Of course there is a lot of truth in what Walker says. The courage and fortitude to make a clean break with the OO and advance on a basis of secular unionism has never quite been there, even amongst progressive elements of the UUP. That said, it would be wrong to underestimate how far from the notion of a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People Ulster Unionism has come. I would agree that this has not gone far enough and one of the tragedies of unionism in my view is its failure to woo the minority, or at least sections of the minority and persuade them of the merits of retaining the union.

Firstly, I want to make the point that "A Protestant parliament for a Protestant people" is a grave misquote, and has been used by nationalists and republicans as a stick to beat unionism with throughout the Troubles.

Secondly, it's not just the Ulster Unionist Party that is predominantly a "one-faith party".
Can you name me more than one person of the Protestant faith in Sinn Fein / IRA?

I can name you one, and one only - a local councillor in my East Londonderry constituency called Billy Leonard, who stabbed his fellow R.U.C. officers in the back when leaving the SDLP to join Sinn Fein / IRA - the very organisation that murdered and maimed so many of his fellow colleagues!

The term "Lundy" has never before been so appropriate!

Just to make it clear, thankfully he is no longer a member of the R.U.C. / P.S.N.I.

Not sure what your'e gettting at there Mr Loyalist. Are there too few protestants in SF or one too many for your liking?

Concerned Loyalist,
Sinn Fein really aren't anything to do with this thread, there are more than enough other ones on them at the moment for you to make such comments.

That's the problem isn't it. We don't have Political Parties just political wings of the religious movements in NI. More Politicans fewer Preachers (of whatever creed) that's what we need.

George,
The point I am tying to make is this. It seems to me that this thread is trying to infer that the Ulster Unionist Party, and Unionism in general, appeases institutionalised sectarianism, when in fact I feel that Republicanism is actually the ideology most guilty of this!

Fair point do you not think?

DessertSpoon,
What you say is fair enough, but to politicians such as Dr.Paisley, and I assume members of the Roman Catholic Church as well, their faith is very important to them, and it is this faith that guides them in their political life

I often wonder how many catholic unionists there are, there are undoubtedly some and as discussed in the thread about the upcoming election in one of the Belfast Westminster constituencies (?which one - Alistair McDonnell v McGimpsey) moderate catholics who are not unionist will vot Unionist tactically.

But the UUP seems determined to frighten any such voter away with its continuing links to the Orange Order

A border referendum would be interesting!

Ziznivy: "The courage and fortitude to make a clean break with the OO and advance on a basis of secular unionism has never quite been there, even amongst progressive elements of the UUP."

Dare I suggest that part of the problem is that the Orange Order has at times been a key supporter of the other wing of the party and any attempt to remove the formal link could look a bit like an attmept to remove a block that is a major source of opposition from the UUC?

More generally, note that the Rev Martin Smyth is standing down at this election. Are there many/any other Grand Masters and reverends/preachers/priests still at the forefront of the UUP?

Mr Loyalist

your point is the same one made whenever unionist bigotry, racism and sectarianism are pointed out - the other side are just as bad! Fair enough as a defensive reflex but it does not aaddress the issue. Do you have anything to say about Unionist disinterest in Catholic support?

Barney,
Firstly, it's Concerned Loyalist and not Mr. Loyalist.

Secondly, the point is not whether there are too many "Prods" or too few, in the Rafia, the point is that once again Unionism is being portrayed as a sectarian ideology.

Answer me this. I will vote D.U.P. in Westminster and Assembly elections and U.P.R.G. candidates in local council elections. Does this make me sectarian?

Concerned loyalist,
This thread is merely pointing out that the UUP have shown little or no interest in garnering any kind of Catholic vote to the unionist cause, nothing more nothing less.

As for your point, there is no republican party on this island that is directly linked or has been linked to a religious institution or church so actually I don't believe you are making a fair point. That is not to say there isn't sectarianism in certain strands of Irish republicanism.

The UUP have a direct link with the Protestan Orange Order and the forerunner of the DUP used to have Protestant in their party name.

The UUP ran NI for 50 years and has to take most of the blame for any institutionalised sectarianism during that period just like Dev hast to take the blame for any institutionalised sectarianism in the Republic in the same period.

George,
So lets get this straight. What you are saying is that Unionism should have no links with a "religious institution", but it is alright for;

1) Provisional Sinn Fein to be inextricably linked to P.I.R.A.
2) Official Sinn Fein to be inextricably linked to O.I.R.A.
3) Republican Sinn Fein to be inextricably linked to C.I.R.A.
4) 32 County Sovereignty Committee to be inextricably linked to R.I.R.A.
5) Irish Republican Socialist Party to be inextricably linked to I.N.L.A.

Unionism and the Orange Order do not have blood on their hands, whereas the aforementioned sectarian death squads are guilty of mass murder!

The UUP ran NI for 50 years and has to take most of the blame for any institutionalised sectarianism during that period

How should they have tackled institutionalised RC sectarianism George ?

"Secondly, the point is not whether there are too many "Prods" or too few, in the Rafia, the point is that once again Unionism is being portrayed as a sectarian ideology."

But a "Prod" who joins a nationalist party is a "Lundy". And, it follows, people who stay within their tribe of birth are OK. Not sectarian??

"Answer me this. I will vote D.U.P. in Westminster and Assembly elections and U.P.R.G. candidates in local council elections. Does this make me sectarian?"

I don't know what makes people sectarian. Maybe it's something that happens in the home, as was suggested elsewhere recently.
What do you think unionists should do about their sectarian image?

Concerned loyalist,
what I believe Graham Walker is implying is that in its history the UUP was interested in the Protestant constituency and if the UUP wants to attract Catholic voters it will have to break its links with the Orange Order.

The question I'm asking is does the UUP even have an interest in attracting Catholic voters and if not why not.

I didn't say anything about PIRA, CIRA, INLA or anyone else from the fringes of Irish nationalism, you mentioned them. I don't believe they are relevant to this discussion.

Davros,
I'll save that discussion for another day. I would be more interested in learning how people see the UUP attracting Catholic voters or whether they see that as even being an issue for the UUP. If it's not an issue why not?

George,
You say that the UUP has to take "the blame for any institutionalised sectarianism during that period"

So you're saying that the re-emergence of the IRA, with their ill-fated "Border Campaign", coupled with the constant interference of the Irish Free State in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, and their despotic refusal to sign away their "right" to Northern Ireland, in Articles 2 and 3, had nothing to do with sectarian tensions at the time?

The concept of Catholic Unionism has never got beyond the theory really.

I have said it on here before and I will say it again. Before Unionism should do move forward on this issue it should conduct some serious research to best determine does Catholic Unionism exist (latent and actual), how large is it, what barriers exist to its development and if it is party political research can it be attracted without losing large numbers of existing voters?

The UUP spent most of the last six years chasing after the illusive garden centre Prod and it failed miserably and cost them electorally. A lesson worth heeding.

George,
I cannot speak for the UUP, as I am neither a member or supporter of the party, but I feel that the obvious answer to your question is that it is not an issue at present, as Unionism overall has a clear majority over Nationalism overall.

If the roles were reversed, they would perhaps be more dynamic in their courting of Roman Catholics.

Don't you think?

I'm not terribly interested in the inadequacies of Sinn Fein as a cross community body or the vagaries of nationalist/RC discrimination. As a unionist I would wish for a strong, viable and inclusive Northern Ireland and it seems to me the best way to have achieved this was attempting to include the minority community and lead them to believe their best interests lay in the maintenance of the union. I believe the issue here is whether or not that analysis is correct and if so whether the severance of links with the OO and secularising the Ulster Unionist Party would have achieved this. I would contend the answer to this is yes.

The arguments of themuns are as bad seem irrelevant to the thread.

Must go and catch a train, but I hope this thread continues to attract much debate and differing opinion

CL
"and U.P.R.G. candidates in local council elections."

Who are, if I'm not mistaken, inextricably linked to the drug dealing, deeply sectarian and murderous UDA/UFF. Kind of poses a question regarding your values.
Don't you think?

Concerned loyalist,
if there is to be a normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland then either unionism has to work to attract Catholic voters or nationalism has to work to attract Protestant ones.

On this thread, we are addressing the former.

Apart from normalisation, I believe that it is naive for unionism to not bother with courting Catholic voters on the grounds that they already have a majority and don't need them at the moment.

The Northern Irish state collapsed when it had a much larger majority in favour of maintaining the union than it does today. It is plain madness to not to worry about the fact that 43% of the voting electorate voted for parties who want to unify with the Republic because 57% voted for unionist parties.

Just because they are a minority doesn't mean they should be ignored.

The Irish Republic is a success in 2005 because it doesn't have a large minority, who feel as if they don't belong in their own state.

The overwhelming majority of its population are pulling in the same direction for the good of the country.

If Northern Ireland is to succeed into the future and flourish economically, culturally and politically, which is what I assume unionists want rather than just being the runt of the UK litter, then more and more Catholics are going to have to come on board.

Otherwise, we'll just move from crisis to crisis as Northern Ireland falls further and further behind the rest of Western Europe.

I also think it is naive to think that in an impoverished NI, Northern Irish Protestants will always support the union, regardless of the economic cost. In 20-40 years time this could have changed completely.

As for blaming the Irish Republic for the Provos, who don't even recognise the Irish government never mind Articles 2 and 3, and sectarian tensions at the time, that may be the easy option for unionism but it's simply not the case.

Sean Lemass did a lot of things but one thing he didn't do was stir the flames of sectarian hatred.

Answer me this. I will vote D.U.P. in Westminster and Assembly elections and U.P.R.G. candidates in local council elections.

Yeah, I'd say voting for the UDA makes you sectarian. I'd also say voting for the UDA while making comments about the 'Rafia' makes you delusional. Loyalist paramilitaries and their political associates are not involved in Mafia-style activities. Of course not. How naïve of me to believe that nasty Republican/Brit black propaganda. Andre Shoukri, in particular, has been villified by an evil pro-Nationalist media and has no connections with organised crime at all. How could any reasonable person even think such a thing.

