But just yards away from the free booze, gossip and speeches at Holyrood Magazine’s reception at the back of the Scottish Parliament, members of the SNP’s ruling National Executive Committee settled down in hotel rooms not long after 7pm on Wednesday to - in some cases - scoff takeaway McDonald’s and log into a crucial meeting. 

The NEC has been central to the political fallout from Peter Murrell’s admission that he embezzled more than £400,000 from the party he wielded enormous power over as its chief executive. 

That’s because in 2021 former first minister Nicola Sturgeon, who is Murrell’s now estranged wife, appeared by video to tell members: “There are no reasons for people to be concerned about the party's finances and all of us need to be careful about not suggesting that there is”

Last week it was John Swinney, then Deputy First Minister, now in the top job and SNP leader, who appeared on screen to strike a very different tone. 

He told the meeting that he wanted the party to take legal action to try and get back the money stolen by Murrell. 

His 12-year spending spree included a luxury motorhome, a robotic lawnmower, jewellery, computer games consoles, toilet roll and cosmetics.

Turns out people were right to be concerned five years ago. 

The meeting also heard legal advice from a white collar crime specialist before, more than two hours after the meeting began, unanimously agreeing to Mr Swinney’s proposal. 

There was a further concern that went unmentioned, though.

It emerged on Thursday that the SNP has approached HMRC regarding the possibility it illegally reclaimed VAT on Murrell’s stolen purchases.

One NEC member on Wednesday’s call said senior party figures were “worried people [who donated to the independence fundraisers] will ask for their money back”.

The five-year police investigation that caught Murrell was launched after questions were raised about how £667,000 of “ring fenced” donations for a second independence referendum campaign was spent.

This money was separate to the cash stolen by Murrell but has also vanished from the accounts.

Mr Swinney said publicly on Wednesday that money had been used for the “ongoing activities” of the SNP. 

https://x.com/political_alans/status/2062125485828575570?s=46

In the private meeting of the NEC, which is the SNP’s governing body, that evening Mr Swinney proposed the party initiate legal proceedings to be granted compensation from Murrell. 

Party sources say around 120 of the 15,000 people who had donated to the “ring fenced” funds had asked for refunds and that all had been reimbursed. 

A confiscation order is being brought against Murrell by the Crown Office under proceeds of crime action, which allows authorities to seize illegally obtained assets.

The SNP will now apply to the courts for a compensation order in an effort to recoup some of the cash. 

The process could take up to four years, NEC members believe. 

The SNP will also lodge a secondary civil action against Murrell but immediately suspend it. 

This action will be used if “something goes wrong” with the proceeds of crime action. 

Earlier this week, Murrell’s lawyer told Edinburgh High Court that enough of his assets had been frozen by court order to allow repayment of the sum he embezzled from the party. 

A second party source floated the suggestion that extra money could be sought for items that may have lost significant amount of value over the intervening period.

For example, they could ask for the whole amount paid for the infamous campervan rather than whatever is obtained when it is sold.

A third senior SNP source said: "This was a full and frank discussion of the whole NEC, called at the request of the party leader, with members hearing directly from the party's solicitors and being given the opportunity to ask detailed questions on the party’s legal options. 

“That in itself is testament to the strengthening of party governance and transparency there has been under John Swinney. 

"The NEC were unanimous in their position that we should seek to recover the funds stolen from us by Peter Murrell. 

“While that process might take some time, if it is successful, it will mean that money donated in good faith to the SNP will be spent how it always should have been, on helping to secure Scottish independence.”

In an email to party members, sent on Thursday morning after ITV Border revealed his plans, Mr Swinney said it had “been a difficult period for the SNP as the scale of the crime committed by the party’s former Chief Executive has been laid bare”.

He wrote: “We will apply for compensation under the Proceeds of Crime Act for the recovery of the £400,310.65 that Mr Murrell has admitted to embezzling from party funds.

“We will also reserve our rights further by beginning civil action against Mr Murrell.”

Mr Swinney said internal governance procedures had been updated so that three people now need to sign off invoices before payments are made, monthly checks of the party’s accounts take place and the national treasurer can see all income and expenditure.

Previous treasurer Douglas Chapman resigned in May 2021, shortly before the police investigation launched, saying he "had not received the support or financial information required” to do his job.

Interestingly, while Mr Swinney’s email praised two previous party treasurers - the ex-MP Stuart McDonald and former MSP Gordon MacDonald - as well as current incumbent Peter Grant, it noticeably failed to mention either Mr Chapman or current MSP Colin Beattie, who signed off the accounts under Murrell. 

The email finished by attempting to strike a note of optimism: “Finally, since last Monday we have seen a significant increase in the donations that we receive from members to the party.

“That support is most warmly appreciated – and I want to thank each and every one of you who have made a donation. I give you my personal assurance that every penny that is raised by the SNP will be spent on our efforts to secure Scottish independence.”

Whether the current SNP leader can shake off the ghosts of previous regimes and inspire confidence that a new page has been turned will be crucial to his future. 

It is part of a four-part strategy that the first minister has implemented since his party was walloped almost two years ago at the UK general election.

His most senior allies privately likened it to “boiling a frog” and pointed out just days before people cast their ballots that Mr Swinney was outpolling the party on positive ratings.

“People haven’t realised the temperature has gone from really cool towards us to being really quite warm towards us,” said one.

This is Mr Swinney’s first election victory in five attempts over two spells as SNP leader and although he fell pretty well short of his stated aim of a majority, it is a remarkable turnaround in fortunes for his party.

So how exactly did Mr Swinney pull this off?

And why did Labour fail, Reform make their breakthrough, the Tories hold their “blue wall” in the south despite collapsing to fifth place overall, and the Greens and Lib Dems significantly improve their results?

Based on conversations throughout the campaign with more than 30 people at all levels of every main party, the majority of which have been granted anonymity to speak freely, this is the inside story of the 2026 Holyrood election.

SNP

The big moment that in many ways summed up this campaign arrived, publicly at least, exactly one week before voters went to the polls.

President Trump took to social media to announce the removal of all tariffs and restrictions on whisky imports following King Charles’s state visit to the US.

The SNP pushed the boundaries of credibility with a social media graphic saying Mr Swinney “fought for Scotch whisky. He delivered”.

It was deliberate bait for opponents who ran straight into the trap.

The first minister, who had made the case for tariffs being dropped directly to the US President on multiple occasions, including in the Oval Office, had been informed an announcement was coming about 24 hours before it became public.

He also received a note of thanks directly from President Trump and was “90% sure” he would also get a phone call from Washington.

His closest aides – who he urged to sit down before telling them the news over the phone – made the graphics and then watched as Labour politicians and staff members exploded.

It’s easy to see why.

UK government negotiators did the behind the scenes hard yards on the deal.

And in the face of intense criticism it was Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer who ensured the royal visit went ahead only to once again fail to gather any credit for a big decision.

But their anger and AI-generated memes mocking Mr Swinney for claiming credit for various major events kept the conversation on nationalist territory.

It also looked daft when the SNP leader saw a US number flash on his mobile phone when he was in a garden centre in Kirkintilloch, just outside Glasgow, and answered to speak to President Trump.

His party then published the personal note they had kept in their back pocket alongside the fact of the phone call.

“This should have been a day where everyone did their own thing and tried to take credit,” said one senior SNP source.

“But [Scottish Secretary and Labour campaign co-ordinator] Douglas Alexander and [Scottish Labour leader] Anas Sarwar did their petty shit instead and looked stupid.”

The episode also illustrated a marked difference in approach from Mr Swinney compared to his predecessors.

In 2018, then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon led a Pride parade in Glasgow in support of LGBT equality when President Trump visited Scotland.

In contrast, Mr Swinney held discussions with him during his trip last summer before flying across the Atlantic and he has repeatedly refused to take potshots against the man occupying the White House when teed up by the likes of the Scottish Greens.

“People talk about John being cautious but he knows when to gamble,” said one senior figure.

“He took a risk at every stage [by meeting with President Trump] and it paid off a week before the election.”

The current warmth from Washington also saw the president post a public message congratulating Mr Swinney on his "big electoral victory" once the ballots had been counted.

It was far from plain sailing for the SNP, though.

The campaign started and ended with the conviction then sentencing of Jordan Linden, a former nationalist council leader who was jailed for 18 months after being found guilty of sexual offences against young men and teenagers as young as 14.

Opponents latched onto that with the party slow to react to early criticism.

Mr Swinney was also less than sure-footed in the first televised election debate on the BBC when blows were landed by audience members – and Mr Sarwar – on the NHS.

One opposition leader privately mocked the first minister pulling a “crumpled” yellow page of notes from his inside jacket pocket just before that event started and claimed it was a sign he was struggling.

But Mr Swinney was comfortable if far from sparkling in the Channel 4 and STV debates and was said to be particularly pleased at having “done up Alex Cole-Hamilton like a kipper” in the latter by boxing the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader into agreeing that SNP budgets had delivered positively for the country.

He was, though, uncomfortable when questioned on his failure to meet his own self-imposed target of having no one in Scotland wait more than a year for NHS treatment by April.

Bizarrely, opponents failed to punch that bruise when it would have particularly hurt the SNP leader’s confidence at least.

It would have stung because it was a key part of his four-stage recovery process for the party, which was devised in the wake of their general election drubbing.

Stage one was to win the right to be heard by the public. Stage two was to rebuild trust and deliver something.

Abolishing peak rail fares ended up being the flagship for this because it was easy to understand but the party had a missed target that opponents could have highlighted to undermine this plank of the strategy.

Stage three was about vision, which Mr Swinney believes he set out with his pathway to an independence referendum and election pledges such as GP walk in centres.

Stage four was simple: get out the vote.

They largely managed that even if they failed to meet their stated aim of a majority.

This was in no small part down to a revamped campaigning system that saw 3,500 people spoken with every day during the campaign.

Senior figures in the SNP leadership were “horrified by what we discovered” about the campaign operation in last year’s Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse byelection.

The party’s headquarters was overhauled with former MP and special adviser Callum McCaig appointed as chief executive in what is seen internally as a significant move.

