Whisper it, but John Swinney is leading a quiet revolution

For sure, it felt that way on July 4, when the SNP lost one-third of its vote share and almost all of its seats at the General Election. With the Scottish Parliament election less than two years away, there was an instant and widespread presumption that the SNP’s bubble had been pricked, and that Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar should use First Minister’s Questions to ask for the measurements for the Bute House curtains.

Read more by Andy Maciver

• Russell Findlay’s bright side
• The Lib Dems’ big chance

But, wait. The Labour year-long luxury honeymoon has turned into three months in a motel in Hull, with the shower stuck on cold and no lock on the door. For Mr Sarwar, Bute House suddenly seems half a world away.

We should be wary of presumption. Life comes at you fast, and politics comes at you faster. Just as nobody predicted how far the new Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s star would fall in the three months since his landslide victory, it would be foolish to predict with certainty where his public image will be in another three months’ time.

Nonetheless, there are knowns. Three, specifically.

The first is that 2024 is not 1997. Sir Keir has perennially been compared to Tony Blair, but there are meaningful differences. Sir Tony came into office inheriting an economy which was in relatively good shape, and which gave him a foundation to grow and to build, to borrow and to spend; Sir Keir’s economic inheritance is of sclerotic growth, vast debt, high taxes and poor services.

Moreover, Sir Tony ran an optimistic, hopeful campaign in opposition and carried that positivity into government. The country came with him, buying into change, and it made the more difficult reforms that he undertook - particularly in the public services - easier to swallow.

Conversely, Sir Keir did not have to be particularly popular or particularly distinctive or particularly optimistic, in the way that Sir Tony was; he simply had to not be a Tory. However, it made his campaign fatalistic and, since entering Downing Street, his narrative has been relentlessly gloomy. Inevitably, his failure to swarm the airwaves and press with meaty policy content has led to the media shifting focus to suits and Arsenal tickets.

The second known is that the Scottish electorate has a history of using their vote at Holyrood differently from their vote at Westminster. In the 2010 General Election, in an effort to stave off the emerging threat from the Tories, Labour polled over 40 per cent in Scotland, more than double that of the SNP, who returned a measly six seats. One year later, Alex Salmond famously achieved a majority in a Parliament designed to prevent it, with 45 per cent of the vote.

Labour should be concerned about this. What if the Scottish electorate decides to hedge its bets? In July, Scots voted in vast numbers to remove the Tories from office, and the SNP became the collateral damage. What if those voters decide that, with the Tories gone, they can relax and reset their focus towards who will best represent them in the Scottish Parliament?

They will be choosing between Mr Sarwar and John Swinney; two men who could very well be in the same political party in a country not split by a constitutional divide. Other than their views on independence, what separates these men in their basic ideological approach to how to run a country, how to deliver public services, and how to grow the economy? Not much.

Mr Sarwar needs to go in search of a unique selling point which gives him the edge over Mr Swinney. What is it? An enhanced devolution settlement? Perhaps, but there is next to no appetite for that within the Labour party, Particularly at Westminster. More decentralisation within Scotland, through elected mayors and enhanced powers for local authorities? Yes, and that would be most welcome, but it is hardly the stuff of viral campaigns.

Thirdly, I am of the view that we now know enough to conclude that the Scottish Government of Mr Swinney and his Deputy, Kate Forbes, is being regarded very differently to the Scottish Government of Humza Yousaf and the Greens.

Anas Sarwar has reasons to be concerned (Image: PA)

There is little fanfare, and given the political events of the summer, Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes have not yet had the chance to do much in the way of proactive activity. However, their very presence has calmed the sort of centrist, non-tribal floating voter that both parties will need.

From boardrooms to school gates, there may be the beginnings of a quiet revolution. There is an instinctive acceptance that in Mr Swinney the country has someone who has authority and experience; alongside, in Ms Forbes, someone who understands the need for deep and meaningful reform. People hear, from Mr Swinney, an unequivocal acceptance that a growing, capitalist economy underpins everything else that the country wants to achieve and hear, from Ms Forbes, honesty and authenticity about the height of the mountain we need to climb to get there.

It is much too early to conclude that Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes have what it takes to save their government, and their party, in this relatively short space of time.

However it is not too early to junk any notion that Mr Sarwar can replicate in Scotland the campaign of Sir Keir throughout the UK. For Sir Keir, not being the Tories was a sufficient condition. For Mr Sarwar, not being the SNP seems highly unlikely to be enough.

Andy Maciver is Founding Director of Message Matters and Zero Matters