A union of convenience…
BLAMING the Brits for Northern Ireland’s problems, teaming up with overseas separatists for mutual benefit, trying to pry Westminster’s fingers out of its claim on our taxes – no it’s not Gerry Adams, it’s Ian Paisley. The other day I asked if Paisley was a British Unionist or an Ulster Nationalist. Last night on Hearts & Minds Newtown Emerson answered: Ulster Nationalist. He said: “His unionism derives not from Ulster’s British identity but from its Protestant, or more specifically Presbyterian, character – and that’s where the confusion sets in, because there is a fault line through Ulster’s Protestant character, running right back to its separate English and Scottish origins… Paisley’s very Scottish anti-Britishness shows that the ancient fault line is still there and still clearly capable of shifting – although if Paisley really is, as the English say, “going native”, then it is still only as a native Ulsterman rather than as a native Irishman”.
>>Just as the English, Scots and Welsh regarded themselves as both English, Scottish or Welsh and British.<<
the word missing here is SOME! should be third word in, even at that the numbers go down every day.
It has been quite amusing reading the explanations that it was the Irish definitions of Irishness that is the problem. And not the instinctive anti-Irishness that comes across on this site day and daily. intriguing!
It woz the Paddies wot done it! LOL. Next we’ll be hearing that it was the ROI that was the sectarian state because Catholics numbers were statistically higher in the senior ranks of the discredited RUC. Oh and the 6 counties must have been a great place due to the rising Nationalist birth rate over the years. Not just revisionism, but denying history.
Over issues like the Irish language act and St. Patricks day. I wonder if all those who don’t wish to be Irish but have nothing against the Irish you understand, will all of a sudden come up with quite reasonable *ahem* objections about the Irishness of it all. We shall see!
A Dubliner once told me that Irish and Tinkers are different breeds. They may come from the same stock, but they have evolved separately, like dogs and wolves, he said. I see his point.
My point is that the ‘British’ of NI and those of Britain are two different breeds. They may come from the same stock, but they have evolved separately, like Dutch and Afrikaners. We are talking about 1690 British and 2007 British.
One of the ways they most differ is in religion. 2007 Britishers are the second most irreligious people in the world, after the Japanese. Very few go to church: of those who attend Christian services, Catholic is the most popular. Then there are various kinds of Buddhists, followers of Hindu gurus, Theosophists and Anthroposophists, Baha’is, etc etc. But representatives of the Protestant schisms and rivalries of the 16th, 17th and 18th Century? I won’t say I’ve never met any but I haven’t met any recently. Most of the ones I knew are dead.
The 1690 British are on a completely different planet. “We are thinking of leaving the Presbyterian Church because it’s too liberal.†That’s the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, right.
The tail thinking it can wag the dog, as usual. I’m sorry but there are quite a number of people throughout the world much closer in ethos and thought processes to the 2007 British, including the Southern Irish, than the 1690s are.
Prince Eoghan,
I do not think the Irish are making me feel not Irish. I would not let others make me feel Irish, they could not make me feel it. Equally if I felt Irish I would not let the actions of other irish people stop me from being Irish, again they could not stop me from feeling it in that case.
I have never blamed anyone for me not feeling irish as I do not feel it is a good or bad thing it is just how I am and who I am (or am not).
Turgon.
Fair enough! I wasn’t particularly referring to your honestly held pov. However do keep in mind my last paragraph, the proof is in the pudding auld son. Live and let live and all that.
Just to extend on the theme of you being outside of Ireland and being British. When I have been outside the UK I have came across hostility from Scottish people but never Unionist/Prods from the 6 counties, who always described themselves as Irish and bought into Irishness. Just my experience, however in your family is there no-one in your close family who would consider themselves Irish. And just for devilment Turgon, when my pal Alex Salmond finishes Britain as a political unit, what then?
Prince Eoghan,
No sorry I do not think any of my relatives see themselves as irish though if they want to that is fine by me.
In terms of Alex I won’t be holding my breath. I doubt he will finish that union but that is a debate for another day.
Mind you we need to stop be so reasonable to one another. This is all getting a bit too civilised both here and over on the Limavady thread. Can no one say something really extreme to make us all have a fight. At this rate I will have to get up and do something useful in a minute.
