United Ireland: work not quite in process…
Deaglán de Bréadún asks if 26 will ever become 32? (subs needed). Although he goes heavy on the caveats, even the formulation of the question hints at just one of many problems facing anyone wanting to build a politically unified Ireland. It implies an enthusiasm for expanding the Republic, that doesn’t currently exist in the southern polity. And as the first leader’s debate in last year’s southern election campaign indicated, the knowledge base amongst leading Northern Irish advocates of a united Ireland is lamentably poor.de Bréadún:
Theoretically, if a relatively small percentage of unionists broke away from the consensus within their community and made common cause with the vast majority of their nationalist neighbours, a united Ireland would follow.
In practice, the majority for unity would have to be considerably greater than that (ideally, there would be a strong majority in both communities) and it would have to be clear that the dissident unionist minority would accept the referendum result in a democratic spirit and refrain from violence, or at least be incapable of perpetrating more than a token level of violence.
Incidentally, at the time of writing, the two main unionist parties occupy only 54 or precisely half of the 108 seats in the Assembly. The remainder is made up of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance as well as two Independents from the nationalist or republican “gene pool”, one Green and one Progressive Unionist. Given the continuance of the powersharing administration in the North, who knows how the unionist mindset might gradually start to shift and reassess the constitutional position? The functioning and performance of the North-South bodies could have a major influence in this regard.
The most obvious caveat to this is that whilst unionist turn out at elections is generally lower than those of nationalists, when there is a large set piece, such as the 1998 referendum it’s probably wise to add the odd 100,000-150,000 on the usual number. The other problem lies with northern Irish nationalism. Whilst there is no doubt that it has suffered political humiliation over the years, it is also clear that through the years of the troubles this has hardened into form of cultural contempt for unionists and unionist culture.
It makes Gerry Adams statement yesterday:
“We accept that we have to persuade the unionists of the merits of that. After all it is incumbent on us who have a republican view of the future in which citizens are sovereign to ensure that those citizens who are currently unionists have a sense of shaping that future, a real involvement in it.”
Except, there is little sign that this (post peace) process has as yet taken on much substance. In the past there is little doubt that Sinn Fein’s outreach has pre-dated any significant move in the other direction. But it has had little effect other than hardening unionist attitudes. Residual nationalist attitudes in Northern Ireland’s largest nationalist city Derry, still focus unremittingly on the democratic up to and including 1969, with little reference to the massive population shifts that took place in the 1970s and 1980s.
The growing bond between north and south is economic, rather than political. Farmers in the in south and west sell increasing amounts of their milk yield in the Republic. The Fivemiletown Creamery gained access to a high level retail market in Paris of all places, partly through the good offices of the southern government.
Critically all of the positives are genuine trust building exercises. There is no politics, directly, involved. Yet, as Frank Millar notes in the last lines of unionism in the newest edition of his book on Trimble, “they need not “expect Irish Republicans and nationalists to take and sustain the cross community initiatives necessary to stabilise and secure Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom”. Northern Irish nationalism, if it is serious about eventual unification, needs to find its own ways around the polarisation of the last forty years.
To do that, it needs more than fine or pretentious words. It needs to demonstrate its intentions with positive and visible actions.
“Unionism’s intransigence and unwillingness to look at the benefits of a united Ireland stems ultimately not from any actual cultural chasm but from the lingering vestiges of power that they had in fact for 50 years and in effect for a further 20/30 throughout the 20th cent”
Might also not be unrelated to 70?,100? 300? years of roman catholic republic murder gangs adided and abetted on occassion by catholic clergy and govts of the 26
Add the the support (tacit or direct) of these gangs by the catholic community, stir in treatment of the benighted prod in the 26 after
partition– what part of no fucking way do you not understand
Greenflag
I agree with your argument in respect of repartition. That’s why I suggest that an alternative method of achieving Irish reunificatiohn is needed. It is a nonsense that Irish unity is the only possible outcome of the Good Friday Agreement. In my opinion Nationalists should have been pushing for repartition in 1998 and should still favour it as the best option.
I post my plan summary as follows:-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In early 2004 A.D., we are faced with the reality that Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party are the largest parties in each of Northern Ireland’s two communities. These are the two parties who have been most sectarian and most extreme over the period of the Troubles, and who will find most benefit from the demographic boxing ring that is Northern Ireland now. My prediction is that the fortunes of theses parties will rise and rise until a definitive poll results in a united Ireland.
Repartition is a highly likely outcome of a Nationalist majority in a referendum conducted after years of a Sinn Fein demographic strategy. That may happen together with or after a civil war.
Thus, the Northern Ireland state has no meaning any longer other than to contain a battle between the two communities that will inevitably result in some form of civil war.
In my opinion, with Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams under pressure to act responsibly, and sending out signals of good intent, this is the best time in a generation to attempt to bring about radical change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.
The goal of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland is a united Ireland, and in this document I map out a path to that unity through the use of repartition.
Repartition is defined as the redrawing of the border to accommodate the wishes of a majority in the border areas for unity with the rest of Ireland.
How will this bring about a united Ireland? I believe that once the majorities along the border indicate their willingness to leave the United Kingdom, then the whole house of cards may collapse and the unionist community may seek a new accommodation with the rest of Nationalist Ireland.
This will happen through a variety of measures, the first of which will be the support of Derry City Council for a referendum in their area in favour of a new alliance with the Republic. It is anticipated that the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday, which is to report soon, will be interpreted to indicate that Derry people no longer see a role for themselves in the UK.
Once Derry City Council decides to pursue a path to unity with the rest of Ireland, then other councils with a Nationalist majority are anticipated to follow, until the entire border region is enveloped in a desire to leave the UK.
