Friday, June 15, 2007
A union of convenience…
BLAMING the Brits for Northern Ireland’s problems, teaming up with overseas separatists for mutual benefit, trying to pry Westminster’s fingers out of its claim on our taxes - no it’s not Gerry Adams, it’s Ian Paisley. The other day I asked if Paisley was a British Unionist or an Ulster Nationalist. Last night on Hearts & Minds Newtown Emerson answered: Ulster Nationalist. He said: “His unionism derives not from Ulster’s British identity but from its Protestant, or more specifically Presbyterian, character - and that’s where the confusion sets in, because there is a fault line through Ulster’s Protestant character, running right back to its separate English and Scottish origins… Paisley’s very Scottish anti-Britishness shows that the ancient fault line is still there and still clearly capable of shifting - although if Paisley really is, as the English say, “going native”, then it is still only as a native Ulsterman rather than as a native Irishman”.
Belfast Gonzo @ 02:27 PM
Very interesting piece by Newton last night. Suffice to say, things are not as they seem in unionism. They were united once by their desire for control, they by their hatred of republicans. Now that the first of these is gone and the second is reducigng anything can happen going forward.
Anyone who says they know which way things are moving is a fool.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 02:47 PMBig Ian has himself said: “you cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman”.
The Anglo tendency in Unionism expressed through the uup is dead.
This is a massively important historical change.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 03:09 PMWhat is surprising as well is that the UUP have yet to pull him up on it - why are they not pointing out his Ulster nationalism which totally contradicts Unionism (as pointed out many times by David Vance)
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 03:16 PMMaybe Paisley’s approach suggests old Desmond Greaves was onto something (with due allowance for the language of ‘discovering Irishness’ etc):
The Connolly Asssociation’s central insight was that the unionism
of most unionists was not based on love of Britain or the Crown, but on being top-dog over nationalists and Catholics, and enjoying the small privileges that went with that, in a northern economy that was racked by backwardness and unemployment. Rule out such top-doggery by means of civil rights, said the CA, and political conditions would be created in which the rational basis for the unionism of most unionists could be eroded in a generation.That was why the Association and Irish Democrat opposed the call for the abolition of Stormont in 1971-72, for that would remove the local northern forum in which the process of dividing unionism and enabling some unionists to discover their Irishness could work itself out. (Irish Democrat)
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 03:39 PMLad lad lads…
Its all very simple, its not what they wanna be but what they don’t wanna be that matters.
The vast majority of yer ulster nationalists, unionists and that related ilk know what they don’t want to be and thats part of the Irish Republic. Poll after poll...after poll....after poll...after poll...after poll has shown it.
No amount of of intellectual positioning is going to get round it.
No sale.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 03:47 PMI agree dub.
There are definitely interesting times ahead. The signs look good so far.Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 03:53 PMYokel,
Any spiritual person will tell you that what you not want to be is absolutely irrelevant.. by definition those negative thoughts come from reactivity to other people’s perceived thoughts.. it is not YOU… what is YOU is what you actually want…
One of the many changes Paisley had made is he is saying what he wants.. a successful economy modelled on that of the South, the British to pay compensation for their woeful lack of investment, he wants the “squatters” (the direct rulers) to leave, he wants an Ireland without hedges, he wants a fruitful relatioship with the Dublin govt based on mutual respect, and he uses the word “Ireland” rather a lot, he also says he prefers watching rte to bbc…
He is acting and not reacting. And he is therefore saying very interesting things as people always do when they are acting and not reacting.
Greaves was right in the sense that a lot of traditional unionism was highly reactive. how many of us have heard unionists say things in private that they would never say publicly. Paisley is now saying those things publicly.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 04:04 PMBut will nationalists respond to the ‘ulster nationalist’ challenge of making partition work?
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 04:37 PMthey will make the institutions work yes absolutely.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 04:46 PMSRR,
don’t forget (I won’t let you ;-) ) that in 1922 both Ulster and Ireland were partitioned.
If you are talking about Ulster then you lose the Unionist majority, but you gain cultural and historical authenticity as a foundation for regional government.
A region of where exactly is, for the medium term, disagreed.
A number of us have previously commented on Paisley’s unFinchleyness. For example I wrote on 21 March here on Slugger…
“Ian Paisley is a genuine living link to the Plantation, and the clash of cultures and values contained therein.
Always struck me as fundamentally Irish in a way most modern Unionists are not.”
I’m beginning to believe Mick’s propaganda about this site.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 04:47 PMPerhaps, Paisley’s perceptible Irishness is more of a reflection of those of his generation and his socio-economic background, whose rejection of any Irish identity is a relatively recent development. He was after all born only a few years after partition.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 07:00 PMpáid: If you are talking about Ulster then you lose the Unionist majority, but you gain cultural and historical authenticity as a foundation for regional government.
There’s no such thing as ‘historical authenticity’ in this context. Whatever your feelings about the plantation, it wrecked the continuity of Ulster identity (at least, looking from Bangor, it did). As for ‘cultural authenticity’ - well, what does that actually look like? Do you mean the accents?
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 07:13 PMI did not see the programme but do not worry this is not a rant against something I did not see.
Emerson’s analysis is interesting but I think basing this on religious demonination is too simplistic.
I have no objective data (I am unsure if any exists) but this demoninational analysis seems to be that CoI vote UUP and Presbyterians vote DUP.
The following analysis of my own is also too simplistic I am sure but for what it is worth (probably not much) here it is. Amongst practicing Protestants (a minority, though a large one) I would submit there are actually four groups.
The CoI who are percieved as more politically liberal. This is unclear. It is the group I know least about but most CoI people I know are politically about where the presbyterian church are. Originally many (most?) probably voted UUP but now probably vote DUP. Remember large numbers of working class practicing prods are CoI. One should not confuse the political position of church leaders with that of their members. Also CoI is a stronger denomination in the west of ther provience (something I will touch on in a moment).
The Methodist church has traditionally been identified as the most politically liberal but again its distribution is similar to the CoI (both being originally one and both I guess English settlement).
The Presbyterian Church (of which I am a member) was once called the UUP at prayer (a pirate of the CoE being the Tory party at prayer). Most presbyterians probably did vote UUP (except in North Antrim), they certainly did in Co. Londonderry where I was brought up. Most I would submit now vote DUP and have done so for a fair while (John Dunlop has lamented this on occassion).
There are then the smaller evangelical demoninations (of which my dear Elenwe (Turgon’s wife) was one till I turned her). They are traditionally regarded as DUP to the core. Again this is a misunderstanding. The Free Presbyrterians may well be but the other groups are more variable. Some of the small house church group types would be Alliance or would not vote. The Brethern are an interesting group. In Co. Londonderry and Antrim they often claim a born again Christian should not vote, whereas Brethern friends I have from Fermanagh and Tyrone would be solid DUP. I would suggest that like the CoI and Methodists in the greater Belfast and other “safe” areas they would be UUP or Alliance with a harder line being taken with greater Protestant cohesion in the border areas.
It will be interesting to see what happens with these voting patterns. I do suspect that Paisley’s support of the latest deal will loose him support amongst hardline evangelical groups first if indeed (as I hope) it does loose him support.
To anyone who wants to critise this analysis that is fine. I have been moving in church circles (especially Presbyerian and smaller evangelical demominations for years) but that does not make me the font of all knowledge. Still for what it is worth there is my view.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 07:22 PMturgon,
that would be the presbyterian church in ireland that you are a member of… i thought you did not have even one iota of irishness about you. maybe they should change their name!
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 07:45 PMDub,
its IN Ireland not of Ireland. I accept that this land mass is Ireland . I just do not regard myself as Irish. And as I have said before Elenwe and myself are probably leaving the Presbyterian Church soon anyway.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 07:48 PMPol,
It’s because the UUP are also Ulster Nationalists at heart. They and the DUP have, in my view, gradually morphed into this strange creature which feigns Britishness at the same time as it embraces an other-ness, a thing apart.
It was interesting to hear Newton run his own variation on what I said on the same programme two weeks previously. My take is that augurs the death of unionism, others can argue for themselves!
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 09:08 PMturgon,
how can you be born and bred into a family who were presumably born and bred in Ireland and not see yourself as Irish?
as i said to you on a post before of course you entitled to see yourself as whatever you want but i mean how can you value and love the place you come from if you regard yourself as somehow being above it? surely it is good to value and love the glens and fields and valleys and townlands, parishes and baronies around you and all that has gone before in them? this does not mean being an irish nationalit...that’s a political viewpoint but not to see yourself as being of Ireland must surely mean to be uncomfortable in Ireland?
just sad for you Turgon and can’t help feeling that if you got around Ireland more and met more Irish Protestants and Catholics you might feel a little more Itish. i would bet you a large sum of money that if somebody told your grandparents they were not Irish they would just have laughed… (i’m assuming you are of Irish stock)… how can you be a different nationality from your grandparents?
why not read the memoirs of Carson, Craig and Andrews or look at the photos of the banners the Ulster Unionists used in the early 20th century with “Erin go Bragh” on them? believe me all this anti irishness is a very recent thing among northern protestants… or read Brian Inglis’ book on Casement where he contends that northern protestants did not even see themselves as British they were most resolutely loyal irishmen… i just think you are literally hacking off your own cultural roots and cant help thinking how Carson for one would have wept to see the results of his actions (though of course he disowned partition when it came about...)