Aw fuck off then if you can’t sit there like a civilized bastard and pass the time of day solving the problems of the world.
>>n terms of Alex I won’t be holding my breath.<<
He is building up the confidence of the country, and the way he has dealt with Blair recently has won him many plaudits. And whisper it… the SNP are building an unofficial rapport with the Tories, and with Scottish Tory intellectuals already declaring themselves for independence…The numbers may well add up, Watch this space!
Well, Salmond’s in town on Monday, and I bet he’s more matey with Paisley than you might expect!
Prince Eoghan,
Just before the usual sectarian mud slinging recommences I will point out that I had to look up your name on google (I had actually been taught about him and forgotten). Interestingly Prince Eugen (I am not sure how it is pronounced it may be similar) was a German heavy cruiser which was with Bismarck when she sank HMS Hood.
Now I am sure secterian debate can recommence after this awful interlude of civility.
Cruimh
“Ireland and Irish have as many meanings as America and American.â€
Sidestepping the debate about “Americaâ€, I would disagree and suggest that “Irish†has only one meaning. It means “of Irelandâ€. (“Ireland†being the landmass beneath our feet.) Beyond that, everything else is constantly up for grabs, in the perpetual debate among we, the Irish. (As in, the people who are of this island.)
“NI is not under Dublin jurisdiction and is even more culturally different from the ROI than Canada is from the USA.â€
Tell that to people in south Armagh. Or Armagh city for that matter. Or south Down. Or Co Tyrone. Or Co Fermanagh. Or Derry City. Or south Co Derry. Or the Lough shore on its north, south or west sides. Or the Glens of Antrim. Or west Belfast.
Actually, go to most places in “Northern Ireland†and you’ll find that culturally you could be in Connacht or Munster. Indeed there are only a handful of places on this island that feel genuinely like cultural enclaves from the rest of the island – Bangor and certain parts of south Dublin come to mind.
“…the rise of cultural nationalism which clearly stated that Irish = Gaelic and Catholic.â€
Can you provide a source for this “clear statement� I must’ve missed it. Who made this “clear statement� Yeats? Gregory? Or some other notable Gaelic Catholic?
“….Whitaker’s education in London.â€
Actually, Whitaker took a Masters from the University of London via correspondence, so he wasn’t actually “educated in Londonâ€. That was simply where the awarding body was. He did all his study right here in the isle of saints and scholars. Sorry, Britain can’t take credit for this one!
The Dubliner
“A sense of nationality is formed by emotion, not logic.â€
Actually in the overwhelming majority of cases, nationality is based on where you’re from. If a guy from, say, Moscow, says he’s Russian, he’s not really making any kind of big statement. He’s not saying he’s proud to be Russian or that he loves Russia – he might, but on the other hand he might hate it. However, being from Russia, “Russian†is simply what he is, right or wrong, good or bad. That’s all. Then, it’s up to him and his fellow Russians to define what “Russian†means, beyond “of Russiaâ€. That debate is eternal.
The rare exceptions to this rule occur in colonial and post-colonial societies, where identities are maintained in defiance of geographical reality. So people in the Falklands or Gibraltar or here in NI proudly proclaim their Britishness, though they clearly don’t come from Britain. They are entitled to do so, fair play, but let’s not pretend that they are the norm in terms of issues of nationality. They are the exceptions.
“I might convince you that there are better parents than yours, but can I convince you to swap your parents for the better examples? Nope, because the core dynamic is emotion, not reason.â€
Er, no. That’d be biology. You can go through the legal channels and swap your parents for guardians, but they wouldn’t be your parents. Your parents would still be the same two people, even if you’d rejected them. That’s not something that is open to change. Some things simply ARE, no matter how much one might wish otherwise.
Reader
“Whatever your feelings about the plantation, it wrecked the continuity of Ulster identity (at least, looking from Bangor, it did).â€
To be honest, I’d say that within Ulster Bangor is a very exceptional place. It is probably the most genuinely “British†place in Ireland. However, it is rather an exception even within Ulster, and it’d be a mistake to look to Bangor for a sense of the broader situation across Ulster. It’s no microcosm.
