Such a tantilising prospect has been suggested in today's Scotland on Sunday.
Of course, this is little more than press speculation. But what David Maddox, in his article, does raise is some serious questions about government thinking and, in particular, what Clegg and Cameron see as evidence of ministerial capability.
Maddox makes the predictable observation that Swinson could be promoted in an attempt by the Liberal Democrats to "end the embarrassment of having no women from their party in the cabinet". In response to this I'll make three comments of my own: a) there are other, more obvious female candidates to consider such as Sarah Teather and Lynne Featherstone; the latter having done outstanding work as minister for equalities, b) there are a number of other reasons Swinson should be considered for a ministerial position, such as her leadership on key campaigns, and that "embarrassment" over lack of women in the cabinet is unlikely to be the only reason for promoting her and c) in the aftermath of Chloe Smith's dreadful TV performances this week, inevitably questions are being asked about the wisdom of apparently promoting individuals on the basis of gender. I actually consider Swinson to be more capable, and indeed a better TV performer, than Smith; what the events of the previous few days have shown, however, is that women appointees will always be seen as tokenistic attempt to meet diversity targets irrespective of other factors at play.
If Swinson is indeed appointed as a cabinet minister then these perceptions will need to be recognised by Clegg and Cameron, who will have inadvertently helped to undermine her credibility.
I should add that I'm opposed to quotas and appointments driven by arbitrary targets. I want a more diverse parliament but feel there are more effective and responsible means of achieving it. The problem with admitting that the government is "embarrassed" by a lack of women at the cabinet table is that any subsequent appointment of a female minister will inevitably be interpreted as an attempt to right that wrong - the end result being of hostility or suspicion whenever such an appointment is made or even touted. In this respect, well-intended initiatives fail and only serve to reinforce barriers. Swinson herself has opposed positive discrimination in the past, famously wearing a T-shirt at 2002 conference sporting the slogan "I am not a token woman". I suspect she wouldn't want to be treated as such now.
In my view, if you're good enough you're good enough. Jo Swinson is certainly that - at least on the most basic level. I was quite impressed with Jo Swinson's performance as an MP in her first term, between 2005 and 2010. She was a diligent constituency MP as well as a strong communicator of liberal values. She was a confident performer on Question Time and generally came over as in touch and positive. There have been times when a lack of experience has shown through but as time has progressed she is becoming increasingly seen as potential leadership material.
Indeed, Maddox makes the point that "some see [Swinson] as a possible future party leader". I must say I'm not one of them, and feel that during the last two years she has become too much of an apologist for the party leadership. But it is true that there are many within the party who like her brand, her drive and her personal charisma.
So, if Michael Moore is moved from the Scottish Office as Maddox suggests, it would make sense for Cameron and Clegg to consider replacing him with someone who is, after all, the deputy leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Criticisms of Moore are partially justified, including leading a sometimes toothless attack on Scottish nationalists, but in some respect his position has been undermined by the Prime Minister's misguided interference in Scottish affairs and he's done a reasonable job in the circumstances. It is by no means certain he will be moved. And, of course, there would be other candidates to consider, perhaps including Alistair Carmichael or possibly Alan Reid.
What is curious is that Maddox reports that number 10 dislikes Moore's "over-cautious" approach towards the SNP, and is becoming "frustrated" with it. Presumably Cameron (and Clegg) would prefer someone more confrontational and adversarial. I don't doubt that Swinson could be that person, but in my view that would simply be a huge gift to the Yes campaign.
The most concerning aspect of this potential appointment is the rationale provided in the article, which is naturally speculative but is certainly in keeping with the leadership's recent thinking. Maddox claims that Swinson "has impressed the party leadership since the Tory- Lib Dem coalition came together in 2010. In particular, her decision not to rebel over the coalition decision to increase university tuition fees, despite building a political career on trying to get them scrapped, marked her out for promotion with the leadership of both parties."
And so, there lines the bottom line. Her appointment, should it arrive, would be the product of loyalty to the coalition, subservience to a party line and an abandonment of a previously held position. Admitttedly, the tuition fees vote was difficult for Liberal Democrat MPs and, while my personal view is that those who voted against were broadly right, retained their integrity and gained the most credibility, I wouldn't necessarily hold MPs who voted differently in low regard. However, that voting in such a way (and, in Swinson's case, doing so in spite of having led opposition against increased fees) should be rewarded by promotions to the cabinet table is simply unbelievable. What message does that send out?
I hope, if offered the opportunity to replace Moore, that Swinson refuses. She certainly has a bright political future - if she can keep her seat at the next election. The chances of that would diminish significantly if, as fellow Lib Dem activist Norman Fraser suggests, she simply turns into a Lib Dem Michael Forsyth. I fear that her manner and approach, while suitable for other ministries, would be ill-suited to the Scottish Office at a time when the nation considers separating from the UK. She would struggle to escape from perceptions of being the token woman and, more damagingly, Clegg's poodle.
The lack of women in cabinet is the least of either the coalition's - or the Liberal Democrats' - problems. Of much greater concern is the Prime Minister's apparent willingness to surround himself with only the most loyal and unquestioning, as well as the ruthless way the current Secretary of State for Scotland appears to be being treated when he has generally been consistent with the cabinet line. With unquestioning, near robotic, loyalty being now the quality most required for progression within our party, it makes you wonder - how did we end up like this?