This week, eight months after his election, Keir Starmer finally got around to constitutional politics. As always in Scotland, the response is polarised, ranging from gushing praise from fanboys to outraged anger from fundamentalists. The essence of the speech lies somewhere in the middle.

There were positives. Starmer recognised that the status quo is broken, and in delivering the speech in the first place, he appreciated that Scotland deserves better than the sterility of the binary debate on independence. He also hinted at the need for local powers based on need to achieve the type of society we want to create.

The problem is this – nobody is quite sure what the type of society Starmer wants to create. There was no detail on whether he meant to change the economic as well as political status quo, and if so, whether he intended to develop a new economic model at the same time as he develops a new political settlement via his constitutional commission.

After many months of silence on the economy, the strong suspicion is that this isn’t his plan. Wealth redistribution, as well as power redistribution, was central to the speech — but how does that work if you’re currently committed to resisting tax increases and hostile to a wealth tax?

There’s been criticism of the idea of a constitutional commission, but if done properly it could create momentum for change, just as the historic Scottish Constitutional Convention did. It could help to determine the kinds of proposals which should be on the ballot paper in any future referendum.

However, precious time is being wasted. The speech did not mention federalism — only that devolution must be strengthened and that Starmer will ‘look at the conclusions without preconceptions’. There was nothing on Lords reform, industrial strategy, or regional investment banks, although all were features of his leadership campaign — something which reflects poorly, once again, on the potency of any strategy to hand real powers back to people on a local level.

The speech also undermined both Richard Leonard and the Scottish Executive Committee, which, a few months back, listed ten constitutional points—including specific powers—that the Scottish Labour Party felt the Scottish Parliament needed, alongside the imperative of a federal UK.

To save time, Starmer could use the work from the review set up by Jeremy Corbyn to consider the question of more powers for Scotland within a rearranged, post-Brexit UK. Finished around the time of last year’s election, it is rightly seen as a substantial and detailed contribution to the constitutional debate. In fact, not to build on it seems like a petty and self-defeating political decision.

And time is key: the Scottish election is looming. Starmer himself has now recognised the need to fast-track the Scottish dimension of the constitutional commission’s work. This is an understandable aim, but it is flawed if it presupposes Scotland can be disconnected from wider UK considerations. It can’t. To gain any credibility from a sceptical Scottish public, a Scottish offer has to come with an understanding of where Scotland will fit within a rearranged UK.

The hope that Labour would be listened to in Scotland (on anything at all) depended on getting this understanding in place before the election; not having anything more than what was presented this week makes it highly possible that the SNP and the Greens will form an outright majority in the next Scottish Parliament, giving a second independence referendum a mandate.

The Labour leader rightly criticised the Tory attacks on devolution both at the rhetorical and legislative levels. Yet Starmer himself fell through that trap door: we might not need another independence referendum during this, the darkest of times, but Labour must recognise that this is a matter for Scots to decide. To write that off by stating that ‘no responsible Prime Minister would grant one’ has completely misread the public mood in Scotland and smacks of the very political approach that has driven support for independence.

Poll after poll shows support for independence, including among much of Labour’s own base. What would make electoral sense is accepting Scotland’s right to decide, and then getting on with interrogating the substance of independence itself. You could also make the argument that any future referendum must have a third option on the ballot paper. But to reject a referendum outright and on principle, when so many of the people we need to vote for us see it as a democratic right, is a mistake that is likely to cost the party dearly.

Language in this context also matters. Contemptuous dismissal of pro-independence Scots as ‘separatists’ is not the humility required from the leader of a party currently in third place. In pursuing staunch unionist lines and language, it’s clear that, as far as the May election is concerned, disaffected Tories are being targeted rather than working-class voters who may have drifted towards independence. This is the road to nowhere. If Labour is ever to rebuild in Scotland, it will need to win over SNP voters – and this speech was almost designed to drive them deeper into their camp.

Frankly, any intervention by Labour in Scotland today needs to come accompanied with contrition and acknowledgement of its true place in Scottish politics. To win people back, Labour needs to recognise why voters left it in the first place. It cannot suggest that the people, rather than the Labour Party, got it wrong. When talking about a broken status quo, there needs to be an acknowledgement of New Labour’s role, and some admission of how the party’s 2014 referendum approach sowed further seeds of public discontent and electoral decline.

Starmer had to make an intervention. It’s good that he recognises change is needed. He should have recognised it seven months ago, and he should have recognised it with Richard Leonard standing beside him. That recognition should also outline what is broken, and what needs to be done to fix it.

The concern is that this intervention was lacking in detail and left too late; that it doubles down on unionist rather than socialist politics; that it reneges on the position already taken; and that it lacks a corresponding commitment to a new economic model. Many feel it will have done little to help Labour in May, or to prevent an outright SNP majority. Time will tell.