If we heard her correctly, Johann Lamont will accept nothing more than the minimum wage after she sweeps to power.
Visitors to Bute House will be offered a warm cup-a-soup, if they're lucky.
Perhaps this wasn't what the Labour leader meant with her attack on Alex Salmond's "130 grand a year", his "two grand a month" entertainment bill, and his satellite TV package. She was none too clear, however, about what she did mean.
That the First Minister is "in denial about the real Scotland"? It's a possibility. That he's overpaid? Most would get by on his money. Or that the SNP is avoiding decisions on £3 billion spending cuts until after the 2014 referendum? This could have been a decent line of attack if Lamont had stuck to it for more than 30 seconds.
Her attention wanders. Parts of one statement end up colliding with another. But given the number of policy about-turns she has to bear in mind, it's no wonder Labour's leader goes round in circles.
The detail was not lost on Salmond yesterday. "He's not an economist, he's a fantasist," Lamont jeered in his general direction. She's not Labour, she's a Tory, he replied. For the party opposite this was, and will remain, a tricky charge.
Lamont wants to know how the things that matter can be paid for as the budget shrinks. In her view, universal benefits enjoyed by rich folk could go. She's less clear about which benefits, her definition of rich, or even – someone is bound to notice – the amount of money liable to be raised by a cull.
Besides, as Salmond crowed (the crack of doom wouldn't have stopped him), all of the policies that Lamont finds reprehensible were endorsed by her party just a year ago. Budget cuts were no secret back then. What's changed?
It might be that the political weather in London has altered. It might be that Lamont is truly angry on behalf of austerity's victims. It sounds, though, as if she is thrashing around for any notion – even one Labour has rejected – that might turn a few voters against the SNP. It could work. But where would that leave the people's party?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article