Turgon
Would you consider yourself to be Northern Irish?
Billy Pilgrim,
I do not know wherther or not you have some cunning reposte to whatever answer I produce or if you are actually interested.
I feel no need to justify my feeling of self and my nationality, regionality etc. As has been said on this thread these are emotional feelings and although you may be able to point out apparent (or indeed real) inconsistencies in my position: that on this issue as far as I am concerned is not relevant.
I feel Northern Irish and British. Incidentally I asked Elenwe today and unprompted by me got exactly the same response. I do not feel Irish. With all this discussion of my nonIrishness I have thought carefully about it but I still do not feel Irish.
If Northern Ireland or Britain cease to exist I suspect I will still feel as I do.
Now as I said you are welcome to pick all sort of holes in my logic and everything else. That is fine. I have answered as honestly as I can and whether or not you believe me I do not have an agenda about feeling this.
Turgon
LOL. My son’s name is Eoghan, when first commenting here last year he got a kick out of seeing his name in lights so to speak. There was a Prince Eoghan! He died in battle fighting for the Scots against the Angles in the 6th or 7thC, he wasn’t some German called Eugen ya numptie.
BTW. You seem desperate for the sectarian mud slinging to start, are you the argumentative sort? Just go and pick a fight with Elenwe, that’ll sort ye out ;¬) I leave the sectarian bigotry upto the Orangemen, they are the experts!
Prince Eoghan,
Do not worry it is in full swing over on the Limavady thread.
“A sense of nationality is formed by emotion, not logic.†– The Dubliner
“Actually in the overwhelming majority of cases, nationality is based on where you’re from. If a guy from, say, Moscow, says he’s Russian, he’s not really making any kind of big statement. He’s not saying he’s proud to be Russian or that he loves Russia – he might, but on the other hand he might hate it. However, being from Russia, “Russian†is simply what he is, right or wrong, good or bad. That’s all. Then, it’s up to him and his fellow Russians to define what “Russian†means, beyond “of Russiaâ€. That debate is eternal.
The rare exceptions to this rule occur in colonial and post-colonial societies, where identities are maintained in defiance of geographical reality. So people in the Falklands or Gibraltar or here in NI proudly proclaim their Britishness, though they clearly don’t come from Britain. They are entitled to do so, fair play, but let’s not pretend that they are the norm in terms of issues of nationality. They are the exceptions.” – Billy Pilgrim
Your first paragraph states what is obvious, but more saliently, irrelevant to the topic under debate. If nationality was determined by geograpghy, then we wouldn’t be having this debate, would we? The unionists would be Irish because they were born in Ireland.
Your second paragraph also misses the point and context entirely: the unionist sense of nationality is not ‘the exception’ to this debate concerning individual sense of nationality but is the crux of it. That sense of nationality is entirely emotional (see your first paragraph ).
“I might convince you that there are better parents than yours, but can I convince you to swap your parents for the better examples? Nope, because the core dynamic is emotion, not reason.†– The Dubliner
Er, no. That’d be biology. You can go through the legal channels and swap your parents for guardians, but they wouldn’t be your parents. Your parents would still be the same two people, even if you’d rejected them. That’s not something that is open to change. Some things simply ARE, no matter how much one might wish otherwise.” – Billy Pilgrim
I can’t believe you actually took that literally, actually taking the time to explain why one cannot literally swap parents – and missing the point entirely. The obvious figurative point is that you can be persuaded that there are better parents than your own, just as you can be persuaded that there are better nationalities that your own, but you cannot be persuaded to sawp one for the other, i.e. you won’t be persuaded to feel Irish because Ireland has a lower tax rate or British because it has a better health service (nor will you be persuaded to vote to change your nationality on that basis).
“Emotional intelligence is a much-prized quality these days, and you have it in spades.†– páid
Thank you. I’m loath to push my luck, but what about the other type of intelligence? Okay, forget that. I can work with one out of two.
“I agree it’s a mistake to cast the issues in terms of identity if you need to win people over, as nationalists do. There’s no point trying to tell people who they are.
