I CAN’T be alone in finding Sir Keir Starmer’s performance at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday slightly unnerving.

We saw the Labour leader as we never have before and it provoked that odd squirming sensation you got as a child when you bumped into your school teacher at the supermarket.

The Labour leader was relaxed and loose-limbed as he squared off against the beleaguered Prime Minister. Gone was the stern, "forensic’’ interrogator that we have come to know and in his place was a man who looked like he was having a thoroughly good time.

And who could blame him?

There’s nothing like the government of the day imploding before your very eyes to make an opposition leader feel buoyant.

The fact that he’d secured a Tory defector, in the form of Christian Wakeford, just minutes before the session got underway was a bonus for the revitalised Labour leader.

READ MORE: Alison Rowat: America needs more than a president stuck on pause

His manner put me in mind of David Cameron’s famous 2015 campaign speech where he told the crowd: "Taking a risk, having a punt, having a go – that pumps me up!’’

Starmer might not quite have reached the dizzying heights of pumped up, but if this Tory psychodrama continues for much longer he’ll be well on his way.

Sir Keir’s critics have often accused him of being stiff and unyielding, particularly when placed in the uniquely theatrical arena of Prime Minister’s Questions. That criticism is not without merit. During previous outings, you got the sense that he didn’t quite know what to do with Boris Johnson.

The Prime Minister’s bombastic and scattergun approach is the antithesis to Starmer’s traditional style. His prosecutorial prowess might be well-kent, but it doesn’t matter how well-researched your questions are if you’re asking them of a politician like Boris Johnson: whose first language is deceit and whose second is gibberish.

On Wednesday, Starmer finally seemed to understand the nature of his opponent and it took the Prime Minister by surprise. Although, after the week Boris Johnson has had, it probably doesn’t take much to startle him.

The sight of his own haunted reflection in the mirror would be enough to catapult him into existential crisis.

The conditions have been extraordinarily favourable for the Labour leader and recent polls show his party taking a sizeable lead on the Conservatives.

Yet even the most enthusiastic Labour supporter recognises that these poll numbers are inextricably linked to Boris Johnson’s spectacular series of unforced errors over Partygate.

They might be happy with how their leader is highlighting and capitalising on the Prime Minister’s failures but they understand that it is those failures, rather than Starmer’s successes, that has their party soaring ahead of the Conservatives.

The flaw in the plan for Labour is, as it has been for some time, Scotland.

READ MORE: Even if Boris Johnson survives the fortnight, the economy will finish him off

The colour-coded electoral map of the UK might be projected to contain a few more red blobs at the next election, but the Scottie Dog top remains steadfastly SNP yellow.

Boris Johnson is even less popular in Scotland than he is among his own backbenchers. But is doesn’t follow that his inevitable demise will somehow lead to a Labour bounce north of the border.

While it’s true that Boris Johnson is the ideal recruiting sergeant for the SNP, as a perfectly-cast Tory bogyman, most people who support independence today did so back when David Cameron was still pumped up and very much in charge.

That core support for independence isn’t suddenly going to disappear when Boris Johnson gets booted out of Downing St.

And that’s the uncomfortable truth for both Nationalists and Unionists alike.

The SNP remain the dominant force in Scotland because the constitutional question still – whether we like it or not – dominates our politics.

Labour is now passively hoovering up support in England thanks to Boris Johnson’s misdeeds. Similarly, some lend their vote to the SNP simply because they are the main independence-supporting party in Scotland.

Those voters, who may not view the SNP’s record in government too kindly, have held their nose and voted for them anyway.

Westminster’s intransigence in blocking Indyref2 keeps Scotland in stasis.

Labour must surely wish we could go back to how things were before: when their support in Scotland was certain and absolute. We can’t go back but neither can we move forward until the question is asked and answered, again.

For his part, Keir Starmer shouldn’t be too hasty in coming up with a strategy to win back Scotland. His predecessors have tried and failed and while "devo-max’’ might be the favoured buzzword of the day once again, that too is ultimately doomed to fail.

In a rush to be seen to understand how Scotland’s political landscape has changed, too few Labour politicians actually take the time to do so in any meaningful way.

If Keir Starmer’s plan for Scotland involves a pinch of salt over his left shoulder and a wish that the 50 percent who support independence will suddenly come to their senses (and come ‘home’ to Labour) then he should enjoy the Red Wall because that’s as far north as he’ll get.

The next few weeks at Westminster are likely to be dominated by the Sue Gray report and subsequent fall-out; the dethroning of Boris Johnson and the circus around yet another bloodthirsty Conservative leadership contest.

Of course, Boris Johnson has confounded expectations before. But given everything we know and the level of anger radiating through the public, I suspect his party has finally sobered-up and is ready for a change at the top.

Until the Conservative party has chosen its new leader, we won’t know the extent to which their dire poll numbers are an expression of anger with Boris Johnson, or a sign that the rot has spread to include dissatisfaction with the party as a whole.

Keir Starmer will be hoping that it is the latter.

He’ll have to be nimble as he prepares for the prospect of a new Conservative leader. And when it comes to Scotland, even more so.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.