Do you ever get the feeling, when reading or listening to the over-excited, slightly foamier-mouthed followers of political parties espouse their views on any given topic, that we are losing our critical faculties?
Take the Queensferry Crossing delay, announced this week by Keith Brown, the Economy Secretary, as an example.
The new bridge will not be ready until sometime between July and the end of August.
Now this is a big project. Big projects are often late.
When this happens, governments tend to come in for criticism either because they have got the date wrong and people will have to wait a bit longer or because the taxpayer will now lose out on more money, sometimes both.
Now, however, simply reporting the fact that there has been a delay beyond the contracted date of June 14 is some kind of heresy that equates to wanting bridge workers to carry out their duties in an unsafe environment.
Heaven help you if you dare to point out that it is also the second slippage the Scottish Government has announced on the new bridge after its December target date – which was hailed with such hubristic fanfare as an example of success far too early, evidently – was missed.
Now, of course it is nearly impossible to legislate for the weather but, well, it is the east coast of Scotland, not known for its gentle breezes.
And it should go without saying that the safety of those involved in creating this fantastic structure should be paramount. Waiting a few weeks more is really not that important in the grand scheme of things.
If you take, and seek, the praise when things are going well, though, you had better be ready for the reality of being held to account when things go wrong.
It is part of being a government. One delayed project does not make an administration good or bad but sadly it seems that a preoccupation with the constitution at all costs means one of the parties in control of many things that affect our lives should not be criticised.
Of course, this bizarre and irrational behaviour is not confined to Scotland.
Far from it. I was about half way through writing this column when national service became a prospect.
Following hot on the heels of EU nationals and terrorism prevention intelligence, Gibraltar became the latest bargaining chip in the Brexit negotiations.
This time, though, it’s war. Or at least that’s what former Tory leader Lord Howard has suggested.
A man who once wanted to be Prime Minister is genuinely suggesting we treat Spain with the same aggression shown to Argentina during the Falklands conflict.
You might expect the reaction to this to be along the lines of: “Hud the bus, is this not a bit of an over reaction?”
Not if you are Rear-Adml Chris Parry, a former director of operational capability at the Ministry of Defence.
He reckons the UK Government should “appropriately” invest in Britain’s military capacity if it wants to “talk big” over Gibraltar.
Rear-Adml Parry genuinely said: “We could cripple Spain in the medium term and I think the Americans would probably support us too. Spain should learn from history that it is never worth taking us on and that we could still singe the King of Spain’s beard.”
There’s no consideration it was an oversight in the Article 50 letter that allowed Spain to steal a diplomatic march, just a desire to tool up and fight.
This is without getting onto the prospect of £500 million worth of blue passports. That’s almost a couple of weeks’ worth of extra NHS money right there.
Again, all of this is out of some befuddled nationalist thought process that prioritises an unquestioning us versus them, might makes right mentality.
That’s not healthy. No matter the constitution, governments must be properly held to account.