Huntford overstated how much bungling he did, and that has become more evident with things we have learned in recent years (such as the discovery of Scott's written order to Meares). I do think that despite the bungling, Scott *could* have made it back if the weather had not been so bad, which at least attests to some level of competency. Which is what I think Susan Solomon was trying to argue, even if she went too far in the other direction.
The problem with Scott, I suspect, is not that he was an idiot, or even malicious (though he could certainly nurse a grudge, which he unfortunately did against Shackleton), but that he was in certain respects, not very well suited to be an exploration leader, or come to that, a front line naval captain. His gifts - and he did have real gifts - lay elsewhere. He actually did a very smart job of organizing the scientific side of the expedition, which certainly brought back far, far more useful science than Amundsen did. But he kind of got channeled into exploration as his means of advancement within the Royal Navy. As David Crane put it, “In any sensible society, a child of Scott’s type would have ended up as an engineer or scientist, but for a boy of his class in Victorian England the future was circumscribed by the deadening monopoly of the old professions.”
As to what you say about dealing with (and being prepared for) the unexpected, this is of course where Shackleton shines over Scott. Shackleton started out with all the same expectations and prejudices that Scott did, but he learned from their deficiencies, and he was eminently able to adapt. Both of his Antarctic expeditions ran into unexpected Bad Things and yet he managed against all odds to overcome them, and come back alive with all his men. And of course, he was simply better in leading men (and choosing ones who were leadable).
