Unionism and the mainland
Some thoughts on Unionism’s task on the mainland are offered on the Our Kingdom blog. The analysis argues that while the decision lies with Northern Ireland’s electorate Unionism cannot afford to forget about mainland establishment and public opinion. It argues it is a task the Unionist Academy should include in its strategic goals. However, this generational task faces a number of barriers such as general disinterest in unimmediate political issues, lack of resources and the need for a full-time Westminster team. It concludes that devolution could integrate Northern Ireland into national discussions in key policy areas if it is innovative and successful.
Doh!
Countless polls have shown that the British public that they neither care for nor understand the tribal antagonisms of the north of Ireland and would gladly be shot of the place and that’s before we consider the huge tax subsidy.
Since 1949 the British government has adhered to the ‘principle of consent’ (now enshrined in the GFA) so ultimately the views of the British public count for nothing.
The DUP can spout on about this Unionist Academy all they want but is a non-starter. The British (government and people) get nothing but grief from Norn Iron and well they know it.
The DUP may have recently saved the skin of a very unpopular prime-minister but in the greater scheme of things they count for nothing.
Mick
Try and bring something to the party. But its almost as though some of you cannot bear to sit down shut up and listen whilst people of a different view talk about the things that are important to them. It’s plain, old fashioned bad manners.
Trying to look at this dispassionately, but the damage to me looks done, and some of it looks done by Unionists themselves. “Ulster” exceptionalism was not driven by Nationalists. Unionism used their Parliament to resist the bits of the UK legislation they did not like: hence no comprehensive education, and I think I’m right in saying that Attlee had to force the NHS through here. Moreover, in steadfast refusal to talk to people or to shake people’s hands, and to always say no, they were easily painted as the nasty party of the North.
Added to that, the wider trends seem going against them, particularly in Scotland. The question seems to be settled in the mass of people both there and here: you can stay if you want. But there is a fair bit of anger in England at the subsidy to the Celtic nations and I’m not sure Unionists would be best placed to put their heads above the parapet at this point.
How to combat that? Even time Brown talks about “Britishness” he seems out of step and out of time; I’m not quite sure how Unionists can do it without appearing doubly so. The DUP just backed up a very unpopular government which might have been a power play in Westminster but seems poor strategy for winning hearts and minds. Being nicer and more open might help, but I simply can’t see any of the Unionist parties being a good vehicle for this: by definition they are exceptional. And in that sense, Unionism seems more distant from London than Nationalism does form Dublin. FF could come up and probably win seats, and in tally with the SDLP probably win ministries. Can anyone see any of the UK parties doing the same, at the moment?
Quite happy for ideas to be presented, no doubt as a few could be nicked and applied to North-South relations. But I honestly can’t see it at the moment — there looks to be as much danger as benefit in trying to change an equilibrium that is fairly stable at the moment.
picador: Who is going to bankroll this mini-Carsonia?
It would be cheaper to run than the whole six counties – by a very long way, I should think. Remember that the Dail already has some form in turning down the unappealing bits of the north back in 1925 – they would do it again, quoting principles to excuse themselves.
Guys,
Have a look at the quality of the discussion on OK, then look at the unfocused ranting that’s gone on here after the first page and a half.
I understand some of you hate unionism, and all its works. But FD and others have posited something of worth that’s at least worthy of considered debunking, rather than this knee jerking nonsense we’ve seen a hundred times before.
Instead of debating it civilly the focus of the thread has become the intolerance and incivility of (some) nationalists. Those who claim the epithet ‘republican’ but yet cannot tolerate and engage with others who hold opposite views to themselves are hardly republican by any reasonable definition.
Sometimes you do your cause more good by demonstrating you can listen to others rather than, like some pushy telesales hack desperate to make his quota by the end of the day, pushing your views relentlessly down the throat of others who simply want to have a civilised conversation about what they want to talk about.
(I’m sorry if this comes across as a bit urgent and rude, but most of you guys are capable of better than this pointless and serial bear bating).
Now do I have to take the Michael Longley ‘civilisation’ quote out yet again (as well as the clippers)?
In all honesty, I don’t see where the majority of “republican” responses here constitutes unthinking, hateful trolling. Does merely having a nationalist viewpoint disqualify someone from commenting on this particular thread? Not trying to be sarcastic, just genuinely confused. Pointing out the serious handicaps that some people feel unionism faces in “mainland Britain”, even if coming from a nationalist perspective, shouldn’t be seen as people coming on here just to screw with the discussion by their political opponents.
Based on the standards that are suddenly being asked for on this thread, it’s amazing the typical slugger thread manages to get past five posts.
“Greagoir O Frainclin, that’s what the republic did for decades. They treated Ulster as it’s whore, they gave it no finance over the troubles, yet they claimed we were their meat.”
So ‘Ulster’s my homeland’ – do ye think ye feel kinda screwed then. However, I think the ‘analogy’ you use doesn’t really do it. A sore point I know it may be, but we had no money at all to pay the whore. Besides the ride would have been lousy I’m sure. Hard and all as it may be, for you to understand, but us poor peasant priest ridden paddies in the ROI were far too insular and into putting ourselves down. And our Catholic guilt and shame prevented us so. Besides, the priests and government were screwing the Irish people!
The pimps in question that you should refer to instead were the IRA!
Volkswagen successfully rebranded Skoda in Britain but they spent millions on advertising and many billions on product improvement. Given that Skodas weren’t so badly thought of as Unionism, its hard to see this intiative getting anywhere. Unionist PR would have to be outstandingly good but, more to the point, their is no market for that particular product in Britain right now.
But best of luck, if nothing else it should give Unionists the chance to ask themselves “what are we about?” and that simple bit of self-reflection could have all sorts of wonderful spin-offs.
“their” should be “there”!
I think a great part of the problem is that unionism hasn’t tried, in my view, to forge positive meaningful relationships with other parts of the UK apart from London. The West East love in has been directed in London’s direction almost exclusively yet devolution has meant that there’s power also in Cardiff and in Holyrood.
Unionism could then learn something about valuing the diversity of culture within NI – including the Irish language – and value it as a positive rather than fear it as a threat. Sometimes, I feel, that Britishness is a very narrow concept as understood by NI unionists. Like the song goes, everybody wants a part of it but no one wants it all….
Have a look at the quality of the discussion on OK, then look at the unfocused ranting that’s gone on here after the first page and a half.
Contributor 1 said:
Irish Unionism has been fighting against a tide rather than for anything in particular since the 1870′s. It is now the very essence of Unionist psychology and politics. The tone of blog above is the same as fingertips clawing, refusing to let go, as they have been doing for almost a century and a half now (with a period of relief, 1922-66).
If Irish Unionism doesn’t engage in with the UK mainland after 150-odd years of existance, it is because the UK mainland is not the focus of attention of Irish Unionism. Irish Unionism is engaged soley in repulusing Catholic Irish control of Ireland, and not in asserting their ‘Britishness’ in a wider UK sense. If that was what Irish Unionism was about, why would Unionism have rejected Home Rule for (Catholic-dominated) Ireland in 1912 but accept virtual independence for a (Protestant-dominated) Nortern Ireland in 1920? Why would Unionist parties support devolution for Northern Ireland (albeit preferring not to share power with Catholics, if they could have avoided doing so) over direct rule in the 1990′s? Surely this is at odds with UK Unionism? In any other country that would be called seperatism. The focus of Irish “Unionism”‘s attention is not in maintaining the union, but in maintaining Protestant control over their ‘wee country’. The Union is merely a vehical to stave off that loss of power.
“The most obvious problem is the one that faces any UK campaign, the general indifference of the GB public to a wide variety of political issues particularly constitutional.”
What nonsense. Constitutional issues are to the fore of UK discussion on politics. The difference in this case is the same as has been Irish (nationalist) argument since the 19th century – the general indifference of the GB public to political issues relating to Ireland.
Contributor 2 said:
Again you’re pushing this Unionist Academy farce. It;s the DUP policy unit with a new name, you know this.
And a subsequent contributor described unionist think-tank as an oxymoron.
A bunch of hateful bastards, eh?
Mick, I know that in the wake of the 42 days vote you speculated that the Robinson-led DUP could become a player in UK politics (even to the predicting that they might run against David Davis) but the reality is as described above. British people do not warm to Irish fundamentalists no matter how many Union Jacks they can put to lampposts. They see them, correctly in my view, as being loyal to the half-crown, or as Harold Wilson said… oh never mind.
And in any case as Kensei pointed out earlier, the public do not respond well to the promotion of ‘Britishness’ and rightly see through any politician, such as Brown, who try to wrap themselves in the flag.
I predict that no respectable political organisation, and admittedly there aren’t many about, will associate itself with the DUP’s ‘academy’ and in six months time we will have forgotten about it.
“I think a great part of the problem is that unionism hasn’t tried, in my view, to forge positive meaningful relationships with other parts of the UK apart from London. The West East love in has been directed in London’s direction almost exclusively yet devolution has meant that there’s power also in Cardiff and in Holyrood.”
You’re probably right in regards to Wales, but I think that the DUP has made efforts with Scotland. I think in part this has to do with the traditional northern unionist affinity with Scotland more than anything else (and being closer geographically).
Frankly I think unionists forging a closer relationship with the other devolved governments is a bit counter-productive to unionism as an ideology, given the makeup of the current administrations in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales. In theory it would have better with the previous governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh. The SNP broadly speaking is far closer to Irish nationalism in regards to the Union and general outlook. In comparison, Ian Paisley justifying friendly relations with the SNP because they wouldn’t necessarily abolish the monarchy in an independent Scotland looks weak in comparison.
The Welsh and Scottish executives are pretty much in favour of gaining additional powers short of any eventual independence. Northern unionists actively reject some fairly important powers because of potential nationalist involvement or the general fear that these additional powers could lead to a weakening of the entire rationale for the Union.
Picador, I also checked out the OK blog and was likewise confused as to how the debate over there differed from most of the posts here. However, in fairness to Mick, I then noticed that those posts that have been removed on this thread were the ongoing one-liner types regarding “pigs” and “lipstick”, etc. If that is what is actually meant by unfocused raving, fair enough. I hope so. And now back to focusing on the topic…
@Oilifear
Perhaps I might try to help you understand.
Your concept of nationhood, based as it is on the philosophy of Romanticism,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism
is somewhat alien to most unionists, for quite the same reasons as it would be alien to Hobbes or Locke. Unionists, though I guess most would simply feel it in their guts rather than know it’s actual philosophical pedigree, tend to view nationhood in terms like that of a Lockean contract. A covenant between state and individual with mutual obligations going both ways based on implicit or explicit consent. As illustrated on the frontispiece of Leviathan literally a man made object, not just in the sense of being made by men but also in the sense of being made of men.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Leviathan_gr.jpg
Many would see an assertion that the island of Ireland can be established as a nation in some way through either empirical observation of geographical or historical or cultural facts, or perhaps through some a priori process of logic and definitions as being something that is unconvincing.
Perhaps a crap analogy might help – to my ears an assertion that the island of Ireland is a nation is like an assertion that the sky above a field is a flock of birds. First a small category error hit’s my ears. A piece of soil, rock and grass cannot be a nation just as a piece of sky cannot be flock of birds, however since de facto both are defined as bounded within those other categories by their other defining features, whether international law or the laws of physics, I can let that off as a small quibble and translate it into “the people on this piece of turf are a nation” or “the birds in this piece of sky are a flock”. Of course a few people on the turf might be foreigners or a few birds at the edges of the field not part of a flock, again a quibble so let it pass.
