Posts
There was a very interesting article in the London Times about the consequences of the SNP victory in the Glasgow East by-election with the columnist Simon Jenkins predicting an end to the United Kingdom. There is a long way to go yet but the SNP has now surpassed its 1974 high tide mark and there would seem to be an inexorable movement towards increased Scottish devolution and eventually independence.
Ironically at the same time the Ulster Unionists are embarking on some kind of alliance with the Conservative Party. This is ostrich syndrome at its very worst. The Ulster Unionists will pretend once again that Northern Ireland is 'as British as Finchley' and jump in to bed with the party likely to win the next UK general election.
Why aren't unionists asking about which union is desirable going forward? Is it with the Irish Republic, Scotland or England/Wales? Of course they want the United Kingdom to stay as it is but, unfortunately for them, there are several other parties in the union including the not unsubstantial Irish nationalist and Ulster nationalist minorities in their own province.
When I was growing up I could never for the life of me understand why Scotland wanted to stay joined to England. Call it an Irish nationalist upbringing but basically nobody in the Irish Republic I grew up in would have voted to rejoin the union despite the country almost going bankrupt. Of course I realize now that the story was not quite so straightforward but I think that most Irish people would see the Scottish as a kindred folk and would welcome an independent Scotland as a country Ireland could work very closely together with.
The question is what will the unionists do in this situation? Will they clutch at the England/Wales combination and force them to remain united with a province they would gladly be rid of? Why are they not thinking outside of the box? Surely Scotland is their natural partner for historical, geographical and cultural reasons.
Unionists could be ahead of the game by exploring ways of fastening the link with Scotland. Would Irish people accept some kind of confederation between Scotland and Ireland?
Jenkins also makes a point that many unionist will find hard to accept but that I think is more and more relevant. The days of 'Britishness' are numbered.
It should also liberate England to consider its localism, its neglected Anglo-Saxon history and culture, without having to “take into account” the Scottish (or Irish or Welsh) ingredients of that curious vacuity, Britishness.
Long after the last 'British' people have been signalled on the island of Great Britain there may well still be one million British people in Ireland demanding a union with countries who may well have amicably separated while refusing any union with their fellow Irelanders no matter how beneficial such a union would be.
Donaldson’s website down
-
As Nevin points out, Jeffrey Donaldson’s website “is currently being
upgraded”. However, the website is still online apart from the domain name,
with th...
2 hours ago
5 comments:
Aidan. I’m a wee bit taken aback by the paucity of this analysis if I’m to be perfectly honest. Perhaps it is the Irish nationalist coming out in you, because it demonstrates the Irish nationalist reluctance to accept that there is any other frame of reference, other than nationalism, by which to examine the manner in which states are ordered. Really to come down to brass tacks, you seem frustrated that unionists insist on espousing unionism, that they don’t share your view that the Union’s demise is an inevitability and that essentially it should be bidden good riddance, and that they won’t accept ‘the inevitable’ and become something else.
I’ve read Jenkins’ article and I was disappointed. But even in his gloomy critique there is an acknowledgment that whilst the form of the Union may change, it will persist to some degree, whether it be merely a united monarchy, or whether it takes the form of a confederation. Of course this analysis is also open o question, so for unionists the issues are still very much extant. There is still very real purpose in attempting to defend and underpin the Union.
I therefore don’t understand what logic leads you to conclude that the UUP are putting their heads in the sand by aligning themselves with the Conservative Party. If the Union is still in operation, if it is there to be defended and if the Tory Party will form the next government (which you seem to concede is likely to be the case), what could be more affirmative of unionists’ aspirations than seeking to align with that government? This is concrete action to bring Northern Ireland’s politics closer to those of the rest of the UK. It is concrete action to build the Union. It is as far from ‘putting heads in the sand’ as it is possible to get. Do you honestly think that unionists should instead build links with the SNP and work towards linking up Northern Ireland with some putative independent Scotland? Putting our heads in the sand would be ignoring the challenge to the Union, refusing to engage with UK politics and bleating on about issues at the parish pump. That is the work of the DUP.
