I DON’T know if you’ve heard, but there’s an election coming up.

Here in Tiree, the weather is almost as dire as the campaigns themselves and just as inspired. The kindest thing we can say is that the parties are at least going through the motions.

A key election motion is to launch a manifesto. They have been duly launched to muted interest, and I’m betting few of us have read them. In fact, I strongly suspect that betting created far more column inches over the last few weeks than anything related to the Highlands, islands or any “rural” issues in the manifestos of the main parties.

To prove the theory, I did a trawl through the manifestos of all the main parties, looking for references to “islands” and “rural”. I focused on the manifestos of their Scottish branches, with a cross-reference to their main one for the craic.

So, what did I find? Very little worth writing about, to be honest. Thankfully, I’ve never let that stand in my way ...Let’s start with the incumbents – the Conservatives. In numerical terms, they are well ahead, managing 11 mentions of islands.

READ MORE: How Labour tried to gag The National with pre-election legal threat

Those mentions are split between their Islands Forum – which does at least acknowledge our existence – regurgitating the ferry situation, a nod at the importance of the PSO lifeline flight service, a vague promise to reverse depopulation in island and rural areas and a mention of the unfair higher delivery charges in the Highlands and Islands.

Delivery charges are an interesting one. They’re folded into a section about Royal Mail, as postage services are reserved to Westminster. However, those who live the reality of higher charges know that Royal Mail is not the issue because it has a standard charge.

Higher charges are a result of courier charges. And since couriers are private companies matters, courier charges would likely be overseen by bodies such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) or the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). It’s not a quick win – it’s rather a long and complex legislative debate which will not be high on anyone’s priority list, more’s the pity.

The Scottish Tory manifesto is a nice try, but there is little here which would make a substantive difference. Plenty of mentions of broadband under “rural”. The R100 programme has been running for a long time now to try and Reach 100% of properties with superfast broadband. It’s behind schedule and short of budget and a source of frustration at every level.

And it won’t ever actually reach 100%.

The Tories spend a lot of time on other rural issues, including a pledge to oppose any sort of HMPA 2.0, a pledge to ringfence agricultural funding and the creation of a new Agricultural Innovation Fund – whatever that is. Regardless of the promises, the document flip-flops between devolved and reserved matters in a no doubt intentionally unhelpful way and after 14 years of Tory government in Westminster, I don’t believe a word of it.

Something we do currently benefit from in rural and island Scotland is the Shared Prosperity Fund. And that is directly relevant to Westminster.

The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) is a UK Government initiative “designed to reduce inequalities between communities across the UK by investing in local priorities and enabling local places to grow and thrive”. The fund replaced the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) previously provided by the European Union, following Brexit. The Conservative manifesto promises to extend it for three years and increase the Barnett formula.

But what about if Labour get in? What will happen to that fund – and how will they approach the Barnett formula? We’re not told, which is unfortunate given how critical both are.

In the Scottish Labour manifesto – which manages precisely two uses of the word “island”, two more than their UK counterparts – there is no mention of that fund. The two topics related to islands are a review of NHS services, and yet another round of ferry angst. Neither of which are in the immediate gift of Westminster.

READ MORE: LGBT+ MSPs on the experience of being out in Holyrood

Scottish Labour have four instances of the word “rural”. They relate to Royal Mail, planning legislation, bus and train services and access to health care, only one of those is not devolved.

As for the SNP? Their Westminster faction exists to lobby for Scottish interests. They will surely have the most to say about our island communities, right? Not really. There is one mention of

“islands”, under a bullet point “Introduce a fair energy pricing and rebate scheme for Highland and Islands residents.” That’s it, folks. To be fair, you could argue that they are the most honest based on what is and is not in Westminster control – but they would need to be, given that they are in charge north of the Border.

What about the “rural” in the SNP manifesto? Three mentions – investing in safer roads and introducing a rural visa pilot. The third is about how rejoining the EU would mean “more funding for farming, fishing and other rural sectors.” That’s broad enough to cover all and none of the bases.

The Greens and the LibDems were the last two I could muster the energy for …

The Scottish Greens have two mentions of islands. One is in relation to learning from Pacific Islands and the other in relation to the renationalisation of public transport, including lifeline island flights. “Rural” gets a whole four mentions, relating to energy, public transport options and the lack of seasonal workers being exacerbated by immigration legislation.

The Scottish LibDems? Three island mentions. A variation on the “no to HPMA 2.0” theme, looking at fixed links and guess what … a rehash of the ferries.

LibDem “rural” mentions include gigabit broadband rollout, and farming budgets. The nice thing about the LibDems is that they specifically mention working in partnership with the Scottish Government – and at one point say they will give them additional funding. That’s the only manifesto, SNP aside, which acknowledges the existence of a devolved Government as a partner as opposed to an adversary. Increasing rural fuel duty relief is on their list - something which is desperately needed and pleasingly practical. (The SNP manifesto includes a promise to devolve that.)

And in terms of money where your mouth is? Keir Starmer made it as far north as Greenock. Sunak made it to Inverness. Anas Sarwar got to Lewis at least. Presumably, Douglas Ross has been watching football.

READ MORE: 'She understands Scotland': Scottish Tories parachute in Theresa May

Not sure Ed Davey has been to Scotland but he has cut through more than his Scottish counterpart, the Greens are hiding from the Highlands and Islands anyway and Stephen Flynn of the SNP has been performing well, but not made it particularly far north as far as I can tell.

Maybe it’s unfair to expect a Westminster election to give our islands the time of day, after all, one of the biggest challenges of devolution must be trying to work out what to include in a Scottish manifesto for a Westminster election.

In terms of content, the SNP should be in the strongest position, as they spend much of their time laying the blame for everything they can at the door of Westminster funding. Sometimes justifiably. Unsurprisingly though, the temptation to give the SNP a good kicking was too strong to resist for Labour and the Tories. They can only really kick them on matters which are devolved, and therefore broadly irrelevant, but that doesn’t stop them muddying the waters for the jaded Scottish electorate.

The upshot of this whistle-stop tour of party promises is that whether it is at Westminster or in Holyrood, our island, Highland and rural communities deserve better. They deserve better than having their transport issues used as a political football, they deserve better than a single visit from a few of the party leaders, and they deserve better than being the occasional footnote in lazy manifestos which are tetchy and combative.

Scant on detail and muddled about who is responsible for what, the manifestos are certainly not inspiring confidence that whoever trauchles past the post on Thursday night will make any substantive difference to daily life outside the central belt. But that’s not really a surprise, is it?