No schmaltz, just an anniversary waltz

There is a rather fine song entitled "Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?" The story goes that the bells of St Giles pealed out this message, with dry ecclesiastical irony, on the day the Union conjoined Scotland with England.

Anyway, today at Holyrood we had an updated version. It is a year since Nicola Sturgeon entered office as first minister. And how was this event marked? With flowers and flags? With a song of joy, chanted by eager and enthusiastic MSPs?

Well, no. Instead of the Anniversary Schmaltz, Holyrood opted to dance to another tune. Quite rightly, Opposition leaders chose to use the occasion to challenge the FM on her record. Quite rightly, Ms Sturgeon opted to give as good as she got. Rather better, in fact.

To be frank, Labour's Kezia Dugdale slightly misfired with her attack. Perhaps she was put off at the outset. She mentioned the FM's year in office - which merely provoked loud applause, loyal or sycophantic according to taste, from the SNP benches.

Laughing this off, she tried again. The FM, she reminded us, had been in senior office for eight years. And what do you think happened? You got it. More cheering.

Ms Dugdale rallied to indicate that her theme would be Ms Sturgeon's performance during that period. Except that it wasn't. She chose to focus upon a single theme, the treatment of cancer.

Model of independence

Now that is a hugely important issue. Ms Dugdale made powerful points. But it does not add up to assessment of an overall ministerial record, particularly when the incumbent is now FM, rather than health secretary.

Ms Dugdale could have listed a series of alleged failings on the part of Ms Sturgeon. Perhaps a loyal chum - Jackie Baillie, maybe, or Jenny Marra - could have led the Labour team in chanting "fail" as each successive accusation was aimed at Ms Sturgeon.

Or Ms Dugdale could have cited Alex Bell. Don't know him? He is a former senior special adviser to SNP Scottish ministers who said this week that the party's model of independence was "broken beyond repair" - and who added that their financial calculations were "deluded".

Did Ms Dugdale quote him? She did not - to the evident astonishment of Team Sturgeon who had been ready with a pointed rebuttal.

Still, the issue she did raise was substantive: that people in poorer areas are statistically more likely to develop cancer and to die as a consequence. It was becoming, she said, a "deprivation disease".

Kezia Dugdale argued that progress in cancer treatment was not being made quickly enough

Ms Sturgeon responded vigorously. She might have said that the link between poverty and cancer is coterminous, not causal. Instead, she preferred to note that the pathways to progress included improving diet while reducing reliance upon tobacco and alcohol.

Entirely reasonably from her perspective, Ms Dugdale then challenged the FM to do more to hasten such changes. Ms Sturgeon spelled out the initiatives which were in place before, rather pointedly, challenging her Labour inquisitor to offer a few precise policy suggestions of her own.

It was, to stress, a valid, substantive debate about a crucial issue. It was not, however, the assessment of the FM's record which had been promised.

Then it was Ruth Davidson's turn. She too was discomfited by an opening gambit from the FM. Earlier in the day, we had all - politicians, advisers and the wicked media - been treated to an unscheduled disclosure from the Conservatives.

Parties regularly generate "lines to take" for their elected tribunes: that is, the view to be trotted out by said tribunes if particular topics should arise in broadcast discussions. They are swallowed whole or disowned with contempt, according to the temper - and bravery - of the recipient.

Today - joy of joys - a Conservative staffer pressed "send to all" when distributing the list. Nothing startling, unfortunately. Let us hope that the exercise is repeated. I suspect that may be unlikely. Said staffer then distributed a plaintive little note, saying that he wanted to withdraw the earlier bulletin. I bet he did.

'Dire punishment'

Anyway, Ms Sturgeon brandished the printed version, thanking Ms Davidson for her "anniversary present". The Conservative leader looked grim, as if she were already planning dire punishment for the unfortunate staffer.

But she swiftly overcame her disquiet to lodge a claim that, at a recent meeting, parents urging improved nursery provision had been unable to glean any details on Scottish government thinking from the education secretary, Angela Constance.

In response, Ms Sturgeon provided a positive raft of details. Not sure this entirely helped Ms Constance - although, of course, the primary purpose was to answer a parliamentary question. Either way, Ms Davidson persisted with complaints that parents were left unsure - and the FM insisted that she would double free nursery care and that delivery would match that promise.

To Willie Rennie of the Liberal Democrats. He complained about plans for national testing in primary schools. Again, he said, there was no detail, the plan threatened to be costly and league tables of schools would inevitably emerge, despite the SG disavowing such an approach.

If Ms Sturgeon had been robust with the others, she was positively caustic with Mr Rennie. She wanted to raise standards. She wanted evidence that standards had risen. Hence testing. Quod erat, she argued, demonstrandum.

And happy anniversary to you too!