An intriguing variety of responses to the news today that unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 2,000 over the past quarter.
Firstly, the Scottish TUC rightly points out that the improvement registered is in ILO unemployment (down) - and in the number of those employed (up).
The claimant count has still risen which the STUC says is a "concern".
For the political parties, it instantly translates into a further fight over the Holyrood issue of the moment: public spending.
That is because negotiations are under way right now with regard to the draft Scottish budget for 2010-11.
Further, it is because the implications of the PBR are still being absorbed in Scotland - and indeed debated at Holyrood this pm.
The SNP says that budget cuts would be a "cruel blow" at a time when there is cause to derive cautious optimism from the jobless figures.
They argue that the dole queue has been shortened by Scottish government action.
By contrast, Labour says that the Scottish budget needs reshaping to make a bigger impact on the economy.
As an instance, they suggest reinstating the Glasgow Airport Rail Link (GARL).
To some extent, that mirrors one conclusion of Holyrood's finance committee which was that the draft budget was insufficiently focused upon job creation.
The Tories, like the other opposition parties, are in talks with John Swinney.
Unlike the others, the Lib Dems have shown their hand a little, suggesting that one of their aims is to cut top pay packets in the public sector, most notably in the health service.
But, behind it all, there is the prospect of substantial budgetary constraint in the period following 2011 when the next Comprehensive Spending Review is due to be implemented. That is true whichever party wins the UK general election.
Mr Swinney, the Finance Sector, has been setting out, in detail, his department's estimate of the PBR impact and future plans.
That latter section is based upon a projection, derived from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, that there will be a 3.2% annual retrenchment in UK public spending from 2011-12 to 2013-14.
Scotland will experience a proportionate share of that which might vary depending on where, precisely, any cuts fall. Remember that is cumulative. The impact increases, progressively, year on year.
The haggling over the 2010-11 budget seems rather insufficient to meet that longer term challenge.
Naturally, there must be detailed negotiation, not least because the SNP does not have a majority at Holyrood.
But should that negotation not be founded upon the perception that, in future, spending is going to be tighter still?
Should Scotland not be preparing the ground, now, for the economies which are going to be required?
If we don't, is it not likely that the cuts will fall in the "wrong" places, that the ripest, lowest-hanging fruit will be plucked - perhaps regardless of the longer-term impact?
Or, being realistic, is that type of debate electorally impossible when the political parties are trying to present competing visions of the current state of the economy for the verdict of the voters at the coming UK general election?