@WhatWouldTheDoctorDo
From the bbc summary of FM's questions today it sounds like Douglas Ross was giving Nicola a hard time and she was doing that thing where she ridicules the question and refuses to answer it.
Yes - this is ridiculous. It doesn't portray a strong, capable leader who is sure of their policies and actions and happy to justify them. It just gives the impression she's a bit of a bullshitter. Even if she thinks DR is wrong, and even if she thinks he is only asking to gain a political point. (um, well, yes, they are politicians... that's kind of what they do, and even political points may be worth making...)
I was reading a thread earlier touching on an area I know very little about. There were two arguments being made, both by people who sounded to me, a fool, as if they knew what they were talking about. But one "side" seemed to be unreasonably rude and snippy to the other (not just two people I don't think... though it may have been various sock puppets arguing among themselves I suppose!) - all "you don't understand what you're talking about", "I wouldn't employ you to advise on x", "that's obviously rubbish" and so on. And the other side was explaining how they understood certain legislation to work, asking where they were misunderstanding a point etc.
Guess which side I was more convinced by?! I may have been totally wrong of course, but in my mind someone who REALLY understands something is more than willing to explain their thinking calmly, accept that other people have other (common) misperceptions and that they may themselves indeed be mistaken sometimes, or not have thought of a particular ramification when it is pointed out. They very rarely try to belittle someone who doesn't have the same understanding, but can point out where they think an interpretation is wrong. Of course Holyrood and MN are different places, thank God or maybe it would be better if they werent But if anything, I'd hope the standard of argument in the former was more polite and civil than the latter!