You had to be there
Best gag of the day?
That came from Annabel Goldie as she traded statistics with the first minister about the extent of physical education available in Scotland's schools.
In their manifesto, the SNP had threatened to subject Scotland's youth to at least two hours of gym per week.
To date, they have fallen somewhat short. Miss Goldie advised the FM that "patting himself on the back didn't count as PE."
OK, I grant you it doesn't read as much of a rib-tickler.
Perhaps comic standards at Holyrood are a little less exacting than they were in the days of the old Glasgow Empire.
But it worked well in the chamber - and it was delivered well, giving the Tory leader a much better week than she's had of late.
There was far less oratory, comic or otherwise, in the exchanges between Alex Salmond and Tavish Scott of the Liberal Democrats.
No slippage
Indeed, their discussion sounded a little like a budgetary negotiation. Which is precisely what it was.
Privately, ministers believe they have the numbers, as things stand, to see their Scottish spending package through its third and final stage next week.
But "as things stand" can swiftly become "how things were".
It did last year. Mr Salmond wants no slippage whatsoever.
So, he was notably consensual towards Mr Scott's well-researched complaint about the numbers of applicants being turned away from Scotland's colleges.
That is because action on this front is a key demand of the Lib Dems if they are to support the budget or at least acquiesce in its passing.
On the topic of the budget, I suspect Mr Salmond may have given up on securing Labour support - although he did suggest that his rival, Iain Gray, might yet recant, like a "sinner that repenteth".
Certainly, the exchanges between the pair were notably vigorous. Mr Gray demanded publication of detailed capital spending plans.
Forthcoming cuts
A similar demand has now been issued by other parties.
Mr Salmond demurred. The capital programme had been published. His government had published more detail than predecessors.
He invited Mr Gray to study another document instead: forthcoming cuts in spending from Westminster.
Mr Gray persisted to good effect, perhaps slightly diluting the impact by diverting into other, related topics. What, he asked, did Ministers have to hide?
The underlying point here concerns those budget plans.
Labour is objecting to the Glasgow Airport Rail Link being withdrawn from the capital spending programme.
Difficult choices
Ah, say ministers, if you want Garl back, you must tell us what you would scrap instead.
Ah, say Labour, show us the monthly figures on capital spending: slippage in other projects may well release enough for Garl.
No, say ministers. We publish our capital programme in full. Those monthly figures are an internal management tool, subject to constant fluctuation as programmes slip or, like the M74, are accelerated.
Labour - and others - say parliament deserves the full facts if it is to judge the budget.
Ministers say that is simply a convenient excuse for ducking difficult choices.
And there it rests, for now.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.