Since I first began writing about Unionism, I have watched its influence wane, its relevance fade, and its voice grow weaker. What was once a formidable political force now struggles to find direction, leaving Unionists disillusioned, underrepresented, and—too often—a soft target and an easy scapegoat for society’s frustrations.
Legacy
Since the Good Friday Agreement, a particular narrative around Northern Ireland has gained momentum, one that increasingly portrays Unionism in a negative light while simultaneously whitewashing, sanitising, and even glorifying the history of the IRA. This imbalance is evident in how IRA members are remembered compared to their victims.
Recently, social media posts commemorating IRA member Joe McManus have gained traction, presenting him as a hero who “died with honour in a gun battle against colonial forces”. Republican circles continue to honour McManus with a monument, a Sinn Féin association named after him, and lectures in his name. However, the truth behind his actions is far less noble.
McManus was part of a four-man IRA unit that kidnapped a local farmer in a remote part of Fermanagh, using him as bait to lure and kill off-duty UDR officer Eric Glass, who also worked as a dog warden. Unbeknownst to the IRA, Glass was armed and fought back, killing McManus and fending off the remaining attackers until they fled. They were later arrested and convicted, though their sentences for attempted murder were overturned on appeal. Incredibly, the judge in the retrial ruled that Glass had not been under direct threat, despite being shot, hospitalised for almost a year, and subsequently forced into early retirement.
This sense of judicial injustice mirrors the recent Clonoe inquest, where a judge ruled that the SAS killing of four heavily armed IRA members—who had just opened fire on a police station—was “unjustified”. The fact that this case has now been referred to the Public Prosecution Service highlights the long-standing imbalance: the IRA was free to wage “war” without rules, yet when their targets fought back, they faced legal scrutiny.
This is part of a wider trend where inquests into IRA members killed by security forces receive significant attention, while victims of the IRA see little to no justice and have become a mere statistic. The disparity reinforces the idea that the IRA could attack with impunity, while the state is endlessly scrutinised. Inquests into the security forces isn’t an issue but it’s the lack of any semblance of balance in relation to inquires that is the issue.
It is also worth noting that, despite the IRA’s self-proclaimed role as defenders of the Catholic population, they killed more Catholics during the Troubles than any other group. But this uncomfortable truth rarely makes it into the modern retelling.
The Failure of Unionism in the Legacy Debate
Northern Ireland’s approach to legacy issues has been deeply flawed. Sinn Féin consistently demands inquests into state actions, including the deaths of IRA members, yet there have been no similar investigations into IRA atrocities such as Kingsmill, Enniskillen, or La Mon. Some within Sinn Féin could provide long-overdue answers to victims’ families, but instead, they remain silent and they’ve undoubtedly been told to remain silent.
Unionism, for its part, has been weak in response. It has been criticised by some IRA victims for being disorganised and ineffective in addressing legacy issues in comparison to Sinn Féin. While individual Unionists have worked tirelessly to secure inquests and answers into long-forgotten atrocities, Unionism as a collective entity has failed to push strongly and consistently for truth and justice for IRA victims’ families. At times, Unionism has weakened its own position by invoking the IRA unnecessarily in political arguments, which has led to its legitimate concerns being dismissed or caricatured. The result is a deep-rooted frustration within Unionism that a growing narrative has taken hold—one that frames Unionists and the British state as the oppressors while portraying the IRA as freedom fighters engaged in a just war for Irish independence.
Up the RA – A Cultural Norm
A shift in the perception of the IRA is reflected in mainstream culture. Phrases such as “Up the RA” have entered everyday language and are frequently heard online, at sporting events, in bars and restaurants, and even at solemn occasions such as the Enniskillen bomb memorial. These chants are unlikely to end anytime soon and if anything, they’re increasing. Many defend this behaviour, and in a 2022 interview between Patrick Kielty and Tommy Tiernan, both men played down its significance, citing it as “harmless”. Kielty, at least, acknowledged how alienating it is to many Unionists and how such behaviour undermines the case for a united Ireland. However, Tiernan’s condescension towards Unionism, along with the audience’s amusement whenever the word “Unionist” was mentioned, reinforced the sense that Unionists are treated with indifference or ridicule. It is difficult to imagine pro-loyalist paramilitary chants being met with the same indifference, or a comedian like Tiernan receiving similar support if he mocked Nationalism in the same way.