Far better to put the argument in pragmatic terms: what’s the most democratic way forward for the North’s politics? What’s the most effective way forward for the North’s economy?” – Tom Griffin
I think that’s the key area where thinking in the Republic of Ireland will alter in the years ahead. There is a mindset that sees the solution to partition as being in convincing the unionist community that they are Irish. Once they accept that, then they’ll see the error of their partitionist ways and re-unite. It doesn’t see their sense of national identity as being valid – but as a flaw that can be corrected through re-education. I don’t believe that you can convince anyone to change his sense of national identity, so I don’t hold out much hope of success for that approach. In fact, it is more likely to have the opposite effect.
But I think there is a growing understanding of divergent cultures in Ireland, mainly due to recent experience of them. We are beginning to understand that Polish people, for example, can make their home in Ireland and still be Polish. This will make it easier to grasp that those in the north who regard themselves as British, Ulster-Scots (or whatever), can still be British and Ulster-Scots within the Republic of Ireland. So, where the thinking is likely to change is in accepting the Britishness of the unionists as perfectly valid (and not regarding it as some sort of misfortunate colonial legacy).
Essentially, it is separating national identity from national allegiance, allowing those few who might vote for unity because of economic reasons to do so knowing that voting for unity doesn’t mean voting to no longer be of British identity. True, a majority of unionists will always conclude that their sense of national identity is best preserved by staying within the union, but it doesn’t require a majority of unionists to vote for unity in order for it to occur.
It’s a case of back to basics in terms of what the Irish tricolour represents. Of course, it won’t be just Orange and Green by the time any of this even becomes relevant; since, due to the Celtic Tiger, there are more than just Irish and British in the political equation – and its likely that the unionists will slip down the league of ‘other’ behind the Polish, the Asians, and the Africans. Unity sooner rather than later would be the smart option for unionists – which just shows that its more emotion than reason.
Hey Dubliner,
Emotional intelligence is all you need, the other kind can be bought in.
And with emotional intelligence on board, you can fake sincerity.
You’ve made it
“likely that the unionists will slip down the league of ‘other’ behind the Polish, the Asians, and the Africans”
One more reason to maintain partition then.
Republicans just aren’t getting it.
Srr you don’t get it you are sliding down those same tables in your beloved union… especially as you seem to be the only ones who love it
Here’s the deal – Paisley is offering republicans an opportunity to accommodate unionist identity in an Irish context. The response here appears to be: “Yo! Fuck yis! Yis were deluded bastards all along.” This is not a constructive response. It suggests that provo-republicans are incapable of reversing the damage they have done, let alone going beyond that to building new bridges.
At this rate, unbelievably, Paisley is going to go down in history as a man whose offer of compromise was spurned. Could the failure of the republican project be any more profound?
srr
why do you think only the nationalists have to be accomodating?
That shows your belief that you are right and they are wrong.
News flash both sides are right and both sides are wrong and both sides need to accomodate the other
If you want the nationalists to accomodate you then you have to give a little as well.
so in conclusion SRR paisley has no right to expect the nationalists to accomodate the unionists unless he is silling to be accomodating as well
If he wants to fly what someone called his colourful tea towel then he should expect to fly theirs as well. Or conversly leave it in its box like a good wee lad
*sigh*
páid
“don’t forget (I won’t let you
) that in 1922 both Ulster and Ireland were partitioned.
If you are talking about Ulster then you lose the Unionist majority, but you gain cultural and historical authenticity as a foundation for regional government.”
-
Utter nonsense. The borders of “Ulster” were an arbitrary invention. That they are older than those of NI doesn’t change that fact.
Historical Ulster, Ulaidh etc. had borders for the greater part of it’s history that looked more like a repartitioned “Republica Prodska”.
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/historical/map650.gif
DEWI
Less and less I think Willowfield – even in England where a nationality is re-emerging – which is a positive thing. Personally, I’m Welsh and European – Britain implies Wars, Conquest and Empire – days are numbered.
Possibly, but not in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was the period under discussion (someone had claimed that nationality was nothing to do with unionists’ demand to remain in the UK at that time).
dub
“how can you be born and bred into a family who were presumably born and bred in Ireland and not see yourself as Irish?”
Speaking for myself I don’t see it as being any different from a Canadian who does not think they are an American but accepts that Canada is part of North America.