Part of this was a relentless focus on Scotland’s 73 constituencies with the nationalists needing to win 65 seats to secure that Holyrood majority.

“We can afford to lose no more than eight [seats],” said one strategist in the days before the vote.

“We don’t work to a figure of 65. We work to a figure of eight.”

In the end they lost almost double that even though their internal data was projecting an SNP majority at Holyrood when it was run through the most pessimistic modelling during the final week of campaigning.

Indeed the party lost support in many seats even as they claimed victory.

There was, for some in the SNP, an uncomfortable optimism towards the end of the campaign.

On the final weekend before going to the polls, the senior team held one of its daily 8am meetings to analyse what they saw as potential problems or negative stories that day.

“We realised we didn’t have any,” said one person on the call.

This was in part fuelled by a small polling bump over the last two years from low 30% to winning 38% of constituency votes at the election.

It led to one aide to mix animal metaphors in the run up to polling day by comparing Mr Swinney to the victorious character in Aesop’s fable of the tortoise and the hare.

“The tortoise is winning the race,” the source said. “Anas is the hare but the tortoise fucking wins.”

Reform

The candidate madness Nigel Farage had promised to stamp out of his newly professionalised party was exactly what dominated the start of Reform UK’s campaign.

Seven failed to make it to the cut off date for registering to stand for election with four quitting, two just disappearing from lists and one being suspended.

An eighth quit the party just four days before the vote.

And the controversy around one who remained, Senga Beresford in Galloway and West Dumfries, ran through the entire contest.

Some people made their hatred towards Reform known in a disgusting fashion.

Staff at the party’s headquarters have to wear rubber gloves when opening packages because “every type of excrement” has been discovered in postal deliveries.

Separately, high-profile candidate Thomas Kerr was allegedly assaulted while campaigning in Glasgow.

But they also received good news, usually through electronic communication.

While I was speaking with one senior figure, they looked at a text message from someone pledging £1,500 to help their campaign.

This is partially why the party remained confident of making a significant breakthrough, particularly in the southwest of Scotland.

They regularly spoke of the potential for a breakthrough in Ms Beresford’s constituency, where they had not long ago performed well in a council byelection, although in the end that was never close to materialising.

Scottish leader Malcolm Offord was stopped in the street by workmen in Stranraer, who asked him for a selfie, after beIng interviewed by ITV Border with the party taking that as another positive sign for their chances.

Activists were also bussed up from Carlisle to help campaign in neighbouring Dumfriesshire as the party looked for a win there.

None of it translated into the constituency performances they hoped for in the south of Scotland.

It was Mr Offord’s performances in televised debates that sparked the campaign into life on two occasions.

First, when Mr Sarwar was chastising him for Ms Beresford’s online posts on Channel 4, Mr Offord claimed the Scottish Labour leader had suggested the pair work together to remove the SNP.

The aggressive nature of Mr Sarwar’s attacks had been riling Reform for a while and just hours before the dust up, they had laid the groundwork for the move in an interview with the Scotsman newspaper.

One witness at the debate believed the move was pre-planned, adding:

“No-one really noticed that Reform folk cheered when he [Mr Offord] said it - so they’ve been weighing it up for a while, I reckon.”

The central claim was flatly denied by Mr Sarwar, who went on to later allege that Reform’s marquee MSP defector Graham Simpson had privately criticised Mr Offord and called Mr Kerr a “weasel”.

Mr Simpson denied this, instead insisting he sees Mr Kerr as a lion, but there were some internal grumblings about his apparent ambitions and Mr Offord’s performance during the campaign.

“He’s not well liked,” said one Reform source of Mr Kerr. “He’s the kind of guy we’re trying to keep out of politics.”

During the final televised debate on STV, Mr Offord raised eyebrows once again with his boast that he owns “six houses, five cars and six boats”.

That’s 17 big ticket items. He’s now won exactly the same number of MSPs.

Labour

One message came consistently throughout the campaign from anyone senior in Labour’s election campaign: the polls are wrong.

In fact the number crunchers were right and Mr Sawrar spectacularly missed the mark.

The defiant message had come consistently from the first week of the campaign with sources claiming feedback from canvassers suggested undecided voters were breaking for Labour and support for the SNP and Reform was not as high as the publicly stated 35% and 20%.

This briefing continued through to the party’s manifesto launch, which was a slick event although with no new eye-catching policy in a move that both surprised and relieved the SNP.

The choice not to hold anything back on the day was deliberate, according to those close to the process.

But it meant there wasn’t much for the media to focus on and Mr Sarwar appeared irritated when questions almost inevitably drifted back to Sir Keir Starmer and the UK Government.

Nevertheless, those analysing data in the party projected confidence as they said internal data said they were increasing their “retention rates” of voters in target seats.

Not everyone was so positive.

One parliamentarian said that while they agreed the polls were underestimating Labour it was “not by nearly as much as needed”.

They added: “I think Anas’s team have screwed up large parts of the campaign as well in their rush to blame the UK government.”

It was a big call by Mr Sarwar to call for Sir Keir to quit as prime minister three months out from the election.

Candidates said it made it easier to get past the difficult conversations on the door with people furious at the party’s performance in Westminster.

But it created tension between the Scottish leader and the Scottish secretary, who was also co-chairing the election campaign.

Two sources said the relationship between Mr Sarwar and Mr Alexander was “difficult”.

This was vehemently denied by people at the top of the campaign, who said there was no fall out between the politicians running the election operation.

But there was another fundamental point that some found difficult on the doorsteps:

“Saying, ‘Labour is shite, vote Labour’ is not exactly compelling.”

Yet as scandals surrounding Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador continued to dominate headlines, it was not difficult to find people who believed Mr Sarwar had made the only decision he could by calling for Sir Keir’s resignation.

Meanwhile, there were mixed messages coming from Whitehall about what to do if the SNP won a majority and demanded a second independence referendum.

Some were said to be “nervous” about the prospect but others said there was general agreement behind the publicly stated view of UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s bullish statement, based on Labour’s general election manifesto pledge: “We’re not having one.”

In the final days, Labour had privately all but given up on winning power despite throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the SNP.

Experienced nationalists said this failed to learn the lessons from the last time Labour won a Holyrood election:

“We thought in 2003, ‘Don’t scare the horses, they are so shit the public will vote them out,’ and we learned the hard way that we had to be positive, in favour of something.”

By voting day, Labour had whittled down its list of target constituencies from 38 to 33 but still believed it had a path to victory. It only won three.

Correctly, not everyone was convinced.

“I think the SNP have largely failed to make this all about Starmer and we’ve failed to make it all about their record in government,” predicted a prescient source.

“Somehow the dynamics haven’t fundamentally changed since 2021 so we’ll end up with a similar status quo result. SNP will lose seats but probably have a bigger lead over the second placed party.”

Only seven results had been declared when Mr Sarwar conceded the election.

“We made a big play and it didn’t happen,” said a senior figure.

“But I don’t think anyone in their right mind would lay the blame for the last two years of the failure of the Labour Party at Anas Sarwar’s door.

“We’ve got a party going through a tough time and going to hold it together.”

So Mr Sarwar is vowing to fight on.

But with a meeting of the Scottish Executive Committee taking place on Saturday and some predicting a challenge to his position, recriminations quickly started inside his party.

One persistent critic of Mr Sarwar said:

“They killed off the last leader. Cleared the team. Chose the candidates. Picked the mental strategy. Made it all about ‘Anas for FM’. How can he think he can stay on?”

Conservatives

This was always a damage limitation election for the Tories and they never hid that fact.

Yet by polling day there was a weary acceptance that the result would be at the lower end of polling projections.

The blue belt heartland along the Scotland/England border was a concern with veteran campaigners privately worrying that people who live in the south of Scotland but travel to work in England were being swayed towards Reform.

That proved to be a false worry with highly focused, targeted and motivated campaigns taking place in those key constituencies.

One of the reasons for the anxiety is that Carlisle is seen as a growing power base for Nigel Farage’s party.

Senior Conservatives were worrying that water cooler chat would lead to potential tactical voters forgetting “there’s a different dynamic in Scotland to get rid of the SNP”.

The one thing that was consistent amongst most Tories in their heartlands was a belief that the party’s core vote was staying true.

But what they did not know was what shy tactical unionist voters were planning to do.

Interestingly, Scottish leader Russell Findlay had only visited the south of Scotland once before the home straight of campaigning, albeit one trip with Kemi Badenoch was cancelled when the UK party leader’s plans changed.

But when Mr Findlay did arrive he spent two days travelling west to east.

He brashly – and correctly – said he would protect the “blue wall” despite the party’s internal confidence waning as its collective eye moved from east to west on the electoral map.

Four days before voting, one well-versed doorknocker said of Dumfriesshire:

“It’s going to be very tight and definitely a scunnered factor there.

“But our support is solid and motivated. Reform a factor in both seats too, more so Finlay’s [Galloway and West Dumfries].”

The unrealised fear was that a Reform surge would allow “the nats to come through the middle”.

Others tried to keep a sunny disposition, saying the SNP vote was “very soft” with anecdotal evidence of, amazingly, discontented nationalists going Tory while Reform sympathisers were persuaded to back a darker shade of blue to give John Swinney a bloody nose.

But nationally as people headed to the polls, the mood in the party’s headquarters was grim.

They knew a difficult night was coming despite believing they had run a good campaign.

In 2021, the Tories almost changed their official logo with the electoral commission to “Peach Party Vote Scottish Conservatives” to hoover up support on the regional list ballot.

That was vetoed by then leader Douglas Ross but even with similar enthusiasm for that so-called “second vote” this time round, they lost more than half of their MSPs.

Despite the glimmer of positivity in the south, it’s still looking like a long way back for the Scottish Tories.

Greens

The Scottish Greens campaign was also focused on the peach ballot.

Just six candidates stood in constituencies but the party had a tactical push for the more proportionate regional votes.

This led to the party coming in for criticism for “helping the SNP” but it also saw them secure their first ever first past the post victories in Edinburgh Central and Glasgow Southside.

