FIRST it was so-so, then it was dire (or so it appeared), and then, against all expectation, FMQs was something intriguing and substantial.
The so-so bit was Labour's Johann Lamont.
"Will he get on with the day job?" she yelled at the FM after accusing him of failing the NHS.
At which, Alex Salmond did get on with his day job - tearing apart Ruth Davidson.
The Tory leader's question was on the start-up costs of an independent Scotland.
Given the Treasury had just been caught making up figures, it was a dangerous ploy, and Mr Salmond could barely contain himself as she asked about his "reasonable estimate" of £250m.
Did she not know that came from an LSE academic miffed at the Treasury "badly misrepresenting" his work to claim the cost was £2.7bn?
Raising it was "basic unwisdom", he chortled.
But just as Ms Davidson's high-wire act seemed fated to end with a mop and bucket, she produced John Swinney's infamous leaked memo of 2012.
This recorded that the finance secretary had ordered a "comprehensive overview" of the start-up costs to update the cabinet.
"Why will he not let Scotland see the numbers?"
The First Minister's response was instructive. He wouldn't go anywhere near the subject.
A steely Willie Rennie then closed the jaws of a Tory-LibDem trap, pointing out the cost paper mentioned by Ms Davidson was two years old.
"Will the First Minister tell us where it is?"
The simple questions are always the best.
"Well, eh, I would say, ah," stumbled the FM.
There was a shift in the chamber's mood. Suddenly Mr Salmond was on the backfoot.
Mr Rennie pressed his advantage: Would the government publish the figures?
Rattled, the FM waffled at speed through the wonders of Yes.. £1000 a head.. fairer society.. better future.. er, what was the question?
It was a brave fist, but by the end it appeared Mr Salmond did indeed know the start-up costs, but instead of publishing them was sheltering behind the £250m guesstimate.
Even with the success of his 5:2 diet, it was too small a fig leaf to hide his embarrassment.
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