At this point pressure will be brought to bear on the British Government to hold a referendum on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland in order to decide whether it should remain within the UK.
With the sword of Damocles of repartition held over the head of unionists, with the certainty that they will lose a significant part of their state even if they win the referendum, the unionist community will be more amenable and open to the arguments for the reunification of Ireland.
This gives Nationalists the best opportunity of actually winning that referendum, and bringing about a new, united Ireland. The referendum is anticipated to be fought in accordance with SDLP policy, which proposes such a referendum.
At worst, this plan frees large swathes of Northern Ireland, bringing many Nationalists into the Republic. At best, it creates a united Ireland.
For the details of my plan, click on my name below and then on “An Irish Velvet Revolution”.
Mick: “Residual nationalist attitudes in Northern Ireland’s largest nationalist city Derry, still focus unremittingly on the democratic up to and including 1969, with little reference to the massive population shifts that took place in the 1970s and 1980s.”
Fucking groundhog day. I have repeatedly demonstrated that Derry is way ahead in addressing just the population shifts you mention which were in any case significantly less than those in Belfast. You appear to listen, appear to accept that things are not as you believe, wait for a couple of months and then come out with the same old shite smears all over again. I’m copying this text so I can post it the next time. New readers can start here if they have nothing else going on in their lives of any interest or value.
I assume you mean democratic deficit by the way?
There can be little doubt of the ultimate intentions of the GFA. Of the two governments who are orchestrating its slow but steady implementation, one is attempting to engage with the subject territory and one is attempting to disengage. Why not just sign a treaty to hand it straight over in one big bang as early as 1970 when it would have been legally straight-forward to do so, a non-imformed, non-committed outsider might ask. Whether the violence would have been greater or less and whether the dust would have settled by now is anyones guess. It is now clear that although London took an official line of ‘mind your own business Dublin’ at the time it is now fairly obvious that NI was discussed behind the scenes in a manner of standard procedure. If you are prepared to speculate and join the dots so to speak it is possible to form the opinion that London was never thoroughly opposed to offloading Northern Ireland. It seems that the slowly but surely approach was traditionally prefered. Like the big hand of a clock, you can’t see it moving but you know the bugger’s moving alright best believe.
Little by little it seems London has been introducing the concept of Dublin involvment to unionists, inevitably inducing outrage, repulsion and unacceptable infringements on UK sovereignty but never enough of a seismic alteration to result in a level of violence that was not occuring anyway. They (the two gov’ts) used the same principle that a friend might advise you to employ when encountering their dog who might be a little less than social. As he strips his teeth and growls the friend might offer,’no sudden movements and sure he’ll be alright’.
The first real threshold was the AIA. Unionists had probably already felt that the south was a little to close to being involved. This agreement had made it official. The border was no longer hermetically sealed and never would be again. Unionists were indeed outraged like never before. Had it been tried 10 years earlier there probably would have been an almighty eruption. As it was there were was it a quarter of a million unionists gathered on the streets of Belfast to protest. But they had to accept it in the finish as much as it repulsed them. They were given 13 years to grow accustomed to ever increasing southern interference which culminated
in the GFA. This split the unionist community almost down the middle in stark contrast to nationalists up and down Ireland who warmly welcomed it. If the AIA had acknowledged southern influence the GFA had enshrined it. Ten years on and most unionists, even if they’re not happy about it, seem to accept that that influence is set to endure and indeed continue to grow. It seems to me that the two gov’ts are happy to proceed in this vein until Ireland is united in all but name confident that those who are opposed will, although hardly thrilled, find themselves increasingly and inexorably resigned to the inevitability of it all in much the same way all of us feel like we’re in the belly of a monster called Europe, another conquest by stealth. Of course Ireland will never be officially united as in one country, one state unless a referendum is passed in NI, lets face it its a formality in the south, but it will be in every other conceivable way I feel.
Kensei
Perhaps part of SF’s current lethargy is that they are left fighting what remains of the last war—Irish language act, controversies over symbols, fights about cross border cooperation
You’re thinking and almost there- SF’s fighting those insignificant short-term battles because they’ve no clue whatsoever how to push things onto the next level and are content to consolidate their present voter-base by giving the appearance that they’re the only party prepared to take on both locally the hun and on the wider stage, HM government.
The present leadership of Northern Irish republicanism is not up to the task of pushing the debate on; as long as they’re prepared to keep digging their trenches deeper, then the status quo stays.
Grrrrr, can I take back my bad language? Sorry.
doctor,
‘If nationalists must go further than securing a simple majority vote for a stable united Ireland, then surely it is incumbent for unionists now to set out their own stall to convince people outside of their usual constituency of the benefit of the union.’
That’s a small word ‘if’ I mean with a big meaning . Your comment ‘surely it is incumbent for unionists’ etc presupposes that unionists might in the light of demographic change see the writing on the wall . Not so . For many it’s still 1920 or 1965 or in a couple of months time 1690 . There won’t ever be a UI until there is a significant Irish nationalist majority in NI (not necessarily the same thing as an RC majority) and even then you can expect ‘rump’ unionism to attempt to do what it successfully /unsuccessfully (take your pick) did in 1920 .
john o’connell,
‘I agree with your argument in respect of repartition. That’s why I suggest that an alternative method of achieving Irish reunification is needed.’
Eh ? I favour a fair repartition administered by a neutral international agency . I looked at your site briefly . Once I saw ‘revelation’ /’I am the Christ ‘ and Medugorge I instinctively switched off .
I favour ‘repartition’ for practical political reasons not for ‘religious’ ones . BTW your faith in the British Government following up on what Mr Brooks said in 1990 is somewhat naive -imo
What of the practicalities of people who consider themselves Irish in Belfast and counties Antrim and Down? I shouldn’t ask, but I have to know how that fits in.
Greenflag
BTW your faith in the British Government following up on what Mr Brooks said in 1990 is somewhat naive -imo
What alternative do the British government have? They can only enslave the Nationalists and prostitute the unionists for so long. I imagine that US power would persuade them to honour Mr Brooks words if they become frisky.
But genuinely it’s not about what the British do or the unionists, my plan is about what we as Nationalists do.
To most of those who understand demographics the argument was spent after the 2001 results. The “Catholic community background” figure *will* be greater in 2011 than 2001 but the increase will probably be less than a single percentage point. This is not just based on extrapolation from 2001 and assumptions, you can look at the Labour Force Survey reports published between 2002 and 2007. Much smaller sample size but because they are quarterly you can smooth out a trend line. The increases are miniscule, and we already know that the CCB proportion has shrunk below half in the younger age bands since the days of the early 1990s when there were more CCB births than PCB births.
Whether or not there will ever be 50%+1 for a united Ireland there will almost certainly never be a 50%+1 CCB population in Northern Ireland, whatever happens to the PCB proportion. In fact it is more likely that the CCB total will shrink between 2011 and 2021 than rise extrapolating current underlying trends. The “others” from the census were in reality more PCB who put done their religion as “no religion” as well as their religion brought up in as “no religion”. This is a reflection of how secularisation is more advanced amongst those of Protestant background than Catholics.
The best guess would be that the CCB will peak some time in the early 2010s. Because *everybodies* TFRs are dropping though there will be no dramatic swings like in the past. Immigration judging by the LFS reports is not having much of a net effect. A few extra Catholic Poles, a few extra Protestant Latvians, but don’t forget our mainstay source of immigrants England and Scotland. Altogether the net effects are a fraction of one percent of the total difference.
The safest assumption for all is that the relative proportions of PCB to CCB will stay much as they are now for the next two or three decades. Nothing dramatic is going to happen in that time frame.
Recif,
thanks for your answer and I bow to your superior knowledge on this subject but… when I last looked at the lastest census figures it showed a higher percentage of CCBs in all age groups below – from memory the mid 2Os and certainly the low 20s age groups to birth. Assuming this statement to be correct then surely this means numerical superior CCBs will reult. What am I missing that explains why this will not happen?
Based on what you said above the key statement you make is “we already know that the CCB proportion has shrunk below half in the younger age bands since the days of the early 1990s when there were more CCB births than PCB births”
Are you basing this on last census figures?
It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it,
I know I was brought up to strongly disapprove of the use of such words which are very sectarian and indeed I would not let my children say such things but “The Year of the Fenian” is such an excellent phrase I need to congratulate you.
|”With the sword of Damocles of repartition held over the head of unionists, with the certainty that they will lose a significant part of their state even if they win the referendum, the unionist community will be more amenable and open to the arguments for the reunification of Ireland”
WHAT?? the unalloyed joy at the prospect of “the border areas” getting their just deserts by being incorporated into the ROI is only exceeded by the delight at the expression on the faces of those in the ROI who then have to deal with them-bring it on ASAP—-PLEASE
You are forgetting about “others”. From memory, the lower ages as at the day of the 2001 census had a peak of CCB at around age 10 (the people who are now leaving school) of 52% which then decreased at each age going downwards until it was about 46.5% at age 0. The PCB in the same comparison falls back from about 47% to 46.5%. The gap is in “others”. By “others” is almost entirely meant people who were on the form as religion = none and religion brought up in = none, i.e. nonreligious people who had nonreligious parents. In reality these are proportionately more often PCB than CCB because secularisation amongst “Protestants” is at a later stage. At least we can tell that more of them attend Protestant schools.
Other evidence from DENI shows that there are now more primary school children enrolled in the “Protestant sector” than the “Catholic sector” and that is also true in secondary schools (though the correlation between that and community background is less good). It is pretty safe to say that as of now <50% of new births are to CCB mothers, though that probably occurred quite some time ago, arguably even more than a decade ago. Whether >50% of births are PCB is somewhat more arguable and also to a certain extent depends on definitions.
There is still a slender CCB majority amongst school leavers / new voters at about 52% of the total, but it is falling back and I would expect it to become <50% by about 2011. While the CCB proportion of the population will probably peak in the early 2010s the CCB proportion of the *electorate* will increase a little more until a few years after that, but this is all glacially slow stuff. The reason it is slow is that TFRs have fallen across the board so it’s more to do with death rates than previous birth rates now. TFRs are also presently very, very similar between both communities. CCB fertility has fallen at a faster rate than PCB fertility but it is still unclear whether it will actually “undershoot” it in the long term. All we can say is that at the moment the number of children the average CCB woman has is very similar to a PCB woman.
The Labour Force Survey measures the 16+ population and judging by it the shift from PCB to CCB will only be about 1% between 2001 and 2011. However in terms of the overall population, including 0-15 year olds it will probably be a bit less than that. That’s the kind of figure we can expect from the 2011 census – something like 45% CCB, 52% PCB 3% others, i.e. basically no change, but the “others” might increase a bit to perhaps 4% probably eating into the PCB number more than the CCB. The PCB total will probably still be above the “magic number” 50%, PCB has not fallen back that far in the LFS data so far anyway, and we don’t have that far to go now until 2011.
As to what may happen between 2011 and 2021 it is unclear but a drop in CCB and increase in PCB is actually quite possible. If not then a drop in *both* would probably be most likely. The whole thing will be muddied by “others” and how they’re defined though.
Overall, this shouldn’t really be a shock when we consider that the growth in CCB between 1991 and 2001 was only 1.8% and we know the forces behind it are slowing. If you asked me to pick a number for the CCB increase between 2001 and 2011 I’d guess something like +0.75%. Then between 2011 and 2021 it might even be a decrease.
I know the details are tedious but really there is a lot more data out there to use for prediction than people realise. The LFS was a good predictor for the 2001 results contradicting the excessive predictions then and I don’t see why it won’t be again.
Overall I’d say that *any* change, whatever it’s direction, will be slow and we will be living in an almost equally divided society for decades to come. I would also say that, examining all the evidence, there is no good reason to suspect that there will be a 50%+1 CCB majority at any future point and good reason to think that there won’t be. So nationalists will also have to accept that achieving a united Ireland will involve convincing a chunk of the PCB population to support it if it is going to happen. I suspect that it may take the 2011 census for this fact to sink in amongst some nationalists. The 2001 census alone does not appear to have done the trick amongst some who still appear to believe that birth rates can bring a UI.
Recif,
as it transpires both of us are relying on memory it is interesting that each of us remembers different things which may suit our own ideology -me fitting the description of Republican lite. I will investigate and re-post when I have the facts – so dont go away.
Turgon
as a big fan James Connolly I was totally appalled (well only a little bit really)at your description of him as a terorist but loved the idea of the pulling of the communication cord at the station on the other post.
The word “Fenian” which to many Catholics would be a compliment (one willing to fight for Ireland) has a different meaning when issued as a threat by a loyalist probably indicating that as identification has taken place there is now sufficient grounds for throat cutting or some other unappelaing behaviour. It is similar to the N word which is now popular between youngs blacks but who would not be keen to hear it spoken to them if they happened to find themselves isolated in Albabma or similar.
Recif,
I see the website address containing the figures is not now availble – I downloaded the figures at the time but only I have the Belfast figures as shown below – where the PCB appear to pass out the CCB somewhere in the age range of of 25-29.
Not sure how to extrapolate to Non Iron as a whole.
0 is 51% CCB of total.
0-4 is 53% CCB of total.
24 is 53.4% CCB of total.
25-29 is 49.2% CCB of total.
Over age 60 the CCB falls and stays below 40%
Recif – massive in and out-migration – huge effects not measured at all in your Maths. Hell knows how they will vote (when given citizenship) but effect on Catholic % is profound.
Dewi,
immigration effect is presumably post 2001 – guess only significant in last 5 years – what way they would vote would be interesting to know – there may has been some work done on this by one of the Universities.
Greenflag,
“That’s a small word ‘if’ I mean with a big meaning . Your comment ‘surely it is incumbent for unionists’ etc presupposes that unionists might in the light of demographic change see the writing on the wall . Not so . For many it’s still 1920 or 1965 or in a couple of months time 1690 . There won’t ever be a UI until there is a significant Irish nationalist majority in NI (not necessarily the same thing as an RC majority) and even then you can expect ‘rump’ unionism to attempt to do what it successfully /unsuccessfully (take your pick) did in 1920 .”
Again, I’m in agreement with you. I’m not arguing that unionists WILL recognize the need. Many people, both on this site and in general, stress the need to make a united Ireland comfortable for a unionist minority. I don’t disagree with that notion, but I get the impression that some people think that Willie Frazer holding a one-man protest outside the Dail would be enough to collapse the whole deal. My argument is that if nationalists are expected to make the terms of a united Ireland sufficiently appealing to unionists, then the reverse should be true as well in regards to nationalists living in a Northern Ireland that remains part of Britain. All I’ve seen is a couple of Alex Kane articles that vaguely talks about the “overwhelming” case for the union but never actually goes anywhere with it. Where is the “nationalist engagement” from any unionist party?
One of the prevailing points some people are using against a 32-county Ireland is the fact that some people won’t like it, even if outvoted within the North itself. In other words, hyped up fears about a theoretical “Unionist backlash”, despite the fact that we have had a very real nationalist backlash for eighty-plus years in the North.
I agree that if a nationalist majority in the north does vote for an end to partition, many unionists will suddenly try to move the goalposts by arguing for re-partition (or in Jeffrey Donaldson’s case a couple years ago, arguing that a majority of UNIONISTS would need to vote for a United Ireland!) Twenty years ago when David Trimble was a relatively obscure academic he wrote a paper arguing for repartition in the case of a nationalist majority. Which begs the question, why not do it now since there are large nationalist majorities in many parts of the North?
To most of those who understand demographics the argument was spent after the 2001 results.
I don’t think you can even have looked at the results with any attention. For 70 years after the 2001 census was taken, Protestants will be dying off in greater numbers than Catholics. Catholics are not breeding as fast as they used to, but it will take these 70 years before the great spurt of the 70s works its way through the population.
The forces which affect the Protestant/Catholic ratio are
1) Higher Catholic birthrate (now levelling off);
2) Higher Protestant death rate: good for another 63 years;
3) Higher Protestant emigration: why do Republicans control QUB Student Union?
4) Higher Catholic immigration: probably not significant as it takes at least a generation before immigrants take an interest in local politics;
5) Intermarriage.
I suspect you are basing your calculations solely on 1).
But the point is that if attention is focused on the Census, with no attempt to follow what is happening in the political arena, you can fall into enormous miscalculations. The data with regard to “No Religion or religion not stated” has been comprehensively miscalculated. There are a number of constituencies: South Belfast springs to mind: where comparing the votes cast in 2007 and the census returns demonstrates that the Unionist vote is exactly the same as the % of Protestants registered in the census. The not-staters, if we accept the theory that all or nearly all Protestants are voting Unionist, can only be voting for Centrist parties (and more than half of them transferring to the SDLP, according to the voting stats) or Nationalist ones.
As you get further away from Belfast, the possibility of not-staters voting Unionist rises, but even there the bulk cannot be doing so.
But the point is, that the increase needed for the Nationalist vote to become the majority is so tiny—I calculated it at 1,666 per constituency, and that is already well out of date—that the chances of it remaining so for ever are well, like the chances that the Labour Party will never lose another election.
‘What alternative do the British government have? ‘
The status quo a.k.a inertia -keeping the lid on – muddling through -the usual .
‘They can only enslave the Nationalists ‘
How ? Slavery is outlawed in the UK and in the EU!
‘and prostitute the unionists for so long.’
Not at all. Anyway it’s not the UK Government doing the screwing it’s the English taxpayer who’s been screwed by Unionist and Nationalist alike in NI.
‘I imagine that US power would persuade them to honour Mr Brooks words if they become frisky.’
Keep imagining . It’s not going to happen .
‘But genuinely it’s not about what the British do or the unionists, my plan is about what we as Nationalists do. ‘
Well now you come to the ‘nub’ and here you have to distinguish between Northern and Southern Nationalists . The latter are of course in favour of ‘unification’ in theory . It’s the practice part that they have a problem with and in particular with the financials required to take on a 70% public sector dependent economy such as NI never mind the political aggravation of having to deal with 800,000 embittered Unionists . Northern Nationalists are divided between those who would have liked a UI in 1920, 1939, 1969, 1998, 2007 and those who don’t mind waiting around till 2016 or 2116 or not in their lifetime if ever. It seems to be no longer a life or death issue for the few thousand on both sides who truly believed in their respective struggles .
There is no sense of urgency about Irish nationalism and in truth there does’nt have to be . Irish nationalism has ‘matured’ in the Republic and simplistic anti Brit cant is no longer acceptable. In NI there is still a transition going on between the leaders of Republicanism and the faithful former zealots with most now backing the pragmatic leadership.
The same has happened on the Unionist side .
Irish nationalism is historically a passive force .It has always been a reaction to the failure of Westminster to devolve more local power to Ireland . Once the Free State was established the ‘sting’ went out of it’s tail. Despite the half hearted efforts of some within FF in the 60′s to revive the 32 county Republic ‘dream’ the pragmatists under Lynch , Reynolds and Ahern have won out . It’s unlikely that all strands of Irish Nationalism will ever be ‘united’ in the active pursuit of a UI. Such a unity could only come about if Unionists lost a ‘referendum’ on Irish unity and refused to consider a fair repartition of NI as a compromise .
Repartition is not a path to a UI . It’s effect would be to remove such a possibility i.e a UI to a very remote future . This would enable the 85% of the population of an enlarged Republic to refocus on the increasing challenge of maintaining and improving our economy in an ever more competitive global environment.
Unionism would be just a ball and chain dragging the Republic down a never ending cul de sac of backwardness and sectarianism .We can do better without IMO.
Why should Irish nationalists try to please British nationalists? Surely Irish nationalists should make Northern Ireland unbearable to live in for British nationalists so that some renegotiation is sought regarding the constitutional arrangements. Basically Irish nationalists should object to every manifestation of British or loyalist culture at every opportunity so that a potentially more sympathetic south might look more attractive!
Paddy,
That’s a rather naive take on the demographic issue. Leaving aside the long time frame (in which social change will likely unwind in all manner of unforeseen ways) you are assuming a close 100% vote by NI Catholics for a united Ireland.
In my experience, groups of people, even highly homogenous ones, don’t vote for anything in solid 100% blocks. Even the most successful campaign (like the southern referendum on the Belfast Agreement) are doing well to get a 90%.
If you are relying on demographics, you can stick another 50 years on to your 64 years: at least!
jonny,
Simple. We are in a Prisoner’s Dilemma, from which there is no foreseeable egress. Negative stratagems reduce the rewards for everyone. We had 40 years of ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ politics – that’s nearly two generations – and the verdict, in the end, from nationalism seems to run along the lines of ‘offer it up’.
Back in the summer of 2002, when (Slugger was young) we seemed to be brewing up to the October bust up, Brendan O’Neill observed that under the contentless drift of the process at that time, people were turning to bigotry rather than politics:
“The Irish peace process has division and instability inherent within it. With its aim of containing the conflict rather than resolving it, the peace process draws the political parties into a dialogue without resolving any big political questions or fundamental differences. And as political questions move down the agenda, so cultural and purely sectarian conflicts have risen to the fore.
“With the national question off the agenda, and the conflict robbed of its political content, all sides in Northern Ireland are turning to culture and identity. The peace process is not about resolving the conflict but about ‘celebrating cultural diversity’ – not about overcoming the divisions between Catholics and Protestants but about recognising those ‘cultural differences’ and respecting them.”
That’s a rather naive take on the demographic issue. Leaving aside the long time frame (in which social change will likely unwind in all manner of unforeseen ways) you are assuming a close 100% vote by NI Catholics for a united Ireland
I am assuming no such thing. Given that other people want to use the Census as a predictor for voting behaviour, I am obliged to point out when their arguments are fallacious. I myself have never started by arguing that the Census proves this that or the other. For a start, it has not been filled in sufficiently thoroughly for it to predict anything, except by close scanning of the electoral results and comparing with same.
As I have already said, the close correspondence between the percentage of Census Protestants and Unionist voters in several constituencies gives substance to the theory that they are related, though it does not prove it. This in turn leads us to suppose that the Religion-not-stated school are not Unionist voters, though not all of them could be Nationalists. Equally, we would not expect a 75% Protestant constituency to return a Nationalist Candidate, or a 75% Catholic one a Unionist one. There are bound to be exceptions, but they ordinarily seem to cancel each other out. But, in the context of a secret ballot, we can’t really say that we know this to be true, however much in out heart of hearts we feel it to be so.
I am not, in the first instance, a Census sniffer. I follow the trend in elections, and the European Parliamentary ones I find to be the most instructive, because local issues are largely sidelined and the system of transfers forces the electorate to make its mind up on the national issue. The Assembly Elections do not in the first place seem to be far behind.
The sermon which follows your note to me indicates a firm grip on morality, but not so much on reality. Telling the inhabitants of Northern Ireland not to be sectarian is like telling children not to be childish. Or kippering your lungs with nicotine for 50 years and ordering them not to develop cancer. A state which is set up for sectarian reasons and on sectarian principles will never be anything but sectarian. It started with a head count and it will end with a head count.
My work I perceive as being to follow the lines on a chart along and predict when the great crossover will be. You may perceive yours as “celebrating cultural diversity” but to be perfectly honest I don’t see any. In Wales you would expect a Tory to speak in the Received Pronunciation but in NI there isn’t even a difference of accent. There is no culture. It’s just a grubby little power struggle on a load of tinpot councils which has roped in religion, 18th Century faction fighting and Scottish football clubs to form a spurious political identity. You might as well say that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil need separate countries.
I am interested in statistics, and their relationship to predictions: you may choose to regard this as inhuman: that is your right. You believe in—well you know best what you believe in, it seems to be something like the power of soothing words to effect reconciliation. I regard your last two paragraphs as sheer waffle: that is my right.
Paddy – turn your analysis onto the welsh council elections – far more interesting and avoid any flat earth stuff…
Turn your analysis onto the welsh council elections
Sorry I don’t have any data about the spread of RP in Wales which could be used to prove an upturn in the Tory vote. We’ll just have to wait and see.
at least it was a shorter response !! – we got dissoes in gwynedd u know
paddy reilly,
‘Telling the inhabitants of Northern Ireland not to be sectarian is like telling children not to be childish. Or kippering your lungs with nicotine for 50 years and ordering them not to develop cancer. A state which is set up for sectarian reasons and on sectarian principles will never be anything but sectarian. It started with a head count and it will end with a head count.’
Well Paddy I have to hand it to you for that very apt and sadly brutally true comment .As Biffo would say ‘that bates Banagher’.
If it does end in a head count I trust the ‘heads ‘ will still be attached to the rest of our respective jaffa and fenian bodies
we got dissoes in gwynedd u know
Pwy? Y Toriaid? Y Bedyddwyr?
*Baptists do it under water*
Llais Gwynedd – 28 candidates in Gwynedd
Mick
We are in a Prisoner’s Dilemma, from which there is no foreseeable egress. Negative stratagems reduce the rewards for everyone
The best overall strategy for the Prisoner’s dilemma when played repeatedly is tit-for-tat with forgiveness: in contrast to the single game version, it basically forces cooperation. Actually getting the Assembly running, rather than simply protesting Direct Rule, would under that analogy solve the problem.
“The Irish peace process has division and instability inherent within it. With its aim of containing the conflict rather than resolving it, the peace process draws the political parties into a dialogue without resolving any big political questions or fundamental differences. And as political questions move down the agenda, so cultural and purely sectarian conflicts have risen to the fore.
There is only one big political question: inside the Union or out? First up, Unionists entered the GFA negotiations that there would be no Constitutional change in Northern Ireland’s status as a result of the the negotiations, and that internal NI business would be “hermetically sealed” from the Republic (though today’s IFSC announcements does seem to be making a mockery of that). Even if that was not the case, the task of designing some Shared Sovereignty fudge that was actually workable and meaningful strikes me as fairly hellish. In that case, it’s a binary choice. How then could the situation be “resolved”, however much you talk about it, without defeat for someone?
kensei
Surely the answer is, that with self governance in NI and cooperation to NI’s benefit with ROI, that everyone is a winner?
Sorry, I thought I had included the original link to O’Neill’s piece: http://url.ie/bkl.
Note the year and the context. We now rely on a range of political representatives to deliver improvements in health, education, regional infrastructure, environment, social services, and fiscal balance.
There is a focus on content now, in way there wasn’t back in 2002. Devil’s work and idle hands made falling back into endemic kulturkampf if not inevitable then the politically expedient thing to do.
I have no problem with the stats thing. It is critical to policy making the world over. And deadly important for forward planning. But relying on a demographic shift which takes place over three generations (and probably more) as an engine for party policy is not clever (that is, if one is really serious about said policy).
I would further argue that this was the cornerstone of nationalist aspirations up to the moment in December 2002 when the speed of the gap-closing was demonstrated as being too slow to make a tangible difference in any politically meaningful span of time.
The question posed above is: what is to replace the ‘divine providence’ of demographic shift now it has proven to be a false trail? In other words, what is its Plan C?
Garibaldy asked: What of the practicalities of people who consider themselves Irish in Belfast and counties Antrim and Down?
I would like to hear the re-partitionists’ response to this question.
Very good Dewi. Llais as a party name has the merit of being totally unpronounceable to outsiders: and if Plaid and Llais were to re-merge, they could call themselves Pais. But they seem to be a Welsh version of the DUP: they mistake Gwynedd council for a sovereign state and do not realise that the financial strings are held elsewhere.
Relying on a demographic shift which takes place over three generations (and probably more) as an engine for party policy is not clever
While our politicians may boast that it was their efforts that have created the present situation, certainly an improvement on what has gone before, I think that we really have democratic shift to thank. Would Paisley have agreed to share power if there was still only one Nationalist MP in NI? Equally, though, demographic shift can be said to be responsible for the troubles in the first place. If the Catholic percentage of the population was stable, they would not have got uppity, nor would Unionists have been worried about them.
We are now at point where the Unionist vote stands at 48.6% of the total, and the Unionist representation, at Stormont, at 50% plus one Loyalist. Given that this advantage is based on no more than 31 votes in one constituency, I do not see that we need much of a Democratic shift to plunge us into a world in which Unionism is a minority voice. Admittedly, this means that the Alliance Party hold the balance of power, but more Nationalist orientated parties must learn to take one step at a time I say. Even the Alliance Party is subject to demographic change, moving from a “Let’s be fair to the Catholics so they support the Union” party to a “Not that interested in Gwailo politics” one.
I like the comment made by SF supporters about Nigel Dodd’s seat in North Belfast. “It’s not his seat: he’s just keeping it warm for us.” Whatever else you may say about them—and their candidate, they know the value of patience.
The supposed ‘three generations’ that this demographic shift is taking place over is a daunting prospect: but two and three quarters of them are in the past.
To return to the Welsh parallel: I think about 30 years ago I was talking to a minor Plaid Cymru politician, and told him I did not think much of his party’s chances. He said it was just a matter of keeping the ball rolling, that the nation would eventually follow them. I think, on the whole, the current situation indicates that he was right.
One should also be aware of a syndrome I acronymise as WTCLTE, won the census, lost the election. This was the Unionist experience in South Belfast in 2007. Census sniffers might think that 2002 put the lid on demographic change, but from the vantage point of 2007 things look quite different.
Mick,
That piece is deeply flawed. It confuses the reality that there are separate and distinct groups here with sectarianism. It is not the same thing. It makes an implicit assumption that there should and must be some kind of shared “Northern Irish” identity. The simple fact is that a “Northern Ireland” identity was never built, no ideas of integration or inclusion or civic society. There was Protestant Ulster. That is Unionism’s deep and enduring failure: building that kind of identity is about as tricky a task as trying to get a majority for Unity. Nationalism generally has shown no desire for it, and if anything has been moving in the other direction.
There are problems. The idea that separate identities means that it is impossible to mix, or that there must be some kind policing between the two groups *is* flawed. I was interested to here from my grandmother recently that the area she lived in when bringing my mum up was mixed. It’s hard for me to imagine because by the time I was growing up there was a peaceline behind her house and it was as Republican as you can imagine. Most people got on, though there were stories about a few that didn’t, and how things started going wrong in at the start fo the Troubles. She originally came from the Lower Falls, her and her sisters had all dated Protestants at one time or another, one of them married a convert from Tigers Bay. I didn’t really come into contact with t’other side regularly until uni. It struck me how deadening those walls were, and the fears they represent, in preventing the mix of people and ideas.
But the idea that it represents improvement to mix a patchwork of orange and green to get brown is beyond me. Improving attitudes, understanding and respect doesn’t require we give up a piece of ourselves. And I despise anyone that preaches that a hundred times more than the hardest of hardcore Unionist. It’s a net reduction, making the world a less interesting place.
In relation to demographics, there are a number of points here:
1. Nationalism has been too tied up over the past decade to really look at distant shores or really reassess. Energy that would otherwise have been used in the developing ideas towards unity (and health, and education etc) have instead been eaten up in the Process.
2. Nationalism is quite content to take the long view. A lot of Nationalists if told that they could have a United Ireland within three generations by doing nothing and sitting tight would probably quite happily take it.
3. I think it will take another census to kill demographics stone dead. There are too many variables and hints that last time numbers were massaged as not to frighten Unionist horses for it to be completely buried.
Cowan and Robinson, are meeting today. That’s quick, isn’t it.
Is it possible that some members of the Orange community could ever envisage an all-Ireland situation for the good of the island? Could they ever imagine the day when the Unionist community are having their say and contributing to the betterment and welfare of the whole of the island.
It is very possible that the NI British community would get a far better look-in within an all-Ireland context than they do with London, no doubt, the big Ulster voices would champion their cause in an all-Ireland assembly. How about if Stormont wasn’t abandoned either but could be maintained as an Ulster assembly for Ulster’s unique people.
And I can’t see why in any way the British Protestant lifestyle should diminish, as Unionists fear. It would be carry on as usual, ie Oaths of allegiance, Orange parades, British Royal visits, Rememberance ceremonies, schooling, sport, culture, etc…and I’m sure Royal visits would not only be limited to Ulster alone but throughout the whole island. The link with Britain no doubt would become certainly stronger.
There were 2 prominant members of the Orange Lodge, (Grand Masters, if I remember reading), George Ogle and John Claudius Beresford, who opposed the Act of Union and championed the cause of an independant Ireland! One of them said, (can’t remember which one) that the Union would be detrimental to Ireland’s nationhood….or words to that effect.
Just remebered that another old bean was a proud Gaelic Orangeman, Richard Routledge O’Kane.
Imagine the possibility in the future, of Orange parades with a Union flag and Irish Tri-Colour on display as well as the odd cupla focal as gaelige. Of course we are now in the realms of make believe!
I think it will take another census to kill demographics stone dead.
You just don’t get it, do you? The relevant demographic change is evidenced by elections, and by elections alone. Imperfectly completed censal data on the uptake of sacraments, etc, may allow us to formulate theories as to how this is happening and why, and opinion polls may also assist in finding out what people really think, but you do not use the polls, or the census, to refute the elections.
And when we come to the elections we find that since the introduction of Fair Employment the Unionist vote has been giving ground at every election. We are now at the position where there isn’t much ground left to give. Will it take three generations for the Unionist vote to come down by 30,000? I don’t think so.
Paddy
I get it. It’s the elections that worry me. The SF+SDLP percentage was 39.6 in 1998, 40.5 in 2003 and 41.4 in 2007. There is maybe another percent in RSF, Deeney and other independents, but the rate rise does not seem quick enough. Over the long term Nationalism will make more gains, Unionism will lose more seats and lose the majority but the balance of power will (ugh) be held by Alliance.
New ideas required.
