The new boss, same as the old boss
The illusion lasted almost six minutes. At 1m 47s into her victory speech, new Labour leader Johann Lamont offered a stirring pledge:
"While I am leader, nothing will be off limits. There will not be one policy, one rule, one way of working which cannot be changed".
But as the speech wore on, there wasn't a single sign that any of them actually would. And at 7m 30s, when Lamont reached the matter of the constitituon, Scottish Labour's line in the sand had concrete poured into it and an electric fence planted on top. Demanding (impotently) that the SNP bring forward the referendum immediately, and that it should comprise just one question, Lamont declared:
"Separation and devolution are two completely different concepts which cannot be mixed together."
For a start, it's an obviously nonsensical sentence. The two concepts are inherently bound up with each other – if you devolve, say, control of the health service from Westminster to Scotland, then you are inescapably "separating" the NHS into two discrete parts. All and any devolution is by its very nature a subset of independence, and an empirical (although not necessarily chronological) step towards it.
Lamont then laid out her position – Scots should be made to choose starkly between independence and the status quo, but if they chose the latter Labour would promise them more powers. Which powers? We don't know. When would they be delivered? We weren't told. And how would Labour get itself into a position to make good on even that vague promise in the first place? That's the question nobody has an answer for.
Kenny Farquharson in Scotland on Sunday was the first to say it:
"I’m sorry, but this 'jam tomorrow' approach won’t do. We have been here before. In 1979, as Scotland prepared to vote in the first devolution referendum, former Tory leader Alec Douglas-Home urged Scots to vote No, promising that the Tories would come up with a better form of home rule afterwards. Of course, when No.10 became Maggie’s Den, that prize proved illusory. Scots are unlikely to fall for a Labour version of the same pitch."
But it seems to be the pitch Lamont is going to try to sell. Rather her than us.
I always wondered where the lawyers were hiding…
The problem with the independence referendum for the Scottish Labour regional leader and Labour in Scotland is:
1. They can't come up with a Devo-Max plan by themselves as they're just a region within Labour. Ed Milliband and the entire Labour party would have to approve it and Ed has his eye on other things.
2. They don't want a Devo-Max plan anyway but they don't want to be on the same platform as the Tories come the referendum campaign even though they've got the same aim of preserving the British Establisment and state.
3. All that's left for them to campaign on to give them some minimal separation from the Tory Union campaign is vote for us and there will be jam tomorrow.
On a separate topic, in your forays out into Labourland in your young labour persona have you ever got hold of the new Labour Rule Book? I'm still trying to find a definitive answer to the question about the powers the new Labour regional leader in Scotland actually wields.
There's lots of talk about how it is now an all Scotland Labour Leader but no-one has answered the question of how much power Johann will wield over the MP's and MEP's in Scotland. Do the rules define her as Margaret Curran's boss or underling?
Technically it would appear that Curran does answer to Lamont, certainly in Scottish matters. Lamont's position relative to Ed Miliband on Scottish issues is rather harder to discern.