Now if 200 of the birds are flying to the north east and 800 of the birds are flying south south west then we’ve got a problem. That’s not a flock it’s two flocks. You can tell me that those 1,000 birds used to be a flock half an hour ago, that they’ll be a flock five minutes in the future, that the 200 birds were nasty to the other 800 and stole their bird seed yesterday, that all the 1,000 birds have a common call and waggly dance that they all use to communicate that no other birds have, that they are all the same colour with the same markings that no other birds in the world have, but none of that alters the fact that what I am looking at is two flocks. What makes a flock a flock? How do you know? Because they’re flying in the same direction. It’s not even their position in the sky that makes them two flocks but rather their mutual actions, what’s going on in their heads. Their co-operation.
In the same way you can tell me that the island of Ireland is an island, that the island was a nation, that the island will be a nation, that unionists treated nationalists badly, that unionists are treating nationalists badly, that nationalists treated unionists badly, that nationalists are treating unionists badly, that the potato famine was awful and wasn’t fair, that unionists and nationalists have a common culture that nobody else in the world has, that unionists and nationalists all have haplotype E44R2 on their Y chromosome and nobody else in the entire world has that or that they are together a unique race that 99% of humans can instantly tell from anyone else but cannot distinguish between, or that 30% of it is militarily occupied by Klingons who are imposing their own laws by force, but none of that makes a blind bit of difference to the question of whether the island of Ireland is a nation or not unless I look and see a Lockean social contract in operation, or something like it.
Like flocks of birds nations can be created and they can be destroyed. They are not eternal. The founding fathers of the USA created a nation where one had never existed before. They didn’t have a different culture or different blood in their veins or even really a different history, or at least to any extent that they did it doesn’t matter. They did it by making a mutual pact binding each citizen to the other. Similarly Scotland and England done a merger and (while many will be sensitive over the terminology) in my view became one nation.
This is why I don’t hold much truck with unionism when it tries to emulate the identity politics of nationalism with all this every sign with Irish must have Ulster Scots and the like. It misses the point. To me Britishness is not a “culture”. Britishness is not a “tradition”. What Britishness is is a contract. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean an impersonal unemotional legal arrangement, more like a marriage contract, but nevertheless a contract. A nation is not bound by ethnicity, even in the nicer senses of that word, it is bound by loyalty.
Picador, I also checked out the OK blog and was likewise confused as to how the debate over there differed from most of the posts here. However, in fairness to Mick, I then noticed that those posts that have been removed on this thread were the ongoing one-liner types regarding “pigs” and “lipstick”, etc. If that is what is actually meant by unfocused raving, fair enough.
Ah, that was one of mine Doc.
In fairness I think the ‘lipstick-pig’ analogy summed the ‘Academy’ proposal well – at the end of the day it’s a bunch of Paisleyites.
But some would call that raving.
Just as some would say that unionist think-tank was an oxymoron.
Nighty night
When:
I have to confess, the last two paragraphs were the only ones I read in their entirety.
Still, I think they sum up the point of your post.
“This is why I don’t hold much truck with unionism when it tries to emulate the identity politics of nationalism with all this every sign with Irish must have Ulster Scots and the like.”
I agree insofar as the Ulster Scots bit, as much of it seems more like an artificial reaction to Irish culture rather than a genuine culture. However, I still think it is possible for someone to consider themselves culturally Irish while being a unionist (even though I wouldn’t agree with it personally). Vehement opposition to Gaelic because it is seen as Catholic or nationalist is perplexing to me, given the non-partisan nature of indigeneous languages in Scotland and Wales. In that sense, I think it would be more appropriate for unionists to explicitly identify themselves as Irish unionists, rather than anti-Irishness essentially being a part of their core ideology.
Although I politically disagree with it, the way I see the Union is that is has been traditionally (and essentially still is) four “nations” joined as one. Yes, “Britishness” is meant to comprise many cultures; the problem with northern unionism (at least as it pertains to culture) is not that it might identify itself as a particular culture, but rather that is expends so much energy regarding various other cultures as anti-British.
This is the trouble with slugger. Everyone gets to post. It’s like voting, idiots do it all the time.
A unionist academy. Well, get on with it, let’s see what it has to say.
And knee-jerk nationalists. Please go and read the archives, and learn the arguments. Some of you are embarassing your own side – tá sibh cosúil le ronnacha beaga atá ag tógáil baoite an mangach mór.
When, try substituting the word ‘corporation’ for ‘country’ and then asking similar questions in a different format, e.g. what is a shareholder? Does he care if he makes a profit on his investment or if the corporation he invests his money becomes bankrupt? Does it really matter if the competition wins business from the company due to the management of it dreaming about flocks of birds flying in different directions instead of seeking ways to maximise profits, resulting in that company losing money and the competitors becoming richer and more powerful? Would he be wise to put the interests of his company before the interests of its competitors or should he smoke his crack pipe and conclude that we are all shareholders under a blue sky, ramming his knuckles on his Universal Karma Calculator to compute that if one shareholder in one corporation experiences a loss from competition then another shareholder in the competing company will experience a gain, so nobody really loses? A country, just like a corporation, is a group of people seeking to further their selfish interests.
If a nation controls a state, then that is a nation-state. What do you think existed when one nation controlled the state of Northern Ireland? A utopia that was merely a state of mind wherein a group of people formed a mental contract with each other but didn’t use the state to further its own selfish interest at the direct expense of the interests of the other nation, contriving to exclude that other nation from the operation of that state? Unionism is nationalism under a different moniker, i.e. a nation seeking to control a state, creating a nation-state, practicing nationalism. The particular brand of nationalism is practices are an expedient variant of British nationalism that is used as cover for its own malformed identity. Unionists have a nation-state fetish despite refusing to recognise it. They seek control over the state in order to protect their nation, being utterly paranoid that control of the state by their nation would be diminished if their vigilance was ever relaxed. Don’t bother claiming that Britishness isn’t nationalism because it is more than one nation or that NI isn’t a part of GB and isn’t properly a state. You can call it whatever you like, but your flock is quacking just like ducks.
Your paranoia is unfounded, and is baffling to the British. They don’t want your qualified loyalty because they recognise it as being predicated on serving purely selfish interests which they don’t embrace as being a part of their nation, its tradition and culture. This ‘contract’ that you mentioned cannot exist without those who serve their national interests, making their country rich – the English nation. They’re not dreamers pondering the nature of a country – they’re doers who make sure that their country successfully competes against other countries for international trade and inward investment, knowing full well that it matters most profoundly whether Germany or England is chosen as a location for that FDI. The other ‘lesser’ nations in GB are dependent on the success of the English. Your ‘contract’ is a mere cover for dependency – and there is no honour in that.
England will pull out of the EU within the next decade, and it will probably then examine further rationalisation of its constitution, so the union is by no means assured. If you want to be a part of it, then you will have to do so as a self-sufficient partner. The only way to impress the British is to show that you are capable of paying your own way. If you’re not, then you have no future other than being integrated into the Republic (on terms that suit the Republic) in a few decades hence. Beggars can only be choosers when kind hearts are a-plenty.
Mick
Frankly, I don’t see that many of the comments on this thread are that different from those on many other threads.
Anyway, to deal with the point.
I, frankly, don’t see what Unionism has to sell or offer the “mainland”.
I lived in London for many years and have English family. In my experience, the vast majority of UK people don’t understand or care about the North.
Unionism on the “mainland” is epitomised by the OO which is seen (quite rightly in my opinion) as a Unionist anti-Catholic anachronism in the 21st Century. I lived in London during the initial Drumcree disputes and, initially, most people laughed at the television coverage of the OO.
Then, of course, we had the widespread looting, rioting and murder of the Quinn children. It will take the OO years to live that down and, to date, their efforts have been pitiful.
While people in the UK are disgusted, quite rightly, by the actions of the IRA, they are much better educated about the 50+ years of Unionist mis-rule in the North and the massive discrimination suffered by the Catholic community.
They are also well aware of the atrocities carried out by “loyalists” such as the Shankill Butchers, Billy Wright etc. They are not oblivious to the crocodile tears of Unionist politicians over Catholic victims of “loyalist” terrorism and, indeed, to the close links between many Unionist politicians and “loyalist” terrorists.
The DUP may have bailed the govt out recently. However, the antics of Paisley over the years, McCrea, Peter Robinson, Campbell and, very recently, Iris Robinson have hardly improved the image of the North on the “mainland”.
There is still a strong perception on the “mainland” of NI Unionists as Bible Thumping, homophobic, bigotted, never-on-a-Sunday religious fanatics.
There is still a large element of DUP support that will ensure that image persists.
The plain truth, whether Unionists like it or not, is that the North has never been perceived on the “mainland” as being as “British as Finchley” and it never will be.
Most people on the mainland don’t give a shit about the North and, of those that do, the majority would happily be rid of it.
The coup de grace, of course, is the economy. The North is a drain on the UK Exchequer of billions each year. Like it or not, people from the North are perceived as “spongers” to quote Harold Wilson.
Apart from a few old right-wing Tories, there is little or no support for the Union (as it pertains to the North) on the “mainland”.
If you can produce any evidence to the contrary I’d be glad to see it.
The principle of consent is, of course rightly enshrined, in the GFA.
However, if + when the majority in the North don’t want to remain in Britain, I can’t see a major surge of public opinion on the “mainland” resisting it.
If the Unionist academy wants to educate people on the “mainland” to the benefits of religious fundamentalism, international embarassment, hypocrisy on “loyalist” terror and shelling out billions of Brtish taxpayers money to ungrateful people who will simply whinge and ask for more, then perhaps they may be able to build a massive pro Union with the North movement on the “mainland”.
Good luck with that!
I’m not a betting man but, if I were, I know where my money would be.
This Unionist Academy things is interesting….if Sinn Fein were given carte blanche to design a team to sell the benefits (i.e. paper over the cracks) of the union to the greater English public, they could not come up with a better mix than the craw thumping, bible bashing, homophobic, mysogynistic, xenophobic bunch of muppets on the DUP front bench.
On the DUP’s fitness to do this thing, they have two advantages: they have the popular support of Unionism; they are much more team players than their predecessors. Plus, as Robinson’s rather statesman like speech in New York a few years back, and his similarly broadly civil speech on taking office, I would say they understand that Unionism’s image has to be dealt with.
The Skoda analogy is a reasonable one. The only guy I knew who had ever bought one was an old communist friend, who did it as much out of social solidarity as anything else. It will never be mass market, but the niche brand is both respected and reliable.
We argued in A Long Peace? that Unionism would have to start looking outwards, that it needed to build relationships where they had previously been neglected. The UUs were always better at that (it was a relatively easy transition for Trimble to move into the Tory party since he was well socialised at Westminster).
Since Trimble went, and particularly since the departure of Paisley, people haven’t really known who Robinson is. They didn’t really care before, but since the 42 days vote, you can be sure they want to know more. In that respect this is a good moment for the DUP to launch a functional east west strategy. And something of a charm offensive.
One last thought: the kingdom is in flux. It’s making for very strange bedfellows. The Tories and the SNP for instance. If the SNP do as well as they can Labour is looking at an historically low representation in the Commons, and the Tories perhaps with up to a 200 majority. The DUP has a very very narrow window to demonstrate they have some intellectual capital to bare on what could be a very sticky constitutional problem in what could be a very very bumpy ride.
They have Westminster’s (reluctant?)attention: time to get something valueable in the shop window?
AS another person living in England for the past 20 odd year I totally agree with the post from Billy.
The English would jump with joy at the prospect of handing “Norn Iron” to someone anyone else.
The idea of “Unionists” in “Norn Iron” educating the Englush ion the joys of the Union would be treated like a Benny Hill sketch.
Mick
I don’t see anything on Our Kingdom to change my opinion. If anything it reinforces it. This exchange
“If Irish Unionism doesn’t engage in with the UK mainland after 150-odd years of existance, it is because the UK mainland is not the focus of attention of Irish Unionism.”
It has engaged with the mainland at various times in 150 years. It engaged successfully in the first home rule crisis with the House of Commons. It engaged successfully with the House of lords the second time. The Third home rule crisis it launched a substantial and successful campaign for public support. Then it unwisely put all its eggs in the Conservative basket – they took the Conservative whip and continued a formal organisational link as late as 1986.
The last time Irish Unionism successfully engaged with Britain was the Third Home Rule crisis? The world has moved on.
The Skoda analogy is a reasonable one. The only guy I knew who had ever bought one was an old communist friend, who did it as much out of social solidarity as anything else. It will never be mass market, but the niche brand is both respected and reliable.
How did Skoda do that? A big part of it was being bought out by Volkswagen and dropping just about everything and then working on changing minds. Substantive and deep change, possibly a change of organisation, followed by PR. Do you see?
Since Trimble went, and particularly since the departure of Paisley, people haven’t really known who Robinson is. They didn’t really care before, but since the 42 days vote, you can be sure they want to know more. In that respect this is a good moment for the DUP to launch a functional east west strategy. And something of a charm offensive.
Charm? They keep asking what bit of pork they got for it.
One last thought: the kingdom is in flux. It’s making for very strange bedfellows. The Tories and the SNP for instance. If the SNP do as well as they can Labour is looking at an historically low representation in the Commons, and the Tories perhaps with up to a 200 majority. The DUP has a very very narrow window to demonstrate they have some intellectual capital to bare on what could be a very sticky constitutional problem in what could be a very very bumpy ride.
There is a lot of maneuvering for tactical advantage but strategically, the Tories and the SNP are running straight into each other. Even Cameron more or less acknowledged it recently – http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2008/05/substantive_respect.html
Honestly fascinated by this. I just can’t see what the hell they are going to do.
The DUP has a very very narrow window to demonstrate they have some intellectual capital to bare on what could be a very sticky constitutional problem in what could be a very very bumpy ride.
I think that the DUP having ‘intellectual capital’ is a very contestable notion to begin with! All I see happening in the forthcoming bumpy times is the DUP playing the same game Molyneux played in 1994/6 to little long term advantage for unionism – he only succeeded in delaying the inevitable all party talks.
Ken,
‘Do you see?’
Yes.
“They keep asking what bit of pork they got for it.”
That’s certainly the Tory spin.
Dewi
Just look to the Basgue [sic] Country / Castillia [sic] for an example of stubbornness [sic].
Has the Basque Country ever voted for independence?
Mick
Yes.
In which case, where is Volkswagen? Where is the Octavia?
That’s certainly the Tory spin.
I’d say it’s more than Tory spin: certainly there’s a lot in the media asking the same question.
Well, here’s one – turn up:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/jonathan_isaby/blog/2008/07/04/absent_dup_on_their_moral_high_horse
Mick,
you talk about Strand Three but that is there to promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial
development of the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands.
If anything, this unionist academy looks awfully like a ham-fisted attempt to circumvent Strand Three and re-introduce the preferred exclusionary relationships of times past.
But even if we were to give it the benefit of the the doubt, what exactly could this unionist academy achieve that couldn’t be achieved by using the mechanisms available under Strand Three?
And also as I said earlier, what’s in it for Britain to indulge in such a practice?
“However, if + when the majority in the North don’t want to remain in Britain, I can’t see a major surge of public opinion on the ‘mainland’ resisting it.”
Quite the opposite. I imagine the overwheling majority joyously supportive of it. Not for the “drain” on the English tax payer that Northern Ireland represents – in 300+ years of English union that has never been anything more than a trivial issue for the people of Englad in respect to their attitude towards Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland, although one that has over raised it’s head when the English populous sense treachory among the appendages of the Union – but because the good-will of the people of England, Scotland and Wales is towards eventual Irish unity.
Any good ideas on the preservation of Northern Ireland within the UK would be too distinctive and too remarkable to be considered a part of the Unionism political brand. It would simply not be unionism.
Besides, FD you mention the need to create and innovate, if this can be done then attention will be drawn based on its own merits of having something unique of political, social and economic value.
The DUP nay, Unionism’s, stances have continually proven to be politically backward, very unappealing and of a thought below modern British politics. Unionism duly lacks any sense of cultural exchange and is therefore not worthy of praise either from the Republic or from inside Britain as a confident political model to aspire to.
When,
‘Like flocks of birds nations can be created and they can be destroyed. They are not eternal. ‘
Excellent post and thought provoking
I’m reminded of the flock of euro birds in the recent Lisbon referendum . One bird is flying in a different direction and questions are being raised as to it’s ‘bird’ status by the rest of the 26 members of the flock .
North Eastern Unionism albeit in the British context seems oddly familar to the southern bird in the EU context. A case of birds of a feather not flocking anywhere .
George,
“…looks awfully like a ham-fisted attempt to circumvent Strand Three and re-introduce the preferred exclusionary relationships of times past.”
