Tuesday, March 25, 2008
No role for unionists in national debate on the Union..?
I’VE been going through the bottom few entries on the daily Newshound digest, following the national debate on Britishness. It’s a debate from which Northern Ireland’s tribes could either learn from, criticise or contribute to in some way. But I found Gordon Brown’s Telegraph article today extraordinary. Despite it’s title - We must defend the Union - there is not one single mention of Northern Ireland.
It is clear he does not regard NI as part of the Union in any real or meaningful way, since there are four mentions each for Scotland, Wales and even England. As Jack Straw launches a consultation on a “statement of values that define British citizenship and on the case for a full British bill of rights and duties setting out rights and obligations for all citizens”, it is pretty clear that one part of the Union has no part to play in defining what Brown calls our “shared values”. Brown’s “bonds of belonging that make us all feel part of a wider Britain” simply do not appear to extend to Northern Ireland.
Oddly, unionist politicians have contributed very little to this debate thus far; perhaps they can cry ‘Me too!’ in the consultation, but something tells me our ‘unique status’ as a place apart means they’ll be ignored - as usual. One unionist who seems to be espousing the ‘British values’ Brown suggests is Alex Kane, who wrote recently: “There is an overwhelmingly convincing socio-economic-political-philosophical-intellectual-historical case to be made for the Union and for the constitutional and geographical integrity of the United Kingdom.
But it is a two-way process and unionists in Northern Ireland are going to have to begin to promote the case for themselves.” Kane concludes: “If the Union is to survive then we have to prove that it is a Union of benefit to everyone.” How would a unionist convince a Scot living in London that NI’s current contribution to the Union is “of benefit” to them?
Belfast Gonzo @ 01:23 PM
Well you said it, Eddie, you’re happy.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 06:41 PM“PeaceandJustice”
The politics of denial - well Unionists should know.
The increasing blatent ignoring of the North, when implementing supposedly UK wide legislation, by the UK govt should educate even you.
Or do you still delude yourself that the North is “as British as Finchley”?
The truth is that the vast majority of the UK electorate don’t give a shit about the North. If the UK were to pull out, the vast majority wouldn’t care and most of those who did would be in favour.
The North has been an economic drain and a political embarassment to the UK govt for decades.
They are now gradually disengaging and gladly giving increasing influence to the RoI govt.
The truth is that the North is not viewed as a real part of the UK by most of the UK electorate.
They don’t understand it and they don’t care. Nor do they differentiate between Catholics/Nationalists or Unionists/Protestants -once they hear your accent, they classify you as Irish.
You can proclaim your Britishness as much as you like.The truth is that the gradual erosion of the “Union” with NI is being driven as much by the desire of Britain to end it as by Irish Republicans.
In short, Britan doesn’t really want you.
If you don’t realise that by now, then it’s you who are truly indulging in the politics of denial.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 06:58 PMThe Union that GB is concerned about is GB.
He is very keen that the good folk of Middle England forget that he is Scottish.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 07:04 PMBilly:
You are being unkind to P&J;.Of course real British people (ie people from Britain) dont want Norn Iron’s loyal tribe.
People from Britain consider them to be foreign,other.
P&J;isnt stupid and he knows that well enough.
Isnt it bad enough that the Taigs are no longer safely at the back of the bus?Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 07:09 PMThere is actually one mention of NI just to be pedantic:
“That’s why against the background of big changes at the UK level a review of Welsh Assembly powers has taken place, why reform continues in Northern Ireland,”
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 07:15 PMEoghan, it’s that Straw man argument again. There’s no justice!!
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 07:21 PMBilly, perhaps it could be argued that NI is more British than Finchley ;)
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 07:25 PMIt could be for all I know, I haven’t been to Finchely in ages.
I don’t think there is one mental adjustment to prosperity and immigration in ulster/ni/sick counties.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 07:29 PMI don’t want to get into a britain/Uk argument but if the correct term is the united kingdom of great britain an Northern Ireland (As a republican I hate typing that!) where does the Isle of man and the channel islands fall? Are they part of the UK/britain? Is there a Jersey MP in the commons? is there a Manx parliament?
inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 07:37 PMI am really sorry to mention this as it undermines the central premise of the thread and some have been having such fun but Northern Ireland DOES get a mention in the Gordon Brown article. The Brown article is two pages not one, Northern Ireland gets a direct mention on the second page.
