The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Lamont offers Scots [BLANK] tomorrow

Posted on January 31, 2012 by

We're supposed to live in an age where politicians are trained to within an inch of their lives by media advisers, in order that they can spout bland pre-programmed soundbites about any given subject at a second's notice. (With the infamous nadir of the phenomenon being represented by Ed Miliband's toe-curling broken-robot impression at the time of the public-sector strikes.) So perhaps we should be happy on the rare occasions when we discover a couple of elected representatives still willing to appear like clueless idiots in front of the public.

First came a few comments in the Scotsman from the leader of the SNP group on Glasgow City Council, Alison Hunter. With the SNP hoping to take control of the Labour stronghold this May – or at least deprive Labour of its majority – she was asked which policies she would seek to implement if her party pulled off such a titanic feat. Hunter's scarcely-believable and less-than-inspiring response was "I haven’t thought about that yet. Actually, I’m not an out-there leader. I’m a team leader. So we haven’t actually thought about that yet."

Before you ask, we have no idea what the difference between an "out-there leader" and a "team leader" is either, and we imagine Ms Hunter will soon be leaving SNP HQ with a well-skelped erse and a disinclination to say anything quite so stupid out loud ever again. In her defence, however, we suppose we could offer up the fact that she's highly unlikely to ever have to consider such a scenario – with Labour currently holding 45 seats (out of 79) to the SNP's 22, even denying Labour a majority in Glasgow this time round would be a huge and significant achievement for the Nats. Winning outright or even plurality control this year is surely beyond its reach.

We're not sure what Johann Lamont's excuse is, though.

Lamont is the leader of the opposition in the Scottish Parliament, with ambitions to be the First Minister of Scotland (go on, picture it). She leads a party which has formed the government as recently as five years ago. She's the figurehead (in Scotland, certainly, albeit largely by default) of the No campaign for the independence referendum – the side which is starting out well in the lead. In that latter battle at least, you'd have to say that she had a plausible chance of victory.

Her much-asserted position is that she and her party oppose both the status quo and independence. Lamont insists that Scotland needs greater devolution, but that (for some reason) the middle option cannot be part of the referendum. Devolution, says Labour's leader, is a "separate path" (does that make her a separatist?) rather than a point on a line, and the people of Scotland must first reject independence before they can be allowed greater powers within the UK.

So what ARE these powers with which Lamont hopes to tempt the electorate? They must be pretty attractive, you'd think, if they're going to persuade Scots to vote for the deeply unpopular status quo in autumn 2014 and trust Labour to create a better alternative at a later date. So when Lamont stood beside Ed Miliband in Glasgow yesterday and was asked to outline her vision for the future of Scotland, her reply – as reported by the Guardian – was all the more startling:

"Given that Labour lost the election last year, it would be presumptuous to have a firm answer to that now. [We want] to consult on this, particularly with business."

Sorry? Lamont's already-opaque position has been derided in the press previously as offering "jam tomorrow", but it appears that now she isn't even committing to anything that specific. Is it in fact jam that Labour's offering us tomorrow? Is it marmalade? Peanut butter? Economy lemon curd? Low-fat vegetable-oil spread? Week-old cat-vomit? In fact, are we getting any toast at all? (And when, actually, is tomorrow?)

Labour recently spent 14 months in the Calman Commission, formulating (alongside the Lib Dems and Tories) its official views on how to move forward with Scottish devolution. The outcome of these lengthy deliberations was the toothless, vague and increasingly doomed-looking Scotland Bill. So what are we to believe? That Labour was holding back on its true thoughts about constitutional developments all that time, but has now forgotten what they were and has to start again?

Lamont's response is an absolutely extraordinary display of both intellectual bankruptcy and arrogance. What does losing the election have to do with Labour's position on the constitution? Isn't that supposed to be a matter of principle? Why do you need to "consult", and who with, to know what you believe in? Why is it business, rather than Labour members or voters, who get to have the biggest influence on where Labour stands? How do you know that independence is the wrong choice if you don't even know what your alternative is?

We were distinctly unimpressed with Alison Hunter last week, but Johann Lamont occupies a position of far greater responsibility and has fumbled that responsibility much more dismally.  She might not have noticed, but the referendum campaign has started. If she still doesn't even know what she's arguing for, we're not sure how she hopes to persuade the people of Scotland.

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 01 08 14 10:24

    The Eternal Promise of Jam Tomorrow | We'll never be fooled again!

4 to “Lamont offers Scots [BLANK] tomorrow”

  1. Rolf says:

    "Vote Labour, go nowhere."
    They can have that slogan for free. Any more and I'll invoice them.

    Reply
  2. Subrosa says:

    Don't encourage Ms Lamont and her colleagues to form a strategy please. The independence cause is profiting well from her current stance.

    Reply
  3. An Duine Gruamach says:

    How do you know that independence is the wrong choice if you don't even know what your alternative is?
    Brilliant.

    Reply
  4. Shodan says:

    "If they want it then that's enoug for us to be against it!"
     
    In that mindset you don't need alternatives. I just wish Sottish Labour and other voters would wake up to this farce.

    Reply


Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.


  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.

