SCOTLAND never looks more bonny than when she is decorated with glittering snow. The last year has been like an endless snow day anyway, but now we actually have the good stuff to play in.

It brings a sense of calm too. There are fewer cars on the roads and the streets are quieter: their usual noises muffled by winter’s frosty blanket. It’s been just the tonic to see so many families out sledging and building snowmen. We needed something new to shake off the lockdown blues and mother nature played a blinder.

I expect MSPs who had to attend Holyrood for FMQs wished the usual session could have been replaced with a snowball fight.

You just know that Willie Rennie has an array of brightly coloured toboggans lined up in his hall standing ready for weather like this. Murdo Fraser is definitely a Waitrose bag over a baking tray kind of guy.

While the rest of us were out having fun, the mood in the chamber was sombre during the opening exchanges. Ruth Davidson asked the First Minister about the ongoing committee inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of complaints against former First Minister Alex Salmond.

She said: “SNP chief executive Peter Murrell may have committed perjury by changing his story, under oath, to a committee inquiry of this parliament. But he has been very clear about one thing: Nicola Sturgeon didn’t discuss the Alex Salmond meetings with him as her party chief executive.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon hits out at Union Unit for saying knowledge of Scotland isn't needed

“It’s just about the only thing he has given a straight answer on. He was certain that the meetings were government business. Did Peter Murrell tell the truth under oath?”

The First Minister replied that he did tell the truth, adding: “Of course, he’s perfectly capable of standing up for himself, he doesn’t need me to do it.”

Ruth Davidson continued: “There is a pattern here. Of a ruling party of government acting beyond reproach. A chief executive changing his story, a suddenly forgetful First Minister, votes of parliament ignored, promises of co-operation broken.”

As the two went back and forth on specific dates – of who knew what and when and in what capacity – things got even more heated. Who needs a combi boiler when you’ve got Sturgeon v Davidson. I wouldn’t be surprised if the snow around the parliament melted away to a giant puddle over the course of the session.

Sturgeon responded: “I want to sit in front of the committee. I have had accusations levelled at me for two years. I’ve not been able to answer those fully, firstly because of ongoing criminal proceedings and latterly out of respect for process of this committee.

“It’s not me that’s refusing to sit in front of the committee – I’m relishing the prospect of doing that. Then people can hear my account and they can make up their own minds.”

In closing, Ruth Davidson said “this whole thing stinks to high heaven”.

Jackie Baillie then picked up the baton from Davidson and asked the First Minister if she will resign if it is found that she has breached the ministerial code.

The First Minister said that – for somebody who had said they would wait to hear all the evidence – it sounded like the stand-in Labour leader had already made up her mind. She wouldn’t be drawn on what she intended to do if such a scenario arose. So Jackie Baillie asked again. And again. And again.

It wasn’t quite Jeremy Paxman’s infamous interview with Michael Howard, where he asked “did you threaten to overrule him?” 14 times in quick succession.

With Nicola Sturgeon due to appear before the committee on Tuesday, you can be sure that Jackie Baillie will have another go in the coming days and weeks.