Looks is the operative word there George. Since there are few unionist voices being heard on this thread, it can only give rise to nationalist fears about what it might or might not mean.
Fears like hopes are not necessarily the most reliable means by which to steer a ship. Strand Three includes the Belfast London axis. Would you rather that instead unionists went back to carping on pointlessly about North-Southery, rather than actually investing something in East-Westery? Because this sounds like the precise nationalist analogue to that tired old line: “don’t be nationalist, because it upsets us”.
Unionism has a duty to invest in its own big project, and lengthening the shadow of the future. Go back and read the 1987 pamphlet, ‘An End to Drift’. It’s absolutely in line with the ideas there that unionism cannot afford to ignore politics at the base of the state.
Of course, I don’t expect any nationalist to adopt anything but an oppositionalist view of that. But I was hoping for something little more literate by people who have taken the trouble to read little into the actual Unionist position.
Picador ,
‘The focus of Irish “Unionism“‘s attention is not in maintaining the union, but in maintaining Protestant control over their ‘wee country’. The Union is merely a vehical to stave off that loss of power.’
Point being that the loss of power is now so patently obvious that it can no longer be hidden behind the DR curtain . Everytime McGuinness speaks in public as DFM is a constant reminder tha the old order is gone .
‘Constitutional issues are to the fore of UK discussion on politics. The difference in this case is the same as has been Irish (nationalist) argument since the 19th century – the general indifference of the GB public to political issues relating to Ireland. ‘
Indeed . That ‘indifference’ however goes back a lot further than the 19th century . Not in fact until the Irish started speaking ‘english’ in numbers in the late 18th century did Westminster begin to pay any kind of attention to this island’s political status vis a vis Britain. By the time the UK lost the USA it was already well on the way to losing most of Ireland .
“Fears like hopes are not necessarily the most reliable means by which to steer a ship. Strand Three includes the Belfast London axis.”
C’mon on Mick, is not fear the tactic that the DUP used, used to capture the large part of the Unionist vote, all those fears proven false given where we are today and with whom. And you wonder why little unionists rally round this DUP Unionist Academy, they recognise they have been played and are fed up, both the hardliners and the modernisers.
At least hopes are positive, fears are negative and it is that stick which was used to not only whip up, but to beat scared unionists into submission.
You make mention of little unionist comment, that is because they are fed up being tortured by the very leaders who should have acted a good deal more mature in the face of sovereign-led change in order to understand both ‘base’ politics and appropriate direction in which to lead NI with stability and confidence.
Thank goodness for Blair and Ahern otherwise we would still be looking for an out, either via education or more likely heavy drinkng for want of the new politics.
Oh and here about this East-Westery that you laud, it was actually Peter Robinson who himself said it was nothing more than “a luncheon club for politicians”, how very fecking inspiring! DUP Academy my arse. Hypocrites Mick, damage done on all fronts to unionism by a very sore DUP style of litte Ulster politics.
Mick ,
‘Unionism has a duty to invest in its own big project, and lengthening the shadow of the future. Go back and read the 1987 pamphlet, ‘An End to Drift’. It’s absolutely in line with the ideas there that unionism cannot afford to ignore politics at the base of the state.’
In theory yes -in practice another matter . ‘Cannot afford ‘being the operative words .
Looking at ‘political unionism’ of the NI variety we see two main parties and some minor ones . This ‘political base’ representing some 1.5% of the total population of the UK is expected to or desires to forge/reinvigorate/innovate East West links at the same time as maintaining North South links, and both the above at the same time as holding together a ‘shaky ‘ Assembly Coalition hardly a year in office ?
Methinks some of us expect too much from ‘political unionism’ of the NI variety .
There is no question that the political debate in the UK re the future of the Union is pertinent for NI – I would just question whether that future will have much to learn or innovate from the NI ‘unionist’ experience . Both Scotland and Wales have entirely different political histories and experiences vis a vis the Union. And despite NI unionism’s – connections historically with Scotland – Scotland 2008 is not Scotland 1918 nor 1912 .
Mick,
Strand Three includes the Belfast London axis. Would you rather that instead unionists went back to carping on pointlessly about North-Southery, rather than actually investing something in East-Westery?
This seems more like an attempt at an East Belfast – London axis rather than anything envisaged under Strand Three, that’s the point.
Where is the logic of trying to build bridges with Britain that only half the population of Northern Ireland can or will use?
What are unionists looking to achieve by such a move?
Unionism has a duty to invest in its own big project, and lengthening the shadow of the future.
And the first thing it does is say that half the population of Northern Ireland don’t belong to this big project?
I believe it is fair to point out this rather large problem with such a policy.
Unionism cannot escape the realities of 2008, namely that any constructive influence they wish to wield on these islands will have to be done by representing Northern Ireland as a whole and not just their own constituency.
Go back and read the 1987 pamphlet, ‘An End to Drift’.
“An End to Drift” was as a result of the opposition to structures of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the idea that relationships between Northern Ireland and GB would involve more than just Unionists and GB.
The “End to Drift” concept failed and here we are 20 years later and we have a proposed Unionist Academy which this time appears to want to circumvent the structures of the successor to the AIA, the Good Friday Agreement.
It’s absolutely in line with the ideas there that unionism cannot afford to ignore politics at the base of the state.
And unionism’s starting point is to ignore the reality that it cannot wield influence unless it brings Northern Ireland as a whole to the table?
That to me is ignoring politics at its most basic level, the politics of the possible.
