Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson and her team are said to have felt a mixture of relief and disappointment after the election results came in.
Strategists were happy to avoid a wipeout - the party held on to sole MP David Mundell - but the Conservatives again failed to make progress.
The harsh truth is that the 14.9% vote share was the worst result since the Scottish Tories were formed in 1965.
Inside the political bubble, Davidson fought a decent campaign.
She performed well in the leaders' debates, put forward a positive "blue collar conservatism" message and was even tipped for a move to the Commons.
In reality, Davidson failed to meet half of the four tests she set herself in the closing stages of the campaign.
The Glasgow MSP said she wanted the Tories to win more than one MP. This goal was not achieved.
She said the party should demonstrate an improvement in vote share. It fell.
Only the low-hanging targets were met, such as overtaking the Liberal Democrats and increasing the number of votes compared to 2010.
However, although Davidson inherited a divided party when she became leader in 2011, senior Tory sources believe she is blameless for the poor showing.
Part of her struggle can be traced to the tactic of pro-Union voters ignoring their gut preference by supporting the party best placed to defeat the Nationalists.
In practice, this meant the Scottish Tories losing votes to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but getting little in return.
Davidson's party may have been the best option to challenge the SNP in various seats, but the reality of Scottish politics is that Labour and LibDem supporters were unlikely ever to back the Conservatives.
Senior party sources said a bigger obstacle to a Scottish Tory revival was David Cameron, who traded away progress north of the border for reaching out to voters in England by playing the anti-SNP card.
As Davidson sold the coalition message on welfare and the economy, Cameron talked up the SNP and complained that any Nationalist-Labour tie up would lack legitimacy.
The Prime Minister, according to party insiders, undermined another plank of Davidson's strategy, namely her uncompromising support for the UK.
Davidson had repositioned her party as a supporter of greater devolution to Holyrood, but Cameron instead unveiled the 'Carlisle principle', a hazy declaration founded on the idea that Scottish Government decisions should not disadvantage the UK.
One Tory source said: "It was like a tug of war contest. Ruth pulled in one direction and Cameron did the opposite."
In the end, Cameron's strategy delivered a Tory majority but held back progress in Scotland.
Of the party's three target seats, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine fell comfortably to the Nationalists, Mundell held on by around 800 voters, and MSP John Lamont narrowly failed in the Borders.
Lord Forsyth, who was John Major's Scottish Secretary, complained the Cameron approach risked harming the UK.
"We've had the dilemma for Conservatives, which is they want to be the largest party at Westminster and therefore some see the fact that the nationalists are going to take seats in Scotland will be helpful. But that is a short-term and dangerous view which threatens the integrity of our country."
Cameron's divisive strategy could also reopen the old wound of Scottish Tory autonomy from the UK party.
Davidson, once a sceptic of loosening the ties with London, may now have no option but to back a radical internal restructuring if she wants successful photo-shoots to translate into votes.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article