    Stats: 6,785 Posts, 1,221,504 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Young Lochinvar on Too Tight To Mention: “Sorry Andrew Meant to address your last point. As a resident of unfashionable former industrial Lanarkshire with family links over…Jul 7, 04:12
    • Young Lochinvar on Too Tight To Mention: “Andrew R @ 12.53 Bit partial in your reading of history there Andrew, somewhat post ‘45 influenced.. Prior to that…Jul 7, 03:57
    • Young Lochinvar on Too Tight To Mention: “Interesting post. Incidentally the “Lowland” clearances took place over 100 years earlier, those on the border even earlier. Just didn’t…Jul 7, 03:35
    • AndrewR on Too Tight To Mention: “The Southern Scots were a part of the oppression of the Northern Scots, the destruction of the northern culture, language,…Jul 7, 00:53
    • Alf Baird on Too Tight To Mention: ““We can’t prevent poverty being imposed upon us.” Yes sam, the ‘objective of colonialism is to widen inequality’; which is…Jul 6, 22:21
    • Alf Baird on Too Tight To Mention: “Yes Sarah, the Liberate Scotland strategy offering a single unity candidate per constituency and a single policy (i.e. an independence…Jul 6, 22:07
    • Andy Ellis on Too Tight To Mention: “We can’t prevent poverty being imposed upon us. Actually, we could if “we” as a people chose to do so…Jul 6, 22:01
    • sam on Too Tight To Mention: ““Sufficient self-government refers to a level of autonomy where a territory can effectively manage its own affairs without external control,…Jul 6, 21:35
    • sam on Too Tight To Mention: “Iain MacKinnon’s work explores the concept of domestic colonization in Scotland, particularly focusing on the Highland Clearances and the cultural…Jul 6, 21:22
    • Andy Ellis on Too Tight To Mention: “Or alternatively if more people in the movement who were disgusted with the milquetoast devolutionists in the SNP had gotten…Jul 6, 21:13
    • sarah on Too Tight To Mention: “I hope that spines are shivering in SNP leadership’s clique today. May Kenny Macaskill win a seat in 2026 so…Jul 6, 20:46
    • Andy Ellis on The Con Merchant: “@Alf 6.26 pm Your analysis of the language issue is – as the comments from many people more knowledgeable and…Jul 6, 20:15
    • sarah on Too Tight To Mention: “Thank you, auld highlander!Jul 6, 18:28
    • Alf Baird on The Con Merchant: “Andy, depriving ‘a people’ of their language (and resources, history, culture etc) is a violation of human rights. It is…Jul 6, 18:26
    • auld highlander on Too Tight To Mention: “Here you go. Plus the call for a public enquiry. https://web.archive.org/web/20250706164457/https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25290257.albas-kenny-macaskill-says-will-never-forgive-sturgeon/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250706165351/https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25292667.albas-kenny-macaskill-calls-alex-salmond-public-inquiry/Jul 6, 18:02
    • sarah on Too Tight To Mention: “O/T Could someone please post an archived link to the Sunday Herald interview with Kenny MacAskill “I will not forgive…Jul 6, 17:29
    • agent x on Too Tight To Mention: “Northcode says: “I even have the S530 DNA marker to prove it.” ————————————————– Did the Police take your DNA for…Jul 6, 17:04
    • Sven on Too Tight To Mention: “Gosh, woe (& confuddlement) is me. First broad Scots. Then Brythonic. Now P-Celtic trace language. How on earth is a…Jul 6, 16:59
    • Northcode on Too Tight To Mention: “You might be on to something there, Confused.Jul 6, 16:57
    • Northcode on Too Tight To Mention: ““St Columba (originally from Ireland) could not communicate with the Picts” I didn’t know that, Young Lochinvar, but it makes…Jul 6, 16:42
    • Young Lochinvar on Too Tight To Mention: “The farce of the creation of the Church of England is that Henry Tudor 8 reaffirmed his Catholic beliefs on…Jul 6, 16:40
    • Northcode on Too Tight To Mention: ““I am descended of the Danaans.” I hadn’t noticed my misspelling of ‘Danann’ so the opportunity to rectify my error…Jul 6, 16:36
    • Andy Ellis on Too Tight To Mention: “I always thought the usual suspects were a bunch of space cadets. From the mouths of babes….Jul 6, 16:28
    • sarah on Too Tight To Mention: “The SNP should be adopting the Manifesto for Independence and then we wouldn’t need to be signing it! The SNP…Jul 6, 16:21
    • Young Lochinvar on Too Tight To Mention: “Interesting post NC. In line with what you have said, St Columba (originally from Ireland) could not communicate with the…Jul 6, 16:21
    • sarah on Too Tight To Mention: “I am sorry that the Free zones and ports petition “can’t be found”. It’s almost as if someone doesn’t want…Jul 6, 16:17
    • Aidan on Too Tight To Mention: “@Captain Caveman – yes, I would say “officially” is probably putting it too strongly, it’s likely one of the admin…Jul 6, 16:15
    • agent x on Too Tight To Mention: “” Northcode says: 2 July, 2025 at 12:24 pm I am descended of the Danaans. When we first arrived here…Jul 6, 15:53
    • Hatey McHateface on Too Tight To Mention: “Great stuff, NC. Looking forwards already to your first post in Brittonic. Be sure to make it a belter. This…Jul 6, 15:13
    • Andy Ellis on Too Tight To Mention: “….even if this genetic heritage is invisible and rarely acknowledged. Surely given recent scientific advances in DNA sampling and technology…Jul 6, 14:35
  • A tall tale



↑ Top