Wings Over Scotland

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.