PRINCE EOGHAN
the word missing here is SOME! should be third word in, even at that the numbers go down every day.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries very few English, Scots or Welsh did not regard themselves as British. It was an almost universal shared identity.
It has been quite amusing reading the explanations that it was the Irish definitions of Irishness that is the problem. And not the instinctive anti-Irishness that comes across on this site day and daily. intriguing!
“Anti-Irishness” on Slugger O’Toole in 2007 has no bearing whatsoever on unionist identity in the late 19th and early 20th century. There is no doubt that unionists considered themselves to be Irish at that time, and since. If they were “anti-Irish” then they were admitting to be against themselves. “Anti-Irish nationalist” is maybe what you’re attempting to communicate.
@dub
“sorry that canada analogy is absurd…canada is a sovereign independent state with its own cultural institutions…. ni is not… it was carved out of the kingdom of ireland as a reaction to the majority of the population wielding their democratic rights… the divorce was not done on grounds of separate nationality.. at that time the unionists regarded themselves to a man and woman as Irish. many institutions of importance from the orange order to the gaa to all the churches, most sports remain all ireland bodies. many many northern protestants still regard themselves as irish to varying degrees and would do more openly i believe if there were not a fear factor around doing so. and there is the large nationalist community and ni is not sovereign or independent so a huge host of differences with Canada don’t you think?”
No, in fact the analogy is excellent. Canada is nothing more than the British colonies in North America that remained loyal after the declaration of independence. Bear in mind that both the US and Canada have expanded their territory to the west since that time. Their borders were not static.
Canada also has a sizeable minority who do not recognise the state. OK they’re not USA unionists but Canada still has a division, debates over language recognition etc.
Thanks for the map Hunter. I, for one, wouldn’t mind a new border similar to that one, leaving unionists to rot as an outpost of britain, sponging off the english, letting the rest of us join the republic. I get the message, you don’t want to be part of the republic but why should nearly half the population be deprived?
Remember that a clear majority of children in the school system come from a catholic/nationalist/whatever background and they are the future. The union is maintained by a majority consisting of pensioners.
“I suppose an analogous situation is that everyone who lives on the continent of Europe should see themselves as European (as well as Irish or English or whichever part of Europe they live in). Many do not, especially in England where Euro-scepticism is widespread amongst the Little Englanders. This is because they are against Europe in the political sense, and are defining themselves in a defensive manner as to what they are against, as opposed to who they are. Similar to Irish Unionism?”
Similar to Irish nationalists rejecting their britishislesness?
@Prince Eoghan
“>>Just as the English, Scots and Welsh regarded themselves as both English, Scottish or Welsh and British.< <
the word missing here is SOME! should be third word in, even at that the numbers go down every day."
The numbers may or may not be going down every day but interestingly the younger someone is the more likely they are to consider themselves British rather than English/Scottish/Welsh
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lib2001/viewerChart4919.html
“My point is that the ‘British’ of NI and those of Britain are two different breeds. They may come from the same stock, but they have evolved separately, like Dutch and Afrikaners. We are talking about 1690 British and 2007 British.”
I think that rather than a historical comparison a good analogy for Ulster Prods would be the present day US. The Church of England has died because it was a stale state institution. This is happening to the Catholic church in the RoI as it did in many other European countries, it’s just that in the RoI (and Poland) this has been delayed for a few decades.
In contrast a large chunk of Ulster Prod religion is, like in the US, diverse, noncomformist and taken seriously. A person of Ulster Prod background who doesn’t believe in Jesus will also tend to put himself down as “no religion” more than his Catholic mirror image. Because to an Ulster Prod religion means what you believe rather than what social club your parents attended on Sundays.
Like in the US for an Ulster Prod if you go to church then you do it because you are a believer. For the RCC and the CofE a lot of it was based on what tribe you had your head sprinkled by combined with a bit of a social club.
Religion tends to thrive more in places like the US where there is a denominational free market rather than a commie style established church.
Ulster Prods also tend to be more pro-US than the English. For example on Iraq. This is due to a certain commonality of spirit.
