THE opposition aren’t even having to try right now. The smiles on their faces say it all.

Every time the new SNP leader Humza Yousaf tries to move focus away from the raging binfire that was once Britain’s most formidable political party, his efforts are hijacked. Someone says something, or someone gets arrested – or both – and all our eyes are drawn back to the flames.

This week, while Mr Yousaf tried to start afresh with a “reset” on policy, SNP treasurer Colin Beattie MSP was arrested, Rishi Sunak quipped about motorhomes and Kate Forbes described the claims about her party’s finances as “mind-blowing”.

So much for Mr Yousaf’s big moment.

But we learned something from his speech all the same. We learned that, after a leadership contest notable for offering a clear choice between two sharply differing candidates, the “progressive” one Humza Yousaf is now moving closer to the centre and adopting some of the more conservative ideas associated with his main opponent Ms Forbes.

And we learned that Humza Yousaf is trying to dress up a slight policy agenda to look bolder than it is.

In other words, he’s playing it safe.

All this raises questions. By the time of the general election (assuming he survives that long as FM), will the SNP of Humza Yousaf still resemble that of the bold progressive Nicola Sturgeon? Or will it be a diminished force, occupying a different political niche?

If so, it could be the opportunity Labour have been waiting for.

It’s not that Mr Yousaf has repudiated Nicola Sturgeon’s politics wholesale, but he’s trying to ride two horses.

On the one hand, he tried to reassure progressives in his speech, saying “the Government I lead will not only protect the rights of minorities, where possible we will advance them” – a clear reminder that, like Nicola Sturgeon, he can be trusted to go further than the socially conservative Kate Forbes would have done.

In a similar vein, he stressed his mission to tackle poverty, partly through having “the most progressive taxation system in the UK”.

But there are signs that the consistency of intention we knew under Sturgeon is starting to fray. As Mr Yousaf tries to distance himself from his predecessor, he’s throwing out some of her policies.

The postponement and rethinking of the Deposit Return Scheme is unsurprising, was well-trailed and will have few mourners. There were also widespread concern about the National Care Service (which is to remain under discussion for longer) and few will argue about rejoining international surveys on reading, maths and science in schools.

But there will be dismay among public health campaigners that Mr Yousaf, a former health secretary, is retreating from moves to restrict alcohol advertising.

Mr Yousaf is sending a consultation on this “back to the drawing board” for a rethink by officials in conjunction with, firstly, “the industry”, and secondly, public health stakeholders.

This is significant. Mentioning industry first seems to have more to do with currying favour with business than trying to tackle the problem of alcohol deaths (which are at their highest level since 2008, by the way).

It seems likely that any resulting marketing restrictions will be a lot weaker than they would have been otherwise.

Then there is Mr Yousaf’s U-turn on Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs). These were to make up 10 per cent of Scotland’s seas. The idea was that fishing and industrial activities would be banned to protect habitats, biodiversity and fish stocks. Ms Forbes opposes them.

Mr Yousaf now says that they will not be imposed on “communities that don’t want them”. That is perfectly reasonable – except that of course they might be rejected everywhere. What then becomes of those biodiversity aims? We don’t know.

The policy most strongly reminiscent of Kate Forbes, though, is his full-frontal attempt to woo business and promote economic growth.

Now this should not be inimical to a progressive policy agenda. Mr Yousaf has rightly spelled out the value of businesses as job creators and taxpayers, and added that “there has never been a conflict, to my mind, between supporting our economy to grow, in line with our net-zero ambitions, and introducing policies – such as progressive taxation – which enables us to reduce poverty”.

Maybe. But there will be concerns about what it could mean for a range of important policies if the First Minister’s starting point is to make sure business is happy. Business networks, for instance, opposed tax hikes on the wealthiest in the last budget. How will Mr Yousaf reconcile that attitude with the desire he set out in his speech “to be even bolder taxation and the redistribution of wealth”?

What will become of mooted restrictions on unhealthy food and drink promotions, or the marketing of vapes? Are the concerns of business to be given parity with other stakeholders, or primacy over them? What will become of our hard-earned reputation as a global innovator in public health? With our record on health inequalities, this is not an area in which we can afford to retreat.

Yousaf, it seems, is rather lighter on ambition than Sturgeon. There was too much target-setting and not enough delivery under Sturgeon, but the modesty of Yousaf’s aims is striking. Waiting lists will “fall”, social care services will “improve”, work will be done to “reduce” drugs deaths and the number of people living in temporary accommodation.

It's the Rishi Sunak approach: promise as little as possible, but at least try to deliver it.

In a way, Mr Yousaf has no choice. Big innovations, and fights with business or other powerful lobbies, eat up lots of political capital. Nicola Sturgeon had plenty, but her successor doesn’t. His aim is to get to the next election having delivered on modest promises rather than missed big targets.

It’s not a bad strategy, though it does open up the space for opposition parties to provide vision and ambition.

So we can make out a plan by Yousaf for the months ahead. The problem is that all of it will count for diddly squat unless someone can douse that binfire.