I find myself once again on the side of Patrick Harvie. I spotted in The Scotsman on Friday that the co-convener of the Greens found himself in a bit of hot water for using Twitter while hob-nobbing with Gordon Brown and other politicians.

Tavish Scott bemoaned the poor manners of it. But a spokesperson for Jim Murphy (himself an occasional Twitter user was a bit more light-hearted, noting that it is normal for Greens to like birds, so it’s not unusual for Patrick Harvie to be tweeting.

Although The Scotsman article itself is not too scathing, immediately underneath was a comment piece by a curmudgeonly “etiquette guru” who says dislikes “antisocial BlackBerry use” because “it really is the worst sort of behaviour”. I don’t know about you, but I think someone takes it upon themselves to go around the place telling other people to behave is actually incredibly rude.

Richard Havers calls him a twit. But Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting doesn’t see the problem, and I have to agree. I wonder if there is a generational divide here. I can well understand why people might find it disconcerting for someone to occasionally prod on a gadget while at a social function.

But these devices are our umbilical cord to the world. Why be holed up in a room when you can be communicating with the world? I think people my age have a tacit understanding about the acceptable use of mobile phones in a social situation.

While I would certainly feel offended were it to happen during a one-to-one meeting, it is in the nature of discussions with larger numbers of people for everyone to find themselves not taking part in a conversation at some point or another. I would particularly be tempted if the conversation centred around that turgid game known as football, as Patrick Harvie found. It is not as though he was constantly plugged into Twitter. He only fired off seven tweets over the course of about three hours.

If you are not engaged in conversation, there is no harm in getting your mobile out. Everyone does it in larger gatherings, and from time to time I have even seen instances where almost everyone in the group is doing something on their mobile. It might seem odd, but it is not a demonstration of antisocial behaviour.

It is silly to call using Twitter antisocial. I never got this nation that using modern communication technologies is antisocial. In fact, it is the complete opposite. So Patrick Harvie decided to take a bit of time out from communicating with eight other people. But by posting to Twitter, he began communicating with his 100-odd followers. So which is more antisocial — ignoring the eight or ignoring the 100?

I also like Patrick Harvie’s point that it is those other 100+ people who are the important ones. If nothing else, the politician’s use of Twitter is a good demonstration of a desire to engage people in the political process, even if his contributions on the night were not always very serious.

According to the BBC, the Liberal Democrats are refusing to go into coalition with the SNP for the time being. The stumbling block is, of course, the independence referendum.

I am quite surprised. As the campaign went along, both the Lib Dems and the SNP seemed to be leaving wriggle room for compromise. To suddenly shut the door on a deal is surprising.

This is the second time in less than twelve hours that the Lib Dems have ruled out a coalition deal. Tavish Scott was on The Politics Show this afternoon and when he was asked if a coalition deal with Labour was on the cards he said confidently and without hesitation, “No.”

Perhaps the Lib Dems have figured that they have nothing to gain from making another coalition deal. They are getting a bad reputation from voters, who are increasingly seeing the Lib Dems as political prostitutes.

Maybe they have decided the best course of action is just to go away and lick their wounds after all. And they will now score brownie points for sticking to their guns and refusing to sell out on the question of independence.

Still, I’m sure this isn’t the end of it. Nicol Stephen might have made a rash decision. Maybe Alex Salmond raised the stakes too high by trying to secure a proper referendum on independence, rather than more powers for Holyrood or a multi-question referendum.

A lot of people have talked about “confidence and supply” over the past few days, and that did sound like a feasible option.

I guess the bottom line is that the election was just far too close for any solution to be allowed to come about. As things stand, Scottish politics is in total gridlock. Things are even too tight to choose the Presiding Officer. And with the Lib Dems refusing to go into coalition with anyone, a re-election really is on the cards.

Via Mr Eugenides.

Update: The BBC story has been expanded a bit now.

“I made it clear to him that unless and until the SNP removes the fundamental barrier of a referendum on independence during the next four years, there can be no coalition,” Mr Stephen added in a statement.

I guess not much has changed, except that the ball is firmly in Alex Salmond’s court. Is he prepared to remove that “fundamental barrier”? It would enrage SNP activists.