As far as Catholic Unionists go, the potential market is probably in three figures. There are a lot of small n nationalists who are quite comfortable in the UK and aren't too bothered about a United Ireland one way of another. But the number of Catholics who actively perceive themselves to be primarily British is very small. On the other hand, I've always thought getting rid of the OO link was more about attracting apathetic or Alliance voting Prods for the UUP than anything else.

Young Fogey
Do you have to perceive yourself as British to be a Catholic Unionist? Many 'Protestant' Unionist happily regard themselves as British and Irish and pro Union. Methinks you've fallen for Provo myth that you cannot be truely Irish if you don't support a United Ireland.

Walker's book sounds as if it hits a very relevant nail on the head. Personally I think - in order in part to bring pro Union Catholics (even Irish ones Fogey) into real politics the UUP should mark its centenary by winding itself up and urging its members to join the Con/Lab and Lib parties in an attempt to build truely inclusive politics rather than this nonsense of including the Rafia

'As far as Catholic Unionists go, the potential market is probably in three figures'.

There would have been at least three figures worth of Catholics in the RUC (before PSNI), and I dare say they would have been pro-union.

I consider myself to be both Irish and British, so in order to remain and enjoy the latter, I reckon that make me, too, a unionist, and I know lots of people who feel the same, and we're working class.

And I'm sure there's one or two Catholic Alliance voters.

Do you have to perceive yourself as British to be a Catholic Unionist?

I'd guess so. That doesn't mean you can't perceive yourself as Irish as well.

Many 'Protestant' Unionist happily regard themselves as British and Irish and pro Union.

Yup. As, undoubtedly, do most of the small number of Catholic Unionists there are.

Methinks you've fallen for Provo myth that you cannot be truely Irish if you don't support a United Ireland.

Hardly, as I'm - a: truly Irish, b: deeply ambivalent on the idea of a United Ireland. However, if one has no emotional attachment to Britain - as I would assert is the case with the overwhelming majority pro- or neutral on the-Union Catholics, I don't think you're a Unionist and I fail to see what attraction the UUP could possibly have.

Personally I think - in order in part to bring pro Union Catholics (even Irish ones Fogey) into real politics the UUP should mark its centenary by winding itself up and urging its members to join the Con/Lab and Lib parties in an attempt to build truely inclusive politics rather than this nonsense of including the Rafia

I can understand the integrationist position but I've never quite bought into it. Finaghy just isn't as British as Finchley no matter how much you want to believe it is. However, now I'd have to say I'm even more hostile to the integrationist position than in the past. The sterile, negative, vicious, personalised finger pointing between two parties that agree with one another on everything important, that passes for political discourse in Britain doesn't seem to be a credible model to me. Even less does the political systems of Scotland or Wales where three social democratic parties fall over themselves to agree with each other in a system which enforces consensualism and encourages bored politicians and journos to obsess about minor misdemeanours for the want of anything interesting.

If you want to move to post-ethnic, post-sectarian politics, I'm right with you, but I don't see anything worth copying in Great Britain.

George
Excellent post above to CL.
With the contradictions in his posts jumping off the screen at me, I couldn't be arsed making the effort.

"The Irish Republic is a success in 2005 because it doesn't have a large minority, who feel as if they don't belong in their own state."

There you have it folks, the key to a "successful" Northern Ireland is to commence ethnic cleansing until the minority are too small to be considered a 'large' minority.

Seriously though, Unionists *need* to attract Catholic votes in order to remain the majority and I find it very hard to believe that the DUP will ever do that in considerable numbers.

I have a catholic friend who maintains that she would prefer to see Northern Ireland remain in the UK, and yet doesn't consider herself British. I have to admit it confuses me but looking at the 2003 survey done by 21% of catholics think NI should remain in the UK, yet 0% consider themselves Unionist. At the same time 12% of catholics think of themselves British and 35% Northern Irish.

The alarming statistic among all these is that only 1% of Catholics could bring themselves to vote for the Ulster Unionist party. The UU have to start questioning why they can't attract significantly more votes even than the DUP!

What this shows is that there is a reasonably sizeable "market" for catholic unionism but I think the links with the OO must be broken to maintain this. The only worry I have is that it would give the hardliners another reason to switch allegiance to the DUP. Although I think anyone who's that hardline will have done so by now anyway. If the UU had a significant catholic support, they could easily become the largest unionist party again.

I said maintain above, should really have said mobilise, tap into etc.

Answer me this. I will vote D.U.P. in Westminster and Assembly elections and U.P.R.G. candidates in local council elections. Does this make me sectarian?

Obviously you have sympathies for the UDA. Since it's an organization which murders people indiscriminately in accordance with their religion, I think you pretty much meet the definition of "sectarian". I find it particularly alluding that people like you who feel that the UDA is representative of their views on a local level reckon the DUP are the people who speak up for you the best. DUP supporters keep telling us that the DUP despise terrorism, so either it's a strange decision in your part or the DUP aren't quite so affronted by loyalist paramilitarism as they would have us believe. But sure we all knew that anyway.

Bob Wilson says :

Do you have to perceive yourself as British to be a Catholic Unionist?

Yes, definitely. Unionism is about British identity, much less about the union. For example I don't mind the fact that the union exists, in some circumstances I might even vote for it in a referendum, but I'm not a unionist. Depending on how things are I might vote for Irish reunification in a referendum, but that doesn't make me a nationalist.

the key to a "successful" Northern Ireland is to commence ethnic cleansing until the minority are too small to be considered a 'large' minority.

A touch of unionist mythology creeping in there, beano ...

There was no 'ethnic cleansing' in the south. We southern Prods identify with the state (and the nation too) because that state and nation have been largely benign to us and our interests - and because we have, to a relatively large extent helped to shape both state and nation. If our numbers have declined it is nothing more sinister than the effect of smaller family size (the same is happening amongst northern Prods these days too)

Seriously though ...

You were only joking?? Oh shit, why didn't you say so? I thought it was a serious gambit.

There is indeed a liberal pluralist section of the UUP, desperate to split with the OO and keen to attract Catholic voters from Alliance. As an election approaches these people go quiet, and the more traditional elements are unleashed to go canvassing.

And because it is time- and cost-effective to canvass your electoral heartlands rather than "enemy territory", many Catholic unionists will never see a unionist campaign worker. The liberal pluralists (let's call them "lemons") don't do this sort of work, anyway. They sit on their butts putting out wildly optimistic press releases.

Obviously you have sympathies for the UDA. Since it's an organization which murders people indiscriminately in accordance with their religion, I think you pretty much meet the definition of "sectarian".

Roger - isn't that a contradiction ? Indiscriminate murders occur regardless of religion ?

Pedantry Davros :) What I meant is quite easy to guess.

It's always good to see a long-time absentee reappear on Slugger.

Welcome back, Stephen!

Davros

"Obviously you have sympathies for the UDA. Since it's an organization which murders people indiscriminately in accordance with their religion, I think you pretty much meet the definition of "sectarian".

Roger - isn't that a contradiction ? Indiscriminate murders occur regardless of religion ?"

Maybe not. The UDA murdered quite a few Protestants in indiscriminate attempts to murder Catholics.

Anyway we all know what Roger meant and it was a good, you're too fast with the pedantic stuff.

..a good point..

Sloppy writing causes problems Biffo. I hold my hand up to being a pedant. "Indiscriminate" is a trigger word along with "brutal" and "Savage".

The British abhor sectarian unionist politics, and the connection of the main Unionist Parties to organised protestant exclusivism and to fundamentalism endangers the Union rather than strengthen it.

Unionists are Provo dupes, reinforcing the historic catholic sense of grievance by appearing to support religious discrimination.

Everyone in this joint nurses their victimhood like a child. And what a big fat greedy toothy bastard he is.

Loyalist murder squads were only indiscriminate, when not being directed by their masters in the British Security Services.

Trigger word Davros? Do Nazi and Fascist count as such?

Posted by: Concerned Loyalist at March 1, 2005 12:53 PM
Can you name me more than one person of the Protestant faith in Sinn Fein / IRA?

I can name you one, and one only - a local councillor in my East Londonderry constituency called Billy Leonard, who stabbed his fellow R.U.C. officers in the back when leaving the SDLP to join Sinn Fein / IRA - the very organisation that murdered and maimed so many of his fellow colleagues!
--------
He clearly had enough courage to leave the war in the past where it belongs.
Sinn Fein's former publicity director, Rita O'Hare, is, or was, a Protestant.

So we have two Hector ? That's impressive! No wonder the APNI are in decline ;)

"There was no 'ethnic cleansing' in the south."

Far from being unionist mythology, this is actually fact, protestants were intimidated and forced out of areas in Ireland, especially west cork and the border areas.

Research was done on the decline of Protestants in the Republic in the early 1920s by the Reform Movement with Professor David Fitzpatrick of Trinity College, Dublin. They reached the conclusion that there were about 50,000 involuntary emigrants between 1920 -24. It was not a question of not being in charge, it was a question of being intimidated, murdered and often burnt out.

As for the UUP scaring off Catholics, thats a load of nonsense. I could name a few catholics I know who are members of the party off the top of my head and I am sure there are more I would know about if I went around and questioned every member as to their religion.

As to links with the orange order putting catholics off, if this was the case how come the Rev Martin Smyth, a man high up in the LOL and well known for being an orange man was elected by the largely middle class and the largely mixed electorate of leafy south belfast?

One failure of David Trimble has been his inability to take control of the UUP and to change its ethos.

Had he succeeded in his attempts to modernise the UUP, scuppered by the diehards in the party leadership, and thereby had the ability to reach out to Catholic unionists then he might have managed to convince nationalists that the UUP had left behind the trappings of the OO and such like.

Unfortunately he failed, in part due to the incessant carping of the DUP, and a major opportunity to move into the 21st century as a non sectarian party was lost, probably for ever.

I suspect that when the Conservative party in GB get their act together that the NI Conservatives could slowly eat into the UUP, Alliance and SDLP votes as society moves away from its current tribal positions. This would also apply to the Labour party if they finally organised in NI.

It should be noted that the Conservatives policy on NI could be seen to be somewhat to the right of the DUP and the UUP and could be attractive to many voters who don't see devolution as an option any longer - changed times!

