Thursday, September 19, 2013

A (short) reply to Simon Heffer

Simon 'born wearing a bad suit' Heffer has written a piece that follows a tiresome pattern in right-wing journalism.  He writes stuff that is deliberately objectionable.  People object.  He and his fans complain that this is 'political correctness gone mad' and he can't say what he thinks is true whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that said right-wing blowhard actually makes a living from saying what he thinks is true.  So far, so predictable.  I think it's a little sad that Nationalists imagine that his latest in the Daily Shriek, which favours Scottish independence for all the wrong prejudicial reasons, is anything unusual.  He would spew the same kind of bile if he was talking about single-mothers, immigrants, welfare claimants or anyone else his readers don't like, which would be most people.

It is, therefore, a waste of human energy to engage with what he's written in the itemised fashion you find here.  I'm surprised that no Nationalist has made what I would have thought was the obvious riposte to this nonsense...
"In a true democracy we, too, would be allowed our say, with a vote of our own next September, since there are two of us in this particular marriage."
...which would be this: we need not ask Simon Heffer and his ilk what they think about Scottish independence because while I would agree it would affect them, they don't have, and shouldn't have, any say in the matter. As is the case with the very analogy he uses. Can he really think a divorce can only be granted if both parties agree?  I think he's just being deliberately silly.  It is, after all, what he gets paid for.



1 comment:

SimonF said...

Its interesting you use the marriage analogy because I was reading an English view of it yesterday:

http://atoryblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/one-year-to-go-and-its-all-rather.html

Not saying I agree with it but it is a sentiment that is being aired more often this side of the border.

PS Any debate with Simon Heffer in it should be immediately discounted for the reasons you say. (I haven't read his article, far too wearisome for me to waste my time when you've already done it.

PPS Anyone who invokes the Barnett formula should be similarly ignored.

Blog Archive