The Independent newspaper clearly doesn't like its own name any more. In a bizarre editorial today, ironically titled In defence of liberal democracy, it shows just how much it hates both democracy and the concept of independence:
"At stake is the very idea of majority government, the union with Scotland..."
No one is challenging the idea that when someone wins, they win, so the entire assumption upon which the article is based is false. A win is when one party has more than half the MPs in the House of Commons, i.e. they have an overall majority. I haven't seen anyone claim that, for example, if David Cameron wins more than 325 seats then he'll declare himself a loser. This is just a plainly stupid statement.
Despite being in favour of the Union, the newspaper claims to be independent:
"The Independent was founded on the principle enshrined in its name."
I think it had better change its name to The Union, as that's clearly what it stands for. It continues the argument in the next sentence with:
"We honour that again today, by declaring that we belong to no party or faction..."
but it later comes out in support of another Tory-Lib Dem coalition! Then it publicises its own confusion over what it now stands for by stating:
"On the question of democracy, however, we are not and will never be neutral: we believe it is precious, and must be revitalised. It is clear that not only our democracy, but our kingdom, is in some peril."
How can The Independent assert that both democracy and the UK is in peril? Scottish people voting for who they want to represent them is democracy. It is not for a newspaper to tell Scotland that if it votes for something that damages England's interests then Scotland must be undemocratic. The reason many in Scotland want independence is because England has been damaging Scotland's interests for decades.
The Independent further infuriates by showing that it is not a UK daily but a purely English newspaper, speaking only on behalf of England, by stating:
"...we believe the union with Scotland is mutually beneficial..."
If it were Scottish, it would say "the union with England" and if it was a UK paper, it would say "the union between Scotland and England." But it didn't. It very clearly states "union with Scotland," showing its English-focussed nature. If it can't even bring itself to speak to the whole of the Union, why is it so in favour of it? Perhaps the newspaper's name is really a reference to how it views England: an independent nation with Celtic colonies it rules over?
Why is The Independent on sale in Scotland anyway? Should it now be classed as a foreign newspaper?
Worst of all, it goes on to say that if the SNP form an alliance with Labour
"...while Labour were the second biggest party either in terms of vote share, or seats – or both – how could Labour govern with authority? They could not. Any partnership between Labour and the SNP will harm Britain’s fragile democracy."
This is chilling. Asking the people to vote makes democracy 'fragile.' If The Independent is so in love with the concept of the Union and with Westminster, it should know that Westminster democracy is based on who can get the most votes at any given time within the House of Commons. Democracy is not allowing a-party-that-did-not-win-an-outright-majority-but-just-happened-to-get-more-seats-than-another-party the right to then do whatever they want, whenever they want. That's like no one winning a raffle and then claiming the person who bough the most tickets gets all the prizes.
If The Independent doesn't like the nature of British democracy, it should call for the abolition of Britain. If it really does favour the Union, then it has to accept that all free citizens across this Union have the right to decide who runs this Union. If Scotland's choice isn't to their liking, then they're going to have stop saying this:
"...we believe the union with Scotland is mutually beneficial..."
Once they realise the falseness of that conclusion, we can really start to let democracy rule and change the governance of these islands for the better.
The only conclusion to be made is that the Union is not a partnership. It is over.
ReplyDeleteYes voters already knew this. To have it confirmed by Westminster and the Unionist press so vividly doesn't really change their thinking.
What price the No voters? Sure there will be a hard-core who will put up with as much jock-bashing as necessary to save their precious Union. Who knows - they might feel as if they deserve to be belittled?
However there must be a lot thinking: 'I voted No for THIS? I believed that Scotland WAS better together with England! Now I think the No vote was a big mistake...'
That's why the Union is over. The only way Westminster can possibly save the Union is by giving Scotland what was promised for voting No: Devo Max. Control over everything bar Defence and Foreign Affairs.
That won't happen. Westminster only looks after itself and to give up Scotland - the goose that lays the golden eggs - would be an act of self sacrifice and so detrimental to the UK economy that they won't give us up without an extreme fight.
Fortunately that decision is no longer up to them. It's for the Scottish people to decide their fate. And we know that the vast majority of Scots expect another referendum within 10 years (no matter how the Daily Record tries to spin against its own poll findings!). And I very much doubt that this majority wants another referendum just to vote No!