“If nationality was determined by geograpghy, then we wouldn’t be having this debate, would we? The unionists would be Irish because they were born in Ireland.”
Really? Does that mean that someone born in Auckland is a North Islander and is not a New Zealander and someone born in Tokyo is a Honshuan and is not Japanese?
“Really? Does that mean that someone born in Auckland is a North Islander and is not a New Zealander and someone born in Tokyo is a Honshuan and is not Japanese?”
No, but you’ve provided good examples of why analogys should be avoided.
Fraggle
“Remember that a clear majority of children in the school system come from a catholic/nationalist/whatever background and they are the future. The union is maintained by a majority consisting of pensioners.”
Sorry to break it to you but while those leaving school at the moment are about 50% Catholic community background those of Catholic community background are below half in the primary schools and in every primary school year from P1 up to P7.
Your statement “a clear majority of children in the school system come from a catholic/nationalist/whatever background” is untrue. They are less than half even just in secondary schools.
This doesn’t mean that I am opposed to repartition in principle. I don’t think nationalists have much of a case in opposing it in principle. Partition from Britishness due to cultural / religious difference was the basis of the Irish state just as it was when Pakistan divorced from India. The fact that there’s a water barrier between our “Kashmir” and our “India” does not make any difference to the morality of the situation. Nor does the modern international community accept “we were here first as a legitimate” argument as is shown abundantly by their attitude to the Serbs.
@Fraggle
” “Really? Does that mean that someone born in Auckland is a North Islander and is not a New Zealander and someone born in Tokyo is a Honshuan and is not Japanese?â€
No, but you’ve provided good examples of why analogys should be avoided.”
The analogy makes a very good point. Nationalists assume the nationhood of the island of Ireland as axiomatic when in fact it is the matter under debate. Is it any wonder they have trouble understanding unionists?
“This doesn’t mean that I am opposed to repartition in principle.”
I don’t think repartition would work though because the demographics don’t work unless there is resettlement and people wouldn’t stand for that. So we are going to have to live together permanently as a kind of Lebanon or Belgium or Bosnia Herzegovina or whatever.
Unionists have had to learn that NI cannot be as British as Finchley. Nationalists will now have to start the painful process of realising that there is not going to be some unified all island with unionists happily seeing themselves as included. NI is always going to be a special case like the Lebanon.
Like the Lebanon indeed, with private armies and all..but sadly not the weather….
As an Ulsterman of Presbyterian stock who is proud to be Irish while also feeling kinship rather than antipathy to the Scottish, Welsh and English who also inhabit these islands (okay, I’ll admit this changes to fierce rivalry during sporting occasions!), I find people denying that they’re Irish when they’ve been born and bred on an island called Ireland hard to fathom and, to be honest, faintly ludicrous. But I’m all for freedom of expression so they are perfectly entitled to feel that way and can consider themselves Chinese for all I care. Let’s not forget that, on the other side of the coin, that there are also those who live in the North who cannot bring themselves to even say ‘Northern Ireland’ and stridently deny ANY British dimension to themselves whilst supporting Liverpool, having ‘Angels’ by Robbie Williams played at their wedding, wearing Top Shop clobber, consuming traditional British nosh, watching ‘Eastenders’ etc etc…it all boils down to political posturing rather than having any basis in objective reality.
But back to the original issue…Paisley’s acknowledgment of his Irishness as being an integral part of his ‘Ulsterness’ has to be a good thing and maybe other Unionists might follow his lead and realise that all the Union Jack-ery they’ve been indulging in to distinguish themselves from Republicans in recent years is all a bit desperate and doesn’t ultimately endear them to anyone apart from BNP voters…
Like in the US for an Ulster Prod if you go to church then you do it because you are a believer. For the RCC and the CofE a lot of it was based on what tribe you had your head sprinkled by combined with a bit of a social club.
Hunter
Having lived in the US Bible Belt for the past seven or so years, I’m not sure this is true. A lot of it is due to peer pressure and wanting to appear to be a ‘good Christian’.
My rule of thumb is the more they go to church the less honest forthright and true they are likely to be
Fraggle:
“The union is maintained by a majority consisting of pensioners. ”
Cut off the ards peninsula and there is no majority. Problem solved.