Rebecca: Smyth has never swept the board in that seat. The unionist alternative, on a few occasions, has been the DUP - and lately not even that. Even in 1997 with no DUP candidate Smyth got only 36% of the vote in a very crowded election - and in 2001 he seems to have driven some Protestant voters into backing the SDLP. So I suspect he's been getting by without needing much Catholic support.

Is it possible for NI to get to a situation where a larger majority of the population support the institutions of the state and a continuation of union?

Ideas seem pretty thin on the ground so far as to how unionism can engage Catholics.

I personally find it incredible that with the much-heralded collapse of the SDLP, which accounts for 20% of the vote in NI, that there is only one party looking to hoover up the votes, SF, while the UUP continues to look for the hard yards with the DUP.

Surely it makes political sense for some other party to try and get a share of this disillussioned SDLP vote?

Rebecca,
I was afraid that mentioning the fact that the people supporting the Irish state was a reason for its success would immediately lead to "ethnic cleansing" remarks from unionists rather than looking at how to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland.

This although I've yet to hear you bring up the 23,000 Belfast Catholics who were forced out of their homes in the 1919-1921 period alone (a quarter of the city's Catholic population). I won't even go into the 8,000 in 1969.

However, I still would not say that ethnic cleansing took place in Belfast. Pogroms, yes, ethnic cleansing no.

This phrase originated out of Bosnia where 250,000 people died as a result. How many tens of Protestants were killed in this great "ethnic cleansing" purge in the Republic? Let's keep things in perspective.

Also, the Reform Movement wrote that there were over 600,000 British passport holders in Ireland when in fact there are less than a tenth of that number. They aren't to be relied on for numbers and have a tendency to exaggerate to score political points.

P.S. I come from Dublin where a third of the population live and I don't know of a single Protestant forced out of their homes and in 1960 southern Protestants still accounted for 60% of the Republic's wealth. This is the reality of the world I live and grew up in where my road was 50-50 on the religion front. Compare that with the reality for Belfast Catholics.

I look forward to Bob Wilson explaining to me why the British party system is so great that we would want to import it into Northern Ireland...

George

so by that logic, wealthy people deserve to have their possessions seized and be forced out of their country?

Wealth or lackof is irrelevant when discussing pogroms, the idea that wealthy people somehow deserve all they get is ridiculous.

*oh and while the reform movement may not be 100% accurate, what about Professor Fitzpatrick from TCD? Or should he be ignored too because he is part of an elite university?

PS - Rebecca do you really think Martin Smyth gets many Catholic votes?

Well, I don't know for certain young fogey, nobody could do, a persons vote is between them and the ballot box, but I would hazard a guess that yes Rev Smyth did receive some catholic votes.

George - Good thread.

Good points from many posters.

Right.

‘Catholic Unionism’ does not exist in reality. Unionism is Protestant. Unionist culture, in the main, is Protestant. ‘Unionism’ is not simply about preserving the Union with Great Britain as if this were a mere matter of single issue politics along the lines of bin charges or water rates – it is about preserving a culture and way of life for a consciously defined set of people (let’s call them ‘the Protestants’) in Northern Ireland.

No doubt many self-defined Unionists, and ‘members of the Unionist community’ will take issue with my description of Unionism. For the purposes of this discussion, though, it doesn’t matter whether I’m right or wrong: think of me as a guinea pig for your ‘Catholic Unionist’ fantasies. I think my description typifies, perhaps a tad generously, what many Northern Catholics think about Unionism.

So, whither ‘the market’ for Catholic Unionists? Well, first of all, unionist parties don’t got the marketing skills. And the buyers’ past experiences with the product haven’t been to hot either. And to top it all, there’s a lingering suspicion that they don’t like the buyer.

It’d take a whole lot more than dropping links to the Orange Order (it’d be a good place to start, by the way) to persuade NI RCs to vote in any great number for the Ulster Unionist Party. There may be NI RCs who would be amenable to supporting the maintenance of the union with Great Britain, but they will not, to any significant degree, become Unionists. Or indeed unionists.

I have never heard any Unionist politician make the case for why a maintenance of the union benefits me, a Catholic by denomination only.

OK, engaging Catholics in such an overt manner may be a tacit admission that your part of the United Kingdom isn’t exactly a multikultural melting point, or indeed that maybe it isn’t even a real part of the United Kingdom. (Did you ever see so many Union Jacks in Guildford or Shrewsbury, apart from maybe on Coronation Day?) But you aren’t gonna get any extra party members or votes for not doing it. Votes will get shifted between unionist parties, but the overall number of pro-union votes will not increase.

In reality, there is seldom a case made for maintaining the union that goes beyond ‘because that’s the way it should be, and that’s the way we (unionists) like it.’ This may be understandable, but the day will come when a case will have to be made, and based on current form, few Catholics are going to be listening.

To many Catholics, the bottom line of Unionism is this: as long as there’s enough Protestants around to vote to maintain the union, there’s no need to worry about attracting Catholics, either to the ballot box or to Unionist parties. Or to shorten it slightly: there’s no need to worry about Catholics.

Rebecca,
I would be interested to hear how you, as a UUP member, could envisage the party capturing more Catholic votes as they are supposed to be the civic side of unionism.

Has it ever been discussed?

Do you believe that to woo Catholics, the UUP will have to eschew its "simply British" stance and show that it can be an Irish unionist party or would this force away more Protestant unionists than attract Catholic ones?

What policies could the UUP put up to attract these floating SDLP votes?

What is the ceiling on the number of these votes?

In answer to your previous post, I have no idea where you got the idea that I think wealthy people should hand over possessions. I said, as late as 1960, over 60% of the Irish Republic's wealth was still in the hands of southern Protestants which is evidence that southern Protestants were very active in the Irish economy and controlled the majority of it. In that situation, it is obvious their interests lay in the success of the Republic.

There are loads of rich Catholic Celtic Tiger cubs about today so times have changed.

Young Fogey

In the British Political System, all the parties offer alternatives on the basis of a political viewpoint not religion. The BNP might be an exception not on Catholic or Protestant grounds but on those religions verus the other 'foreign' religions.

In the NI system almost all the parties offer a religious option first and a political one second, there are of course some obvious exceptions in the minority parties.

This has led to a situation where in all the main parties people of different political viewpoints are held together by a religious affliation which is stronger. Two examples are the UUP and SDLP who have traditional conservatives and socialists bound together under a religious tag.

Rebecca Black & George

This is a pointless argument. Both of you agree that there is a constituency of Catholics there for a more liberal unionism to tap into - yet this would fundamentally require both the party and their potential Catholic voters to discard the burden of history and instead simply look at things from the perspective of 'where are we and where do we want to go'. (This also goes for a potential protestant vote turning to a benign form of nationalism).

Your bickering about who was treated worse by the other side the best part of a century ago (or even a generation ago) is exactly the sort of stuff that will deter any cross-pollination. If you can't even agree when you do agree, then why bother?

George

Your opinions on the simply british logo are bizarre, the whole point of the simply british logo is that is it non sectarian. Its not simply prod, its simply british. I personally think its a great logo and I do think there are catholics who consider themselves british who would be attracted by the logo. The UUP is a British party and their aspirations are to remain British so I don't see any need to change the logo and I refute your argument that it doesn't attract catholics. Take your head out of the Dublin sand George, there are northern catholics who are quite happy and comfortable in a British state.

Catholics do vote for the UUP, plenty that I know of, but in general I would say that its not something they shout from the roof tops.

"There are loads of rich Catholic Celtic Tiger cubs about today so times have changed."

and they ought to be voting for the UUP, the left wing policies of the SDLP and Sinn Fein are really not in their interests.

Does any of this matter in respect of the main issue, unity with GB or ROI ? Under the GFA there is Orange and Green. The party-political battles therefore tend to be internal - DUP vs UUP and SDLP vs SF. The party political aspect of Orange vs Green has been made irrelevent because of the referendum win that would be needed to change NI from part of the UK to part of a United Island. As long as 20% of RCs favour the UK and only 5% of Prods favour a united Ireland what odds if RCs cannot bring themselves to vote for the UUP ? Heck, as a Prod I cannot bring myself to vote for either the UUP or DUP.

but I would hazard a guess that yes Rev Smyth did receive some catholic votes.

I would agree with you Rebecca, but only on the basis that any number greater than one can be defined as 'some'.

vespasian,

thanks for your reply, but I've never understood why people think the 'conservative' versus 'socialist' debate is one worth importing to NI. The two mnain British political parties fall over themselves agreeing on asylum and immigration, the war, 'terrorism', the economy, pensions, etc., etc. Then to cover up for their lack of disagreement, they spend their time being vicious to one another. Socialism, in any meaningful sense, is dead in rich countries anyway.

Just because our political system is shit, doesn't make theirs good.

Beano

"by 21% of catholics think NI should remain in the UK, yet 0% consider themselves Unionist. At the same time 12% of catholics think of themselves British and 35% Northern Irish."

Interesting stats but they have to be taken with some scepticism. The Life and Times survey ahs consistent problems with getting a politically representative sample (they usually have a poor represetation of DUP and SF voters) and in most polls in Northern Ireland people give more liberal opinions.

However, further work on their voting patterns and attitudes to voting would be needed.

Rebecca,
I don't think I am taking a bizarre attitude towards the "simply British" attitude of the UUP.

You are looking at it from a British point of view and it makes perfect sense, I'm looking at it from an Irish one and it doesn't.

It implies you have to be British to be in the union - a direct contradiction to the GFA which states the citizens of NI can be British, Irish or both. It is an exclusionary comment for those who may consider themselves Irish unionists or British/Irish unionists.

Would you feel at home with a "simply Irish, simply unionist" party logo? I doubt it.

I'm sure there are Catholics who consider themselves British but 40% of NI is Catholic (2001 census) and 43% of the voting electorate vote for unification parties so there can't be that many. How do you refute that figure?

The aspiration of the UUP should be to do its best for its citizens within the union, not to remain in the union so that its voters can "remain British" - whatever that means.

"There are northern catholics who are quite happy and comfortable in a British state."

