Two articles with an unstated, but common, theme appear in yesterday’s media output; one by Iain Martin in the Telegraph and the other by Andrew Rawnsley in the Guardian; and it will be no surprise to readers when I state that the unstated, but common, theme is that of our democracy.

Iain Martin is of the opinion that unless Jim Murphy can restore Labour’s fortunes with the Scottish electorate then the Union is doomed, while Andrew Rawnsley feels that the first-past-the-post electoral system can only lead to less stable government as Parliament will be hung, drawn and quartered.

While we all know that Martin is an inhabitant of the Westminster Bubble and thus knows no life outside it, according to Wikipedia he is a Scottish journalist and author who has held senior positions, including editor, with newspapers in Scotland and England. As such it continually amazes me that he appears unable to think outside the box.

Andrew Rawnsley is also a political journalist and broadcaster, currently being the Chief Political Commentator and Associate Editor of The Observer, a position he has held since 1993. He too is an inhabitant of the Westminster Bubble and thus seems to know of no life outside it – and he also appears unable to think outside the box.

Martin’s assertion that should Labour lose its support in Scotland it will mean the end of the Union is absurd in that he obviously has not thought though said assertion. Likewise, Rawnsley’s assertion that the current system of voting can only lead to less stable government is also absurd and for the same reason. It is quite possible for the Union to remain intact and for Parliament to provide stable government even while no party has an absolute majority. All that is required to solve both ‘problems’ is for the adoption of The Harrogate Agenda.

Very few political journalists firstly will acknowledge that Blair’s initial act of devolution was flawed from the onset; and on the extremely rare occasions they do tackle the subject of devolution, their analysis is totally illogical. Very few journalists are not only content, it seems, to turn a deaf ear to a flawed system of devolution, but also to appear to turn a deaf ear to the deficits of our democratic system.

What this means is that both the political class and the media (again I exempt Christopher Booker) are failing in the duty of care they owe to those to whom they ‘preach’ and thus through the incompetence, deliberate or otherwise, of two major sources of information (and education), the public are being led up the proverbial garden path.

This is democracy?