It is true though that rather than seeking out anti-SNP voters, like the rest of the opposition parties, they focused on people who were fearful of Reform winning seats.

It also led to gains on the regional list.

The Greens had a sliding scale that indicated how strong a backer was from G1, those seen as cast-iron supporters who would definitely back them, to G4, who hadn’t been rude but were more likely to cast their ballot for someone else.

They ended the campaign targeting so-called G2s, essentially floating voters with Green sympathies.

They said that particular success came, unsurprisingly, from SNP constituency voters and that they picked up people “unpromoted” offering backing to try and keep Reform out of parliament.

In 2021 the party was desperately disappointed not to win a South Scotland list seat, missing out by just 115 votes.

One canvassing session in Dumfries saw two-thirds of their target market say they would vote Green.

Their success was a significant factor in denying the SNP a majority but this new Green wave should hold significant sway in the new parliament.

Liberal Democrats

The Lib Dems were always looking north and had the resources to do it.

Scottish leader Alex Cole-Hamilton had raised £500,000 for the party since the start of the year and was said to believe by the middle of the campaign that they were on track to win nine of their 10 target constituencies with Argyll and Bute “in the balance”.

Others were more conservative but maintained supreme confidence of significant gains.

“The SNP bumped up a little in our data just before/at the start of the campaign but seem to have dropped back again,” said a source midway through the push for votes.

None of the team saw the seismic shift coming that saw the party lose its heartland of Shetland, a constituency it had held since the first Holyrood election in 1999.

But while the most optimistic predictions did not quite pan out, they did pick up seven of those 10 targets.

One significant change in Liberal campaigning was a shift to focus on that peach vote as well as a small number of first past the post contests.

Indeed, Mr Cole-Hamilton carried out a series of eye-catching peach-themed stunts including wearing a garish suit as polling day approached.

Much of this was driven by the defection of Jamie Greene from the Conservatives, who was able to give the party a debrief on the successful Tory campaign five years ago.

But a breakthrough was also made in focus groups. When the party asked people why they didn’t back them on the regional ballot, the answer was simple: “Because you don’t ask us to.”

This led to them being confident of gaining a South Scotland list seat.

As Duncan Dunlop was confirmed as an MSP late in the day, the noise in the party’s headquarters was such that one official got a warning on their smartwatch about the “loud environment” reaching 90 decibels.

A mini-earthquake indeed.

The fifth interview was with the Scottish Liberal Democrats’ Alex Cole-Hamilton. Here are three things we learned.

North vs South

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have ten target constituencies at this election.

Six of those are in the Highlands and/or islands. Three are in Edinburgh or Glasgow suburbia. One is the party’s North Korean-like stronghold of Fife North East. None are in the south of Scotland.

That might surprise people who remember the not-too-distant days when the Lib Dems counted the Scottish Borders as a fiefdom for the party.

Mr Cole-Hamilton rejects the suggestion that he is excluding the south while he looks north for success at the election.

His party’s manifesto promises new dedicated mental health beds for children and young people north of Dundee but nothing for the south.

This is despite, like the north of Scotland, there being no beds in our region. 

There have also been tragic examples of when care has failed, particularly when young people are inappropriately placed in adult wards.

So why is the pledge only for the north?

Mr Cole-Hamilton said: “I don’t want to say that we’re going to magic those beds up overnight but it’s wholly inappropriate for young people, facing some of the most vulnerable moments of their life, to be housed alongside adults. That shouldn’t happen at all.

“So, it comes with a review of all remote and rural healthcare offers that the SNP, I think, have neglected rural Scotland particularly in the south and we need to make sure that that need is addressed.

“And if that is dedicated beds then absolutely we’re committed to that. But I don’t want to say to your viewers that’s going to happen overnight.”

Also not happening overnight under the Lib Dem plans is an upgrade of the A75.

Although Mr Cole-Hamilton said he would want a full business case for dualling the road to be put forward within the first 100 days of the new parliament, it was the last route mentioned in his manifesto and there’s no firm commitment on scope or timetable for the work itself.

He said: “I would want to make big strides towards that by the end of this parliament and if possible complete it.

“The thing about Lib Dems is that we don’t make false promises or promises we can’t keep.” [note to readers: we’ll come back to this statement.]

What then about the Borders Railway? It was a Lib Dem achievement in government to push through the original plans but again the manifesto only pledges to look at a “potential extension” to the route.

Mr Cole-Hamilton said: “The Lib Dems delivered the Borders Railway, we brought the legislation through the parliament, and we would be committed to extending that when the time is right, when the money is there, but we’re not going to lead people up a garden path and tell them we’re going to do something tomorrow.”

He’s not desperate to do a deal with Labour. Honest!

It is an open secret at Holyrood that Mr Cole-Hamilton – at one point at least – fancied himself as Deputy First Minister in an Anas Sarwar-led Labour Scottish Government.

And none of the ten Lib Dem target constituencies are in areas being seriously contested by their rivals in red.

So does he still want Mr Sarwar to be first minister? The exchange on this point wasn’t exactly convincing.

Mr Cole-Hamilton: “No. Listen there are no pacts or alliances with Labour.”

ITV Border: “But surely he’s your choice because you don’t want John Swinney, you’ve said that. You’ve said you don’t want the Conservatives. You’ve said you don’t want Reform. So it doesn’t leave you many options, does it?”

Mr Cole-Hamilton: “I don’t deny any of that but at the same time we, I think, have an obligation if we’re looking for change, and there’s an opportunity to unseat the current government, which needs to happen, which shares our values, that vision for change with fairness at its heart, then we will look at it.”

Expect a shift in that rhetoric if it's useful to both opposition parties once votes have been counted.

Campaigning by the beaches, hoping for the peach vote…

A little earlier in this blog I said I would come back to Mr Cole-Hamilton’s statement that Lib Dems always keep their promises.

I did return to that later to raise the party’s most famous broken promise: U-turning on a 2010 pledge to vote against any increase to university tuition fees in England and Wales.

It led to the Lib Dems haemorrhaging votes and an apology from former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg as he paid the electoral price for going into coalition with the Conservatives across the UK.

Mr Cole-Hamilton says now that he was a youth worker when all of this unfolded and that the Liberals are “under new management” across the UK and in Scotland.

He said: “I would have made different decisions and I think we’ve owned our mistakes and I think we have recovered.

“We’re under new management now. This is a really exciting offer of hope and change with fairness at its heart, which people right across the south of Scotland can get on board with that second, peach coloured, regional ballot.”

The focus on the regional list is one of the biggest shifts in the Lib Dem campaign.

Party strategists say it means they can once again aim to have representation in every part of the country.

And it’s no surprise that the shift followed the defection of Jamie Greene from the Conservatives given how effective the “Peach Vote Tory” campaign was in the 2021 Holyrood election.

We’ll find out soon enough if the Lib Dem version will be as successful.

The fourth interview was with Reform UK’s Malcolm Offord. Here are three things we learned.

He’s been on a journey

In Malcolm Offord’s first speech as a parliamentarian, his debut on the red benches as Lord Offord of Garvel, he said the UK has “the capital, the brains and the political will to meet the climate challenge”.

Now he says it is a “fatuous question” to ask whether climate change is real.

He said: “It’s a question that people seem to get hung up on. The science. What is the science? 

“Science is always disputed. For me it’s not an ideological thing. We want to have the cleanest possible system. 

“We want to be environmentally aware, we want to hand over the planet in the best possible way to the next generation. There’s no question about that.”

Mr Offord added: “The world heats up and cools down. And heats up and cools down. So I don’t want to get into that argument about science.”

He said he was never “enthusiastic” and that he simply “read the lines I was given” as a minister, which critics have suggested is not the best impression to give as a party leader. 

He also said there was little the UK could do because “we account for less than 1% of global emissions: 0.81%. China accounts for 30%. The US for 13%”.

Back in 2022, he told the Lords in that maiden speech: “Some say that the UK has a limited role to play in climate change as we account for only 1 per cent of world emissions. Yet COP26 proved our leadership still counts as we show it is possible to simultaneously grow our economy whilst cutting our emissions.”

He also says now that while he remains in favour of controlled immigration, he has shifted his view on the impact of asylum seekers on communities.

Mr Offord once referred to himself as “reluctant Brexiteer” but is now much more enthusiastic about the UK having left the European Union.

“Isn’t that a good thing to learn,” he said. “Isn’t that what life’s all about? To learn more, to inform yourself.”

“What is it Maynard Keating said that when the facts change, I change my mind. I haven’t changed my mind on any of these things. What I’ve done is strengthened my position and I’ve strengthened my position by being informed.”

He really wants to pick a fight with Anas Sarwar… and Tommy Robinson

Sometimes things happen in an interview that surprise you even after 18 years as a journalist.

A party political leader pulling a flash card from his inside pocket that contains quotes from one of his rivals is this kind of moment.

Mr Offord had a list of statements made by Anas Sarwar in a speech a few years ago.

That speech formed the basis of an attack advert by Reform that falsely claimed the Scottish Labour leader “has said he will prioritise the Pakistani community."

Mr Offord said it was “not necessarily language I would have used but what I’m clear about is that if a speech is made by any politician, those words can be used and that is a legitimate exercise."

Challenged over the fact Mr Sarwar did not say the words in the Reform advert, Mr Offord produced a card from his jacket pocket of “other things that he said in that speech."

https://x.com/itvborderrb/status/2046605856108687808?s=46

Mr Offord said: “So what he said in his speech was, he said the following. “He said: 'The days when South Asian communities get to lead political parties and get to lead countries is upon us’.”

Asked if that was a bad thing, Mr Offord added: "I'm just giving you that for context. And the second thing he said, which I would like to question him on, was: 'The days where South Asian communities get to decide not just which school our children go to but what they are taught in these schools is also coming'.”

This led to Mr Sarwar accusing Mr Offord of trying to “race-bait” him during the election campaign.

https://x.com/itvborderrb/status/2046606146484445316?s=46

You might expect a party to back away from that. Instead Mr Offord promoted a social media post from his party colleague Thomas Kerr that contained the above exchange and said: “Anas Sarwar should not be immune to scrutiny. Reform will continue to highlight his divisive language and hold him accountable."

