SOMETIMES in politics it’s the things people don’t say that matter, not the things they do. Silences and omissions can be just as telling as bold assertions and declarations of intent. Take last week’s Scottish Labour conference, and Kezia Dugdale’s pained inability to say federalism, her preferred escape route from the constitutional debate, was also the policy of UK Labour. The problem grew more evident when Jeremy Corbyn failed to mention federalism in his speech afterwards. Neither said anything concrete, but those crucial omissions left little doubt the wheels were coming off Ms Dugdale’s big idea.

Nicola Sturgeon was accused of doing something similar when she addressed the David Hume Institute on Tuesday. The Tories made a fuss over her omitting the top line of her advance text, namely that Tory plotting over Brexit were “an attack on the very foundations of the devolved parliament”. But as she had signed off the text, the First Minister owned the words, and other lines she used on the night showed she still held firm to the sentiment.

Westminster taking a bite out of powers due to be repatriated from Brussels at Brexit – powers in devolved areas such as farming and agriculture – would be “unacceptable” and “undermine the basis of the existing devolution settlement”, she said. The guiding principle of the 1998 Scotland Act, that powers which are not explicitly reserved are devolved by default, was under threat, she argued. So it was not a “retraction”, although it was untidy. The Prime Minister’s line the day next bore out Ms Sturgeon’s scepticism. Asked by SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson for a straight Yes or No on whether powers in “Ag and Fish” would be fully devolved at Brexit, Mrs May said it was under discussion, suggesting the UK does indeed mean to keep some of those powers.

These gaps are all intriguing, but perhaps most surprising was one by the First Minister in the Q&A after her speech. Asked if swift re-entry to the EU would be part of an independence offer in a second referendum, Ms Sturgeon failed to give a categorical Yes. Instead she said that, if there was a second referendum, the position would be made clear at the time.

She said: “For those of us who advocate independence, if we are in the situation of another independence referendum, we’ve got a duty to answer the questions that were asked of us in 2014. That will include our relationship with Europe ... the economy and currency.”

That’s a departure from her position just a few months ago. In her proposal for a bespoke Scottish Brexit deal she wrote: “In my view, the best option is to become a full member of the EU as an independent country.” But she chose not to repeat it on Tuesday.

Other parties suspect the SNP is trying to sidle away from the EU ahead of a referendum as there is little voter enthusiasm for it and it is synonymous with the tough political sell of free movement of people and immigration. Ms Sturgeon’s “we’ll tell you later” approach also sheds light on this week’s scrap over repatriated powers. Why make such a fuss over Holyrood getting its hands on Ag and Fish after Brexit, if the plan is to hand those same powers straight back to Brussels? Unless, of course, that’s not the plan, and the independence offer will actually be a far looser and woolier kind of relationship with Europe.

The problem for Ms Sturgeon is that it’s very hard to argue we need a referendum because we’re being dragged out the EU, then offer anything short of an immediate return. Voters will wonder why Brexit makes a referendum imperative, yet reversing Brexit isn’t a priority. It would lay Ms Sturgeon open to the charge that she is using Brexit simply to engineer a referendum she wanted all along. Her opponents certainly wouldn’t stay silent about that.