This may be true but the problem is they seem to vote for parties whose main priority is to leave the union. You say there are plenty of Catholics who vote for the UUP but on what do you base this?

How many are there and is there room for more?

"and they ought to be voting for the UUP, the left wing policies of the SDLP and Sinn Fein are really not in their interests."

I was referring to the Irish Republic when I mentioned the Celtic Tiger and most of seem quite quite happy to vote Fianna Fail. SF don't do well on Westminster Road or Eaton Brae.

Rebecca
"Your opinions on the simply british logo are bizarre"

I have to agree with George on this issue. The "Simply British" to me means 'no room for Irish'. Of course you can be Irish and British, but it's no good saying "Simply British, btw that includes some of you Irish". Also, you can be unionist but regard yourself as Irish and not British.
And it's not about a logo, it's what it stands for. Why isn't it "Simply Northern Irish" or better yet "Simply for the people of Northern Ireland". They may be a British party but not everyone who they *should be* representing are (or consider themselves to be) British.
If I was in the North i'd find it very hard to vote UUP when they don't appear to want to represent me, even if I was pro-union.

And the DUP? forget about it.

Maca and George

but if you are pro-union then you are pro-british, and being a unionist and british you are both irish and british because you are part of the United Kingdom.

Example, I consider myself an Irish British person. As it is embodied in the union flag the United Kingdom is a union of Scotland, England and Ireland, the union flag incorporates the flags of these three countries and three nationalities. Being British therefore in Northern Ireland is being Irish, it is being an Irish British person, similar to if we were living in Kent, we would be english british people.

The logo simply british is completely open to anyone of any religion or background in Northern Ireland or indeed the republic of Ireland who consider themselves part of the United Kingdom.

As for the republic of Ireland, the Ulster Unionist Party doesn't represent people there, it is not organised there so therefore and quite logically its directed at attracting Northern Irish people not southern irish people.

"You say there are plenty of Catholics who vote for the UUP but on what do you base this?"

I base this upon people I know, I do not of course have statistics on a broader level.

"I was referring to the Irish Republic when I mentioned the Celtic Tiger and most of seem quite quite happy to vote Fianna Fail. SF don't do well on Westminster Road or Eaton Brae. "

I think thats because Fianna Fail may be a left wing party in theory but they certainly are not in practise.

Rebecca Black,

In response to my assertion that "There was no 'ethnic cleansing' in the south.", you replied;

Far from being unionist mythology, this is actually fact, protestants were intimidated and forced out of areas in Ireland, especially west cork and the border areas.

There may have been individual cases, but it did not qualify as 'ethnic cleansing' - my own people are partly from the border region and not one was 'cleansed', nor are there any stories whatsoever of such a thing having happened in any of the several counties my relatives inhabit. West Cork I am not familiar with, but I have Cork city relatives who were definitely not 'cleansed' - one went on to fight in the RAF in WW2 and was a proud Corkman and Irishman to the end of his days. Even David Brewster is acquained with the Bandon Orange Lodge, which appears to be also 'uncleansed'.

Research was done on the decline of Protestants in the Republic in the early 1920s by the Reform Movement ...

Ah, I see. That reliable source of nonsense and propaganda. George has pointed out their lie about the number of British citizens in the south. And you still find them credible?

... with Professor David Fitzpatrick of Trinity College, Dublin.

I don't know him. He must have been after my time in Trinity. Can you be more specific about the 'research', i.e. where it was published.

They reached the conclusion that there were about 50,000 involuntary emigrants between 1920 -24.

Who is 'they'? The Reform Movement? In which case your figure is not reliable, as they are proven liars. In any case, the period 1920-24 coincided with the dismantling of the British state in the south, when all British civil servants (many not Irish) were given the option of remaining in the UK civil service, but in Britain. This was clearly not ethnic cleansing either. It is also hard to separate out that particular period since there was an inter-censal gap from 1911 to 1926 which included WW1. So how many of the 'missing 50,000' were dead, or remained in the British army, or entered other (British) organisations when de-mobbed? If you cannot answer these question, then you should be very cautious bout using terms like 'ethnic cleansing'. As a final thought I offer my (protestant) maternal grandfather who moved to Dublin in the 1920s from Wales, and despite speaking Welsh but no Irish, was employed by Radio Eireann (the forerunner to RTE). He, like all of my relatives, experienced neither institutional discrimination nor 'ethnic cleansing'.

Rebecca
"if you are pro-union then you are pro-british"

Not necessarily. I might think the best chance for peace, stability, economic reform in NI lies within the UK but I might have zero desire to BE British.

"Example, I consider myself an Irish British person"

Yeah we know all this and the *crap* (sorry) about British meaning Irish AND British. The point is there is a significant percentage of people in NI who consider themselves Irish more than British and many who may not consider themselves British at all, so how does a "Simply British" party appeal to them?

I'll put it this way. If I relocate to NI (always a possibility) and you want me to vote UUP how will you go about it? If you tell me that "Simply British" includes me because it includes all the people of NI then you've just lost my vote. So the question is open to you or anyone, do you want my vote and how will you go about persuading me to vote for your British not Irish party? ;)

Rebecca,
you are still looking at it from a British point of view as evidenced by your difficulty with coming to grips with the idea of someone being simply Irish and unionist at the same time. For me, it's like being told your British whether you like it or not.

Unionism needs to go to to a level in my view, where it attracts voters who aren't British but don't mind staying in the union.

Our future lies in the union.
The union can deliver etc.

Your evidence on Catholic UUP voters is anecdotal while the statistical evidence seems to show there are virtually none.

Another sign that the "British-isation" of Northern Ireland won't work is evidenced by the fact that there has been a 900% increase in the number of people taking out Irish citizenship in Northern Ireland in the last 8 years. I think there are now around 300,000 Irish citizens in Northern Ireland.

I see the UUP as the only unionist party which could move in a direction to stem this so that is why I am interested in this issue.

As for the flag of St. Patrick, it was a British construct of what Irishness should be.

I'd like to discuss this more but I'm off to sunny Spain for a few days ....

PS. My grandfather was a staunch Protestant unionist. Neither he nor any of his relatives were forced out. In fact he was given social housing in 1932 when there was very little going about and the religion even got the da a job in the public service.

You seem to harbour a personal grudge against the reform movement, I would prefer to stay out of that.

Professor Fitzpatrick is in the modern history dept at TCD, i have been trying to look up his profile to check out the research but the modern history page isn't working yet again. As a student of TCDs history department I would tend to respect whatever research its academic staff have done.

The Reform Movement? Waste of letters, there's much better things we could have done with those letters, like 'foremen therm vomet' for example.

no harm maca but you seem completely turned against unionism and you seem to have firm preset ideas about what it and Britishness is. You have just decribed my nationality as "crap", I think I'd give up before I'd be tempted to slap you!

By the way, if you want NI to remain in the UK you do want it and therefore yourself to be British, I really don't see why this is such a tough concept to grasp.

George

Being Irish and unionist at once? by that you presumably mean the desire to be in a united ireland under british rule? If not, please explain, you're grasp of identity seems to be ever so much more sophisticated than mine.

What about "Mm! Forment over thee!"

Rebecca

``if you want NI to remain in the UK you do want it and therefore yourself to be British, I really don't see why this is such a tough concept to grasp.''

If I may intervene, I think what we're seeing here is a schism of understanding and terminology. To Rebecca, Westminster's sovereignty over the six counties makes them ``British''. They are possessed by the British state, and so therefore are ``British''. It's one of a long list of old rhetorical hangovers from the Empire, when apparently a quarter of the world and the people in it were ``British''. You hear it in unionist battle cries like ``Ulster is British''.

But of course India and Canada and South Africa and the rest were never ``British'', even if Westminster did send their storm troopers to loot their natural resources, and even if they did hoist a flag while they were doing it.

To those of us who are Irish and only Irish, the same logic applies, and the idea that temporary sovereignty makes any part of Ireland ``British'' is a non-sequitur.

So you might theoretically argue that union with Britain is the best guarantor of the material interests of people in the north of Ireland whilst also rejecting British identity.

What, after all, do you think the logic is of a country that is called: ``The United Kingdom of Great Britain....AND.....Northern Ireland''. (My emphasis.)

Surely I don't have to point out to a unionist that the nature of the UK state is, well, union? Union clearly implies separate things coming together as a whole. The UK is implicitly a union of two partners. 1) the British, and 2) the Northern Irish. (Hint: it's in the name.)

Now, if you're in NI and you want to consider yourself British, no-one will dispute your right to do so. But there is nothing in being pro-union that requires you consider yourself British.

(Jesus, there'd be Irishmen who might vote pro-union for feckin tax reasons.)

Before partition that mistake wasn't readily made by Irish unionists. (Carson rarely spoke of himself as British - his preferred formulation was to talk about the rights and glories of British citizenship - which is an altogether different matter.)

In making it all about a) Protestantism and b) Britishness, unionists have painted themselves as a) religious fanatics and b) colonial land thieves.

Or in short: unionism needs to start thinking about the union as something that has nothing to do either with Protestantism or Britishness.

(Government Health Warning: there may not be anything else left.)

unionism needs to start thinking about the union as something that has nothing to do either with Protestantism or Britishness.

(Government Health Warning: there may not be anything else left.)

LOL

So true!

Rebecca Black,

You seem to harbour a personal grudge against the reform movement

I presume you include me in your (plural?) 'you'? If so, then you misjudge my opposition to the RM (a deliberate choice of initials?). It is not 'personal' or a 'grudge', it is simple dislike of blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Incidentally, the lie about there being 500,000 British citizens in the south is still on their website, several years after the British government formally disproved it! Now it carries a healthwarning like 'this article does not necesarily reflect the views of the RM'. Then why not remove it, people? It is wrong - the British government has put that on the formal record. But the RM still half-peddles it ... they have no credibility at all.

"Unionism needs to go to to a level in my view, where it attracts voters who aren't British but don't mind staying in the union."

Well said George, your spot on. The UUP should welcome unionists whatever their religious or ethnic background, who are proud of their Irish roots and value their Irish heritage.

"Being Irish and unionist at once? by that you presumably mean the desire to be in a united ireland under british rule?"

