There has been absolutely no sign of any summer torpor on the political front north or south of the Border in the last week, and business and the economy have remained very much in focus.

Among the big stories of recent days was the Scottish Government’s plans to invest £14.2 million in the Ferguson Marine shipyard at Port Glasgow, which it has owned since this operation was nationalised in 2019.

My column in The Herald on Wednesday observed: “To say the Ferguson Marine yard at Port Glasgow has been a political football would be a monumental understatement.

“It often seems, sadly, that those kicking this particular football around do not realise, or far worse do not care, that Ferguson Marine provides hundreds of high-quality jobs in an Inverclyde economy which does not have its troubles to seek. This is lamentable.”

The reaction to the news of the Scottish Government’s investment, which was announced on Tuesday by Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, highlighted the degree to which the Ferguson Marine topic divides opinion.

This is a somewhat sad state of affairs, though perhaps not surprising in Scotland’s febrile political goldfish bowl.

It remains difficult to see, however, what is not to like about plans for an investment focused on modernising and improving productivity at the yard and putting it in a better position to win new work on a competitive basis.

The column observed that “as well as the positive investment announcement, there was what could be considered more disappointing news in terms of confirmation that a contract for seven small, all-electric ferries for Caledonian MacBrayne would be put out to competitive tender, rather than being awarded directly to Ferguson Marine”.

Ms Forbes said: “Extensive analysis and legal advice confirm that a direct award of the small vessels phase one contract to FMPG (Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow) introduces substantial risks and uncertainties for the shipyard and the communities which rely on the lifeline vessels, due to the strict conditions imposed by the UK Subsidy Control Act.”

Hopefully, Ferguson Marine will be able to win a decent amount of work over the lifetime of the small vessels programme.

And, more generally, it is to be hoped the yard can win significant new work and execute these contracts well. Maybe then its critics will be a little quieter, although you would not bank on that surely.

Ferguson Marine’s building of two ferries for Caledonian MacBrayne, the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa, has of course been a troubled tale, leading to the aforementioned nationalisation, as my column on Wednesday observed.

However, it was heartening to hear Ferguson Marine’s execution of work for BAE Systems praised by this defence engineering giant.

Even more encouraging was the revelation that the Port Glasgow yard was in “advanced negotiations” about doing further work for BAE Systems on the Type 26 frigate programme.

EEAD MORE: Ian McConnell: Time to stop kicking Ferguson Marine shipyard around

BAE Systems said: “BAE Systems has a good working relationship with Ferguson Marine, which is a key local supplier of structural steelwork and has built two units for the Type 26 programme.

“We are in advanced negotiations with the company regarding further strengthening our partnership, the placement of additional work subject to agreement of terms and its continued involvement in the programme.”

This is very good news indeed. And it is uplifting to hear BAE Systems describe Ferguson Marine as a “key local supplier of structural steelwork” and talk about a “good working relationship”.

Critics of Ferguson Marine might want to take this sentiment on board when considering the potential for the yard, which employs hundreds of people, and before passing opinion on the investment unveiled by Ms Forbes.

READ MORE: Ian McConnell: A huge majority but Starmer has boxed himself in already

Sadly, however, opinions seem entrenched.

Turning from the Scottish to the UK political stage, we had the King’s Speech on Wednesday.

This talked about “securing economic growth” being a “fundamental mission” for the new Labour Government.

There was an early mention of “stability” being the “cornerstone” of the Government’s economic policy and an emphasis that “every decision” will be consistent with the fiscal rules.

However, there was no sign of anything new to answer the big question over what there is in Labour’s plans that will actually boost economic growth significantly.

The King’s Speech talked about the Government seeking “to reset the relationship with European partners and work to improve the United Kingdom’s trade and investment relationship with the European Union”.

However, Labour has ruled out rejoining the EU and single market, so there is no prospect of a meaningful boost to growth on this front because it is committing itself to continuing to reject both free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area and frictionless trade with the country’s biggest trading partner.

READ MORE: Ian McConnell: Make no mistake - this is no 1997 for Labour

Labour’s adoption of the Conservatives’ fiscal framework meanwhile surely limits greatly the scope to boost growth through investment.

While Labour’s commitment to improve employment rights and “ban exploitative practices” with a “new deal for working people” is most welcome, there were no signs of any magic bullets for the economy in the King’s Speech.

This is not surprising, given what we have heard from Sir Keir Starmer in the run-up to his resounding election victory and since.

As my column in The Herald on Friday observed: “The two weeks since Labour won power have confirmed one thing – this victory is nothing like the one in 1997 which ushered in sweeping changes that were highly positive for the economy and society.”

This is a great pity, and looks like an opportunity lost.