YOU could almost feel sorry for Anas Sarwar, almost but not quite. There he was practicing his best sneery-face in the mirror like the Derek Zoolander of Scottish politics in preparation for his killer vote of no confidence in the Scottish Government.
He'd bring the Scottish Government down and there would be an early Holyrood election allowing him to march triumphantly into power and hand over the keys to the Scottish Parliament to his flag-obsessed-but-not-nationalist-at-all boss, earning himself a nice pat on the head and the title of Saviour of the Union.
But, when Humza Yousaf announced he was standing down Sarwar's gas was put at a peep.
The Tory vote of no confidence evaporated, depriving Sarwar of one of his anticipated grandstanding opportunities, and some headlining sound bites on Reporting North Britain which would have been an ideal showcase for his sneery face.
READ MORE: Kate Forbes and John Swinney hold 'secret talks' on SNP leadership
The Scottish Greens then announced their issue was with Yousaf for ending the Bute House Agreement not with the Scottish Government as a whole, and with his resignation their misgivings had been satisfied.
So, if Sarwar thought they were going to vote with him and the Tories to bring down the Scottish Government, Patrick Harvie had a sneery face of his own to show him.
Nevertheless, the vote will still take place, waste of everyone's time that it is, but Sarwar will still get to trot out his pre-rehearsed attack lines and the news editors of BBC Scotland will be happy. That's all that matters.
But, not all media outlets are quite so willing to swallow Sarwar's assertions quite so uncritically.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Channel Four News had an uncomfortable question for Labour's Scottish branch manager when he demanded that a change of First Minister ought to mean an early election to the Scottish Parliament.
Why had Sarwar not made a similar demand when Mark Drakeford, the Labour First Minister of Wales stepped down and was replaced by Vaughan Gething?
The answer boiled down to "Ah but, ah but, ah but, weeeeel..." followed by some deeply unconvincing guff about the minority Labour government in Wales being a stable government whereas the minority SNP government in Scotland isn't stable despite the fact that it remains at no risk of collapse.
Which is pretty much the dictionary definition of stable.
Of course, the real answer to Krishnan Guru-Murthy 's question as to why Sarwar didn't call for elections in Wales when Mark Drakeford stood down is that it didn't suit the interests of the Labour party.
The Labour party, being hypocritical, opportunistic, and only concerned with its own interests? Noooo!
Under cover of Holyrood being at the centre of this week's political drama, Keir Starmer has pulled off yet another right-wing U-turn.
Labour is set to water down its much-vaunted package of worker's rights in a bid to appease business leaders and the right-wing press.
Labour's "New Deal for Working People" had been set to include ending employers' use of so-called "fire and rehire" in order to prevent workers from accruing rights to leave entitlement and other rights, and plans for higher sick pay.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf breaks silence on SNP leadership contest
However, according to the Financial Times, Starmer and his shadow ministers are keen to ease the misgivings of business leaders about the plans and are holding talks on how to water down some of the pledges.
In March the leader of the Scottish Trade Union Congress Roz Foyer warned Starmer that he "Must not U-turn" on the New Deal for Working People and insisted trade unionists would “keep the pressure on."
It didn't take Starmer long to ignore her.
One lobbyist who had been approaching Labour on behalf of business leaders told the Financial Times: "The whole tone of everything they've been saying on workers' rights has been attempting to be constructive compared to a couple of months ago."
As the news of the latest U-turn broke Sarwar published a May Day statement on Twitter saying: "A Labour government will always be on the side of working people across Scotland and the UK." Except that is when it is on the side of the bosses.
Calls are being made from within the SNP for a deal to be struck between Swinney and Forbes, the two likely leadership candidates following the resignation of Yousaf to avoid a bitter and damaging leadership contest such as that which ensued after the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon last year.
A party insider told The National that "a deal struck between the pair" would do the party “a world of good”.
They said they would like to see Swinney become first minister and Forbes given the role of deputy first minister.
They added: "I think efforts need to be made to unite the party."
In many ways that would be the ideal solution.
There is no doubt that the SNP desperately needs to have an internal debate about party strategy and above all about how to break the current impasse on a second independence referendum.
However, it is arguable that the time is not right now and what the party needs is a period of calm and stability.
READ MORE: Motion of no confidence in Scottish Government fails
A deal between Forbes and Swinney would appear to give all factions within the party the best chance to create the party stability which is required in order for members to decide on the best way ahead.
There are already worrying signs that this leadership contest could prove just as damaging as the last with overly personal insults being bandied about on social media which only ultimately benefit the forces opposed to Scottish independence.
A deal between the two leading contenders would go a very long way to calming things down and would be the adult and grown-up thing to do.
We can but hope that calm and wise heads prevail.
This piece is an extract from today’s REAL Scottish Politics newsletter, which is emailed out at 7pm every weekday with a round-up of the day's top stories and exclusive analysis from the Wee Ginger Dug.
To receive our full newsletter including this analysis straight to your email inbox, click HERE and click the "+" sign-up symbol for the REAL Scottish Politics
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel