JOHANN Lamont was a woman on a mission yesterday:
to make Alex Salmond squeal by cutting his quirks off.
Because FMQs is political theatre, if he's ever cornered by a fact, Mr Salmond knows he can usually escape through stagecraft alone.
A fruity quote, an eyeroll, a chortle at nothing in particular and a random reference to the bedroom tax, and he's off Scot free.
Hence the Labour leader tried to rob him of his mannerisms and leave him naked in the stalls.
It started with the latest awkward report on the economics of independence.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies predicted either tax hikes and spending cuts to cope with declining oil and a granny glut.
So far, so so-so.
But then, from Ms Lamont's full-length leather apron, a flash of the gelding shears.
"With a cock of the head and an indignant sideways look, could the First Minister tell us why the IFS is scaremongering like this?"
Mr Salmond looked offended. He does a good offended. His eyebrows sag like hammocks.
"Presumably," Ms Lamont continued, "we'll just get younger under independence: £300,000 of Oil of Olay for every man, woman and child.
"Chuckling at his own jokes, could the FM tell us why the people should believe him?"
Mr Salmond steepled his fingers and sighed.
The IFS report hadn't undermined his position, it had actually validated it, he claimed.
He cited a whole paragraph as proof.
Moreover, Labour was in no position to preach.
"The current economic adviser to the Labour Party is the Rev Paul Flowers [of cocaine and Co-op fame]," Mr Salmond observed.
"I don't think that's... a tremendous indication of what the future holds."
Ms Lamont had evidently missed her target.
The cheeky chappie was alive and well.
Tory Ruth Davidson vainly picked up the sarcasm baton, asking if the IFS was part of a vast conspiracy or had "just done the sums".
But the FM wasn't playing.
"When Johann Lamont talked about the aging profile of Scotland, I thought she was talking about the Conservative Party," he shot back.
Emasculate Alex Salmond at FMQs? It was always mission impossible.
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