People are angry that Salmond and Darling were so angry. Leading to angry scenes in the media.
Apparently their TV debate was “shouty” and amounted to little more than a “slanging match”.
So says much of the media, in any case.
It would seem, therefore, I must be something of a lone voice in saying I thought it was great.
The two leaders were certainly passionate. Emotions were running high and tempers were frayed.
What did we expect?
Just consider for a moment what is at stake. Do we really want our politicians to meekly submit to one another, accepting their arguments without robust challenge? And if that challenge becomes so robust that voices are raised, so be it.
What is not required is mock outrage.
The debate is fierce and one could hardly say the BBC debate was out of hand. The referee, Glenn Campbell, was like all good referees (just ask football fans) largely unseen. He only stepped in when strictly necessary.
Let us not castigate him for that. He was content to let the debate flow. I say good on him.
The sight of two grown men shouting at one another not swearing, not abusive, just passionate helped to bring home the enormity of what is on the table.
And that is something we should all welcome.
(Having said that, has nobody told Mr Darling not to point? Shouting is one thing, pointing quite another. It’s rude. Even when you are jolly angry.)