The votes are in and mr Swinney stays for now.

But Mike Russell set out some interesting tests in the debate. So let’s look at where we are after today and the SQA marking debacle.

Intent:
This was a policy wrong in principle because marks were awarded not on the basis of effort but on mean performance of candidate’s schools. So it may have generated a distribution that looked right but capped individual attainment and the link to individuals performance.

Implementation: There was apparently no direct oversight or checks from SG. Given the significance of the shift of the approach that was necessary and failure to do so was ultimately negligent.

Response: Swinney had the data in advance and did nothing. In the face of evidence of unfairness after the results were published, he continued to defend by pointing to the system and the aggregate result.

Reaction: Even when he did overturn the result both he and the SQA continued to defend their original approach and have not acknowledged the policy faults only noting the grievance.

Those were Mike Russell’s four tests and whatever the parliamentary arithmetic, many may make a different assessment to the one Mr Russell tried to argue today.

Finally apologies are important acknowledging mistakes and altering course is a strength. But these do not offset all errors.

Especially if those errors should have been foreseeable and if root cause is not acknowledged.