezia Dugdale, and was therefore persona non grata during the Leonard/Corbyn years. But another part of it must surely be that he’s not exactly a man of the people, and hardly the ideal candidate to appeal to those who have abandoned Labour in favour of the SNP but would feel more at home with a more left-wing party.

Of course, his refusal to countenance an indyref2 – let alone independence – is enough to deter a sizeable chunk of potential voters, but setting that problem aside, what does he really believe in? When he talks about a more socially just society, what does he consider “just” enough?

One does not choose to attend private school, so it’s not fair to blame him for his own education at Glasgow’s Hutcheson’s Grammar, but he and his wife made the decision to carry on this tradition with their own offspring. When asked if it wasn’t hypocritical to send his children to private schools while campaigning to have state support withdrawn from them (from the schools, that is, not the children), he replied: “I accept it’s a fair criticism. I’ve been open and honest about this.”

It’s not clear why he thinks he deserves a pat on the back for honesty here, and it’s difficult to see how he could have kept it a secret even if he’d wanted to – perhaps by bundling the weans in through a back door every morning, and bribing the parents of their classmates to keep quiet?

In days gone by, this kind of charge of hypocrisy would dog a Labour politician, and be the gift that kept on giving for their opponents. While it’s true that Diane Abbott added a cherry to her hypocrisy cake by actively criticising colleagues for choosing private education before doing so herself, her condemnation of Harriet Harman – “she made the Labour party look as if we do one thing and say another” – is hard to fault.

Does the average Scot care that Sarwar preaches one thing while doing another? Perhaps, but if they are anti-independence they are unlikely to find the alternative more palatable. Opposition to private education can be wrongly attributed to envy, or the possession of a chip on one’s shoulder. “Wouldn’t everyone do it if they could?” the flawed argument goes, and some even consider it commendable to pay for education the honest way rather than simply buying a home in a “better” catchment area.

READ MORE: Don't be fooled by big banks' threats to move because of independence

Explanations can always be conjured up for why one’s own family is a special case, and why of course this isn’t just snobbery in action, or a bid to give your children advantages over others, or some combination of the two.

But when the Prime Minister tries to swat away questions about a decor bill that dwarfs the average UK salary, and his partner is perceived as thinking John Lewis is for plebs, it’s clear they don’t just inhabit a different planet from the rest of us, but a different universe.

The John Lewis quote was actually attributed to a friend of Carrie Symonds, not the decorator-in-chief herself, but the “Carrie Antoinette” tag will, like one of those super-sticky paper labels on a TK Maxx vase, be difficult to remove. It’s one thing to be seen as looking down on benefits claimants, food-bank users and the young ruffians who drag down “problem” comprehensives, but it is quite another to suggest the show of presents from thousands of middle-class weddings amounted to piles of unfashionable tat.

The bar for acceptable conduct is now set so low that there’s a danger smaller hypocrisies and milder prejudices are being overlooked. After May 6 – and post-Johnson – that will hopefully change. Sarwar had better have his excuses ready.