Kneecap
One group that thrives on attacking Unionism while openly glorifying the IRA is the Republican rap group Kneecap. They revel in provocation, though many would argue their antics often veer into the cringeworthy. Their messaging is deliberately inflammatory, from pro-IRA slogans to “Brits Out” rhetoric, always portraying Unionism as the perpetual villain. Yet, despite their antagonism, Kneecap and their supporters are remarkably sensitive to criticism. But if their work is truly “art,” it should be able to stand up to scrutiny.
Their recent film, Kneecap, attempted to pre-emptively address some of this criticism by including an implausible Protestant girlfriend—designed to reflect the concerns of their detractors while allowing the group to justify its stance. It was a calculated move, shielding Kneecap from inevitable backlash.
This character highlights the broader issue of Protestant and Unionist representation in film and television—where such figures are either purely villainous or, in this case, tokenistic, serving no real purpose other than to deflect legitimate criticism. An authentic portrayal of a Unionist or Protestant on screen—let alone a story centred around them—remains a glaring omission as of 2025. Given the dreadful misrepresentations that do exist, one might argue it would be preferable to exclude Unionists and Protestants entirely rather than subject them to crude stereotypes. The BBC’s embarrassing caricature of Paddy Mayne in SAS: Rogue Heroes is a prime example.
The director of the film “Kneecap”, Rich Peppiatt, claimed:
“It’s a movement… about how everyone should have their language respected, their culture respected, and their homeland respected.”
Yet, in reality, there is little evidence that Kneecap extends such respect to Unionism. Instead, Unionism remains a soft target—mocked, belittled, and jeered at by an audience that will defend Kneecap to the last.
United Ireland Forums: A False Invitation:
These forums are heavily promoted by local media. At the time of writing, the BBC’s The View is running yet another segment on them. It is telling that many of those who seek to invite Unionists to “welcoming” discussions are the same people who enthusiastically support groups like Kneecap. While these figures are often vocal in condemning loyalist paramilitaries, they remain conspicuously silent on IRA atrocities.
While some members of these forums are undoubtedly sincere in their calls for reconciliation, there is an undeniable element whose real aim is Northern Ireland’s annexation—showing little interest in, or understanding of, Unionist perspectives. The soft-soaping language of “Unionist brothers and sisters” can quickly turn to accusations of “sectarian oppressor” the moment a Unionist refuses to engage on their terms. Ironically, a pro-Union group, Safeguarding the Union, has been attacked online with impunity by some senior members of the Unity forums. Is this really setting a good example?
More fundamentally, it is unclear what purpose these discussions serve. There is no serious engagement or debate. These groups hold no political power or influence, and even if a united Ireland were to become a reality, there is little appetite for meaningful accommodation of Unionists—something commentators like Chris Donnelly have openly acknowledged.
The pattern is clear: unless a Unionist is willing to criticise their own community and accept the “inevitability” of Irish unity, their views at these forums are neither welcomed nor valued. At best, the premise of these forums is disingenuous—yet it goes largely unchallenged in the local media.
Identity:
Unionist identity is frequently a source of ridicule—not properly Irish due to its Unionist leanings, yet not fully British either, as “real Brits” supposedly do not regard them as such. And, of course, “Northern Irish” is often dismissed as a fabricated nationality. This argument has long been pushed by elements of Nationalism, with commentators like Brian Feeney amplifying the idea.
It is striking that new arrivals to the island, and even individuals such as English-born Rich Peppiatt—who recently became an Irish citizen—are embraced as fully Irish, yet Unionists born and raised here are often branded as colonial squatters, with no legitimate nationality or culture of their own.
No Unionist seeks validation from others for their identity, but is there really a need to continually question and undermine it?
Commentators:
A frequent complaint within Unionism is the absence of strong, high-profile commentators who can effectively articulate its position. Alex Kane remains one of the most widely respected Unionist voices, known for his thoughtful critiques, but there is a clear gap for additional voices—ones that move beyond excessive self-criticism and instead present a balanced, persuasive case for the Union.
However, being a Unionist commentator is no easy task. Many who step forward find themselves under as much scrutiny from their own community as from opponents. Some Unionists are quick to criticise those who speak on their behalf, only to then lament the lack of Unionist commentators.
In contrast, Nationalists have no shortage of commentators. Figures like Chris Donnelly, Kevin Meagher, and Brian Feeney relentlessly push their agenda, rarely engaging in self-reflection—yet their narratives are popular and widely amplified. This imbalance has contributed to the feeling among Unionists that they are constantly on the defensive, attacked from all sides.
Despite criticism, I have long encouraged Unionists to engage with Slugger O’Toole, believing that participation in debate is important. However, Slugger is not without its issues. When Jeffrey Donaldson was arrested, a commenter implied that child sexual abuse was endemic within, and exclusive to, Unionism. While this appalling comment was later removed, it illustrates how easily anti-Unionist narratives can be published without consequence.
