THERE they stood, the Three Amigos of UK Labour – Sir Keir Starmer, Gordon Brown and Anas Sarwar (mooching about at the edges, the allotted position of the Scottish branch manager).

In the context of the independence debate, though, perhaps they should be known as the Three Amoebas, a thin strand of a single thought binding them all in their unbending loyalty to the Union Jack.

They had come together to launch another initiative by Brown, the latest in his Unicorns and Moonbeams series that started on the back of a cigarette packet eight years ago with something called “The Vow”. You remember that one, don’t you – the prospect of Home Rule; hints at federalism; security within the European Union? There’d be castles in the sky, or at least warships reviving shipbuilding on the Clyde.

The powers that already existed at Holyrood would be inviolate within the Sewel Convention.

READ MORE: How will we cope without Michelle Mone? – The REAL Scottish Politics

The elderly could sleep soundly again knowing that their pensions wouldn’t disappear (Brown failed to tell them that what would remain of their pensions would be consumed by heating themselves as a result of a ruinous Brexit and the inevitable result of Nato’s delinquent diplomacy in eastern Europe).

As you might expect from something scrabbled together on a whim, it wasn’t hard to dismantle. Scottish ministers were routinely ignored on Brexit discussions; Westminster’s coaches and horses rampaging through Sewell; Holyrood dismissed as a regional assembly which still proceeds at the pleasure of the UK Parliament. English votes for English laws.

And, more recently, the Scottish Labour Party’s sole Westminster MP working with the Tories to halt Scottish civil servants working on the prospectus for independence.

That one was perhaps the most egregious example of Unionism’s contempt for those who favour Scottish independence.

It didn’t seem to matter that the party of independence has been the clear winner of 10 successive elections in four different UK jurisdictions, or that it’s simply good house-keeping to plan for a potential referendum.

And so, after eight years, during which Brown has aligned himself with those outfits operating on the six-fingered-banjo-playing fringes of the Unionist movement, he’s come up with the New Britain Report, a quasi-official document not taken sufficiently seriously by UK Labour to be regarded as official policy.

This 155-page document is so warm and fuzzy it could mitigate the effects of a cold winter and increased heating costs.

Reforming the House of Lords was there. Of course it was, occupying the same space where it’s been for the last 100 years. Starmer “hopes” to implement that. Aye right.

There would be “consultations” on new borrowing powers. Nothing concrete, you understand and no numbers provided. There was stuff about Scotland perhaps joining approved international bodies and thon Erasmus scheme. Isn’t that good of them? Are we meant to be grateful or something?

There was actually one concrete proposal, the operation of Jobcentres to be devolved to Scotland. Quite why it was thought necessary to wrap that proposal in 155 pages will remain a mystery.

No consultation accompanied the Brown guide to making Scotland feel warm this winter. Not even rank-and-file Labour voters in Scotland were asked for their views. Just as well perhaps, as we know that around 40% of them support Scottish independence and more are unopposed to the mild concept of a second referendum.

If the UK Labour Party was serious about any of this, they’d have commissioned a report into why its Scottish branch now operates on the periphery of politics north of the Border. And why it’s been content to remain there, existing as little more than a vehicle for hoovering up pre-determined list seats as a sort of loyalty scheme for Tammany Hall worthies.

The Labour Party in Scotland ought to be involved in all of the national debates and be the primary advocates for the nation’s poorest neighbourhoods and most marginalised communities. But, until it begins to take the aspirations of a majority of the electorate seriously it will remain on the fringes, of no material use to those it purports to represent. Brown’s self-indulgent, vanity paper addresses none of that.

Brown really needs to do something more meaningful with his life. He was on to a good thing with his interventions during the pandemic about making vaccines accessible to poor countries. And he’s a far more plausible figure on issues around social justice than Tony Blair, who has spent his time since demitting office amassing a luxury property portfolio and giving gullible Middle East power-brokers his strategic “advice” as a specialist on geopolitics. “And look, guys, if you want any advice on how to justify invading other countries, I’ve still got Alastair on speed dial.”

Instead, Brown has become a performing circus act for an increasingly shrill and unhinged Labour/Unionist movement in the belief he provides it with a measure of rectitude. It’s cruel and unusual treatment of the last good and decent politician Labour ever had.

Nor can he feel comfortable about the Starmer-orchestrated defamation of Jeremy Corbyn or the Labour leader’s statements about Brexit and asylum-seekers and the trade union movement.

Of Labour’s Three Amigos on Monday, Starmer cut the most ridiculous figure. Earlier, his office had released one of those cringey “down with the punters” photographs of him and Brown and assorted English Labour fluffers watching the England football team defeat Senegal at the World Cup.

In this he looked like one of those 1970s Radio One deejays playing Mungo Jerry and The Hollies during an afternoon roadshow for local OAPs.

Instead of a conviction politician as leader Labour have got a facsimile of one; a fake from head to foot.

A question and some advice for Anas Sarwar. Did you really come into politics just to be the eternal bag-carrier for this pair, with little to say of any import save that there should be no referendum? Don’t you have anything original to say for yourself?

Last month, The Herald deemed you to be Scotland’s Politician of the Year. It was probably deserved, although you weren’t exactly faced with stiff competition. You’ve gained control of your party in Scotland and have begun to make your mark at Holyrood (although the tactic of reading out case studies of unhappy constituents is beginning to chafe).

If the extent of your ambition is to collect a few crumbs from a Starmer bounce in England then good luck to you. But if you want to make a difference in Scottish public life then it’s time for you to grow up; gain a set of haw-maws and get real about the independence question.