IT was less a trip down memory lane, more an anthem for doomed youth at First Minister's Questions, as Johann Lamont teased Alex Salmond about his Westminster salad days, that long lost age when you might actually have seen him with a salad.
She reminded him how, in 1988, "a young nationalist rogue" was bounced out the Commons for interrupting Nigel Lawson's budget as the then Tory chancellor cut corporation tax.
Whatever happened to that cherubic scamp, his wode-tinted cheeks tingling with principled mischief, the Labour leader wondered.
And who, she implied, was this curry-sculpted codger with the same name who wants to cut 3p off corporation tax come hell or high water?
Could they by any chance be related?
Channelling some of the old rage, the FM laid into Ed Balls and Labour UK for accepting Tory welfare cuts and Tory spending plans.
Independence would bring the "social justice" denied to Scots by Westminster, he puffed.
But if the UK's welfare system was so monstrous, why did Salmond want to keep it after independence, asked Lamont, citing this week's SNP government report on welfare.
What with sharing the pound, the armed forces, the Queen and now welfare, "Has the First Minister lost his mojo on independence?"
As gentlefolk in the gallery swooned at mention of the FM's mojo, SNP backbenchers barked their displeasure, putting up the sonic equivalent of a beachtowel to spare their leader's blushes.
But Lamont was ready.
Perhaps they "might want to set up a break-away group, SNP for independence", she quipped.
It was a good one-liner, but one of too many rootless gags in search of a theme from her.
Tory Ruth Davidson and LibDem Willie Rennie had more impact, and unsettled Salmond, by focusing on problems in the NHS and the self-destructing Scottish Police Authority.
It was then left to Independent Margo MacDonald to re-lower the tone by asking on a point of order if "mojo" was parliamentary language.
The FM's mojo, opined Deputy Presiding Officer John Scott, was not a point of order but a "minor matter". So now you know.
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