But unlike some of his candidates, Mr Offord was firm in his rejection of the far right activist Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. 

Mr Offord said there is “no common ground between Tommy Robinson and Reform”. 

Asked if he had told his candidates to stop endorsing Robinson, he was crystal clear. 

“Yeah, absolutely. Yes, yes, yes.”

https://x.com/itvborderrb/status/2046584577997574454?s=46

He thinks Reform’s support base is widening

Reform’s support base has mostly come from “left behind” towns.

Sometimes in parts of cities that feel the same way but, crucially, it has mostly been an urban phenomenon.

Not any more, claims Mr Offord.

He said: “South of Scotland is a very strong area for us. Obviously you’ve got a certain number of working towns in the south but you’ve also got a very big rural community and that’s where we’re getting a lot of traction, with farmers, with farm workers etc.

“There’s been a bit of an attack on farms recently by the Labour government certainly at Westminster. 

“I’ve made it a very, very hard target. And then this idea of the SNP trying to cap the price of milk and key foodstuffs will be a disaster around here.

“So we’ve got a strong group of support here.”

Reform UK has its eye on at least two constituencies in the South of Scotland, as well as hoping to make a big impact on the regional list.

This means that growth in more rural areas could make a huge difference when it comes to whether his party will match his ambitions in our part of the world.

Watch the interview in the latest episode of Representing Border:

The third interview was with the Scottish Conservative, Russell Findlay. Here are three things we learned.

Independence is still what gets him going

Little has helped the Tories’ electoral fortunes more since the 2014 independence referendum than a battle over the constitution.

But unlike his recent predecessors, Russell Findlay has not been able to rely on the issue as a means of boosting his own political stature.

It has steadily slipped down the list of people’s priorities as the Conservatives have tumbled down in the polls.

The other opposition parties to the SNP – Labour, the Liberal Democrat’s and Reform – aren’t all that interested in engaging in the constitutional question, partly because it usually does them more harm than good with voters.

So it’s no surprise that Mr Findlay spies a gap in the market now that first minister John Swinney has said an SNP majority would be a mandate for a second referendum.

The Scottish Tory leader says this would be “a monumental waste of time and energy” and insists he’s not just making that case to boost his own party’s flagging ratings.

“It’s not a tactic. We are the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and we can see and we know that in terms of economics, nowadays in particular in terms of national security, the thought of John Swinney’s SNP getting away with breaking Scotland away, getting kicked out of Nato and putting us all in peril is the stuff of nightmares and the stuff of madness.”

Mr Findlay suggested it might happen because Sir Keir Starmer is a “weak” prime minister.

So, was Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton – then simply David Cameron – lily-livered and wrong to agree to the 2014 vote?

“Look, the referendum took place because all parties agreed. That’s what happened.

“It was the right thing to do and the people of Scotland said no thanks. And I was a normal member of the public at that point.

“I voted no and thought, naively, that would be that and that the SNP might even begin to respect democracy. But they never have.”

It may outwardly frustrate the Scottish Conservatives, but the continued push for independence gives them a campaigning opportunity that they are all too happy to exploit.

There’s no retreat to the south…honest!

For obvious reasons, independence is an especially salient issue across the south of Scotland.

That explains at least in part why the three constituencies spanning the border are currently coloured Tory blue.

For context, those are three of the five first past the post seats won by the party in 2021.

Multiple people with knowledge of the Conservative campaign say the south is the only part of the country where they realistically hope to hold up, notwithstanding the challenge from both Reform UK and the SNP.

To use Mr Findlay’s phrasing, this is because “people put a shift in” locally with well-drilled campaigning.

But he is insistent that unlike other parties who are putting a laser-like focus on specific areas to try and maximise a concentrated vote, he is not about to retreat south.

“We are speaking to the whole of Scotland, people across Scotland that want to see some common sense in their politics and they want to see a Holyrood parliament focused on the issues that matter to them.”

So why isn’t that translating into support for his party? Mr Findlay says there is a “widespread sense of disillusionment from a lot of people and I completely get that”.

He is also quick to acknowledge that many voters are not ready to forgive the Conservatives for the performance and scandals of last UK government, particularly during the Boris Johnson and Liz Truss premierships.

That disenchantment applies to most parties just now but it is currently proving to be a particularly hard ceiling on Mr Findlay’s ambitions, no matter how much he tries to raise them.

Safety matters

Before Mr Findlay became a politician, he delivered headlines as an investigative journalist working for titles including the Sunday Mail and The Sun.

His reporting focused on organised crime but he became the story just over ten years ago when sulphuric acid was thrown in his face by a man on his doorstep as part of a failed murder bid.

Two days before the Christmas of 2015, William Burns disguised himself as a postman and distracted Mr Findlay by asking him to sign a document before launching the attack.

Mr Findlay physically detained his attacker and avoided permanent scarring by quickly getting water onto his face with the help of his neighbours.

It was only after police arrested Burns that Mr Findlay noticed the six-inch serrated knife outside his home, which was presumably meant to end his life.

He told me it was “a shocking, terrible, traumatising episode but one from which I was beyond lucky to emerge unscathed”.

This all happened despite him having taken precautions like never allowing his photograph to appear beside his stories.

Now he is very much in the public domain at a time when abuse of politicians is reaching record levels.

So does he feel safe as an MSP?

“You just have to look at social media to see the abuse that is spouted at you from usually cowardly anonymous accounts.

“So you are aware of the fact that because you’re a politician of any colour rosette there’s a possibility people will take exception to you.

“I don’t feel unsafe but I’m acutely aware of my safety. I’m careful about what I do, where I go, not least because in my past life, the organised crime groups that I wrote about, perhaps some of them regard business as being unfinished.

“But that’s not to be alarmist – but you’ve got to be pragmatic.”

Safety is sadly an issue all politicians have to take seriously but Mr Findlay knows more than most the dangers of putting your head above the parapet.

The second interview was with Scottish Labour’s Anas Sarwar. Here are three things we learned.

He doesn’t want to be Mr Glasgow…when he’s outside the central belt

Labour’s election strategy is clear and has been a long time in the planning.

The party is targeting constituencies across Scotland’s central belt and parts of the west coast.

Those at the centre of the campaign hope to turn out a concentrated patch of support that allows the party to perform above top line polling numbers.

Let’s leave aside for a second the fact they are so far behind the SNP in current polling that the strategy looks extremely optimistic at best without a marked shift over the next four weeks.

There’s a very obvious downside to this strategy.

That’s the fact it means Labour focuses heavily on a small geographical area of Scotland, albeit one that’s home to the vast majority of the country’s population.

Mr Sarwar was at pains to be seen as a leader who can talk to the whole of Scotland and carefully chose his language to strike a chord with the frustrations of many in the south of Scotland.

He said: “It feels like for many people across the communities in the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway that they’ve been forgotten about.

“Forgotten about when it comes to access to health services and too many people waiting far too long.

“Forgotten about in terms of young people getting the skills they need, or the training they need or the jobs they need.”

The question is whether he or his team will maintain focus on these areas when they have to compete with the demands of Glasgow’s hospital scandal and other issues on Mr Sarwar’s home turf.

Labour has policies for the south of Scotland

Mr Sarwar argued that suggestions he has a central belt bias are unfounded and his allies point to two policies he announced as proof that Labour is thinking about our region.

The first was pledging to fully dual both the A75 and A77, which are two of Scotland’s key trunk roads that local councils say urgently need upgraded.

The A75 runs from Gretna to Stranraer while the A77 goes down the Ayrshire coast but both serve the ports at Cairnryan, which is the main point of entry or exit for heavy goods vehicles heading to or from Northern Ireland.

As such, they are seen as crucial to the economy of the whole UK given it is essentially a gateway to the European Union because of the ability to easily move from Belfast to the Republic of Ireland.

Mr Sarwar said: “We will for the first time have a proper business case for the A77/75. How we look at the economic opportunities of course, how we look at safety because there’s been far too many instances of fatalities and injuries and collisions on the A77 and the A75.

“But also the connectivity, how the south of Scotland can connect yes to the central belt but also with Northern Ireland, which is a huge part of the economic potential for Scotland.”

He was unable to say how much the project would cost or how long it would take, which will inevitably raise eyebrows despite his insistence that it needs the business case to be completed for any plan to be credible.

The Scottish Conservatve manifesto has promised to dual “key sections” of the A75 within five years.

Earlier this week, the South West Scotland Transport Alliance identified a list of upgrades - nine on the A75 and 11 on the A77 - that it says could be realistically delivered in the coming years.

Transport secretary Fiona Hyslop last year asked the alliance, which is led by Stena Line, P&O Ferries and Belfast Harbour, to identify strategically-important work that could be carried out quickly.

Mr Sarwar also promised to bring back maternity services in Stranraer with women having to travel 70 miles to give birth or in some cases deliver their babies themselves.

This has led to concerns being raised by Scotland’s patient safety commissioner and first minister John Swinney has pledged to consider the issue.

But Mr Sarwar found himself in hot water and was forced to apologise to local campaigner Claire Fleming after a Labour leaflet was delivered to homes featuring her picture and a made-up quote.

It will be interesting to see how full or detailed the promised separate south of Scotland manifesto will be when it is released.

Sir Keir Starmer is still a sore point

It has been almost exactly two months since Anas Sarwar called on Sir Keir Starmer to quit as prime minister.

Nothing has changed in the intervening weeks, not even in the polls, which Scottish Labour blames on the person still residing in Downing Street.

Mr Sarwar remains determined to be his own man and run a distinct campaign to be first minister that does not rely on the UK government.

Here was his short pitch: “Let’s make Scotland better right now, let’s make an NHS that works, let’s guarantee opportunities for young people, let’s spend public money well.”

Does that remind you of anything?

About six weeks out from the 2024 UK general election, this is what Mr Starmer had to say to voters:

“We can deliver economic stability. Cut the NHS waiting times. Secure our borders with a New Border Security Command. Harness Great British Energy to cut your bills for good. Tackle anti-social behaviour. And get the teachers we need in your children’s classroom.”

You might be thinking, well yes, it’s two Labour leaders so of course their pitches to voters will be similar.

But given Mr Sarwar has called on Mr Starmer to go, I asked him what he would do differently to the prime minister if he made it to high office.

I put the question to him four times directly and twice in a roundabout way.

It’s maybe worth quoting the end of that exchange in full, which started with me pointing out to Mr Sarwar that his pitch was quite similar to Mr Starmer’s.

Mr Sarwar: “Well I’m standing to be first minister and the choice to be first minister is between me and John Swinney.

“And there might be those who want to obsess about who the occupant in Downing Street is or who the UK government is…”

ITV Border: “Well I just wondered because I started by asking what you would do differently. And you’re making a very similar pitch - which, many people would want that pitch - but I just wonder how you’re going to do it.”

Mr Sarwar: “Well I’m telling you, I’ve told you. We will cut waiting lists by making sure we are using capacity wherever it exists. We’ll embrace technology for faster treatment, faster diagnosis.

“We’ll get things built in this country by reforming our planning system so we get faster decisions.

“We will make sure we’re supporting our town centres and high streets by abolishing the unfair business rates schemes so we can re-rig the system in favour of retail and hospitality in town centres and high streets.

“We’ll make sure we’re respecting the public purse so we aren’t wasting money, so we can drive down taxes in the next parliament.

“And we’re going to make sure we deliver the best of our country, Scotland. And that’s the big difference between me and John Swinney.

“John Swinney thinks this is as good as it gets. He’s had 20 years. I know we can do better as a country, Scotland.

“We have the talent, we have the people, we have the resources, we have the ideas. What we don’t have is the government to match it.”

If the polls are correct, Mr Sarwar will struggle to realise his ambition of leading a government he insists can change the country.

The first interview was with the SNP’s John Swinney. Here are three things we learned. And if you want to watch the full thing, you can do so here.

The south of Scotland is crucial

There is a “blue belt” on Scotland’s political landscape that covers the country’s dividing line with England.

John Swinney knows he needs to turn at least some of that yellow if he is to achieve his aim of gaining a majority at Holyrood.

He said: “The three seats along the border in the south of Scotland are pivotal to the outcome of the election.

“I will go into this election focusing on winning a majority in the Scottish parliament so I can take forward the agenda of the SNP, which is the agenda of the people of Scotland.

“And I recognise the importance of winning in the south of Scotland and winning in those constituencies so they have good strong SNP campaigns with good strong SNP candidates and I’m very optimistic about our prospects in those three seats.”

On a national swing, the Conservatives look vulnerable, particularly with the rise of Reform UK.

But the Tories have a well-drilled local operation and the fact they know they will lose MSPs in other parts of the country means there is an increased focus – and additional resources – on the region.

Small shifts could make a huge difference during the campaign and the southern seats should be closely watched.

NHS record will dog the first minister

Any party that has been in power for 19 years will have weak spots in its record.

No one can manage a spotless performance over that amount of time in government and the SNP’s opponents see lengthy NHS waiting times as a particular weakness.

During the 2024 budget, the first of Swinney’s time in charge of the Scottish government, a promise was made that “by March 2026, no one will wait longer than 12 months for a new outpatient appointment, inpatient treatment or day case treatment”.

There was anger in the upper echelons of the Scottish government last September when health secretary Neil Gray called that promise an “aspiration” rather than a cast-iron guarantee.

Swinney himself said he could “recommit” to the promise in the days that followed but the deadline has come and gone and the first minister admitted on Tuesday it will “take us just a little bit longer” to meet the target.

He said: “Let’s look at the data. Nine months in a row we’ve seen a reduction in outpatient long waits. There’s been a reduction since the summer of last year of 63% in long waits,

“So I accept the task is not completed but it will be completed very very shortly. But fundamentally there’s been a rise in the number of procedures undertaken in the NHS, a big reduction in the number of long waits people experience - either for outpatient or inpatient appointments.

“So by any dispassionate assessment, the SNP government has delivered huge improvements in the National Health Service, meeting the needs of the public.”

When pushed on the fact that he didn’t promise improvements, he promised an end to year-long waits, Swinney responded: “I’m simply saying it’s going to take us just a little bit longer to do that. And that’s all it is, a little bit longer.

“But fundamentally huge progress has been made, great improvements have been made in the National Health Service.

“The NHS has turned a corner under my leadership, delivering for the people of Scotland.”

You can see the opportunity that opposition parties see in attacking the SNP’s record from their reaction to our interview.

Analysis of the main 17 pledges of the 2021 SNP manifesto by ITV Border – which matches work carried out by other media – show that only around one-third of them can be said to be delivered in full.

Scottish Labour issued a press release where its deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: “John Swinney and the SNP have broken one promise after another and it is insulting to pretend otherwise.”

The problem opposition parties face is that even with unhappiness at the SNP’s record in power, people have not shifted their backing to the alternatives on offer.

Leadership on fuel panic buying

Swinney moved to assure people and stave off panic buying as motorists started queuing at petrol stations across Scotland with people beginning to worry about fuel shortages.

Asked what he would say to anyone going to fill up the tank because they’re worried, he said: “I just would ask people to be patient and cautious and to go about their lives in the way they normally would do because that way we can maintain the supplies of everything within our country, if we have the normal approach to our purchasing patterns.

“Now I accept that people will be anxious. I totally understand that anxiety. But if people just go about things in the normal fashion, we’ll be okay.”

The war in Iran has led to spikes in the cost of energy and fuel with the RAC saying the average diesel prices at UK forecourts on Tuesday were 182.8p per litre, up 40p since the start of the conflict in the Middle East on February 28.

The average cost of petrol is 152.8p per litre, an increase of 20p since the conflict began.

Oil prices – which have a significant effect on the cost of wholesale fuel – have soared in response to Iran’s stranglehold on tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

This has led to concerns about shortages, although prices fell on Wednesday morning to below $100 a barrel.

At a press conference on Wednesday, Sir Keir Starmer said the UK would host an international summit aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

He said the UK government was closely monitoring the situation when asked whether people should consider changing their behaviour in response to the increasing economic pressures.

Swinney is clearly keen to be involved in the situation to ensure people are offered the best information about the situation.

He said he has been offered a four nations briefing with the leaders of the other devolved administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales but that no date has been set.

But he is not above playing politics with the situation as the election approaches.

In a press release issued by the SNP on Wednesday morning, Swinney accused the UK government of “sleepwalking into a potentially unprecedented crisis because of a “lack of real action”.

It was September 2024 and Sir Keir Starmer was standing surrounded by Scottish political journalists in No10 Downing Street.

He had invited us in for, literally, beer and sandwiches.

I was still working for The Times newspaper and was unexpectedly called to ask the first question, which was probably a little more gung ho for having consumed a bottle and a half of lager.

Pointing across the room towards Anas Sarwar and referencing the prime minister’s statement that “things will get worse” before they get better and the unpopular – and later U-turned on – decision to means-test winter fuel payments for pensioners, I asked: “Do you think your Eeyore government is harming Tigger over there?”

The Scottish Labour leader laughed heartily at the time but he has lost some of that bounce over the last 18 months.

And some of the ambition. And he recently tried to lose the prime minister.

Sarwar still burns with a desire to be first minister.

But he has realised that to make that dream a reality he has to be extremely effective – and fortunate – in shrinking his party into one that is focused on Greater Glasgow and Clyde, plus a sliver of urban centres in the east.

Pollster Mark Diffley points out that this is because Scotland’s central belt may be a small proportion of the country’s land, but it is home to the vast majority of the population.

He says that Labour can still say they are speaking to most of the country, but adds that if political parties are “smart they will concentrate their resources accordingly”.

And so Sarwar is far from alone in contracting a once national beast into a tightly focused campaign operation.

The Conservatives have largely retreated into defending their remaining strongholds in the south of Scotland.

Multiple party sources say gloomy internal data suggests that heavy losses are expected across the country, including the northeast, where they made big advances a decade ago.

“The south is the only part we may hold out under this polling,” said one source.

This largely chimes with public surveys but Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay has declared that just as his party defied pundits five years ago to retain all 31 of its MSPs, he believes he will do better than expected once again.

More optimistic are the Scottish Greens. Co-leader Gillian Mackay said they want an “MSP in every region” and are hopeful of returning a representative on the South Scotland list.

But the party is largely aiming its resources at urban areas and have identified two target constituencies: Edinburgh Central, currently held by constitution secretary Angus Robertson, and Nicola Sturgeon’s former seat of Glasgow Southside.

Meanwhile the Lib Dems are looking north and reckon they can win seats in the Highlands on top of their existing pockets in the central belt and the northern isles.

They also hope a well-funded campaign will deliver them an MSP on the South Scotland list.

The Lib Dems see their former stronghold of the Borders as a massive gap in their armour and believe if they gain representation there, they can think once again about becoming a “national party”.

Ironically, Reform UK’s potential to appear from nowhere and pick up seats in every part of the country – notwithstanding its controversial candidates – is currently helping the party that sees itself as Scotland’s truly national representatives: the SNP.

Diffley said Reform is on course to return between 15 and 20 MSPs, adding: “It’s shaken up the political world in Scotland as it has in other places in the UK significantly as well.

“And what it means is because they are taking votes almost exclusively from disgruntled Labour and Conservative voters, it makes the SNP’s task much easier.

“So it means you can lose 25 per cent of your voters – as the SNP has done since 2021 – but actually probably come out on 35 per cent of the vote with about the same number of seats in parliament as they got five years ago.”

This is why John Swinney reckons he can win a majority, which he says will lead to a second independence referendum, despite the fall in support over the last five years.

The first minister can look across almost all of Scotland’s 73 constituencies and see winnable battles.

This is important when the magic majority number is 65 MSPs.

But a wide and – relatively to previous elections – shallow support base has potential drawbacks, which were highlighted at the last general election.

