[ . . .]
Much greenery at Holyrood today as the party's two MSPs each led debates, with entirely different tones.
Firstly, Patrick Harvie harangued and hectored his colleagues in fine style on the topic of their alleged pusillanimity in the face of Westminster-imposed cuts.
A prelude, one presumes, to the Greens voting against the Scottish budget.
As he sat down, the beads of indignation still fresh on his brow, up rose his colleague Robin Harper, he of the permanent smile and gloriously dappled ties.
Quivering MSPs relaxed. No more tough talk. Tenderness all round as Robin argued for action to help young people prosper.
Sundry members paid warm tribute to Britain's first Green parliamentarian who, he said, was probably leading his last debate .
Alex Salmond appeared to be taking lessons from this tough and tender combination: except that he contrived to offer both in a single session.
Extended period
To Iain Gray, he offered uncompromising scorn, even suggesting at one point that Mr Gray was not sufficiently charismatic to appear on Desert Island Discs (guess who was on this week?).
Mr Gray suggested in return that Scotland would be the better should Mr Salmond be marooned for an extended period.
To Annabel Goldie and still more Tavish Scott, Mr Salmond was the concerned first minister: keen to address the issues they raised but obliged to point out, with gentle regret, that there were alternative considerations.
Mr Gray was pursuing the controversy surrounding the academics who gave evidence to the committee considering the Scotland Bill - and the use made of that evidence. (Dongate, anyone?)
According to Mr Gray, a quotation from a document drawn up by Professors Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott had been "doctored" by the Scottish government to strengthen their case for fiscal autonomy.
Regular readers will have encountered all this stuff on this site earlier this week.
But the essence is that the quote from the profs referred, in square brackets, to devolution of spending while the SG version talked, in square brackets, of spending and taxation.
Bracketed explanation
The Scottish government has already attempted to answer this point, advising me that the quote (with brackets) was not reshaped.
Apparently, they used a comparable quote from later in the document - and inserted their own bracketed explanation.
Not since Gordon Brown talked of neo-endogenous economic growth theory has a debate seemed so arcane.
But Mr Gray insisted that it mattered because it was about fundamental trust: trust in the office of first minister.
Incidentally, on the subject of neo etc, you may recall Michael Heseltine exclaiming that this masterpiece was actually the work of Mr Brown's then adviser, Ed Balls.
It was, according to Hezza, all Balls'.
Mr Salmond deployed a comparably dismissive tone, albeit with less drollery.
Authentic place
He swiped Mr Gray's complaint aside, disdaining even to use the explanation offered to the media by his own government team.
He noted, further, that the academics concerned accepted that both elements, spending and tax, had an authentic place in the debate.
Then to the crescendo.
Scotland, he roared, did not want a debate about square brackets.
It wanted a discussion on the merits of fiscal autonomy versus the Calman option.
Annabel Goldie rose to complain about the proposed levy on big retailers.
Mr Salmond argued, with notable restraint, that those with the broadest shoulders had to bear the greatest burden.
Tavish Scott drew upon his party's estimable research department once more to produce updated figures on the large sums being expended in the Scottish public service on those earning more than £100k.
More in sorrow than anger, Mr Salmond said his government was attempting to introduce wage restraint for all those earning more than £21k in an effort to protect services and (his "dearest wish") to avoid compulsory redundancies.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.