 "Fish, fish! Fish!" Not the canapes at the end of the packed Scotsman Leaders' Debate last night, but quite the best line in the debate.  It came from the Conservative leader annabel Goldie over alex Salmond's efforts to justify resort to the courts to block the publication of a document on the financial impact of local income tax.  Whatever was in the document - compiled, Mr Salmond told us, by the Scottish Government's chief economist andrew Goudie - didn't sound at all like good news for voters. Little from Mr Goudie ever does, But he wasn't going to tell us - ministerial advice, he insisted, is covered by confidentiality.  This defence brought the outburst from Miss Goldie: "I smell fish, fish, fish! I want to know what is in that memo!"  and with that there began a Salmond-Goldie Chuckle Brothers performance. It left the two other contenders, Labour leader Iain Gray and Liberal Democrat Tavish Scott, out in the cold - or wriggling like fish.  Here surely is a coalition being forged in badinage and jokes. Miss Goldie, with a start-ling crimson blouse and feisty manner, fired by her success in the STV debate on Tuesday evening, looked like a girl out for mischief. Indeed, so relaxed was it all with the SNP leader that Lesley Riddoch might have had to hose them down had not the next question not been on tuition fees.  It was clear from contributions by academics in the audience that there is deep scepticism that the funding gap will be as low as the GBP93 million figure both Salmond and Gray sought to defend against university estimates of GBP200m and more.  In truth, no-one knows for sure at this stage. But the concern among several academics was clearly that it would be very considerably more. This was the issue that brought the debate alive and again enabled annabel Goldie to gain prominence through a distinctive line that separated her from the three other party leaders. It will not be the most popular policy on the block. But in this she at least showed honesty and courage: qualities not greatly in evidence in modern politics.  all candidates pledged in their opening statements to make economic growth their "top priority". Once declared, not much was heard about economic growth thereafter. Or about public sector reform for that matter. But hey, this was an election meeting.  Iain Gray managed a competent if pedestrian performance. There were no slips and no glitches, though there was some verbal entanglement as he sought to position himself below the line of fire on nuclear power: "There should be no presumption against nuclear in our energy mix". But oratorical sparkle there was none.  "This", he declared, "is an important election". What a glancing blow to the Unimportant Party. "We need," he said repeatedly, "to focus on young people." If he says this once again I think his advisers should march him off to Specsavers. It's not oratory in the Barack Obama class. In fact, it is utterly vapid. His summary was dead on arrival. His speech-writers need to work on coloratura, voice variation and above all some means by which he can deliver the big climactic phrases and make them sound as if he really means them.  Tavish Scott had some good thrusts and give an occasional flash of the wit of which he is capable. But for how long will, Tavish be on these election platform? On the latest poll findings, the Greens are going t 