The SNP won 30 per cent of the popular vote, compared to Labour’s 5 per cent, but only returned nine MPs when there were 36 victorious candidates wearing red rosettes.

Five years on, nationalists still remember Galloway and West Dumfries - the knife-edge seat that denied them going it alone at Holyrood.

A senior SNP source: “The south of Scotland could make or break our majority. It’s so finely balanced.”

The national picture is important, of course it is. But every serious political party has realised that the key to success, no matter how you measure it, is by focusing on and winning the local battles.

Reform UK’s candidate for Galloway and West Dumfries has been urged to stand down after ITV Border uncovered online messages calling for the deportation of British Muslims and endorsing far-right activist Tommy Robinson.

Senga Beresford made a series of public posts that her political opponents called “appalling” and “out of order.”

https://x.com/beresfordsenga/status/1819818669901533523?s=46

In August 2024, she replied: “Me,” to a post on the social media site X from Ashlea Simon, the deputy leader of the far-right party Britain First, which said: “In the UK Muslims are demanding that sharia law is implemented. I demand that we deport the lot of them. Who’s with me?”

https://x.com/beresfordsenga/status/1817175423882498173?s=46

The previous month, she sent a message saying: “Behind you all the way,” to Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, after he posted about “setting up in Trafalgar Square for the biggest patriotic rally the UK has ever seen”.

In the following days she sent a “thumbs up” emoji to a post that said: “Give me a Thumbs Up and RETWEET, If YOU STAND WITH TOMMY ROBINSON” [sic].

https://x.com/beresfordsenga/status/1817913977172549800?s=46

https://x.com/beresfordsenga/status/1818587451465588753?s=46

She also replied “Yes” to a post that said: “Do YOU agree with what Tommy Robinson says! YES or NO?”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has consistently said that Robinson is not welcome in the party.

Earlier that month, Beresford had replied “Yes” to a post that read: “Was Enoch Powell RIGHT? Please Retweet….. YES or NO?”.

https://x.com/beresfordsenga/status/1814409625045008743?s=46

ITV Border has approached Beresford and Reform UK for comment.

A Reform source said they did not believe Beresford still held those views and said that “everyone is entitled to a past”.

They said Beresford has “a lot to offer” as a “really down to earth businesswoman and mum”.

https://x.com/anassarwar/status/2034714629130031588?s=46

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar described the comments as "appalling", adding that Beresford is "totally unfit for public office".

He added: “It has taken a matter of hours for Reform Scotland’s big launch to fall apart and their true colours to show.

“If Nigel Farage refuses to act and remove this candidate, Malcolm Offord must step up and show some leadership himself.

“This incident has confirmed once and for all how poisonous and chaotic Reform is and I have no doubt that Scots will send them packing.”

Conservative Galloway and West Dumfries MSP Finlay Carson said:

“She has made her position quite clear. It is not a view that I know the majority of people in Dumfries and Galloway would support. They would find it completely out of order. It’s not becoming of someone who is seeking a public position.”

The SNP’s South Scotland MSP Emma Harper called the posts “a bit worrying,” adding:

“I think the public will judge what the messages are in the tweets….Frankly they are not very nice for people that we should be welcoming in Scotland.”

Speaking at the launch of Reform’s Scottish election manifesto, where its Holyrood constituency candidates were also unveiled, Farage said he was “very” confident in his party’s vetting process.

“These candidates have all been put through their paces, goodness me,” he said.

“They’ve been sat down, they’ve been given hostile interviews as part of their preparation, we’ve vetted them thoroughly. I’m very, very confident of the group we’ve got.”

Asked if there were any candidates he was “expecting difficult questions about”, Farage added:

“I’m not expecting any especially difficult questions about any of them but we’ll have to see, won’t we.”

It’s a cliche but in this case it’s also true: MSPs are debating a matter of life and death.

Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill has members at Holyrood exercising their brains and their consciences as they this week consider more than 320 amendments to the legislation.

Then there is the small matter of how to vote next Tuesday evening when the final decision is scheduled to be made.

This is the furthest any bid to legalise the NHS helping someone with a terminal illness to end their life has progressed through the Scottish parliament.

Attempts by Margo MacDonald and Patrick Harvie in 2010 and 2015 both fell at the first vote while a 2004 motion by Jeremy Purvis, now Lord Purvis of Tweed, failed to gain enough signatures to even make it to the floor of the parliament.

One of the reasons this has progressed is the calm and respectful way McArthur has approached the proposals.

But the momentum he built last year appears to be draining away from his proposals.

Exchanges about amendments have been well-tempered and well-informed in what is a free vote for MSPs, meaning they are not bound by the whip of their leadership.

It has provided a reminder of what Holyrood can be when MSPs are not just reading a speech typed for them by party apparatchiks.

However, there appear to be areas where concerns cannot be alleviated no matter how much is changed.

Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay, Holyrood’s criminal justice committee convener Audrey Nicoll and her fellow SNP MSP Collette Stevenson have each reversed their support.

All three cited concerns that there are not enough protections to stop vulnerable people being coerced into signing up to an assisted death.

Other worries centre on opt-outs for healthcare workers who conscientiously object to carrying out the procedures, given employment law is reserved to the UK government.

McArthur says that safeguards are already in the bill and work is underway between Holyrood and Westminster to ensure that where powers lie does not become an issue.

The previous parliamentary vote passed with a majority of 14. This means those opposed to the legislation needed to switch eight people to block it.

South Scotland MSP Colin Smyth is not allowed into the building because of ongoing criminal proceedings so cannot vote.

That brings the number of required switchers down to seven and three have already shifted.

Will Findlay’s shift have any influence over swithering Tories? Remember, first minister John Swinney and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar also oppose the proposal.

Can those like South Scotland MSP Brian Whittle who backed the bill at stage one with huge reservations be persuaded to overcome their concerns and stay the course?

The mood music is not positive from McArthur’s perspective.

That’s why we’ll end with another political cliche, one that despite its oft-repeated use is just as important as the welcome high level debates currently taking place at Holyrood.

Former US president Lyndon B Johnson said the first rule of politics is to learn to count.

Any summary of the numbers currently show the bid to legalise assisted dying in Scotland is hanging by a thread.

Present were two other politicians: his deputy, Jackie Baillie, and Douglas Alexander, the Scottish secretary.

As campaign coordinators for the Holyrood election, the pair have a high level of influence and access to their leader.

This is why eyebrows are now being raised at Alexander’s insistence that the first time he had any inkling about Sarwar’s move to call for the prime minister to quit was on Monday after the two party bosses had spoken. 

“This wasn’t a unilateral declaration,” one senior source said of Sarwar’s big gamble.

Allies of Alexander say that the meeting on Friday was a weekly election planning catch up where “Anas calling for Keir Starmer to quit was not discussed”. 

Critics of the Scottish secretary in both parliaments have dismissed the suggestion that he would have been unaware of - at the very least - Sarwar’s deep frustration and an increased feeling within the leader’s circle that Starmer was the biggest single block on his hopes of becoming first minister.

A second Scottish Labour source said of Alexander:

"They brought him in to be co-chair of the campaign to bring his strategic election experience (honed by losing every campaign he ran). 

“This is the most major strategic decision Anas is ever likely to make so if Douglas wasn’t advising then why not? 

“If he was, he surely can’t sit in the cabinet. Given the opaque denials I suspect Douglas is covering his own arse with the PM whilst helping Anas."

A Scottish Labour spokesperson said: “Anas Sarwar made the decision to call for the prime minister to resign himself – it was his decision and his alone.”

There is some support for Alexander, though, including amongst some people who are not his natural allies within Labour.

One praised his ability to have played both sides, which they pointed to as being important for maintaining support for Sarwar at Westminster.

“A lot of the MPs were saying ‘Do we support Starmer or Sarwar?’. And Douglas is saying you can do both. And I don’t think you get there without Douglas. He’s been about as cute as you could be on this.”

There have certainly been deep divisions amongst Scottish Labour MPs, including at a testy meeting where they could barely agree on a statement about Sarwar’s big call.

According to reports in the Daily Record, this included the Edinburgh MP Chris Murray comparing his boss at Holyrood to Brooklyn Beckham, who has publicly fallen out with his ex-footballer dad and former pop star mum.

A view in parts of Westminster that Sarwar’s move was a failure because it failed to elicit support from presumed UK leadership hopefuls in Wes Streeting, the health secretary, and former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner have also angered some MSPs.

“Some people think we can wait three months and use the Scottish, Welsh and local elections in England as an excuse to move against Keir,” said one.

“Fuck that. This is about the future of Scotland. It’s much more important than whether Wes has released his WhatsApps [with Lord Mandelson] or Angela has paid her tax bill [which forced her to resign].”

What really matters, though, is how voters react.

A slew of private focus groups and opinion polls are now being carried out to try and gauge the impact of Sarwar’s gamble.

Canvassers and campaigners report cautiously optimistic feedback on the doors, albeit this weekend is where they expect to have greater and more reliable data as a result of speaking with more would-be constituents. 

Starmer is universally agreed as being a massive problem on the doorsteps even amongst people who are frustrated with the SNP’s performance in government. 

One door-knocker said that “Anas has given people permission to vote Labour” with other campaigners say other positive feedback includes praise for his “honesty” in publicly identifying Starmer as the problem and a view that he is “standing up for Scotland” with the move.

Over in the SNP, there is predictably more scepticism about the impact of the move which the nationalists see as being desperate and ill-thought out.

More than one compared it to former first minister Humza Yousaf’s decision to sack the Greens from government, which is widely welcomed by party members – and ministers – now but cost him his job because of how brutally he sacked his then partners.

“I actually feel a bit sorry for Anas,” said a source close to Yousaf. “You can make the right decision and still execute it badly, as we know.”

Others are less generous.

“We’re just sitting with the popcorn out,” said one SNP minister. 

Sarwar’s gamble has split opinion and brought private divisions into the public domain. 

The coming weeks will begin to show whether it was worth the risk.