Dave ,
‘England will pull out of the EU within the next decade’
Nonsense . Firstly England is not a political entity -it’s still the UK. Secondly a look at British history over the past four centuries would show that Britain has never removed itself from the ‘european theatre’ in particular at any time when the ‘continent’ was uniting whether it be under Spanish , French or German or Russian or EU domination . Britain has always favoured a ‘continent ‘ with an internal balance of power preventing one power from achieving hegemony . The EU introduces a new element into the equation and despite the UK’s aversion to aspects of the EU it’s not going to isolate itself on the celtic fringe.
‘the union is by no means assured.’
Not in it’s present form but it’s had a ‘successful run ‘ over 300 years more or less and may not yet have run out of ‘adaptive’ strategies .
‘If you want to be a part of it, then you will have to do so as a self-sufficient partner.’
Will the same standard apply to Cornwall , Wales , Scotland , North West England , North East England -all are regions/countries where ‘self sufficiency’ would be an issue following ‘independence’.
Guys,
I feared I would make things worse by pointing out the bleedin’ obvious. I’m not sure its not worse, but the problem remains.
Since the details of the Academy are not to be announced until the Autumn, I cannot see how anyone can come to a conclusion about something they’ve not seen yet.
Two things though, make it worthy of note. Firstly, they are taking their time with it. Unlike past initiatives, it’s not being done under the historic ‘something must be done’ imperative that has continually dogged Unionism since the Sixties (after their forty years of drift).
Secondly, it looks like an intention to think its way forward, not bludgeon its way out of the old laager. If any any of you get around to reading FD’s actual post, you’ll find he gets his caveats on historical patterns out of the way early on:
Re-fighting that battle on Slugger is either a form of displacement activity or a sign that some of you have such utter contempt for a unionist view point that you didn’t bother to read it.
What should worry you guys is that there is no equivalent of this kind of re-think within northern nationalism. In chess terms it’s still caught up with the movement of pawns when unionism is starting to think about how best to deploy its back row.
It would be foolish in the extreme to extrapolate from this how the game will end up. But it would also be foolish for nationalists to remain cocooned in the ‘safe space’ of an historical narrative that tells you’ll get your preferred outcome, no matter what.
Since there are few unionist voices being heard on this thread…
The Academy idea seems to have attracted the derision of nationalists and the apathy of unionists.
But I was hoping for something little more literate by people who have taken the trouble to read little into the actual Unionist position.
A number of the commentators on this thread (and some with a nationalist p.o.v., myself included) have lived and worked on ‘the mainland’ and have a jolly good understanding of the British mindset, the same mindset that is reflected on the comments posted on the Our Kingdom website cited above.
The truth is that this ‘academy’ idea is fantasy for the reasons that have been statedseveral times above and on the OK blog. It’s not narrow-minded Irish nationalism that will sink it, it’s the reality of UK politics today.
The fact that Labour had trouble selecting a candidate in Glasgow East is a more telling reflection on the current state of the union than some pie-eyed DUP academy proposal.
I’m sorry Mick that you don’t like the message your getting. I feel bound to ask, have you invested any of your own personal kudos in this project.
Mick
What should worry you guys is that there is no equivalent of this kind of re-think within northern nationalism. In chess terms it’s still caught up with the movement of pawns when unionism is starting to think about how best to deploy its back row.
The first point would be that Northern Nationalism has already done a great deal of realigning; much more than Unionism. In that sense, Unionism is only catching up. The second is that we are not asking about the moving the back row, we’re suggesting that a the Queen and the Bishops are already missing.
It would be foolish in the extreme to extrapolate from this how the game will end up. But it would also be foolish for nationalists to remain cocooned in the ‘safe space’ of an historical narrative that tells you’ll get your preferred outcome, no matter what.
No one is suggesting that. But it’s a bit rich suggesting this indicates Unionism has made some kind of huge leap when as has been pointed out, it hasn’t been announced and follows a history of failures. The pattern it does follow is you wetting yourself at every Unionist maneuver and then suggesting it’s blinkers when someone questions it. Some analysis or response would be nice, rather than hectoring. Stick it on the Guardian or Brassneck and gauge reception: it’d honestly be much more useful than here.
Mick, you are obviously winding up here.
Peter Robinson has finally emerged from Paisley’s shadow but the fact remains he still Robinson of Clontibret, the Ulster Resistance, the UWC strike, etc. Nor did he distance himself from Paisley when he made inflammatory comments about Drumcree, Whiterock, etc. The rest of the DUP are similarly tainted.
The opinion formers in Britain know all this and are not going to wipe the slate clean just because Paisley has been retired / been pushed out.
Brown got a three month honeymoon when Blair resigned but at the end of the day everyone knows he was just as much responsible for NuLabour as Blair was. Now look where he is.
The DUP are enjoying a short-term period of influence due to the weakness of the aforementioned Brown. Once the Tory landslide comes they could well live to regret propping him up.
Mick,
I don’t know what exactly you’re implying by that last post or even who you are directing it at.
But as I was the last person to address you, could you do me a favour and be a little bit more specific, especially about who you think could have “utter contempt for a unionist view point” and why?
@When
“Like flocks of birds nations can be created and they can be destroyed. They are not eternal.”
That is indeed a beautiful simile, and one I will want to remember, but the history of our “flock” is not as simple as the analogy that led to it. Since 1169, and again since the coming of planters to the north east, people have written on the existence of two, later three, forms of Irishmen, each with distinctive calls and plumage. We have since then been a multicultural flock – as identified by others, at least.
Our flock scattered in 1922, but not of it’s own will, neatly dividing our bearings north east and south as our consciences decided. (I will not mention that in their wings the 200 they held 150 of the other plumage, no more than I would mention any other sore points of our history – except to remark that your plumage starved too in 1847 – because I am not of the will to fight with you.)