Not necessarily Rebecca, its more the case that some irish people actually favour the maintenence of partition. What about Conor Cruise O'Brien? Unlike most of us, the Cruiser has a fluent command of Irish. And his second wife is an Irish language poet. Did the Cruiser cease to be simply Irish, the moment he choosed to embrace Bob McCartney's brand of unionism? I think not.

Welcome back Mr Copeland. Long time no see :-)

I'd agree that you don't have to identify as British to be for the union. One could base it all on rational rather than cultural arguments. I don't know if the unionist parties would be well advised to do that. That takes the essences and values out of politics. And we know that "values" and "culture" has started to play a big role in other countries politics - notably the US. (That other union based country). If politics is increasingly about culture - who we are what values we stand for - then one has to be simple and straight forward about that and not be all things to all.

That said Britishness is not such an exclusive concept in principle - it just is to Irish nationalists. In the other parts of the UK, Scotland, Wales, England, they are British in addition, often second, and there is no reason that NI people can't be like that - many are. The strength of Britishness is its flexibility, as Simon Schama pointed out in his TV series it is more than the sum of its parts and that makes it appeal to ethnic and religious minorities like himself, a secular jew. I don't know that unionists should sacrifice that romance to attract non-Brit pro-union culturally nationalist types. Why dilute your strength to attract people that have real and genuine cultural differences?

Trimble talked on this theme recently:

"For us, unionism is not the same thing as Protestantism. We know the Union is in the best interests of all. But we accept difference. We accept other points of view. We want a Northern Ireland where everyone irrespective of religion, gender, race or lifestyle, can be comfortable and proud to call home.

For us, Britishness is not just a flag too often waved to annoy others. It is a living, organic relationship with our fellow citizens elsewhere in the Kingdom.

...

I think that such a duality can also engage and be satisfying to those who see themselves as Irish. Such Britishness is inclusive. Emerson Tennant, one of the MPs for Belfast in the mid-19th Century put it as follows: we wish to add to the glory of being British, the distinction of being Irish. "

Hmmm... Have you seen the UUP's new election leaflets? Whatever you think of them, they could not be described as 'inclusive'.

Posted by: Davros at March 2, 2005 10:14 AM

So we have two Hector ? That's impressive! No wonder the APNI are in decline ;)

In an ethnically divided society? Two is not impressive, but it is unusual.
Why should Northern Ireland parties be so different from Lebanese, Belgian, Fijian and so on?

Rebecca
"no harm maca but you seem completely turned against unionism and you seem to have firm preset ideas about what it and Britishness is. You have just decribed my nationality as "crap", I think I'd give up before I'd be tempted to slap you!"

Here, relax there for a minute, put the hand down fairly lively.

Firstly I have not described your nationality as crap, i'd never say such a thing. I have described the often used arguement that *British also means Irish British and that should be enough* as crap. There's one hell of a difference!!

Secondly, I haven't turned against unionism, I was never on unionisms side. I am asking simple questions, do you want my vote (it is within the realms of possibility that I would vote for a unionist party) and how do you plan to get it?

Thirdly, it is not for me to describe what "Britishness" is, to be honest i'd never be able to. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that a "British" which includes "Irish" is not enough for some people, that some people simply want to be "Irish" and not "British" or "British Irish" ... and they should still be able to vote unionist.

What you seem to be saying is that you have to be British to vote unionist (even if this British includes an "Irish dimension"). Don't you see the problem with this??

There seems to be a common thread in unionist and nationalist bloggers. The unionists say we are British and the nationalists say why would we want to be British.

It is time that there was an honest debate on the economics of staying within the Union or having a United Ireland. In the end patriotism is all very well but not quantifiable and most people are interested in the £/€ in their pocket and health, education and other bread and butter issues.

Does anyone know of a comparative study covering say the last 30 years showing how people have faired excluding the direct impact of all forms of EU grants which are now rapidly vanishing?

Stephen - can you provide a link to the British Gov't proof ?

"most people are interested in the £/€ in their pocket and health, education and other bread and butter issues"

Is that true?

Of course people care about these things but some trends from the US suggest that the issues that have started to motivate people to vote are about "culture" and "values" not about economy. Maybe because the economic issues are rather limited these days - we all believe in roughly the same thing. The key issue in the UK at the moment is immigration - very cultural.

Slug.

Sorry mate, there's no way I can say this without being patronising, so I'll just say it. Your belief that electoral trends in serious, functioning democracies will have any impact on this sectarian slum is, well, rather sweet really.

People here ONLY vote for cultural reasons. You can chose to believe that at the next election there is some demographic that votes DUP because of its stance on abortion, but forgive me if I accuse you of really reaching.

We live in a dysfunctional polity. Lessons from functioning polities do not apply here, however much the idealist in you would like to believe they do.

People will vote along tribal lines until there is a compelling economic reason to shift. I'll give you an example.

Tens of thousands of Presbyterians in Antrim and Down were butchered by the British army in 1798 when they attempted to break the connection with Britain. Fast forward a century and the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those same revolutionaries were prepared to face the British army in the field again - and maybe be slaughtered in their thousands again. Why? To retain the link with Britain. The exact polar opposite of their reasons in 1798.

What had changed? Well, the union was seen to have delivered for the Protestants of Ulster. It had delivered religious freedoms, yes, but also huge industries and the spoils of empire.

Long before the first home rule crisis of 1888 Protestants in the northeast of Ireland had psychologically buried the memories of their fathers of '98, because it was the rational and reasonable thing to do. Because it meant better food on the table and greater opportunities for the next generations.

Which proves that a change in economuc circumstances can bring about any ``cultural'' changes you want to mention.

I mean, it's just a fact that there was many a croppy who died at Saintfield, Ballynahinch, Antrim and Lough Swilly whose sons and grandsons wore the redcoats of the man who killed him.

What's more cultural than the cause your father died for?

What had changed? Well, the union was seen to have delivered for the Protestants of Ulster. It had delivered religious freedoms, yes, but also huge industries and the spoils of empire.

That's only part of it Billy. There had been the divisiveness of Irish Ireland - Irish could only be Gaelic and Catholic and the Devotional revolution.
The liberal presbyterians didn't just decide to turn away - as much as anythig they were turned away.

Billy - you point is that people vote culturally but would vote economic-based if the economic factors override the cultural? Then I can't really see what the point of disagreement is. If there is no great economic matter at stake then culture and values will rule the day. They are important to people. For instance, I think in NI the law and order issue will be one that will be very important in getting people out to vote.

By the way. Wasn't some of the pro-union attitude in 1900 about religion - i.e. about values, not purely economic? There was economic too at that time of course - access to wider markets and so on.

Further, if you just look at the way in which people write on these pages, you can see that most of what generates heat is about values, not economics.

Slug

I'd say we're in agreement here about the substantive points. I'd just point out that trends elsewhere tend not to apply here in our dear beloved basket case of a state.

Actually if economics had outweighed culture/religion then Ireland would have stayed in the UK as from the late 19th century and especially early 20th century people in 32 county Ireland were doing quite well... e.g. the Old age Pension and the huge change in status from tenant to owner/occupier for farmers.

Billy - I never go for "particularism". People are never as different from the rest of the world as they think they are.

Davros,

Stephen - can you provide a link to the British Gov't proof ?

Try this official reply to a question posed by Lord Laird in the House of Lords;

Lords Written Answers (5 Feb 2001) Irish Republic: British Passport Holders

I hope the link works. If not, you can do a search of Hansard for 26/11/2001.

Davros,

Sorry, that Hansard date should be 5 Feb 2001, of course. There was another similar question and reply on 26/11/2001. I don't know why Laird kept asking ...

Thanks Stephen. He's clearly not good at 'sums'.

Davros,

I am fairly certain that John Taylor asked a similar question at some stage too, but I have that titbit saved on my other computer so cannot verify. It seems that unionist peers were doing their best for the Reform Movement, which does not of course prove that it is a unionist front, but certainly raises suspicions.

Spud's Law - I just found the Taylor thing on this computer after all - he asked the very same question on 28 November 2000 on the HoC. It went thus;

Ireland (British Passports)

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British passports have been issued by the Embassy in Dublin in each of the past five years; how many British passport holders he estimates live in the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [140730]

"It seems that unionist peers were doing their best for the Reform Movement, which does not of course prove that it is a unionist front, but certainly raises suspicions."

Stephen
you'll be very interested to hear that the Irish News published an article dated November 28, 2002, in which the RM asked the UUP to establish a party office in the heart of Dublin:

"David Trimble should realise that there is a large community in the south that is not anglophobic, but rather made up of southern revisionists and he should sell the advantages of the union and the British-Irish Council of the Isles, not just knock the Republic. He could perhaps make a start by opening a UUP office in Dublin." © The Irish News Limited

If that isn't neo-unionist, I dunno what is.

But Nathan, surely you're not suggesting that the RM tells lies, are you?

After all, the FAQ on their web site sets it out as follows;

Q: Are you unionists?

A: No.

So that's that cleared up, then.

I find myself 100% in agreement with Maca, as per usual.

Unionists

Stop that crap about 'Themmuns did it to us so they did therefore what our'ns did was legitimate', you sound like bloody Sinn Féin!

Government by a specific group for a specific group (while ignoring everyone else) is wrong - period.

Young Fogey

I would agree with you Rebecca, but only on the basis that any number greater than one can be defined as 'some'.

Didn't realize this thread had anything to do with decommissioning... :)))

slug9987

"That said Britishness is not such an exclusive concept in principle - it just is to Irish nationalists. In the other parts of the UK, Scotland, Wales, England, they are British in addition, often second, and there is no reason that NI people can't be like that - many are. The strength of Britishness is its flexibility, as Simon Schama pointed out in his TV series it is more than the sum of its parts and that makes it appeal to ethnic and religious minorities like himself, a secular jew. I don't know that unionists should sacrifice that romance to attract non-Brit pro-union culturally nationalist types. Why dilute your strength to attract people that have real and genuine cultural differences?"

I can't think of any genuine cultural differences at all as we all share the same Anglo American culture. But you are welcome to enlighten me.

As far as I'm conerned Britishness as a nationality has always been inflexible and exclusive. Hence the,soon to happen, extinction of Irish and Scottish Gaelic and the probable extinction of Welsh.

As regards Unionism and Britishness Jim Molyneaux summed it up succinctly (and repeated it ad nauseum) "Ulster is as British as Yorkshire or Somerset".

He could have said Ulster is as British as Aberystwyth or Uibhist but that would would have left a lot of Unionists either scratching their heads or feeling that he was undermining their Britishness.

And that's the problem with Unionism and Britishness it's never really going to appeal to anyone not born into it.

Now that I've shown you how British nationality has been the enemy of diversity in these here British Isles. I'll concede that your comparison of the idea of "British" to an Ulster unionist in Northern Ireland and "British" to a black person living in England is thought provoking.

Davros

"Actually if economics had outweighed culture/religion then Ireland would have stayed in the UK as from the late 19th century and especially early 20th century people in 32 county Ireland were doing quite well... e.g. the Old age Pension and the huge change in status from tenant to owner/occupier for farmers"

Ireland actually was part of the UK in the late 19th century and it wasn't doing quite well at all as evidenced by the massive numbers of people felt the need to emigrate from it.

It's doing quite well now that's it's not part of the UK as evidenced by the numbers of people immigrating to it.

I don't know where you got this idea anyway. I suggest you stick to the obvious economic indicators.

Sorry, that should have read

"Ireland actually was part of the UK in the late 19th century and early 20th century ...

I'm old enough to remember Apartheid, and one of the arguments made on its behalf was that Black people were actually better off under Apartheid than elsewhere in Africa. While that was undoubtedly true economically, the argument showed a complete lack of understanding of the complexity of human needs and aspirations, including the need for respect for whatever group they themselves feel that they belong to.

If economics governed everything then we'd all be German Lander or Swiss Cantons. But it doesn't, and that is why, despite some improvement in the economic situation in Ireland in the early 20th C, there was still enough momentum in nationalism to mount 1916, 1918 and the war of independence.

Margaret Thatcher pushed the idea that there was no such thing as 'society', just economics. She was wrong, and much of recent Irish history proves that. People are prepared to make economic sacrifices in order to achieve societal goals that they, as a self-defined group, aspire to. The irish nationalist project is one such goal, and Irish people have rarely shown a preference for the King's shilling over self-determination. I do not believe that unonists are motivated by economics either, that was just a fig-leaf to cover other, less polite, reasons for their unwillingness to participate fully in the future of Ireland. The success of the south, and the corresponding total silence within unionism regarding a revision of their 'economic interests' tends toward supporting my belief.

Sorry Biffo - if you read what I wrote again you'll hopefully see that I wasn't claiming that Ireland wasn't part of the UK in the late 19th century :)

I'll give you a few examples :

Ireland had a centrally controlled health provision for the poor some 30 odd years before England.

Ireland developed a wealthy middle Class during the 19th century - after all Dublin Council was run by nationalists.

The Easter rebellion was the child of middle class people like Pearse.

So let's not play the every prod lived in a Castle and every RC lived in a hovel game .

Stephen,

"But Nathan, surely you're not suggesting that the RM tells lies, are you?"

Like you say, the RM have proved themselves to be crafty liars.

The RM lost the little bit of credibility they had the moment they started raking history as a means of justifying their present feelings of victimisation. The RM seem to think this is a productive way of behaving. And then they wonder why so many irish protestants are repelled by their ethos? These relics have no shame.

Davros,

Fair enough, you are simply saying that Ireland (the republic of) would have been better off economically remaining in the UK.

I'm saying that during the final 70 or 80 years that all of Ireland was part of the UK, the population, unlike any other part of Europe, was in dramatic decline due to poor economic conditions.

The poor economic conditions continued after partion, massive numbers continued to emigrate. So nothing changed between Ireland being part of the UK and Ireland, it was and remained an economic basket case.

You give me a bit more convincing evidence that Ireland would have been better off remaining part of the UK and I'll accept it.

Otherwise be gracious and accept that the demographics tell the story

Sorry again, that should have read "..nothing changed between Ireland being part of the UK and Ireland not being part og the UK.."

Fair enough, you are simply saying that Ireland (the republic of) would have been better off economically remaining in the UK.

That's NOT what I'm saying in any shape or form Biffo. There was a discussion as to which was the more important - the cultural consideration or the economic. I was pointing out that at the end of 19th century and early 20th century Many Irish RCs were doing very nicely indeed ...and considering that it was from the Irish bourgeoisie that Pearse and Co came , IF economics HAD been the dominant consideration then Easter 1916 wouldn't have happened.

This ia drifting back to a historic cultural/ patriotic thread. Since the arguement on that cannot really be quantified in 2005 - how does any resolve 'my culture is more important to me than yours is to you'

I was asking did anyone have a study of the relative economic standards of living in the UK and Ireland past present and future so that at least we could get the economic part of the argument put to the test.

I'd still be very interested if any unionist/pro-union folk could answer two questions:

• Do you want my vote?
• What are you going to do to get it?

(yes I am genuinely interested)

Biffo and Davros

A most interesting debate, but I think it's more complex than that. It is commonly thought that culture and economy are separate, and that you consider either one or the other. Not so, they are clearly interlinked.

Indeed an overlooked but quite possibly crucial stumbling block of the 1920 negotiations was where fiscal autonomy would lie. Industrialized Northeasterners (typically but not universally Protestant) wanted it in London to tie in with their market in GB and the rest of the Empire. Agrarian Southerners (typically but not universally Catholic) wanted it in Dublin to meet the needs of an economy more weighted towards agriculture. Let's just say when you tie Industrialized v Agrarian in with Unionist v Nationalist, British v Irish, and Royalist v Republican and you get some obvious correlations!

Davros

Fine, you are saying ".. that at the end of 19th century and early 20th century Many Irish RCs were doing very nicely indeed ...and considering that it was from the Irish bourgeoisie that Pearse and Co came , IF economics HAD been the dominant consideration then Easter 1916 wouldn't have happened"

I'm saying that's not true. In the period you are talking about many Irish RCs, British subjects, were dirt poor, the scale of emigration, unprecedented in Europe bears this out.

Being part of the UK brought no material benefit to most of the population of Ireland. Irish people, on the whole, simply didn't prosper in the UK.

To Pearse & Co economic considerations were vital. To James Connolly & Co economics they were fundamental. "Get rid of the British, develop and protect Irish industry, prosper", simple as that.

That Ireland didn't prosper as an independant state is no proof that it would have done by remaining part of the UK, and the fact that there is a middle class doing very well thank you is neither here nor there.

The fact that Northern Ireland continued to have a prosperous middle class after 1969 doesn't mean that there's something to be said for political and sectarian violence.

The fact that a country has a section of people doing well while the majority around them are poor doesn't make that country a economic success. You didn't address that issue in your reply.

By the way, consider Scotland, a peripheral UK region with a declining population (both sad and ironic, considering it was a major destination for the large numbers emigrating from Ulster in the years you are talking about).

There is a significant proportion of Scottish people who want "Independance in Europe" on the Irish model.

If 1916 hadn't happened, Ireland would still be a peripheral part of the UK like Scotland, still looking to get out. Unionists would still be saying you are better off in the UK, and it still wouldn't be true.

Davros, as far as I'm concerned demographic history proves my point. It's a powerful economic indicator.

Interesting discussion.

I've noticed that a few contributors seem to passively support the union, even though they do not go for the Britishness or orangeism of it.

My question is, why?

This is a genuine attempt to understand: personally, I don't see how the union can be dissociated from either. Are the reasons for such passive support purely economic? Is it purely an economic proposition along the lines of "the union gives me the standard of living I desire"? If so, how do you seperate the cultural aspect from the economic aspect on a personal and day to day basis?

A union without Britishness is an interesting concept. I simply don't see it as ever catching on. 60 million Brits are never going to give that up for a few million Paddies.

In some ways it could be seen to be the corollary of those who say that if they were to join a united Ireland it must be purged of certain trappings (anthem, flag, etc.) before they would consider it. However, I do see this course of action as more workable.

Maybe I'm neo-republican?

Whoa.

An agricultural economy that was booming in 1916 because of the War Ian.

I remember reading a while back that a women's organisation fell to bits in Ireland because the question was asked - who was more oppressed - a middle class woman or a working class man ?
I'll ask the same sort of questions- who was more oppressed in the early 20th century? The RC Land Owning small farmers and RC Middle classes or the protestant working classes in Industrial Belfast ?

Davros,

Why didn't you mention the ones who had the the most urgent need to get out, the RC peasants, and labourers.

How important were they in terms of 1916 Biffo ?
There's your answer.

I'm saying that's not true.

And you are wrong. How many of the rural poor participated in 1916 ? Look at the Leaders of nationalism and republicanism. Connolly sold his soul and joined Pearse and the other middle class and upper middle class intellectuals.

Davros

Vitally important , De Valera claimed 1916 wouldn't have been possible without the Irish in Glasgow and he wouldn't have escaped execution without the Irish in America.

De Valera said lots of things :)

"And you are wrong"

If I'm wrong show me how nationalist leaders believed independance would bring economic decline.

He may have said a lot of things but Irish influence in America still saved his neck.

"And you are wrong"

If I'm wrong show me how nationalist leaders believed independance would bring economic decline.

and where oh where have I made this claim ?

He may have said a lot of things but Irish influence in America still saved his neck.

What's that got to do with the price of fish ?

It's got to do with...Oh, change the subject why don't you?

Anyway, "..nationalist leaders believed independance would bring economic decline.." - that can be infered from your previous statements. I didn't want to quote in full because it means scrolling up the page, and I'm on a role at the moment, I think you'll agree.

Here's the bit

"Fine, you are saying ".. that at the end of 19th century and early 20th century Many Irish RCs were doing very nicely indeed ...and considering that it was from the Irish bourgeoisie that Pearse and Co came , IF economics HAD been the dominant consideration then Easter 1916 wouldn't have happened"

I'm saying that's not true.