In terms of a ‘union’ with Scotland I’ve touched on this as an answer to you comments on my blog, but apart from being entirely unworkable it is based on some very crude nationalist thinking which I as a unionist would not want to touch with a twenty foot barge-pole. I don’t want a union based on the basis of being ‘kindred folk’ thank you very much. I’m sorry, but I think it is perhaps one of the worst ideas of all for the future ordering of Northern Ireland’s government.
Chekov,
I said that they unionists should be examining the 'what if?' scenarios. I certainly don't expect unionists to become 'something else'.
Your views are very clear but the fact that you concede that the UK could become a conferation is not so far removed from my idea that Scotland and Ireland could have some kind of loose federation. It is just an idea, what is wrong with upside-down thinking? Why does everything have to have a constitutional and historical precedent?
My view is that unionists should be exploring ways of keeping the parts of the UK they want while allowing the nationalist minority in NI ways to be more integrated with the rest of Ireland.
I can see why you value the union but there is a very large nationalist minority in NI which does not share your view on which union is the most preferable. There are more options than just a united Ireland or a United Kindom of GB and NI.
“Your views are very clear but the fact that you concede that the UK could become a conferation is not so far removed from my idea that Scotland and Ireland could have some kind of loose federation.”
The UK is an existing political unit which is undergoing centrifugal forces which could lead to this loosening of the bonds which bind it. Your thinking on Ireland and Scotland becoming a federation is based on little more than an instinct that Irish and Scottish people share a similar outlook or sympathies. I don’t think those two concepts can be helpfully compared. But there was more to your statements. You asked which union do Northern Irish unionists want. And the answer is simply a union comprising the current members of the United Kingdom. Why would we prioritise a union with Scotland as opposed to any other part of the Union?
“It is just an idea, what is wrong with upside-down thinking? Why does everything have to have a constitutional and historical precedent?”
Everything does not necessarily have to have a constitutional or historical precedent. But if a new constitutional idea has no historical anchor then it requires a much more substantial basis than simply a hunch that people get on well within two countries. If the basis for Northern Ireland and Scotland drawing together, outside the United Kingdom, is the perceived common roots of a majority of the population (and I can see no other rationale for such an arrangement), then we’re into a very problematic area.
“My view is that unionists should be exploring ways of keeping the parts of the UK they want while allowing the nationalist minority in NI ways to be more integrated with the rest of Ireland.”
Unionists do not want to ‘keep’ specific parts of the UK! Unionists want to retain the Union. At the present time a majority within each of the four constituent countries within the UK also wish to retain the Union. The task for unionists is to look at ways that this position can be strengthened. The Republic of Ireland has been granted a consultational role in the affairs of Northern Ireland which remains part of the UK. That is the position accepted by all the main parties, by both governments and by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. While the nationalist majority are free to ‘integrate’ with the rest of Ireland until the hearts are content, the constitutional position will not alter until a majority consent to its alteration. That is the essence of the principle of consent. Of course the minority identity must be respected and should be guaranteed a role in the governance of Northern Ireland, but within a UK framework.
“I can see why you value the union but there is a very large nationalist minority in NI which does not share your view on which union is the most preferable. There are more options than just a united Ireland or a United Kindom of GB and NI.”
The large nationalist minority are entitled to their opinion and will advance arguments to that effect. That does not mean that unionists are not entitled to work to strengthen their favoured position within the UK. When they do so they are not ‘sticking their heads in the sand’. Of course there are other options and I have heard many of those options persuasively advanced on occasion (i.e. Europe of the regions, some form of joint authority), but with all due respect I don’t think a federation of Scotland and Ireland, or a union of Scotland and Northern Ireland are among them.
Chekov,
Your points are very eloquently put as usual. Of course I realize that the unionist preference is for the current union. As I already said Northern Ireland is closer culturally, historically, linguiatically and geographically to Scotland than the other parts of the UK. That would have made me
imagine that it might have mattered more than England or Wales for at least some Northern Irish people (unionist or nationalist). Perhaps this is a naive idea but it is based on what I have read and heard anecdotally.
What would happen if Stormont were to be prorogued again? Would Unionists have the power to prevent the effective transfer of the North into the hands of Dublin?
Post a Comment
Post a Comment