The 200 stayed fast to their course, determinedly not moving from their path, as the other 800 drew away from the larger flock (the larger flock that you neglect to mention – tellingly, in my opinion, for all your talk of belonging to it). They did so not in hope of dividing from the 800 – no more than the 800 hoped to do divide from them – but in hope that their determinedness would be enough to steer the 800 back on to course (a point neglected by Unionist and Nationalist history alike). But the bluff was called by both sides, and neither can truly be said to be happy with the consequence.
And what was the reaction of the larger flock? You know the one – the one you say that birds of your plumage are a part of? “If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s duck – and the ducks are gone that-a-way.” Or more straightforwardly, Winston Chruchill would say, “Whatever Ulster’s right may be, she cannot stand in the way of the whole of the rest of Ireland. Half a province cannot impose a permanent veto on the nation. Half a province cannot obstruct forever the reconciliation between the British and the Irish democracies and deny all satisfaction to the united wishes of the British Empire.”
I can understand how you would feel betrayed. The sense of Britishness being a contract is strong, and in an Irish context, has roots in contractual nature of the plantation of Ulster itself. Yet, surely any reasonable person can tell when the bonds of a contract are up. When enforcing the terms of an agreement becomes too great a burden on the other contractual partners. When it’s better to re-negotiate those terms rather than doggedly insist on the letter of an agreement that is past it’s date. Surely, genuine loyalty involves a flexibility? Obtuseness is not a quality that I immediately associate with loyalty.
In a way, yes I do. Five years ago we told unionism (Chapter 2, para 5) this was precisely what they needed to do: ‘devote resources to research, analysis, and communication, helping them to listent to voters from both sides, understand their concerns, tailor both policies and messages accordingly’.
In which case, I am not exactly going join the rest of the Cassandra Chorus here and tell them that if they do it, ‘they’re all doomed’! I’ll leave that to our surprisingly populous band of reflexive nationalist naysayers.
If they gain influence in London on behalf of us all, it must be a good thing, surely? And it should correspondingly be a worrying thing if northern nationalists are losing influence for us all in the Republic.
The ‘for us all’ part is the one component of that proposition that’s not yet clear, on either side. Whichever of the two sides takes that high ground before the other will have a strategic advantage for some time to come.
If they are still reading from A Long Peace? the DUP has a head start. Maybe it’s time our nationalist leaders fetch their copies out again?
That last from me to picador, btw.
George,
Cassandra was right when she foresaw the downfall of Troy. But she was a mythological character with a divine gift of foresight. There are too many people who seem content that they have a similar mythological gift of magical thinking.
This is nothing more than my long familiar complaint of the lack of willingness to engage with what’s there, rather than what you imagine to be there. It was not intended to be personally aimed at one individual in particular.
I pulled together that piece on Unionism because it was in crisis. To use Thomas Kuhn’s terminology, one paradigm was ending, and new one beginning. My analysis at the time was the whole process was in danger of collapsing if Unionism could not find the courage to face the future.
Now it seems it is nationalism that’s faced with the unfamiliarity of the new condition. Its leadership needs to discover a new and coherent vision for the larger number of Northern Irish people to move towards. For my money, only Bertie has thus far come close in recent years. And he is now a spent force.
when,
The contract you speak of ended in 1921, when the Northern Ireland home rule territory was created against the wishes of Unionists as a place to be run by Britain, but expressly detached from it at the same time, i.e. severed from its constitution and party political system. unionists had never sought this arrangement, they wanted the status quo ante and more, they wanted to be another part of the UK. This did not happen. And it is not going to happen now. the Dup are trying the tactics of 19th century Irish home rulers, seeking to upset the 2 party apple cart in Westiminster for their own ends. This led to a determination amongst the British ruling class that Ireland in its entirety should be removed from domestic British politics forever. The DUP’s recent unwelcome gatecrashing of Westminster is thus remarkably stupid. And what are the DUP’s ends? Not a reingration of the north into the uk, but a simultaneous buttressing and weakening of their home rule territory, buttressing as in more money and weakening as in limiting the amount of powers dewvolved to the home rule administration as such powers have to be shared with the internal enemy, whom the DUP are telling the English are not British. You would need political genius of a very high order to manage this project…. A pan British contract though it most assuredly is not.
Mick,
Cassandra is an apt analogy.
She was indeed blessed with the divine gift of foresight but the Gods counterbalanced this gift with the curse that no one would ever believe her.
In which case, I am not exactly going join the rest of the Cassandra Chorus here and tell them that if they do it, ‘they’re all doomed’! I’ll leave that to our surprisingly populous band of reflexive nationalist naysayers.
Who’s saying their doomed? They might very well be very successful. I’m just trying to get a grasp of what it is they are going to be successful at, how they are going to overcome the obvious problems and apathy.
None of what people are saying here is particularly far out or angry. Genuinely interested in what they planning or dealing with it. FD is still talking about engagement in the 3rd Home Rule crisis on Our Kingdom. Heaven help me, Mick, but it doesn’t actually speak to those problems.
If they gain influence in London on behalf of us all, it must be a good thing, surely? /i>
No, it won’t. The norm would be Unionism using influence to advance a Unionist cultural and political agenda. We’re talking about Northern Ireland, here, right? In the best case, they get us some more pork, which is the absolutely last thing we need.
We need to end clientism and patronage, not cement it – London or Dublin. Republicans want a United Ireland because it leaves us more free and more equal than in the UK. We don’t want to run to Dublin: we want to be part of running it. So wrong on this one it hurts, Mick.
The ‘for us all’ part is the one component of that proposition that’s not yet clear, on either side. Whichever of the two sides takes that high ground before the other will have a strategic advantage for some time to come.
This is the DUP boasting about killing the ILA we’re on about. Hello?
Maybe it’s time our nationalist leaders fetch their copies out again?
No offense, but I’d really prefer they came up with some of their own ideas.
Which is why she was never in the chorus George!