It's fascinating to see STV's Stephen Daisley echo Rob Vance (of the Polling Matters podcast) almost word for word in advising Labour to "forget about Scotland...every hour spent in Scotland is an hour wasted". To be fair, his reasoning is different from - and considerably better than - Vance's, because he isn't trying to kid himself that it's possible for Labour to neglect Scotland and simultaneously recover here. On this occasion, we're not being invited to accept the Vance fantasy that Scotland is a weird exception to the general rule that you actually have to take into account what the electorate wants if you have any interest in getting elected.
I do, however, think that Stephen is going astray on two key points. He says it's "long overdue" that English voters don't have to hear about the Barnett Formula, the Smith Commission and all the rest of it. But that isn't a respite Labour is actually in a position to offer anyone - because, as John Curtice has been pointing out since polling day, they can't win without Scotland. If they accept that most of their Scottish seats are gone for good, then it makes perfect rational sense to turn Blairite to chase votes in Middle England instead - but they'll still eventually have to make an offer to Scotland, because they won't get the keys to Number 10 without the SNP's help. The only alternative would be to rack up an almost impossible 12% lead over the Tories at the next election - that's what would be required for an overall majority if the Scottish seats don't come back.
If it's uncomfortable for them to be banging on about Scotland, the best solution would be to invent a time machine and reverse the "blood out of a stone" approach to greater devolution they've been taking over recent years. They wouldn't have to talk about self-government that has already been delivered.
Stephen's other error comes when he returns to a familiar theme -
"Scottish Labour offered voters a robust social democratic manifesto in May, the most left-of-centre prospectus Labour has run on since the days of Neil Kinnock's leadership. It made not a jot of difference..."
It's utterly wrong to suggest that people weren't interested in seeing a left-wing prospectus from Labour, or were immune to persuasion by it. The problem was that everyone knew it was phoney. It was put forward by an ultra-Blairite leader who clearly didn't believe in the ideology behind it, and it was in any case trumped by a pro-austerity Labour manifesto at UK-wide level.
If Labour want people to give a fair hearing to a Scottish manifesto that diverges radically from the UK party's plans, they're going to have to make the Scottish party fully and truly independent. Simple as that.