The saying goes
that you campaign in poetry and govern in prose (can you tell I’m going through
my box sets of The West Wing just now?).
Well no one bothered to tell the Scottish Labour Leader Johann Lamont or
the Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon when they were involved in the fourth
of STV’s Scotland Tonight’s debates about the Independence referendum. Having shredded the reputations of Sarwar,
Moore and Carmichael, Sturgeon was clear favourite to do likewise to Lamont. Except that’s not quite how things turned
out.
The first thing
to make clear is that Lamont went into this debate with one aim – not to suffer
the fate of the Scottish Secretary, his predecessor and Lamont’s own
deputy. It was a dirty, defensive
display full of spoiling tactics which worked and ensured that Sturgeon did not
land, metaphorically speaking, anything that can be construed as a killer punch. To use a footballing metaphor, Lamont was
essentially playing for penalties.
That’s not to say
Lamont emerged unscathed, there were several foot into mouth moments. When asked about the Bedroom tax, Lamont
opined that “It could be introduced
anywhere if people believed it was a good idea.
We are not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political
decisions. We choose the world we want
to live in”. In context it was a
strange statement to make, but taken out of context (which the Pro Independence
supporters have because there has been no context, period) it conforms to the narrative
pro Independence supporters have built up about “Scottish” Labour ever willing
to talk down Scotland. And boy have they
run with it… Of course, what has been
missed is that the Spare Room Subsidy itself is a New Labour invention, applied
to privately rented properties by I think the Brown government.
On Trident Lamont
expressed “Grave reservations” about Trident, but did not remove herself from
that fence any further, twisting herself into all manner of contortions not to
back Trident.
The second half
of the debate was the 10 minutes questioning, where Lamont spoiled, obfuscated
and generally did not answer any questions put to her, then talked over
Sturgeon’s answers. In amongst the white
noise, there was an accusation Sturgeon was basing an argument about Scottish
People dying at a younger age (this I think was about pension age going up to
67?!?), there was a revelation Sturgeon had joined CND at a time when Labour
types were burning their membership forms, there was Lamont mixing up the
Salmond plan of a Sterlingzone with Sillars alternative (and my preferred
option) of a Scottish Pound & oh and Lamont tried to pin the redundancies
at BAE Systems on the Independence debate.
I’m sure I saw a picture of Chorlton on twitter as well during the debate, so if I missed
Lamont comparing Sturgeon to Fenella, sorry (it was the white noise, honest).
As someone with
reservations about voting yes, this debate didn’t answer any questions. I’ve covered the holes in the Salmond Plan ad
nausium (and will continue to do so).
There are reservations about voting no as well, which are not going
away. Rather than answer the questions,
Lamont chose to obscure Sturgeon’s answers.
Whether this was designed to keep the seed of doubt in many people’s
head remains to be seen, and is a possible explanation of Lamont's performance. What is clear
though is that Lamont, in ensuring that Sturgeon did not produce the series of
killer arguments that would have won the debate, destroyed the credibility of
herself and of “Scottish” Labour and thus lost the argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment