SNP versus Labour: How will parties set out their stalls?

The doctrine of “events” applies to electoral politics too. Hence the strategy outlined by Humza Yousaf at the SNP’s UK General Election campaign launch.

Read more by Brian Taylor: Scottish Budget: Forget the tax row – what about the NHS?

Yes, I know, it isn’t the real launch. That will come between now and January 2025, whenever the election is actually called. Me, I tip October.

Still, the Yousaf event is significant. It is driven by ambition, of course, but also by set-back and defeat, most recently in Rutherglen.

In adversity, the smart politician adapts. Humza Yousaf has gone rather further. He has conceded overall victory to Labour from the outset. We should, he told The Herald earlier this week, “stop beating around the bush”.

There was, of course, an edge to his magnanimity. He added that, “barring a catastrophe”, even Sir Keir Starmer should be capable of winning in the current circumstances of Tory travails.

And he proffered an addendum to the effect that Labour still lacked the “radical, bold prospectus” which Scotland needed.

Still, he firmly forecast a Labour UK victory, with Rishi Sunak ousted from Number 10.

Why? Why bolster the SNP’s opponents, the main competition for urban and working-class Scottish votes?

Realism. The SNP needs a dog in this forthcoming political race. Otherwise, it risks being squeezed out of a head-to-head contest between UK Tories and UK Labour.

Anas Sarwar (Image: free)

So Mr Yousaf offers three things. A vigorous SNP shove to oust Scottish Tories; a promise to stand up for Scotland in the new Westminster Parliament; and a guarantee that independence will be sustained as an option.

And Labour’s response? Naturally, they endorse the prospectus of Sir Keir as PM – but insist they can do without a helping hand from the SNP, either in electoral politics or in government.

Indeed, Scottish Labour’s Anas Sarwar this week combined the concept of ousting the Tories with eventually getting shot of the SNP Holyrood government. Simultaneously, he appealed to independence Yes voters to lend their support to the immediate objective of transforming the political colour of Westminster.

A passing point. I am not given to public displays of emotion, except at Tannadice. But if another Labour leader offers “change” as a political palliative, I shall scream.

I get the concept. Folk are fed up. The scunner factor is abroad. Repeatedly offering “change” is effective – just as “Things Can Only Get Better” worked as an ultimately tedious Labour anthem in 1997.

But, please. Reduce the frequency of repetition. Move on from undiluted “change” to explain just what would be changed – why, how and to what effect.

To be fair, Mr Sarwar talked this week of green energy jobs and new rights for workers. But we need much more detail, notably on taxation, regarding just how these policies and others would drive the economic growth which is the Labour objective.

Again, to be fair, Mr Sarwar said Labour’s economic thinking would emerge in coming months. I suppose in the meantime I must simply close my ears and clench my lips whenever “change” is mentioned.

Read more by Brian Taylor: Independence, devolution – and the tensions within this United Kingdom

Back to the SNP. Their strategy, while driven by necessity, is also underpinned by history. They note that the good and sensible people of England tend to get the government they choose, if only from simple numbers.

Scotland has frequently voted one way – only to see a Prime Minister from a different party installed in Downing Street. By contrast, SNP strategists suggest that has happened only twice to modern England: from 1964 to 1966; and from February to October 1974.

Hence, they argue, Scotland is highly unlikely to drive the UK electoral outcome. So Scots should consider how best they can influence that new government.

Listen to Anas Sarwar and he will tell you that a plethora of Scottish Labour MPs would give Scotland “a voice at the heart” of that forthcoming UK Labour Government.

Labour would then, as he told me recently, “reset devolution” and end the squabbling between Westminster and Holyrood. Loadsaluck with that one, regardless of who is in power.

The SNP offer a different perspective. They say that Scottish Labour MPs would simply be ciphers, taking the Starmer line, rather than matching the instincts and ideology of Scotland.

For illustration, they note Sir Keir’s reluctance to support a ceasefire in Gaza and his disinclination to revisit Brexit. Contrary, say nationalists, to Scottish sympathies.

Team Yousaf reckon people buy into the argument that the SNP can be trusted to “bang the drum” for Scotland – and, further, that voters tend to applaud that approach.

So where does that leave independence? It will still be front and centre of the SNP election campaign. But with a touch of nuance.

Independence will be offered as the route to transform Scotland’s economy – and so tackle the cost of living crisis which so worries our people.

It will, in short, be projected through the prism of popular anxiety – rather than through the narrower lens of party zeal and ambition.

SNP leaders do not entirely accept the argument advanced by their colleague, Tommy Sheppard MP, that defeat for the SNP would halt debate on independence. But they know he has a point.

So they hope, at minimum, to sustain the concept of independence. And they will argue that lending votes to Labour, as urged by Anas Sarwar, will set back the cause. It would be a luxury independence supporters could not afford.

And the Conservatives? They argue that the economy is improving – with the prospect of further tax cuts in the March budget.

Meanwhile, they will fight seat by seat – for example, defending the oil industry in the north-east.

Ditto the Liberal Democrats – with Alex Cole Hamilton kicking off an election tour in a Highland target seat.

More broadly, though, ask yourself this. Do you want to oust the Tories? If not, your vote is obvious. If yes, then how – and by whom?