Richard Walker: Why risk setting back Yes cause with vote for Labour?

Maybe it’s the grim realisation that the cost of living crisis has some way to play out, maybe it’s the frankly unbelievable details of the full extent of the Post Office scandal. Or the soul-numbing return to normality reminding us that we could be stuck with the Tories in power at Westminster for months.

The UK finally seems to be united in a longing to show Rishi Sunak’s gang of reprobates the door. It’s not the solution to all our problems, of course, but I cannot remember a government so universally loathed, so mired in corruption, immorality and incompetence since the days of Thatcher. The opportunity to deliver a damning verdict can’t come quickly enough.

READ MORE: Humza Yousaf to urge voters to back SNP in bid 'Tory-free' Scotland at election

The problem is that what will come next; while it’s almost impossible it can be as bad, it won’t signal the establishment of the progressive, left-wing alternative so desperately needed to dispel the depression and sense of hopelessness afflicting the national mood.

Keir Starmer will be better than Sunak but that’s not enough to kickstart a national resurrection and only that will truly restore a sense of optimism and purpose to our politics.

As the General Election comes closer, no matter how slowly, the narrative of that political discourse increasingly focuses on the UK rather than Scotland, a development which brings with it real danger.

As we recognise the urgency with which we need to kick the Tories out, we tend to concentrate less on the action we need to take to protect Scotland from the dull switching back and forth between the two faces of Unionism which forever condemns us to the second rate.

We know deep down that the return of a Labour government is not the answer to the problems which are the root cause of Scotland’s woes. Yet that outcome is all our mainstream media will be discussing in the months ahead, as if there is no other outcome within our grasp.

That’s what happens when Scottish issues are relegated to an afterthought in “national’’ broadcasts which re-instate Westminster to the starring role in the UK power structure.

If last year taught us anything it is that devolution serves mainly to prop up the status quo rather than undermine or replace it. Our Parliament can do virtually nothing without the say-so of Westminster. That is as true of matters which fall into the realm of devolved powers as those reserved to London.

The unsheathing of the hitherto unmentioned Section 35 weapon has shown the willingness of a political party with just seven of the 59 Scottish MPs to overturn a decision passed by MSPs of all political parties.

The lack of outcry by Labour and Tory MSPs should be surprising but, of course, it isn’t. They don’t see Holyrood as the dominant power north of the Border and never will. They see Section 35 as a restatement of what they consider to be the correct power balance and the weakness with which they accept it is a sign of how little things have really changed.

READ MORE: George Osborne 'reveals date of General Election'

Indeed that’s why Section 35 exists. The ability to ignore and override decisions of the Scottish Parliament may have shocked us but it hardly raised an eyebrow among Unionist politicians who would never have countenance and real challenge to Westminster’s dominance.

That same acceptance is seen within the Scottish media, who have uttered hardly a word of protest. The whole structure of the BBC, after all, is designed to keep Scotland in its own, secondary place. BBC Scotland acts in pretty much the same way as a Scottish edition of a UK national newspaper – exclusively Scottish content is added to the national big boys’ reports. The big, national political programmes are dominated by the “big beasts” of Westminster, the “big stories” determined largely by London executives.

We saw this in the most embarrassing ways in 2014, when an increase in support for independence saw an influx of journalists based south of the Border, with only the scantest knowledge of Scottish issues, leading the main news reports on them. Scottish journalists were reduced to supporting roles, even being interviewed by the “stars”.

The situation has hardly changed, which accounts for the recent report by a BBC journalist saying that Scottish votes had been crucial during “most UK elections” to deciding which party won.

The suggestion was complete nonsense. In fact only four General Elections since 1945 would have had a different result if Scottish votes had not been included.

This could have simply been a mistake due to the BBC’s lack of knowledge of or failure to take account of differences between the north and south of the Border. There are many other examples, notably the broadcaster’s slavish coverage of the monarchy, which prompted hundreds of complaints at the “overly positive’’ documentary on King Charles, which whitewashed some negative events out of the picture.

But it could also have reflected a perspective that the political battleground had only two main players and anyone wanting to get rid of the Tories would necessarily have to vote Labour. The truth is that Scottish voters can vote SNP without risking a Tory victory.

READ MORE: Richard Murphy - My London friend switches off news about Scotland - it has to stop

This is clearly a sensitive issue for the SNP, who fear losing votes to Labour from supporters worried about doing anything which might inadvertently keep Sunak in Number 10. So sensitive that Humza Yousaf yesterday used a TV interview to stress his belief that Starmer would win the General Election and would not need Scottish votes to do so.

It is the SNP’s most important task in the coming months to not only convince voters that Starmer’s UK victory is assured but to answer the obvious question – if that’s the case why should Scottish voters support the SNP at the ballot box?

It might be an obvious question but there is an obvious answer – to further press home the demand for independence.

To say the new SNP leader has had a baptism of fire is almost the definition of an understatement. Despite not having his problems to seek he has insisted he will place independence at the heart of his election campaign and he would be wise to do so, not least because when the party downplayed independence in the 2017 General Election its results were terrible, with 21 MPs lost. Some opinion polls suggest almost as many losses at this election but I hope I don’t appear complacent when I say I doubt this.

There’s no doubt that the argument that a vote for Labour in Scotland would appear to support the anti-Tory momentum is persuasive, at least on the surface. However the SNP still have time to ram home the message that it is not essential – Labour have enough support to win without Scotland.

And whatever a vote for Labour in Scotland would achieve, it would do absolutely nothing to advance the independence cause. In fact, given Starmer and Labour Scottish leader Anas Sarwar’s staunch opposition to not only independence but to a second referendum, it could set it back for years.

Would independence supporters risk that for a vote that was not absolutely essential to get rid of the Tories? The most recent polls have not always brought great news for the SNP but they have consistently shown high support for Yes.

It would take more than a bad case of the 2024 blues to persuade pro-independence voters to do anything to undermine the case they have kept at the forefront of the political debate for a decade … and that’s why it’s far too soon to write off the chances of an SNP resurgence.