So how has it been for you? The glorious new dawn. The path to enlightenment. Come on, you know, the first 100 days of the SNP in power.
According to Nationalist Ministers, Scotland is “smarter, greener, healthier, wealthier, fairer, safer and stronger”.
Or, at least, we’ve made “measurable progress” in those directions.
Labour has measured that progress and come up with a rather different verdict. They set it out in considerable detail on their own website.
Their sums are as follows: 67 promises, 20 delivered in full, 10 in part, 38 not at all. To summarise, they reckon the first spell of Nationalist government has been mince.
(Actually, they say in an accompanying news release that the SNP “has seemed to be effective”. If it is appearance that matters in politics, perhaps that would do. But no matter.)
Me, I’m somewhat less than whelmed. Personally, I’d settle for a new striker at Tannadice to help Noel Hunt up front.
More seriously, I don’t think governments are judged in 100 days. But, for once, this isn’t a stunt dreamed up by the wicked media.
The SNP said on Sunday 18 March at their spring conference in Glasgow that they would do certain things within 100 days. So it’s reasonable to make a tally.
Have they done everything they said they would do? No. Have they made a start on almost everything? Yes. Are you annoyed by answer one or satisfied with answer two?
Look at the legislation. The SNP outlined five potential Bills: phasing out prescription charges; replacing student loans with grants; scrapping tolls on the Forth and Tay Bridges; a Criminal Justice Bill; and a draft Bill on an Independence referendum.
"Ah, ha," say Labour. "You’ve only done one of these, Mr Salmond. You’ve only published your independence Bill. That shows where your real priorities lie - and they do not coincide with those of the people."
"Hang on," say ministers. "We’ve made moves on all of these. We’ve looked at options on prescription charges with a view to a Bill in the autumn, scrapped the graduate endowment fee and begun consultation on the student bill secured parliamentary approval for scrapping bridge tolls, announced plans to reform communities and published the independence white paper."
But there’s a problem, here, isn’t there? Depends on wording. Does “bring forward legislation to phase out prescription charges” mean “take steps towards” - or, as opponents would have it, publish a Bill to allow scrutiny.
Ministers say the relevant Bills will be formally published when Holyrood reconvenes.
I understand the “100 days” initiative. Borrowed from JFK, it was an attempt to stress that the SNP would be active in government in the interests of Scotland, beyond the interest of their own members in securing independence.
They would not be “doing less, better” - but more, better still.
At the time, Labour seized on the document as evidence that the SNP would pick endless fights with Westminster.
Despite occasional flurries, that hasn’t really happened. By contrast, Alex Salmond’s strategy is to seem endlessly amenable - in the hope that the Scottish people will grant the SNP their wish of further power for Holyrood and, ultimately, independence.
More than that, Mr Salmond’s administration has seemed (that word again) generally pretty competent. He’s done, generally, well. So far.
However, the SNP are now open to the Labour charge of promising more than they have, precisely, delivered.
Without going through all the pledges, let me give you an example. The SNP promised a full, judicial inquiry into the Shirley McKie case.
They’re still planning that - and, indeed, I expect an announcement very soon. But it hasn’t been delivered within 100 days.
However, there are other examples where ministers have an arguable defence.
For example, there was a pledge to “prepare draft legislation” on replacing student loans with grants.
Labour says: “no Bill published”. But the precise promise was to prepare a draft.
Other promises, such as first home grants, will await the publication of the executive's budget in the autumn.
Is it a reasonable excuse to say that the budget has been delayed because the Treasury’s outline of the next spending round was held back? Or is that another broken promise?
You choose. As I said at the outset, I think a tick-box exercise is fairly futile.
Yes, the SNP created the challenge. Yes, it’s reasonable to assess them. But the voting public will deliver their verdict over a longer time-scale - and that’s the relevant calculation to make.
In that regard, I’m far more interested in the potential consequences of the decisions that Alex Salmond’s government has taken.
I’m interested in discovering whether the reprieve for A&E units is a sensible response to public need - or a drain on other health budgets.
I’m interested in discovering whether or not council tax benefit could be sustained under a new system of local government finance, as advocated by ministers.
I’m interested in what happens to the transport infrastructure. Were ministers right to resist the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link? Were MSPs right to insist on Edinburgh trams - against ministerial advice?
Those questions and many, many others will help form a more useful judgement on Alex Salmond’s spell in office than a snap verdict after 100 days.