Excellent speeches in Holyrood today - and not just from the newly installed first minister.
Worthy contributions from each of the leading opposition figures: those who are departing from office (like Annabel Goldie); those who are staying (like Patrick Harvie); those who have just arrived (Willie Rennie); and those who are welcome, permanent figures (Margo MacDonald.)
In particular, I might commend Iain Gray's contribution: a dignified concession of victory allied to a pledge of constructive opposition.
Patrick Harvie, too, essayed an analysis of the nature of opposition politics in a majority parliament.
But the day definitely and rightly belonged to Alex Salmond.
No rival nominee, no doubt about the outcome - but matched with a thoughtful, polished contribution, free from bombast and hubris.
He opened by offering words of praise to his defeated rivals.
Mr Gray struggled somewhat to maintain an even demeanour as Mr Salmond reflected that leaders frequently had to learn to cope with disaster before triumph beckoned.
He closed by quoting Fletcher of Saltoun, the Patriot, who had opposed the Union in 1707.
All nations, he argued, were inter-dependent - but that should not mean subjugation.
It was an evident attempt to address the controversy over the scope of independence by returning to first - one might even say "fundamental" - principles on the issue of independence.
But that, as Mr Salmond has decreed, is primarily for a subsequent referendum although it is, of course, entirely legitimate to discuss it now, in detail.
Between those two sections of his speech, Mr Salmond added to his list of demands for enhancing the Scotland Bill, presently before Westminster.
The strategy would appear to be to turn up the heat - slowly, steadily - upon the UK Government in the expectation that any wide-ranging refusal from UK Ministers might appear unreasonable in public eyes.
To amplify that prospect, Mr Salmond is quite deliberately choosing issues for devolution which have been contemplated in the past by parties other than his own or addressed in some form by those parties.
For example, Labour complained that efforts to tackle drinking problems in Scotland would be better pursued via amending alcohol duty - which is reserved to Westminster.
Simple, says the re-elected FM: devolve duty.
More broadly, he cites Liberal Democrat support for enhanced fiscal powers, beyond Calman, as evidence of a broad push for financial devolution.
On broadcasting, he says that devolving control would allow the Scottish government to pursue the issue of a distinct digital channel in Scotland, backed across the chamber in the previous parliament.
The instant response from the UK government is notably cool.
These matters will be considered - but would require to be backed up by "solid evidence and detailed assessment".
I believe Mr Salmond and his colleagues are calculating that demanding wholesale transfer of powers now would backfire - while seemingly modest requests place the onus upon the UK government.
Refusal might seem unreasonable in the public eye: the calculation being that obdurate opposition might stir support for eventual independence.
This leaves Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and his UK colleagues seeking a balance.
What can they concede without disturbing the balance of powers in the Union?
What can they withhold without seeming unnecessarily stubborn - and thus jeopardising that Union still further?
The newly reinstalled FM is content, for now, to leave them with that dilemma.