Yousaf tries to distract us from SNP finance. Will it work?

Yes, that’s her. Anyway, she would regularly suggest that her political opponents – chiefly Alex Salmond – were inclined to detect squirrels on the horizon if they were in trouble.

Her theory was that they would metaphorically draw attention to bushy-tailed rodents in order to distract the audience from awkward political questions.

Would the First Minister explain why hospital waiting time targets are being routinely missed? Yes, I will in a moment – but just take a glance at that charming squirrel, a Caledonian red if I’m not mistaken.

Read more by Brian Taylor: Forbes’ questions about economic strategy need answers

No, I am not making this up. Indeed, I caught an echo of the Lamont squirrel routine this week in two initiatives by our current First Minister, Humza Yousaf.

It will not have escaped your notice that he and his party are in a heap of trouble.

It will also not have passed your steadfast scrutiny that there is precious little Mr Yousaf can do, directly, about the inquiries into the immediate past administration of the SNP’s finances.

He cannot and will not intervene in the police investigation. He cannot and will not intervene in any subsequent examination by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Yet, as party leader and FM, he has to cope with any political fall-out.

Hence the squirrels.

With regard to this issue, Mr Yousaf is at the helm but not in charge. In office but not in power, as Norman Lamont declared when he quit John Major’s government in 1993.

(No relation to Johann. Lord Lamont’s origins lie in Shetland. In Lerwick, they probably called him Peerie Norrie.) This week, Mr Yousaf announced that he intends to mount a legal challenge to the UK Government’s veto upon the Scottish gender recognition reform Bill.

Squirrel.

The FM also posted a video setting out his view that independence is needed now more than ever, that the SNP should unite and roll up sundry sleeves in order to attain that goal.

Squirrel.

Now, I know, I know, there are legitimate motivations underpinning each of these initiatives. From a nationalist leader, they are to be expected.

Johann Lamont (Image: Gordon Terris)

But still there is a tangy whiff of cheery rodent in the air. There is nut-gathering distraction in process.

(Is it true, incidentally, that squirrels have no idea where they have buried their stashes of nuts? They just conceal hundreds of them and chance to luck? Bit like politicians.) In the midst of turmoil, Humza Yousaf is resorting to fundamentals: advocating independence and fighting Westminster.

Going back to basics, to borrow another phrase from the Major years.

Being an astute politician, he knows that this will not entirely deflect attention from the financial inquiries. Not even close.

Equally, though, he hopes it may offer an alternative point of focus. It may also provide a point of unity for his troubled party, a common node, a lifebelt around which they can cluster.

Of the two, I think the legal challenge to the Section 35 veto is perhaps the weaker squirrel.

Firstly, though, let us acknowledge that political role-play here is not solely sourced in Holyrood.

The UK Government – Downing Street, Dover House, Alister Jack – also have a political objective.

Yes, they insist that the Scottish bill might infringe UK equalities provisions. They insist they only acted after “thorough and careful consideration” of legal advice and policy implications.

However, it also fits another narrative. A reminder that Scotland has two governments, two Parliaments. That Holyrood is not in sole charge.

Read more by Brian Taylor: Yousaf needs to disown Sturgeon and start again

And that, under the Scotland Act, the UK Government has the capacity to intervene if Holyrood is perceived to have over-stepped the mark. It is an exercise in UK power.

That said, I am not certain that Mr Yousaf’s challenge is a guaranteed winner – either in the law courts or in the court of public opinion.

Yes, it enables the FM to say that he is defending the rights of the elected Scottish Parliament which carried the Bill. That may resonate.

But there are others, including within the SNP, who say the challenge is costly and probably futile, particularly in the light of the wider UK Supreme Court ruling anent the division of powers.

And others again, including within the SNP, who question whether the legislation itself merits totemic status.

Let us simply say it is probably not the battleground Mr Yousaf would have picked, were he free to choose. However, he pledged action during the leadership contest and is making good his word.

The swifter squirrel is the independence video.

It is, after all, the core objective of the Scottish National Party. Rather deftly, Mr Yousaf linked that central, persistent, entrenched aim with what he obviously hopes will be transient trouble.

He said his party was going through change. Well, quite. But he argued that its roots remained “fundamentally strong”. That was then followed by the independence pitch.

And the other leader talking this week about independence versus the Union? Step forward Douglas Ross, leader of the Scottish Conservatives.

He speculated about tactical voting to oust SNP incumbents, backing Labour or Tory challengers where they were strongest.

Fair to say this was not universally popular. The UK Conservatives said it was “emphatically” not their view. Folk should just vote Tory. And Labour dismissed the notion.

So what just happened? Douglas Ross wants to skew Scottish political discourse back to the constitution. He believes his party can thrive if it is depicted as the core defence of Unionism in a straight fight with the proponents of independence.

This is about battleground, not combatants.

By contrast, Scottish Labour wants to triangulate. Blaming the Tories, mostly, for economic woes. Blaming the SNP, mostly, for problems in the NHS.

In other words, it is about redirecting the voters. It is about shaping popular perspective.

Those squirrels, eh? They’re everywhere.