A fortnight ago, a new First Minister promised to usher in a new era of "consensus" politics.
A fortnight ago, a new First Minister promised to usher in a new era of "consensus" politics.
It lasted all of a week before the gloves came off, in favour of diatribes over the merits of Smith Commission report.
Yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon made a half-hearted attempt to put them back on. The problem was that her opponents weren't as keen and by the mid-point of FMQs, it appeared the experiment had been all but abandoned.
"Who was it, when talking about the NHS, that said: A party that is now in its second term of office cannot avoid taking responsibility for its own failings?" asked Labour's Jackie Baillie, with her opening salvo.
A geriatric haddock, let alone our esteemed FM, would have given such poorly-disguised bait a wide berth.
"If she's talking about me, let me say I will never avoid taking responsibility for the NHS," she fired back, spotting the rather inconspicuous trap.
Rather unnecessarily, Baillie confirmed that it was indeed Nicola who had uttered the words. As groans echoed throughout the chamber she retreated to familiar territory - talking up the perpetual crisis in the NHS.
"Despite the provocation, I'm not going to stand here and engage in a party political bun fight" said an apparently exasperated FM, before promptly attempting to score points from Labour for having the nerve to commit to match the SNP's promise to increase health spending.
"In the interests of the consensus for which I am becoming so well known..." the FM said in response to a later question. Even she could barely keep a straight face.
Tory leader Ruth Davidson then made a hopeful pitch to tabloid sub-editors throughout the land, dubbing the SNP's stamp duty overhaul a 'Swinney tax' before accusing the FM of becoming "even more left wing than Ed Miliband".
FMQs proved a learning experience for Labour leadership candidate Neil Findlay, who made the final impression yesterday. If he does make the step-up to lead the opposition, he will surely avoid tongue-twisters like "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership" in future.
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