WHEN it is not being the lowpoint, FMQs aims to be the highlight of the Holyrood week, but yesterday it was a mere warm-up before Labour's headlining no confidence motion in Alex Neil.
The Health Secretary is a political super-predator: a permanently grinning Great White, he forever skirts the nets but never gets caught, and loves nothing better than chewing up opponents in debate to show he can. Yesterday, however, he was forced to wait silently as others swam to his defence.
Only the grin remained, that inflexible smile in a meaty red face, like a cross between Jaws and a doner kebab cone. It was a tough session.
Spotting blood in the water, Labour's backbenches bristled with harpoons and they were all trained on Mr Neil's gumline.
First into his oilskins and souwester, Neil Findlay insisted he took "no pleasure" in moving the motion, but "the dogs in the street" knew the Health Secretary had deceived Parliament over a health shake-up.
Mr Neil just grinned his dead-eyed grin.
Tory John Lamont was understated but surgical as he filleted the specimen before him.
A "very sad instance of a minister allowing an untruth to gain credence in order to avoid difficult questions," he declared solemnly.
The Cheshire Shark smile started to wilt.
But that was before the comedy interlude, as SNP MSP Bob Doris put in the kind of turn that gives toadying a bad name.
He had come, he sniffed, to tell MSPs about "the Alex Neil that I know".
Former Labour health minister Richard Simpson said Neil's was "a bad decision, badly made" and "an abuse of power" that misled Parliament. "He should do the decent thing and resign."
After that, even Mr Neil's gleaming rictus sank briefly from view. But an hour later the vote was 67-57 in his favour.
The shark was free to go.
He should not relax about going back in the water, though. Labour have not given up the hunt yet, and next time they will get a bigger boat.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article