It was not, in contrast to some inferences in reporting over the weekend, a crisis meeting set up by a beleaguered prime minister to ward off a rebellion and was in fact arranged weeks ago.

But it will be awkward.

Just a few hours before the reception, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar became the first senior UK party figure to call for Starmer to quit.

He went public shortly after calling his UK leader to privately convey his feelings.

Sarwar said:

“My first priority and loyalty is to my country, Scotland. The distraction needs to end. The leadership from Downing Street has to change.

“We cannot allow the failures at the heart of Downing Street to mean the failures continue here in Scotland

“I have to be honest about failure wherever I see it. The situation in Downing Street is not good enough. There have been too many mistakes.

“They promised they were going to be different but too much has happened. It cannot continue.”

It was a scathing takedown.

The move will seriously destabilise the prime minister and is a huge shift from a man who literally used to hug Starmer close – and used his coattails as a springboard to well above expected success in the general election.

But it has been brewing for months now as frustrations have built and turned into white hot fury north of the border.

Sarwar and his team believe they have been effective in holding the SNP to account, particularly over the nationalists’ stewardship of the NHS, but have continued to slip backwards and are now 20 points adrift of their rivals.

It’s not all that long ago Sarwar believed he would save Starmer. Now he is first to wield the knife.

A belief has cemented in Scottish Labour HQ that the historically unpopular prime minister was going to cost them the Holyrood election.

The final straw was the revelations last week about Lord Mandelson’s leaking of highly sensitive information to Jeffrey Epstein and Starmer’s admission of having appointed the New Labour grandee as US ambassador despite being warned of his links to the convicted paedophile.

It cost Morgan McSweeney his job as Starmer’s chief of staff in a move designed to save the prime minister.

But that’s not enough for the man who is watching his hopes of being first minister slip from his grasp.

Sarwar was visibly furious on Thursday when reporters surrounded him after first minister’s questions. It was the angriest I had seen him.

That rage is not confined to Holyrood.

One minister sympathetic to Sarwar said that the Parliamentary Labour Party in Westminster is “beyond fed up” and they “can’t see how [Starmer] claws it back”.

The minister added:

“Ministers are quiet now but there are lots of conversations going on behind the scenes. Morgan going weakens the whole operation.”

Yet there are concerns about what would happen if Starmer was to quit.

Is a divisive leadership contest any better for Scottish Labour? Will the markets be spooked, leading to more financial turmoil? Will the public just see more of the chaos and internal turmoil that contributed to the rejection of the Conservatives?

There was also rejection of the move from Labour ministers.

Scottish secretary Douglas Alexander, the co-coordinator of Labour’s Holyrood election campaign, said that while he “respects” Sarwar:

“The prime minister has recognised not just that lessons have to be learned but also that we change how we do government. He is right about that and has my support.”

The influential work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden, a Scot, also said he wants Starmer to stay, as has deputy prime minister David Lammy and chancellor Rachel Reeves.

Culture minister Ian Murray, who was furious when Starmer sacked him as Scottish secretary last year, went furthest in his direct criticism of Sarwar’s decision.

And Downing Street seemed in no mood to countenance Sarwar’s demands, saying in an official statement:

“Keir Starmer is one of only four Labour leaders ever to have won a general election.

“He has a clear five-year mandate from the British people to deliver change, and that is what he will do.”

One MP gave the counter argument that Starmer “dragging on for months kills Holyrood dead anyway”.

As well as the continuing drip of revelations from the Epstein files – and the prospect of more emerging when private messages between Mandelson and government ministers and advisers are published – there is the upcoming Gorton and Denton byelection.

Yes it is in Greater Manchester but it takes place on February 26, the day before Scottish Labour’s party conference and will probably overshadow Sarwar’s pitch to the electorate already nevermind if there is the added psychodrama of it also playing into the future of the prime minister.

An MSP was scathing about Starmer and saying that no matter what Sarwar and his team does “we’re more at the mercy of events than ever” because of the chaos in Downing Street.

They said:

“If this were Belgium and people wanted a technocrat he would be right at home but you can’t develop a huge project to reverse Corbynism and have no politics for the bit after.

“Imagine Blair with no politics. It just wouldn’t have worked.”

Anas Sarwar has made a huge call in calling for Starmer to quit.

If his plan doesn’t work, it will be him who is carefully considering whether he is the next Labour leader heading for the exit.

“There is no such uncertainty as a sure thing.”

The quote, attributed to Robert Burns, seems to sum up Scottish politics as we approach the bard’s birthday.

The SNP has a clear lead in the polls despite support for the party being much lower than it was five years ago.

Conventional wisdom in the political bubble is that a nationalist government will once again be returned next May.

Support for Scottish Labour has gone off a cliff as people let their views be known about the performance of Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister and the UK government as a whole.

Gratitude is free flowing within the SNP towards first minister John Swinney, who has steadied things over the last 20 months after a period where it felt like the party might be going off the rails.

As one cabinet minister recently told me…

It feels like Labour were relying on us carrying on being a shitshow but that hasn’t happened.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Now despite that undoubted turn in fortunes, there has only been a slight increase in support for the SNP since its disastrous 2024 general election performance.

The party is still more than 10 points down from its result in the 2021 Holyrood election.

It may seem counterintuitive when looking at the current evidence but opposition parties still retain confidence of better than expected results next May.

Labour has all but written off constituencies in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders but multiple sources who are campaigning in the central belt claim the reception on the doorsteps is much better than in the polls.

One senior Labour figure hit full optimism mode saying they believe they are in the “foothills of a campaign that looks a lot like 2011”.

That was a horrendous event for Labour with the SNP coming from 14 points behind in the early part of the year to win an unprecedented and as yet unrepeated majority at Holyrood.

So why does the party in red think it can pull off a reverse result?

“No one likes them,” the source said of the SNP. “Their vote is so soft.”

Now it is worth stating that no one believes the mood music around this election is like 2011, where voters largely rallied around an Alex Salmond-led SNP government which was broadly seen to have performed competently in its four years in power.

And Labour does not believe it is headed for a majority.

But it does think that John Swinney’s record in elections over his two stints as SNP leader – competed in four, lost four – gives it hope, as does a digital campaign that is popping up on 200,000 people’s devices every day.

They claim that a head-to-head between Swinney and Anas Sarwar framed around who they want running the country will fall in their favour.

This, though, largely relies on the campaign being focused on the SNP’s record in charge at Holyrood, not Labour’s since it took power at Westminster.

One Labour strategist admitted…

The suppressor of support for us just now is that people thinking voting for us think about Keir Starmer.

Will they think about that on polling day when it’s actually about their health service?

Maybe. But to do that the SNP has to make the argument that this election is not about them. Our argument is hard. Theirs is impossible.

There is compelling evidence that the SNP is keen to make the election a referendum on Starmer as well as about their plans for government.

For example, a press release this week on behalf of Westminster leader Stephen Flynn headlined that “the best way to get rid of Keir Starmer is to vote SNP on 7th May”.

But the cabinet minister mentioned earlier insisted all of the nationalists’ internal research shows it has “nothing to fear” when people’s minds focus on Holyrood.

That applies especially when voters are looking at who should head the next Scottish government, they said.

A recent public poll by Survation on behalf of True North Advisors put Swinney 17 points ahead of Sarwar when people were asked who would make the best first minister.

A second source close to Swinney said that reflects internal research and claimed the incumbent is “miles ahead” and “massively popular” with the swing voters that both Labour and the SNP believe will decide the election.

Still looming large over both parties – and the Scottish Conservatives – are Reform UK, who came second in a council byelection in Fife, which Nigel Farage’s party sees as strengthening its narrative that it is now the main challenger to the SNP.

Reform is troubling the Tories in every constituency across the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway but Russell Findlay’s party hopes that its rival’s powers have peaked with polling suggesting a current plateau in support both north and south of the border.

People around Findlay know May is going to be an election where the party loses MSPs but they are cautiously optimistic of defying expectations in a similar manner to previous contests.

There is hope that any sense of momentum draining away from Reform could drag voters back to the deeper shade of blue.

The amount of times strategists mention being a “mainstream” party of the centre-right is a clear – and striking, given UK leader Kemi Badenoch’s reported recent rejection of a shift to the centre – indication of the ground it wants to fight the election on.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Greens are aiming for 15 MSPs, including potentially the constituencies of Glasgow Southside and Edinburgh Central, and want at least one parliamentarian elected on the South Scotland regional list.

The Liberal Democrats are also confident of returning representation in our region but are most excited about becoming “Kings of the North” by sweeping up Highland constituencies as part of 10 seats being targeted by the party.

What should worry every party is research released earlier this week by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which found that 38 per cent of people feel politically dissatisfied.

A briefing by the anti-poverty charity said 73 per cent of people agreed that politicians care more about their party than the people they represent while 43 per cent did not see political decisions as having a positive impact on their community.

Deputy first minister Kate Forbes was in Galashiels on Friday visiting entrepreneurs and highlighting investment in the south of Scotland that she says will improve people’s lives.

She knows that argument needs to land with voters.

That Joseph Rowntree Foundation report also found that 58 per cent of people believe the Scottish government is responsible for improving the living standards of people in Scotland.

At the moment, all parties risk looking like “wee, sleekit, cowrin’, tim’rous beasties” in the eyes of the electorate, to quote one of Burns’ most famous lines.

If any of them can turn that perception around then they will roar, not squeak, on May 8 when the ballots are counted.

It was nice to be creating headlines this week with ITV Border’s start of the year political leaders interviews. Below is my analysis on what it means…

As John Swinney’s senior ministers sat down at Bute House for the first cabinet meeting of 2026 one agenda item was elevated above all others: the budget.

Its sign off was straightforward and it appears it will be equally simple for the plans to sail through Holyrood thanks to help from an unexpected source.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar’s decision to publicly say his party will unconditionally nod the tax and spending plans through before he’s even seen what’s in it certainly perked up the first minister.

https://x.com/itvborderrb/status/2009285733601653131?s=46

His comments to me also raised eyebrows across Holyrood as it effectively removed the need for any horse-trading between the SNP and opposition parties.