I think we can deduce from that that you are saying if Pearse & Co had pushed economic considerations to the fore, they wouldn't have gone ahead 1916. Which would suggest that you beleive they they saw economic difficulties (decline) attached to Irish independance. Try and keep up with me.

And you are still wrong :)
The point I'm making is that the Imperative of nationalism was cultural, not economic :)

Well then you misunderstand it.

straw men Biffo.

Nationalism is the whole deal, it's economics, it culture, it's religion, it's whatever you think makes you special, it's Shangri La. That what they were about in 1916.

What do you mean "straw men"?

What do you mean "straw men"?

I mean that you are trying to disprove arguments I'm not making :)

JD

I suspect the reason is that no one has come up with a remotely stable alternative model.

Davros

I'm talking about 1920, not 1916. 1916 was a few individuals (who *subsequently* gained much public sympathy), 1920 was people with a mass of popular support.

Secondly, it's irrelevant whether the agricultural economy was booming or not. The point was that most people wanted fiscal decisions in Dublin because it would be more sympathetic to the needs of an agriculture-led economy, whereas most Northeasterners (and indeed Scots for that matter) wanted it in London because it would be more sympathetic to the needs of an industry-led economy.

So economy and culture/identity/nationality were clearly intertwined. I suggest they always have been.

I Know you are talking 1920 Ian. I agree these things are all intertwined.

JD
"My question is, why?"

Perhaps the same reason many of us want to be part of the EU but not "European"?

Perhaps the same reason why many might see the benefit of something like a "Federation of the Isles" involving the UK and Ireland where we can reap the benefits of such a union but at the same time remain simply "Irish" and not "British Irish" or "British".
I would probably support such a union but not if a new nationality was forced on me, i'd have to remain what I was born and identify with.

"If so, how do you seperate the cultural aspect from the economic aspect on a personal and day to day basis?"

By allowing people to be what they are, and not forcing an identity on to them even if they want to share the same union.

"A union without Britishness is an interesting concept."

Maybe you've misunderstood. It's not about removing Britishness from the Union, it's about allowing people within the union to NOT be British if they so desire. At least that's what I think it means.

"I simply don't see it as ever catching on. 60 million Brits are never going to give that up for a few million Paddies."

Relates to my point above. No-one is asking anyone to give up being British, just to allow paddies (i detest that term) to remain paddies.

"In some ways it could be seen to be the corollary of those who say that if they were to join a united Ireland it must be purged of certain trappings (anthem, flag, etc.) before they would consider it."

In the ((un)likely) event of a UI i'd hope Irishness is not forced on anyone and that people joining can be simply "British" if they so desire.

I don't see why such a union can't be big enough to accomodate multiple nationalities.

Maybe you've misunderstood. It's not about removing Britishness from the Union, it's about allowing people within the union to NOT be British if they so desire. At least that's what I think it means.

Perhaps I do misunderstand, since what you suggest would appear to be pretty much the case at the moment. People in NI can hold an Irish passport.

I'm also a little puzzled by the fact that you see the union as inextricably British and yet seem to suggest that those who do not identify as British should be able to support it. I'm trying to argue that the only way that that could happen is if the union is no longer exclusively--or perhaps even what is usually understood by--"British."

In other words a union that is no longer about becoming "British" or part of the UK. It would no longer be a "British" union. And that would of necessity work both ways, which is why I said that "Britishness," or what is normally understood by it, would have to be relinquished. It would have to be radically redefined.

That is also why I think it is an impossibility.

Of course, I'm just treating this as an intellectual exercise, so I'm talking hypothetically, in order to try to move beyond nationality tags.

By allowing people to be what they are, and not forcing an identity on to them even if they want to share the same union.

Fair enough. But I was hoping for a fuller answer from someone in the North.

JD
"what you suggest would appear to be pretty much the case at the moment. People in NI can hold an Irish passport."

...yet if they support the union they seem to have to be British, at least that's my understanding of previous postings.

Anyway this is potentially a huge discussion, for another day perhaps.

"I was hoping for a fuller answer from someone in the North."

The thread seems to have gone dead, you might be waiting a while ;)

The thread seems to have gone dead, you might be waiting a while ;)

Just read my comment to you maca, and thought it might seem a bit snotty. Not intended to be...

Nah, I didn't get that at all.

JD - maca has a very thick skin - Before we became friendly I spent hours trying to insult him ;)
(Only kidding !)

So you were trying to insult me? I thought you were only joking, ya fecker! lol ;))

According to the papers today "Biffo" is a slightly insulting term . Live and learn.

Slightly insulting? Big Ignorant Fat F***er from Offaly ;)

Did you not hear that before? (or did the papers give something different?)

Maca, JD and co,

You raise some interesting points about (national) identity, I'll try my own meandering thoughts on it but I'm not even sure that I'm clear if you know what I mean!

I recently read an article by Jennifer Smith from 1988, which suggested that political affiliation was linked to what the voter deemed his/her 'imagined community' (essentially this is what group of people they mean when they say 'we'). Basically, this was:

DUP ('Ulster Loyalist') - 'the Ulster People' (meaning NI Protestants)

UU ('Ulster British') - 'British' (which may extend beyond the UK, I'll come back to that)

Alliance ('Reconciliationist') - 'Northern Ireland' (i.e. all the people of NI)

SDLP ('Nationalist') - 'northern (regional) Irish' (meaning NI Catholics)

SF ('Republican') - 'the Irish Nation' (meaning Irish Catholics, practising or otherwise)

Now, I'll put in the immediate disclaimer that this is far from perfect and Smith herself was careful to say there was significant crossover/mutuality.

But what we're interested in here is the 'British' one. Now, instinctively when I say I'm 'British' I do NOT mean a nationality or even a national identity. To an extent 'British' means everyone 'protected' by 'British' institutions and 'way of life' (concrete examples of which may be taken to be parliamentary democracy or common law). If I'm asked for my nationality, however, I say 'UK'.

So my instinct is that 'being British' IS something different from 'being a UK national', although of course in the vast majority of cases one equates to the other.

It would therefore be quite possible for the UK to have as responsible citizens a significant 'non-British' minority (or even, theoretically, majority).

And then, is 'British' linked to a land mass? Many English people will talk fondly of a return to see 'the White Cliffs' or whatever, but is that really 'British', or is specifically 'English', or is it even 'UK'? I'm really not sure. I can't say I personally feel any particular emotion to 'a proud island race' when I see them (although objectively they're a fantastic sight), but I suspect many Unionists do. Or do they?

For me, 'Britishness' isn't really about people at all, if anything it's about institutions, for good or bad. 'UK-ness' is also something instinctive I guess, but I suspect it's about convenience - from direct access to the UK market with all its services to mobile phones functioning at national rates.

I can't say all of this is clear, but I certainly think many people will understand the distinction between 'UK national' and 'British' - it is quite possible to be one without the other, and even be proud of being one and not being the other.

Politically, of course, I fall into the 'Northern Ireland' category, as for good and bad this is a unique place with unique problems requiring unique solutions (not that these can't be adapted from elsewhere of course). Just as you can distinguish nationality from identity, you can distinguish identity from politics - it's just a shame so few people in NI seem to!

I'll stop meandering now...

Slightly insulting? Big Ignorant Fat F***er from Offaly ;)

Did you not hear that before? (or did the papers give something different?)

Hadn't heard that one before :) Gives a whole new meaning to Biffo the Bear ( A 'Gers fan from the ROI ? ) and Biffo Bacon in Viz LOL

Ian - Have you a copy of the article or a reference ?

Thanks :)

Davros

No, but I know a man who has.

Email me privately (parsleyij@hotmail.com) and I'll put you in contact with him.

Thanks Ian.

Davros, maca

Allow me to introduce myself...it's Baron Irving Farquhar From Outherard, you are obviously getting me mixed up with someone from Kings County.

IJP,

Interesting meander. What about how unionists/protestants in general describe themselves, ("UK Nationalist" maybe?)

You might have seen results from a government household survey a few months ago (which wasn't conducted in NI).

People were asked how they would describe themselves from a list. The only results I can find were:

"In England, 57% said they were English and 48% British. In Wales 62% said they were Welsh and 35% mentioned British. In Scotland 80% said they were Scottish and 27% said British."

That isn't any kind of proof that 73% of Scots are rejecting the description British. But it's obvious why a lot of Scottish and Welsh people would describe themselves to contrast with the English.

What about unionists here, I'm pretty sure many would describe themselves solely as British.

Is that because "British" is the only available name that differentiates them from the Irish (but fails to differentiate with them from English, Scottish or Welsh)?

Does that ever seem problematic to Unionists that you can be English and British, Scottish and British, Welsh and British and..what?..simply British?

I'm back to the point of the thread, and interesting it was too, particularly the "Simply British" exchange between Rebecca Black and George.

Davros,

"Sloppy writing causes problems Biffo. I hold my hand up to being a pedant"

"Gives a whole new meaning to ... Biffo Bacon in Viz LOL"

It's Biffa Bacon....sloppy;)

I am off to throw myself in the Bann. I cannot live with this shame ;)

"Does that ever seem problematic to Unionists that you can be English and British, Scottish and British, Welsh and British and..what?..simply British?"

Well fairly obviously they're from NI so Northern Irish. Not that being British as the sole identity is a problem - that's allowed. Outside of NI but within the UK there are plenty people who don't like "English" e.g. I know people who have moved around a bit and grew up in several places, don't really feel English, but sure know they are British, same as you already noted for some ethnic minorities.

Biffo -

"Does that ever seem problematic to Unionists that you can be English and British, Scottish and British, Welsh and British and..what?..simply British?"

Not a problem at all. Simply add Northern Irish and British to your list.

I was about to say the same but you beat me to it by minutes! lol

I'm Northern Irish first and British second - except on official forms, since none of N Irish, Scottish, English or Welsh can be offical nationalities.

What would people think to the suggestion that the UK passport office should establish Northern Irish as an official nationality? Could have identical passports, except Northern Irish Citizen in place of where it says British Citizen. After all we live in "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - geographically speaking, NI is part of the UK, but not Britain.

Could anyone tell me what happened pre-partition? Did passports exist?! If so did people in Ireland get Irish ones or "British" ones?

