By chance, I spoke at two disparate events this week, one in the east of Scotland, one in the west. At each, I was asked whether the SNP could survive.

The premise was whether the SNP might fragment into competing parties or dissolve into a wider, inchoate Yes movement.

In response, I offered an answer which will be familiar to readers of these meanderings.

That such matters are determined by the people, not the commentariat. That no party has a right to thrive, or even persist.

That the SNP is undoubtedly facing a substantial and sustained challenge. But that the common aim of independence has often subsumed disquiet in the past – and might do so again.

On balance, then, I think the SNP is big enough and broad enough to survive this current crisis if sufficient leadership is provided by Humza Yousaf and sufficient acquiescence is tendered by internal critics. On balance.

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

Perhaps Mr Yousaf might summon a wry comment delivered by Benjamin Disraeli who advised people to “hope for the best but prepare for the worst”.

First things first, though. Mr Yousaf is very far from being in sole charge of events.

Such is the nature of an independent police investigation into the party’s finances linked to independent scrutiny by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Police arrested and questioned Colin Beattie, the SNP Treasurer, on the very day Humza Yousaf was due to set out his revised governmental priorities in a significant Holyrood statement.

I have no doubt the timing simply matched progress in the police investigation. By chance, it helped to underline the independence of the procedure.

So there are sharply defined limits as to the actions available to the First Minister.

Equally, though, Mr Yousaf’s opponents are determined to pinpoint him, as well as his predecessor, Nicola Sturgeon.

They want to pin responsibility upon the man they are currently facing in political and electoral combat.

Hence the repeated demands for Mr Yousaf to suspend certain key colleagues from party membership. He adheres to “innocent until proven guilty”.

Hence, the responses to Mr Yousaf’s priorities statement which paid scant attention to the content and majored upon the noises off: the party turmoil assailing him.

The Herald: Colin BeattieColin Beattie (Image: free)

Hence, too, the attempt by Douglas Ross of the Tories to prise a statement from Mr Yousaf on the SNP crisis when the FM faced questions in the chamber on Thursday.

Entirely understandably from his perspective, Mr Ross sought to argue that the First Minister’s room for manoeuvre was constrained by the party finance crisis – and that this therefore affected his governmental role.

Equally understandably, the Presiding Officer gently reminded Mr Ross and the Chamber that the session was designed to illuminate government policy.

Equally sensibly, Mr Yousaf essayed a reference to the party problems – then switched rapidly to promulgating elements from his earlier statement of priorities.

Cue a frustrated complaint from the Conservative leader.

Not sure, though, that Mr Yousaf has yet got the tone right in responding to the challenges which are inevitably heading in his direction.

He has tried whimsy and ironic understatement: that “difficult day” when Peter Murrell was arrested.

He has had a go at humility, acknowledging that the problems confronting the party and thus himself are significant.

READ MORE: Forbes’ questions about economic strategy need answers

This week, he tried bombast in response to Megan Gallacher, the Conservative deputy leader at Holyrood, who had, admittedly, been admirably sharp and persistent herself.

His voice rising, Mr Yousaf said it was “brave” of Ms Gallacher to raise the issue of propriety when the Prime Minister and others were under investigation by the Westminster Commissioner for Standards.

No doubt Mr Yousaf will feel his strategy was justified, given the reluctant resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab, over allegations of bullying Well, maybe. But I am not sure such relativism works. Yes, it appears effective in the closed zone of politics. It stirs the blood on the back benches. They cheer, for a moment.

But in the real world, inhabited by voters, it matters little. They tend to hear obfuscation. It may even confirm an unhelpful belief that all politicians are as bad as each other.

“I will take no lessons from so and so on such and such” is a wearily familiar tactic. It is seldom effective.

Still, for the most part, Mr Yousaf has done relatively well with the hand he has been dealt.

To his credit, he seems to face up to doorsteps by the mischievous media.

Equally, I am told by insiders that he is “front facing” with regard to the continuing challenges of government.

Further, there was genuinely intriguing stuff in the statement of priorities. Allied to enhanced support for those who are struggling, there was a clear statement endorsing a drive to co-operate with business to increase prosperity.

This was categorised as “economic growth for a purpose” – a description, undoubtedly, of the Well-being Economy brief held by Neil Gray.

Details to follow later in a full Programme for Government and Budget.

On the day, there were nationalist concerns. Kenny Gibson complained about the marginal rate of tax paid by workers earning between £43k and £50k. Fergus Ewing urged speedy capital investment for the A9 and A96 trunk roads.

Mr Ewing also produced the phrase of the week, excoriating the Greens as “wine bar revolutionaries”. He sees them as an obstacle to growth, whether for a purpose or otherwise.

His sister, Annabel, chided him from the chair. The Greens smiled beneficently.

Still, the SNP/Green pact continues unhindered. The issue of economic growth and associated tax decisions may indeed revive – if the issue of SNP finance ever subsides.

Right now, though, that party crisis is predominant. Mr Yousaf distances himself from Team Sturgeon, he promises significant reform of SNP governance.

Mostly, he seeks to cajole, to persuade. To wait and hope.

Eventually, though, if internal critics persist, he may have to borrow another line from Disraeli. “Damn your principles, stick to your party.”