“That’s why against the background of big changes at the UK level a review of Welsh Assembly powers has taken place, why reform continues in Northern Ireland, why, as we have previously said, we support a review of devolution as proposed by the Scottish Parliament and why England’s needs must be fully recognised not least with more powers and freedoms for our great cities and stronger say for local people over the issues that affect them in their own communities.”
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 08:07 PMWhat, he’s saying is that the UK, is not the indivisible thing it once was.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 08:38 PMFair deal - beat you to it in point 5 - na na na na na!
“re they part of the UK/britain? Is there a Jersey MP in the commons? is there a Manx parliament? “
No Jersey MPs - they have their own sort of stuff:
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/
The Isle of Man has Tynwald of course!
Oldest in the islands?
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 08:44 PM“Northern Ireland gets a direct mention on the second page.”
There you are, it’s an unfair deal; we’re all second class citizens now!!
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 09:19 PM“where does the Isle of man and the channel islands fall? Are they part of the UK/britain? Is there a Jersey MP in the commons? is there a Manx parliament? inquiring minds want to know. “
As a republican you didn’t get to know the enemy too good did you? The IoM is a Crown dependency and Lordship (the Queen).
The Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey are Crown Dependencies, once part of the Duch of Normandy, in fact the locals stil refer to HMtQ as ‘our Duke’, which is a bit strange.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 09:42 PMHat tip dewi.
Brown also uses the term UK not GB and the phrase “these islands”.
Nevin
Irish nationalism in Northern ireland is not the political force that most consider the likeliest to lead to moun the greatest challenge to the Unions. Alex Salmond and the SNP are, and they managed it without planting one bomb or taking one life.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 09:58 PMGeorge - your 1:25 was quite superb.
Regards.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 10:12 PMPhil Mac Giolla Bhain: Isnt it bad enough that the Taigs are no longer safely at the back of the bus?
Tsk. That ‘back of the bus’ phenomenon was American, not Northern Irish. We haven’t managed to produce a comparable meme here. Mentioning the ‘ratepayer franchise’ might work - why not push that one instead?
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 10:28 PMThey’re not listening FD…
Having too much fun on the familiar free rides to take in that kind of detail…
It’s worth noting that one of the conditions Blair laid down when he took over the negotiations that led to the Belfast Agreement was the constitutional status of NI would not be subject to any such talks.
It has been argued that New Labour, despite its party policy, has been much more robustly pro union on NI than either Heath or Wilson was when the question of NI’s constitutional status was first raised at senior levels in government.
George,
“...this new caring is better late than never.”
Just because you haven’t heard it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been said. The first published interview in the project that kicked Slugger into action contained a similar criticism:
What does the Union mean to you?
I suppose it’s a common set of values and common loyalty to the Royal family and so forth. I’m very alive to the fact that ours is a different type of Britishness from someone in Leicester or Glasgow. I like the idea that there are people in the western isles of Scotland who are rigid Sabbatarians and who are British in the same way that people in Brixton are British.
“The weakness of Unionism is that they haven’t said to people in Crossmaglen, for instance, ‘you are British citizens or subjects’. Not in a shoving it down your throat way, but you have the opportunity to be a Gaelic-playing, Guinness-drinking, Irish-language-speaking Briton.”
One thing these circular conversations never seem to acknowledge is that the whip hand in such matters lies with Unionists. Why? Simply, because ‘possession is nine tenths of the law’. And the law in this case is British.
If British Unionism has been slow to extend a political hand across the divide, Irish Nationalism has hardly been setting the world alight either.
So for those who wish to continue the diversion of this thread for their own pleasure, let me suggest a more challenging alternative theme:
“Irish Nationalism’s biggest obstacle in attaining a united Ireland is its own complacency. Discuss.”
But I still think Gonzo’s question is worth posing for those unionists (FD aside) with the patience of Job who’ve made it this far.
Mick (sorry about the admin monicker)
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 11:39 PM“Irish Nationalism’s biggest obstacle in attaining a united Ireland is its own complacency. Discuss.”
if this is an attempt to insinuate that a united Ireland is dependant on nationalism obtaining unionist ‘conversion’ or unionist approval, then im afraid the goalposts aren’t for moving. brcause if that is to be the case, then its immediate joint authority.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 11:55 PMMick (aka Slugger Admin): “If British Unionism has been slow to extend a political hand across the divide, Irish Nationalism has hardly been setting the world alight either.”
that’s not the point of Gonzo’s blog piece though is it? The point for Unionists is (regardless of how few reference are actually made to Norn Ironin Brown’s article) what do you bring to the party? what do you mean for the Union? Would anything the north currently contributes to the Union be lost/missed should a United Ireland happen tomorrow? The short answer: no, of course it wouldn’t. The relationship between Great Britain and NI is interesting because the only people who are *really* committed to it’s maintenance are unionists (which they don’t do such a good of). Also on Blair’s stance in negotiations during the GFA on NI’s constitutional status. Surely this was more of a negotiating tactic than anything, the man also later went on to declare the UK had no strategic interest in NI. So not sure that’s entirely relevant.
