Paradoxically, the Daily Record's endorsement is clear evidence of both Labour's weakness and the Record's weakness

The Daily Record's mindless support for the Labour party, regardless of circumstances, will survive the heat death of the universe. But it's no longer 2007, and very few people are going to be influenced by this. https://t.co/gEsWe1UgF1

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) May 5, 2026

Nope, nice try, Paul, but the status quo - which you favour - is "more of the same". Voting for change would mean voting for independence. And if you stick a saltire on a call for change which doesn't mention "Labour", on a casual glance people will assume you mean independence.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) May 6, 2026

The fact that Hutcheon needs that explained to him - and almost certainly will still resist it even now it has been explained - demonstrates the extent to which he's caught up in groupthink.  He lives in a bubble in which the opponents of the British state, rather than the British state itself and its upholders, are "the establishment", and the existence of people who see things the other way around doesn't even enter his head when he puts together a front page like that.

Nevertheless, in all sorts of ways this "endorsement of Labour" is evidence that the Record are acutely aware of the weakness of both their own position and Labour's position.  If they weren't worried about angering and alienating a large number of their readers by endorsing Labour, they wouldn't have taken the extraordinary and possibly unique step of not even mentioning the name of the party they're supporting, or even of referring to that party obliquely.  In 2007 they felt able to be much more full-on, and the fact that they no longer do speaks volumes.

It's also clear that they know that saying "vote for change", even leaving aside the interpretation of that phrase as referring to independence, cannot be used as a less offensive proxy for "vote Labour", because it's not at all clear that Labour are the SNP's main challengers in this election.  So in order not to be misunderstood, they've had to tie themselves up in knots by attacking both the SNP and Reform while still not actually mentioning the word "Labour".  That's weakness because it's a tacit admission that Labour are in severe danger of finishing third or fourth (or even fifth, as the Scot Goes Pop / Find Out Now poll showed).

The parroting of Labour's own message "Reject Reform, Beat the SNP" strongly suggests that Labour have found on the doorstep that Sarwar's overture to Offord has harmed Labour and that some anti-Reform voters are turning to the SNP.  The fact that they're needing to go to such lengths to address that problem is a sign of weakness - as is the fact that the polling evidence shows that there are a number of seats in which a tactical vote for the SNP can help stop Reform, but there are no seats in which a tactical vote for Labour can have the same effect.  So if challenged on the claim that you can stop Reform by voting Labour, they wouldn't even be able to justify it coherently.

The Record also know that their only credible objective in making this endorsement is to stop the SNP winning an overall majority - it's extremely unlikely that the SNP can be prevented from forming a government.  So they ought to have some concerns about the effect their decision will have on their relationship with the Scottish Government over the next five years.  I can't remember the last time I looked inside the Record, but I'm vaguely aware that they occasionally run columns from SNP politicians and supporters.  I remember Alison Thewliss had a regular column with them until Hutcheon treated her like dirt and dropped her because she wouldn't write what he wanted her to.

Now, of course there are benefits for the SNP to a relationship with the Record because it allows them to reach a particular audience.  But I'm not sure it's an act of charity on behalf of the Record - running the occasional column from John Swinney or whoever is also a signal to SNP-supporting Record readers that the paper they read is not unremittingly hostile to the party they support.  Will the SNP continue to allow the Record to have its cake and eat it now that it has run a front page explicitly calling the SNP "hopeless" and telling people to vote them out of office?  I mean, would Nigel Lawson have written columns for the Mirror or the Morning Star in 1987?  Just a thought to ponder on.  If the Record are determined to be hostile, then perhaps they should be treated as hostile and forced to live with the full consequences of that in terms of sales figures and political relevance.

Meanwhile, I've now completed my profiles of all 73 Holyrood constituencies for The National.  I reckon in terms of combined word count they must come to somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 words - which is almost the equivalent of writing a novel over the course of two months.  But at least I didn't have to devise the plot!  The final one is Uddingston & Bellshill, and you can read it HERE.

*  *  *

If you are enjoying Scot Goes Pop's election coverage so much that you start to feel an inexplicable urge to buy me a hot chocolate or a ham-and-cheese toastie, donations are very welcome.  There are three main options: 
a) you can donate by card HERE 
b) you can make a direct PayPal donation to my PayPal email address, which is: jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
c) you can make a donation by bank transfer - for the necessary details, please drop me a line at my contact email address, which is: icehouse.250@gmail.com

*  *  *

Over the last few months, I've been building up the Scot Goes Pop channel on YouTube - you can check it out HERE, and don't forget to subscribe.