This is because even if Labour only abstains – rather than voting for – the budget, it will pass easily because of a lack of opposition.

The Scottish Conservatives heavily criticised Sarwar’s decision but earlier in the week the party’s Scottish leader Russell Findlay also left the door open, albeit in a much more narrow manner, if, as seems likely, there is movement on income tax thresholds.

https://x.com/itvborderrb/status/2008896522490970199?s=46

Swinney still wants the explicit support of the Greens and possibly the Liberal Democrats after both parties voted with him last year and is prepared to give some concessions to make this happen.

But crucially he doesn’t have to and, equally important from his point of view, he can now instruct civil servants to start preparing to implement his policies because there is no fear of them being voted down.

Not content with that comfort in an election year, SNP sources have also told me that if Labour abstains on the budget they plan to attack them for failing to vote for any of the policies that prove popular with the public.

Meanwhile, the Tories will be vocal from the other side accusing Sarwar of being weak and failing to oppose the unpopular plans.

It’s a big risk but senior Labour figures insist that they just need to keep their head down and focus on their own strategy rather than being blown off course by their opponents.

Sarwar himself dismissed the budget as almost irrelevant when I interviewed him on Thursday and claimed he could change whatever he wanted if he is first minister come May.

And Labour strategists want Swinney’s plans to gain as little focus as possible.

They think that taking the drama out of proceedings is a good thing, even if it has led to accusations of weakness and ineptness from rivals.

Yet there is little doubt that it’s been a tough start to the year for Sarwar.

He began by pushing away Sir Keir Starmer, a man he has figuratively – and literally – hugged tight since becoming Scottish leader.

By the middle of the week he was effectively defending the prime minister, though, and in the process calling his own MPs “idiots” for making anonymous comments to newspapers suggesting it was time for a change in Downing Street.

Those briefings infuriated Labour at Holyrood. They know that every moment they are talking about the unpopular Starmer is a moment they are weakening their own brand and failing to make any dents on the SNP.

A UK government source told me this week that the prime minister is “clear eyed” about his lack of popularity in Scotland.

He is expected to be used sparingly on the Holyroodcampaign trail, with any interventions likely to be tightly controlled and focused on defence spending or the potential to build nuclear power stations north of the border.

The most optimistic about the UK government hope that people will start to feel better off by April as wages increase, mortgages come down because of interest rates cuts and households receive £150 off their energy bills.

Even if people do feel their situation is improving, Labour also needs them to credit the UK government for that, which seems rather optimistic given the current polls.

Sawar’s backroom team is also looking to the past for inspiration.

They regularly reference the 2011 Holyrood election where the SNP came from miles behind in the polls to secure an as yet unreplicated majority.

Labour is not suggesting victory on that scale but is attempting to draw parallels because on both occasions focus was largely on Westminster, not Holyrood, until pretty much the short campaign.

Sawar is even mimicking the late former nationalist first minister Alex Salmond by challenging Swinney to one-on-one debates.

Salmond did the same thing as opposition leader in 2007. This was refused by then Labour first minister Jack McConnell, now Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, but the SNP still won the election by one seat and has retained power since.

There are plenty of problems with Labour’s analogy but, like the events of this week, it does illustrate one important fact about Scottish politics: very little is as predictable as it seems

There was still work being done by the first minister’s most senior aides, though, before they headed out the door for their end-of-term festive meal at a central Edinburgh hotel.

The tax and benefits proposals that will form the bedrock of the SNP’s budget were sent to official forecasters before minds collectively shifted towards turkey and presents.

Whether voters like the gifts planned by John Swinney and his team when they are unwrapped on January 13 will go a long way to deciding May’s Holyrood election.

So what should we be looking out for? Well, we know that the first minister is determined to win back middle-class voters who deserted the SNP.

It’s also clear, from speaking to those close to him, that Swinney is more than a little irked by the Conservatives. He feels they are using analysis by the Scottish Fiscal Commission to dispute his often-repeated claim that, despite higher rates for higher earners, most Scots pay less tax than they would if they lived in England.

I would expect the budget to be used to attempt to draw a clear blue (or yellow) line on the issue.

This could potentially be done by making changes to thresholds, which is the point at which you start to pay tax and when you move into paying higher rates.

This would also make a political point, given Chancellor Rachel Reeves froze income tax thresholds in the UK budget.

Maybe that stuck to Labour’s pledge not to raise income tax south of the border, but it has been widely referred to as a stealth tax.

Making different choices at Holyrood would allow Swinney to make a big pitch to aspirational 'middle Scotland'.

It was those voters who drove the SNP’s devastating defeat in the 2024 general election, and they were also key to Labour defying the bookies and the pundits to win the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse byelection.

That result bruised the nationalists, who still face criticism over domestic policies - NHS waiting times in particular - despite Scottish ministers saying things are going in the right direction.

Yes, this past year has seen the SNP continue to extend its poll lead over Labour, but the main reason for it has not been a surge by Swinney’s party.

Rather, it's down to the plunging popularity of their opponents.

Scottish Labour puts the blame squarely at the feet of their colleagues in the UK government, who they believe have committed a series of unforced errors.

Part of the effort to reverse that trend saw Ian Murray - for so long Labour's only MP in Scotland - sacked as Scottish secretary and replaced by the veteran Douglas Alexander, as Sir Keir Starmer bids to stop sinking his party at Holyrood.

Anas Sarwar, the leader north of the border, will unveil new policies as the new year goes on and hopes that his party’s impressive data collection and ground game will make the election competitive.

Every poll that comes out makes that look more difficult with Labour now having dropped into third place, behind Reform UK, in four out of the last five polls.

Reform are not just worrying Labour though. Nigel Farage’s party has contributed to a tough year for the Scottish Conservatives.

Two MSPs defected from the Holyrood group - one to the Liberal Democrats and one to Reform - and a third simply quit the party altogether to sit as an independent.

As well as the insurgents on the right, the Greens and Lib Dems are also confident about their prospects in the coming year and believe there is a real chance the next parliament will be one where smaller parties have a lot more influence.

The latter two parties will likely have a big role in the budget.

The SNP needs the backing of at least one to get the plans through parliament, having won over both groups to navigate proceedings this year.

All of this will be flashing into the minds of senior politicians and their advisers no matter how much they try and switch off during the holidays.

As examples of political opportunism go, Anas Sarwar was less than subtle just two hours before Labour’s big fiscal plans were presented to the House of Commons.

“Today's budget must reduce poverty, bring down energy bills, reject austerity and demonstrate Labour choices,” he posted on X.

The truth is he already knew fine well exactly what was coming because he had effectively lobbied Downing Street on its key announcements.

Why was Sarwar listened to, though, when previous attempts have failed?

Well Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, and his chancellor Rachel Reeves now believe their combined fate is inextricably linked to the Scottish Labour leader.

I reported last month that Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s controversial chief of staff, was not shy in telling newspaper editors at the UK Labour conference that Holyrood was the only election next May where his party has a chance of victory.

Polls suggest that chance is slim with the SNP currently roughly 16 points ahead but there is a genuine belief it is possible inside the leaderships north and south of the border.

This is crucial because if next May is a disaster in all of the Scottish, Welsh and English council elections then there is a high probability that Starmer and Reeves won’t see out the spring.

Even a distant possibility of success at Holyrood therefore gave Sarwar and his team leverage.

“Because people became aware of how important we are to the survival of the project we became one of the major political axis the budget worked on,” one senior Labour source said.

This involved months of lobbying from Holyrood that largely focused on two key issues: measures to lower energy prices and the ditching of the two-child limit on benefits.

The inclusion of both policies are seen by Sarwar as big personal victories even if the cut to household bills only takes things back to roughly the same place as when Labour took office.

Scottish secretary Douglas Alexander admitted as much “If you’re saying to me there’s a challenge in terms of energy bills, we completely recognise that.”

But his appointment in September is also seen as helping boost the cause of his colleagues at Holyrood.Sources said that cabinet ministers with more senior job titles defer to him and he made sure he was at the centre of multiple budget discussions in Whitehall.

Reeves was keen to talk up Sarwar’s influence for obvious reasons when she delivered our budget as she tried to taunt the SNP: “£820 million for the Scottish government over the spending review period because Anas Sarwar asked us to.”

This was mocked by senior SNP figures – “If Anas Sarwar asked for £820 million over five years then he should have asked for a lot more,” said one – but the strategy is clear.

The question is will it work? Scottish MPs were for the most part the happiest I have seen them for a while when asked for their thoughts on the “budget for backbenchers” that fulfilled a lot of soft-left requests.

And Labour strategists are hoping the changes will help them compete against the SNP.

They are acutely aware of the “benefits budget” attack lines they are now vulnerable to from the Conservatives and Reform UK but are banking on the fact it is two centre-left parties vying for government at Holyrood.

There is a fear though that measures like increased welfare spending may go down badly with voters.

Remember, the two-child limit consistently proved popular in opinion polls across the UK and even in Scotland, support has been shown for a cap at some level even if it is higher than two children.

Or as one cynical Scottish Labour MP said of the budget: “Good for the party, bad for the country.”

The other issue is that Reform are currently neck and neck with Labour in the polls and remain a threat from their right.

The focus will now turn to the Scottish budget in January to see how the SNP will react.

Can they pull a rabbit out of the hat like they did last year with a politically clever set of plans that completely wrongfooted Labour or will they find themselves trapped with tough decisions of their own around tax and spending cuts?

Finance secretary Shona Robison has already forcefully attempted to play down Sarwar’s influence over the UK government.

And SNP strategists are disparaging about how much of real value Scottish Labour achieved.

They insist that voters knew the Scottish government was going to abolish the two-child benefit limit and point out that Sarwar failed to convince the UK government to scrap the Energy Profits Levy, which is blamed for dwindling investment in the North Sea industry.

“The electorate isn’t stupid,” said one.

Voters choosing who to believe and side with next May will not only decide the futures of Anas Sarwar and first minister John Swinney.

Increasingly it looks like people casting their ballots across Scotland hold the future of the prime minister and his chancellor in their hands.