Questions and answers
Quite rightly, questions to the first minister today were .
However, the pursuit of the FM was anything but single-minded.
From the chair, Alex Fergusson complained that the exchanges with the three Opposition leaders had taken up twenty two of the 30 minutes on offer.
He warned he will now seek ways of reducing this dominance.
The PO, of course, is not responsible for the content of questions. But it seemed to me that this Q&A was wanting in other respects.
Perhaps it is the stylised format of FMQs, perhaps it is the perceived requirement for a quota of partisan exasperation, but I did not feel that the Diageo issue had been suitably addressed.
We might exempt Tavish Scott from this. The Liberal Democrat leader inquired, relatively modestly, why the Diageo job losses had produced such a substantive response - government task force et al - by contrast with economic challenges elsewhere.
Party bickering
Mr Salmond, equally gently, cited examples of action by his government to preserve and create jobs while thanking Mr Scott in the passing for the notably consensual tone of his comments on Diageo yesterday in which he warned that party bickering would not save a single job.
For the Conservatives, Annabel Goldie chose to pursue the question of disruptive pupils and school exclusions.
On the day, she didn't make all that much progress. However, the Tories are plainly building up a dossier on this, an issue which resonates with their vote.
Labour's Iain Gray certainly pursued Diageo. However, he seemed a little uncertain as to which avenue to follow.
Yesterday he had issued a statement saying that the Diageo workers had been "let down" by the Scottish Government.
He started today down that tack, accusing Mr Salmond of indulging in megaphone diplomacy with Diageo by joining a rally in Kilmarnock against job cuts.
The implication appeared to be that diligent negotation might have been more effective.
Saving jobs
However, Mr Gray then switched - and said it was important to move on, to combine to mitigate the impact of the job losses.
He then expanded his arguments still further, arguing that the Scottish Government was spending so much time on its National Conversation about the constitution that it was neglecting its responsibility to save jobs.
On the day, each attack might have been substantive. However, the single transferable question allowed Mr Salmond to chide his opponent for failing to focus on the issue at hand.
Indeed, the FM proceeded to address the question he felt Mr Gray should have asked. Alex Fergusson might welcome this approach.
If the FM both asks and answers the questions, time would undoubtedly be saved.
Is there still underlying substance here, though? Possibly.
It is at least arguable Mr Salmond was displaying a dual personality in the early stages of this controversy: part protest, part persuasion.
Certainly, business leaders have queried whether it is suitable for the political leader of a government to be on the march in protest at a company with substantial continuing investment in Scotland.
Political bosses
Mr Salmond says he has nothing to apologise for.
Secondly, the issue of the National Conversation. Here, it is Labour which appears to have a dual approach.
At points, they seem to suggest that Mr Salmond has no mandate to pursue this issue.
He does. He won most votes in the election. He was duly elected first minister with the power to direct civil servants which that implies.
Those civil servants are obliged to pursue the manifesto of their political bosses.
That manifesto contained a promise to pursue independence via a referendum.
Separately, Labour and others argue that the National Conversation is a waste of time and money.
That is a different case, party political not constitutional.
One for the voters to judge at the next election - by which time they may have cast their views on independence in a referendum. Or not.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.