Ultimately this story is just one of many reminders that the Union only exists for the sake of Irish Unionists in the north. Should that be the basis for any Union??
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 12:18 AMHate to be the one to break it to the Loyal Sons but a Muslim living in Bradford, a West Indian living in South London or a retired Gurka soldier living as a Chelsea pensioner are considered MORE British by the UK public than your average Ballymena Allistair or Crawfordsburn Wendy FACT! Real Britons, particularly the upper and middle classes, have NEVER considered Unionists to be British and play along with the dress up farce at Cenotaph parades and Hillsborough garden parties. They despise the Union Jack flag waving nonsense and ridiculous bowler hatted bigots that stomp around in the name of Britishness; it is not their version. The ONLY ones who buy into this are the right wing National Front & BNP types OR paramilitary supporting Scottish Loyalists. In reality the British public across the water would tow the wee 6 into the middle of the Atlantic and sink it; they resent forking out and wasting 10 Billion a year to keep it from poverty. I have made this point before but will repeat it. One of the bravest and most celebrated soldiers of World War II was Blair Mayne from Newtownards and what was his nickname in the British Army? Correct, ‘Paddy’ was his nickname and nearly EVERY Irish person who serves in the UK forces gets this. It is NO surprise that when studies into Britishness are carried out across the water Norn Iron DOESN’T feature because.....wait for it......most British people DON’T consider it British. It’s not rocket science.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 02:02 AMAlex Kane has referred to the “overwhelmingly convincing socio-economic-political-philosophical-intellectual-historical case” for the Union in numerous articles, yet he has never bothered to give an actual explanation of those benefits. It’s especially odd when the whole thrust of his most recent article is the need to convince people outside of the traditional unionist community of the superiority of the union, yet apparently he has no idea how to achieve it. It will take a bit more convincing than soundbites simply saying that the argument is overwhelming.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 02:25 AMAlex is popular with Catholics, I’ve distributed thousands leaflets for the UUP in South elfast, at a time when the UUP were looking a bit bleak,
from a Catholic point of view, people like Alex, simply look more reasonable than Gerry, Catrionia or the SF radicals. Gerry is a Blairite.
That’s unacceptable. How many months are we away from SF becoming a pro-prostitution party? They’re already putting sex offenders in schools!
Why should I work for a decade to sort out *our* sex abuse issues in the church, if Catrionia and Gerry are going to stuff schools with sex offenders? It is a no-brainer to view SF as an anti-Vatican party.
I don’t care about SF’s tame priests, I don’t care either about the Bishop of Portsmouth taking a liking to brothels, I care about keeping our commonwealth on the straight and narrow.
The UUP have done more for individual Catholic schoolkids over the last 6 months than SF and the SDLP combined. The UUP *always* say yes to my campaigns, whether they’re for a wheelchair, or for some other dispensation.
Catronia is on the verge of bsanning crucifixes and sikh bangles according to the lst letter she sent me!
She is an out and out Blairite. Her philosophy is straight out of that tin and she more or less admits it, she’s proud of it. It is nu-SF or somewthing I suppose, and it’s scary.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 09:33 AMNi unionists have failed to promote Irish culture as part of British culture, which has led to them being dependent on a proxy relationship at best with the Scots cultural movement. Of course that’s ill advised also as now the Scots are seeing themselves as less than British.
They (Ni Unionists) have contributed little to overall British culture so why should they think that they would be included in a ‘national debate’? They surely don’t think that their sectarian parade fest would be counted as part of a ‘British Day of Celebration’.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 09:33 AMWhy don’t the Brits allow war-injured Gurkhas into the country for medical treatment? An Orangeman can get that in London easy enough. Being an Ulsterman still has a few advantages. The Empire is gone, they don’t need the OO to guard the pass.
We’re now a job creation scheme for the eastern bloc. Our tuppence-hapenny houses now have Hollywood prices, it is a bubble, as soon as the Poles take off to Chicago, which has more Ples than Warsaw, house prices will drop.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 09:45 AM
