Budget vote approaches
At Holyrood, they are assiduously talking money - with the Stage One vote on the Scottish government's budget due next Wednesday.
Plenty happening. Parliament's finance committee will pronounce tomorrow, John Swinney will outline forward thinking on spending early next week - and, as ever, he is seeking to negotiate with his opponents in order to secure passage of the Budget Bill.
The committee first. This will be Andrew Welsh's valedictory performance as the distinguished convener - and observers expect him to attempt to advance medium to long-term thinking, in contrast to the inevitable short-term focus of members seeking re-election.
So one might expect talk, for example, of preventative spending: a strategy whereby public resources are devoted to forestalling social problems rather than the more expensive task of tackling them when they have become entrenched.
More immediately, it is also thought likely that the committee will convey concerns raised with them and other Holyrood subject committees as to whether the government's primary purpose is being fulfilled.
You've forgotten the primary purpose? No, it is not to get re-elected: take that person's name.
And it is not independence - although that is, of course, the fundamental objective of the governing SNP.
Ring fencing
Within the ambit of present devolved powers, the stated Purpose (always with a capital P) is "to focus government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth."
I expect the finance committee report to question, in broad terms, whether that Purpose is being enhanced by the budgetary plans - or whether, for example, there is over-emphasis on ring fencing expenditure on the NHS.
Committee members, I expect, will go their own ways with regard to the emphasis to be placed upon this.
Opposition party members may view it as criticism of the Scottish government.
SNP members may see it as simply highlighting a potential concern raised by others.
I expect that there may also be a balancing act in the committee report on revenue.
The committee make-up would indicate support, just, for the council tax freeze - but the arithmetic would also indicate opposition to the new levy on large retailers.
We shall see.
Next, Mr Swinney's forward thinking. He has been obliged by opponents to announce this in greater detail but, in essence, all of the budgetary planning is posited upon post-election considerations.
Multi-dimensional chess
It is all about a forward offer with an eye to the present electoral challenge.
Which brings us to the votes on the budget.
As ever, Mr Swinney is involved in a game of multi-dimensional chess with his opponents. Talks have been under way for some time.
Again as ever, he has to tread cautiously. For example, the Greens, with two votes, are arguing that Scotland should not simply live with the cuts handed down from Westminster but should seek to mitigate those by raising further revenue.
That might include, for example, ending the council tax freeze and imposing rates on vacant business properties.
Given his stance on the council tax, Mr Swinney is institutionally averse to this package. But, in any event, if he were to move in the direction of the Greens, he would risk losing the potential support of the sixteen Tories.
SNP strategists reckon that Labour is virtually certain to vote against the Budget for electoral reasons.
Extracting concessions
Their core narrative is that the SNP is exacerbating the impact of Westminster cuts. They would scarcely tell that story by voting for the budget.
And what of the Liberal Democrats? They have set out suggested changes, such as replacing the enterprise network with regional investment banks.
But would they vote for the budget, perhaps extracting concessions where they can? Or might they, as in the past, veer towards opposition?
One consideration might be the relatively remote prospect of causing an early election if Alex Salmond decided that losing his budget was sufficient to prompt resignation - and a successor could not be elected in time.
Would the LibDems really want to risk going to the polls early, given their current travails at Westminster?
Do the sums. Forty seven Nationalists plus (if a deal can be done) 16 Tories plus (ditto) Margo MacDonald equals 64.
Forty six Labour members plus (if no deal is done) 16 LibDems plus (ditto) two Greens equals 64.
Deadlock risk
That would then bring the Presiding Officer into play.
At Stage One, he would vote to allow the Bill to proceed in order to permit parliament a further opportunity to consider the matter.
However, should that deadlock persist until Stage Three, he would be obliged to rule that the new proposition (the Bill) had failed to command support in parliament and that the status quo ante - in this case, the existing budget - should be maintained.
Given that the current annual budget is higher than the new one, that would be intriguing.
In the short term, ministers would still have a mandate to pay the bills. In the medium term, of course, the money would run out as spending exceeded the cash available.
But then, presumably, the election would provide a fresh opportunity to address the issue, whoever wins.
To stress, we are not there yet. The Budget may well carry, particularly as the voters may be impatient with what they might see as political game-playing.
But, again as ever, it is fascinating.
PS: Many congratulations to Liz Lochhead who has just been appointed as Scotland's Makar to succeed the late, great Edwin Morgan. She is an exceptionally gifted writer and a warm personality. An excellent choice.
PPS: A knighthood at least for Steve Banks.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.