Paddy,
I’m afraid kensei is right. Reading the electoral performances of the various parties may (or may not) be a better indicator of likely outcomes than the census. If I recall correctly, the 2003 election saw something 70% turnouts in SF wards compared to an average 50% in unionist areas. That suggests that unionism’s problem is that its electorate is less politicised that nationalists. Higher turn out in West Belfast might have got Diane Dodds her seat at the expense of Alex Attword, for instance.
That’s a problem unionism clearly has to address in the future, but it’s not necessarily a fatal flaw.
A major set piece on the constitution is a problem of a completely different order than election of representatives. A border poll, I would suggest will see two new variables come into play:
- the radicalisation of both sets of voters, but in this, Unionism probably has by far the greater excess capacity. Some estimates suggest that between 150,000-200,000 unionist voters turned up for the Belfast Agreement referendum, who don’t commonly vote.
- depending entirely upon the circumstances, there is likely to be a drag amongst middle class Catholics. Like the guys who used to declare they were voting labour to the pollsters and who actually voted for Thatcher, they aren’t likely to be a big proportion, but provide enough of a spoiling effect to make a difference to the outcome.
As Kensei says, these are just some of the variables that come at first glance. It is impossible to quantify how they would play out in reality. Suffice to say, you are being way too kind to your own theory to believe that everything will remain the same, and that you are only looking for an extra 30,000 to make the difference.
It’s a poor excuse for not actually articulating a strategic means for your stated (and endlessly restated) ends.
Mick
I’m afraid kensei is right. Reading the electoral performances of the various parties may (or may not) be a better indicator of likely outcomes than the census. If I recall correctly, the 2003 election saw something 70% turnouts in SF wards compared to an average 50% in unionist areas. That suggests that unionism’s problem is that its electorate is less politicised that nationalists. Higher turn out in West Belfast might have got Diane Dodds her seat at the expense of Alex Attword, for instance.
I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on “spare capacity” within Unionism. The GFA was ten years ago now, and we’ve heard repeatedly about the missing Unionists and how this time will bring them out. But they are never seen. And a lot comes down to the particular constituency; SF got 70% out in WB in part because it needed it. There are still plenty of Constituencies where there is a nationalist majority and no hope of it being overturned, which naturally depresses turnout. And if Nationalism is more politicised, then it is much more likely to pull those people out.
There is always the possibility that the garden centre Prods just don’t care about the Union, or sections would be content with a more business friendly Republic. It would be interesting to see how the Irish Government would weigh, the only Nationalist actor I could see having any kind of influence outside of Nationalism, and then only if economic performance in the Republic remains broadly good. I don’t think any of this can be said with authority until there is a referendum and it looks close. That type of things tends to sharpen minds and debate and is one of the reasons Unionist parties don’t want to run the risk in Scotland.
The 2001 census figures appear to provide a fairly good basis for projection of populations by community backround and therefore of projected support for a UI.
A fairly simple demographic model would show the year that the CCB (catholic community background)voting age numbers would overtake PCB or indeed fall short. Other vairables would have to be applied to this model, such as immigration trends and the tendency for for a community background to vote for ‘the others’ or non designated. I’m not sure this work has been carried out, possibly because I missed it or possibly because this analysis has not been made?
The figures I posted above for Belfast show that CCBs were in a majority from 0 to probably 27 or 28 as in 2001. Not being a statistician myself that would suggest that in certainly under 40 years there will a CCB majority with allowance needing to be made for persons under voting age and higher death rate ( due to an older age profile) of PCBs.
If as was suggested above it was started by head count and will end with head count then surely someone should do (has done ) the sums.
And as we are on the subject of breeding then we must recognise that size (of population) is most definitely important.
It was kinda a bit uncanny too the way there was somewhat of a delay for the last NI census figures. Maybe a second look at the statistics was required!
The delay was because of foot-and mouth outbreak in 2001.
Greagoir ,
‘It was kinda a bit uncanny too the way there was somewhat of a delay for the last NI census figures.’
I was wondering where Mr Mugabe got his new strategic delaying tactic .:)
Greenflag – There’s a plethora of them in the Misruler’s Handbook!
Ian,
My recollection was that they were going to announce it August 2002, but it was delayed. Yours is the first explanation I’ve heard for that delay. Let’s just say that the Census office seemed strangely uncommunicative at the time. It allowed a massive head of near hysteria build up with some wildly inaccurate guesses making their way into the public domain.
My own suspicion then was it was being played out for news management purposes. Although I’ve no evidence that it was, it still seems a reasonably plausible scenario.
“Eh? I favour a fair repartition administered by a neutral international agency.”
Your entire repartition fixation is based on the notion that this is possible, but it isn’t really.
Firstly, who is to decide what a “neutral international agency” is? The UN? Nah – Britain has a UN veto, Ireland doesn’t. Who do you suppose would fulfil this role of “neutral international agency”?
Secondly, what would a “fair” repartition be? How would you judge this “fairness”? What on earth makes you think that anyone in NI gives a damn about the “fairness” of where a new border would be? Do you think that those finding themselves on the “wrong side” of the new border would give a stuff that they’d been left stranded “fairly”?
Quite aside from the politics, economics and indeed morally of the thing, the logistics of repartition are such that it simply isn’t a course of action that would be accepted by enough people as a “solution”. And if it isn’t a solution, then it has no purpose whatsoever.
I asked you recently to suggest where you think a new border should go, but you deflected the question by referring to the “neutral international agency” that you assume to be out there, ready to sort things out. But I’d like to challenge you to follow through on your repartition idea. Since repartition is, you will admit, a particular prominent theme in your contributions here, it seems reasonable to assume you have given some thought to where the new border might be – and presumably, you reckon this would be accepted by enough people as “fair”.
Any chance of the details?