Enjoy your weekend.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 09:15 PMDub - Ireland and Irish have as many meanings as America and American.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 09:17 PMDub - Ireland and Irish have as many meanings as America and American.
Posted by Cruimh on Jun 15, 2007 @ 10:17 PM
Explain?
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 09:33 PMCanada - USA. In most peoples minds American means USA - Canadaians might be Americans strictly speaking as in the land mass - but they don’t regard themselves as “American” in that sense.
Look at de valera’s widely quoted speach about Ireland - If Ireland IS a catholic Nation, hen obviously NI is not part of Ireland in that sense.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 09:42 PMCruimh,
Agreed! Thst is why i not understand people like Turgon who do not regard themselves as Irish at all. of course there is no monlithic irishness… that is its strength and why for example the republic is such a formidably cohesive and happy state because all agree they are irish as a common denominator… from the Chuch of ireland organist to the irish speaking gaa fan, to the resolutely english speaking dub who regards gaa fans as some kind of genetic aberration.. all the way to Lord Henry Mountcharles. This is what the north has lost.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 09:46 PMDub - is it what the north “has lost”? I think it would be better to say it never existed. It has come about in the ROI in part I suspect because the protestants left were not seen as any threat to the free state or republic - but would it have come about if there had been a 20+% hostile protestant minority? We’ll never know.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 09:54 PMsorry that canada analogy is absurd...canada is a sovereign independent state with its own cultural institutions.... ni is not… it was carved out of the kingdom of ireland as a reaction to the majority of the population wielding their democratic rights… the divorce was not done on grounds of separate nationality.. at that time the unionists regarded themselves to a man and woman as Irish. many institutions of importance from the orange order to the gaa to all the churches, most sports remain all ireland bodies. many many northern protestants still regard themselves as irish to varying degrees and would do more openly i believe if there were not a fear factor around doing so. and there is the large nationalist community and ni is not sovereign or independent so a huge host of differences with Canada don’t you think?
Believe me the one thing that loses unionists like Turgon ALL credibility in Britain especially and other countries is when they open their mouths and speak in a clear irish accent with little sayings directly translated from Irish like “so I am” at the end of sentence and “i’m only after doing such and such” and then they say they are not irish. this is the ultimate irish joke for british people who actually live in Britain.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 09:58 PMNI is not under Dublin jurisdiction and is even more culturally different from the ROI than Canada is from the USA.
“the divorce was not done on grounds of separate nationality.. at that time the unionists regarded themselves to a man and woman as Irish. “
that is simply untrue. You need to go back before the devotional revolution and the rise of cultural nationalism which clearly stated that Irish = Gaelic and Catholic. As I said, Irish and Ireland has layers of meaning in the same way as America and American has layers of meaning.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 10:11 PMyes it IS something the north has lost...protestants in the north once had a very very strong irish identity and played their full part in national life. protestants in late 18th century belfast single handedly rescued a very important pary of irish culture with the harpers festival… they did this to promote their idea of a modern assertive Ireland. you miss my point about the republic… there are many shades of irishness across all creeds and communities. the protestant/catholic divide is simply non esistent in a politically determining sense. the middle class blackrock boy who plays rugby is as irish as the kilkenny boy who plays hurling.. they are very different people but they are both irish. trevor sargent is an ardent green who speaks irish fluently whereas seymour crawford is a county monaghan farmer not known for eating muesli for breakfast..yet both are equally irish.
you see i never mentioned the religion of the las two, guess why… it’s not relevant.i have met many many nothern protestants who see themeelves as irish… i have been in a pub in county derry where irish happy hour is on the wall, big farming types are sitting at the bar supping pints of guineess and reading the newsletter and somebody in the pub is singing the fields of athenry… and i have rarely seen a more irish atmosphere and yet apparently nearly all the customers were protestants. it is there in the north still especially in rural areas… plain simple non political cross community irishness. you can’t wish away a centuries old reality.
Posted by on Jun 15, 2007 @ 10:13 PM