The comments section on Slugger are equally problematic, with Unionists routinely compared to Nazis and fascists. It is no surprise that the site has become a Unionist-free zone. This is unfortunate, as Slugger has many positive aspects, but at present, the reward for engagement is little more than a copy-and-paste stream of anti-Unionist slurs. Slugger is a significant political platform it must do better at creating an environment that encourages more reasonable dialogue.
Local Media
Elements of local media are hardly helpful. Spurious opinion polls are frequently used to push the idea that the Union is weakening, rarely a week passes without one such poll appearing. Airtime is regularly given to Protestant figures who claim to be leaning toward Irish unity, this ranged from James Nesbitt to Jamie Dornan and even Jamie Dornan’s father yet there is little to no platforming of Catholics who support the Union and if polls are to be believed support for the Union amongst Catholics significantly outstrips support for Unification amongst Protestants.
The double standard is also evident in how Queen Elizabeth II’s alleged comment about “silly marches” was treated. A single, unverified statement led to the BBC’s Mark Simpson tweeting about it four times, turning it into a major headline. It inevitably resulted in mocking commentary, with Unionists ridiculed as clinging to an “unrequited love” for Britain. Meanwhile, just weeks later, serious articles lamented the Irish government’s lack of effort in advancing Irish unity leaving “Northern Nationalists forgotten” – if one is unrequited love, what is the other?
Unionists are often mocked for opposing the Irish language, and as someone who supports the language, I hope this opposition changes over time. However, the current approach of imposing bilingual street signs—without local approval—does not foster goodwill. The attacking of signs is as inevitable as it is wrong, but Unionists are not the only ones “scared of a language”. Sign referencing Londonderry and Northern Ireland are regularly defaced throughout the region and little to no media coverage is ever given to this.
“Unionist Anger” about something generally irrelevant regularly does the rounds, frequently there is actually little anger and sometimes when there is it is often misdirected, Unionism would be well advised to only get angry about things that actually matter rather than seeing everything as a constitutional threat. On the flipside, when RTE displayed a weather map excluding Northern Ireland, Republican anger was palpable. One is mocked; the other is a serious issue – what’s the difference?
The Alliance Party’s Position on Unionism
I have some sympathy for the Alliance Party, as they have been on the receiving end of attacks from elements of Unionism—particularly during the flag protests. However, an anti-Unionist element within Alliance is undeniable giving sustenance to the theory that there are Alliance members who would easily fit into the SDLP if it was electorally viable.
Figures such as Stephen Farry openly antagonised Unionists on a number of topics and chose to engage with United Ireland forums rather than maintaining a balanced approach particularly for someone representing a Unionist constituency. This ultimately led to his electoral downfall.
Meanwhile, David Honeyford has an unhealthy fixation with Unionism and is widely known for his “Unionists are bred to hate Catholics more than corruption” comment—a remark that, if made about any other group, would have led to immediate dismissal rather than a promotion.
His running mate in Lagan Valley, Sorcha Eastwood, risks following the same trajectory as Farry. Attacks on Unionism might earn online applause, but they could backfire at the ballot box and if this doesn’t a very poor attendance and voting record at Westminster will – and the latter cannot be blamed on Unionism.
Alliance will say that all’s fair in love and politics but why is their rage aimed almost exclusively at Unionism?
The Future of Unionism
Unionism has become a convenient scapegoat—blamed for everything from anti-immigration riots in Dublin to Donald Trump’s stance on Ukraine. Unionists are told to “move on” from the IRA, yet they are expected to endure “Up the RA” chants. They are urged to forget their suffering during the Troubles while watching countless inquests demanded by their opponents. They are accused of living in the past, yet frequently dismissed as colonial squatters.
But despite this relentless hostility, Unionism must also take responsibility for its own failings. For too long, it has been distracted, divided, and reactive rather than proactive. It has failed to deliver for those who vote for it—albeit in diminishing numbers.
There are opportunities for renewal. Pro-Union forums are emerging, new commentators should be encouraged to step forward, and civic Unionism must organise to strengthen mainstream electoral Unionism. The challenge is clear: Unionism must reclaim its voice, challenge the narratives that vilify it, and push back against sectarian smears. But to do so, it must do more than just complain—it must engage, communicate, and present a confident, unapologetic, and forward-thinking case for the Union.
The alternative? Continued decline, irrelevance, and the steady erosion of everything it claims to defend.
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