Slug

``Well fairly obviously they're from NI so Northern Irish. Not that being British as the sole identity is a problem - that's allowed.''

Certainly it's allowed, that's not in dispute. But nationality isn't just a badge to be worn. Without identification, it's essentially meaningless. That's why people in Cardiff or Edinburgh or Manchester will generally tend to identify themselves firstly as Welsh, Scottish or English. These same people overwhelmingly support the political contruct that is the UK, and insofar as political identity goes, they are `British'.

Before partition the same logic obtained in Ireland, where even the most committed unionists would have found the idea of denying their Irishness preposterous. That changed after 1921 when you had an `Irish' state with de facto independence, and an enclave within Ireland that set itself in opposition to everything that `Irish' state stood for.

Since partition we have seen an prolonged instance of a community cutting off its own nose to spite its face. Unionism's dilemma is pitiable in that I, as one who is proud to be Irish, am able to take tremendous national pride in the achievements of George Best and Van Morrison and Thomas Andrews - even though by unionist logic, they are not `Irish' at all. Those of us of Ireland and for Ireland unapologetically take pride in the immense achievements of Irish Protestants, from Wilde and Yeats and Shaw to McNeice and Hewitt and James Galway and Jimmy Nesbitt.

Conversely, can unionists feel that same untrammelled pride at seeing their countryman Seamus Heaney win the Nobel Prize? Or seeing their countrymen U2 bestriding the music world? Or seeing their compatriot Roy Keane terrifying the best footballers in the world? Can unionists even acknowledge the ownership they have, as countrymen, of these great world figures?

The idea of being `Northern Irish' has never really taken off because frankly, it sounds like the splinter-group of an actual nationality. Perhaps if the rest of the country played ball and called themselves `southern Irish' it might work. But then you'd have 80,000 `southern Irish' in the Bogside. (Still, it's no more illogical than having Malin Head in the `south'.)

`Northern Irish' just sounds artificial - which is probably why so many unionists take recourse to the `Ulster' formulation. Again `Ulster' is problematic as it tellingly has no constructive plural (ie. the people of Ireland are Irish, the people of Italy are Italian, the people of Ulster are....)

So unionists largely are left with `simply British' - which as I said earlier is a pitiable situation to be in. Why? Because they have a nationality, yet for political reasons do not feel comfortable enough to acknowledge it. Irish. Unionists have made enormous contributions to what it means to be Irish, and the rest of the Irish people are happy to revel in that contribution. But in turning its back on its Irishness, unionism has cut itself off from its own history and the many things of which it can be proud.

The plus side is that you can reject calls for reunification with the mendacious lie that your fellow Irish Irish people are `foreigners', and that their state is a `foreign country'.

The negative side is that you become a people with no history other than an oppositional one. You become rootless and reactionary. You disclaim ownership of cultural contributions made by your forbears - leaving your opponents to take ownership, further alienating you from your birthright. Eventually you are left open to the charge from your enemies that you have `no culture'. It becomes hard to refute the charge, not because it is true but because you have cut yourself off from it.

IJP evoked a fabulous metaphor earlier on when he was describing his attachment to Britain. He said he could literally see Scotland from where he was sitting. I thought it was a terrific image. The mythical homeland across the sea distracting his eyes from the realities of the land under his feet.

How about people in NI simply being Irish? If you want to add British to that identity, as the English, Scots and Welsh do, then fair enough. But let's set aside these `simply British' and `northern Irish' pantomimes.

Note:

``The plus side is that you can reject calls for reunification with the mendacious lie that your fellow Irish Irish people are `foreigners', and that their state is a `foreign country'.''

The `Irish Irish' bit is just a typo. There's no such thing as `Irish Irish', don't mean to imply that there are degrees of Irishness.

Billy Pilgrim:

"Conversely, can unionists feel that same untrammelled pride at seeing their countryman Seamus Heaney win the Nobel Prize?"

Yes! As a Northern Irish person I am very proud of the achivements of people from Northern Ireland.

"Or seeing their countrymen U2 bestriding the music world?"

You're missing the point specacularly! U2 are not unionists' countrymen! My country is Northern Ireland and unless it has annexed Dublin recently, U2 aren't my countrymen.

"Or seeing their compatriot Roy Keane terrifying the best footballers in the world?"

Again, Keane isn't a compatriot, not being from Northern Ireland.

"Can unionists even acknowledge the ownership they have, as countrymen, of these great world figures?"

No, because they aren't their countrymen. They are from the Republic of Ireland not Northern Ireland. (And 'great world figures' is pushing it for all but Heaney...)

"`Northern Irish' just sounds artificial"

Maybe to you. But to those of us who are Northern Irish and Northern Ireland as our country, it isn't. You should try to understand that.

"But let's set aside these...`northern Irish' pantomimes."

That a pretty insulting and blithe dismissal of the identity of thousands of people's identity just because you don't agree with it.

I suspect that there has been greater take-up of the Northern Irish identity than Billy's post sujests. It allows a lot of people to express exactly what they are. Looking at it from a UK perspective anyway, NI seems a pretty clear unit and the Northern Irish a clear component of the UK people, contributing a fourth aspect. Including Heaney, Best, et al.

"So unionists largely are left with `Simply British' - which as I said earlier is a pitiable situation to be in. Why? Because they have a nationality, yet for political reasons do not feel comfortable enough to acknowledge it."

They are pretty comfortable with Northern Irish and British, what more do they need?

Perhaps I have underestimated the uptake among unionists of the `northern Irish' construction. From the outside it seems like an issue unionism is still wrestling with, with the effect that some unionists are Ulstermen, others Northern Irish, others simply British.

If indeed there is such a thing as a `northern Irish' nationality, as distinct from just being Irish, when did this new nationality come into existence? 1921?

The point I was trying to make is that unionism's decision to abandon its rightful claim to being as Irish as Finglas was and is a crazy, self-destructive move. `Ulster', `Northern Ireland' and `Simply British' have proven unequal to the task of replacing `Irish' as a nationality, hence the ease with which republicans can taunt unionists with the `no culture' argument - and hence the fact that unionists simply aren't in a secure enough position to just laugh off such taunts.

"Ulster', `Northern Ireland' and `Simply British' have proven unequal to the task of replacing `Irish' as a nationality, hence the ease with which republicans can taunt unionists with the `no culture' argument - and hence the fact that unionists simply aren't in a secure enough position to just laugh off such taunts."

Such taunts deserve to be laughed off, however. The unionists are British - and that is a great thing to be!

My personal (Northern, Catholic by denomination) take posted below. I posted a version of the following on Young Irelander's website a few weeks back, but I hope it's relevant to this discussion:

When polite conversation turns to the matter of where one is from, I often refer to myself as being from Northern Ireland, or even Northern Irish. Neither ‘Irish’, nor, for that matter ‘British’, are wholly adequate labels. To choose one of these would be to deny the influence of the other, and in a sense for me to claim that ‘I am not British, I’m Irish’, even though I feel no allegiance to Britain, would be to deny those elements of my identity that can be roughly described as British.

I read a piece by Carlos Fuentes the other night where he reminded the reader that nationalism, and hence nationality, usually precede the formation of a nation, and not vice-versa. So even if there is no ‘Northern Irish’ nation, I think it is possible to consider oneself ‘Northern Irish’.

One of the effects of partition has been to create, among some Northern Catholics like myself, a sense of ‘otherness’ from Irish people in other parts of Ireland. This does not manifest itself in allegiance to any Northern Irish nation, but it is there.

I live in the Republic at the minute, and whilst it does not feel in any way like I am living in a ‘foreign’ country, I often feel a profound sense of being different from people in Clonakilty or Drogheda, as a result of being born and brought up under British rule. Faced with this, I find it more worthwhile to explore the British elements of my identity and think about what they mean, even though I am not a unionist, rather than (self-defeatingly) eviscerate them by seeking to reinforce my ‘Irishness’.

Nationality is a rather slippery construct, and it constantly evolves according to developments in politics, demography and technology. Notions of what it means to be British now are not the same as those in the aftermath of World War II, or the Battle of Trafalgar. Similar things could be said of Irishness. At one level then, being ‘Northern Irish’, then is no more or less valid than being just ‘British’ or ‘Irish’. And to say that you are ‘Northern Irish’ does not necessarily make you ‘less British’, or indeed ‘less Irish’.

Also, ‘Irishness’, ‘Britishness’ and ‘Northern Irishness’ are not necessarily distillations of all that is qualitatively good about any particular identity, but should surely contain what is peculiarly bad.

Perhaps my own take on ‘Northern Irishness’ is idiosyncratic, but I would be surprised if there were not other Northern Catholics who feel similarly. It’s not a question of wanting a nationality, but to find the term that most adequately describes who I am, mainly for the benefit of people who do not come from Ireland. I just feel that in this regard neither Irish nor (certainly not) British on its own goes far enough.

Billy Pilgrim:

"If indeed there is such a thing as a `northern Irish' nationality, as distinct from just being Irish, when did this new nationality come into existence? 1921?"

It developed after that date, yes. (Building on factors already existing well before then) There are many other nationalities and identities that have developed more recently than that, incidentally.

"`Ulster', `Northern Ireland' and `Simply British' have proven unequal to the task of replacing `Irish' as a nationality"

Says who? I'm perfectly happy with being Northern Irish and British and secure in that.

(By the way, you ignore the possibility of being Irish without it being your nationality - perhaps nationalism too should be open to different kinds of Irishness).

Slug
"They are pretty comfortable with Northern Irish and British, what more do they need?"

Depends, do they want "Irish" people to vote for them? ;)

Interesting post slackjaw.

"Depends, do they want "Irish" people to vote for them? ;)"

I am talking about people not politicos.

Billy – your post above is (as usual) excellently-articulated, and is deserving of a more involved response, but (thanks to work..) I have to restrict myself to a few observations.

First, you decry a Northern Irish identity as “artificial” – but all national identities are ultimately artificial constructs, forged over time. I’ve thought a lot over the past few years about nationality, specifically re Ireland, and the only conclusion that it’s possible to draw is that questions of nationality are so subjective and arbitrary, that no absolutes can be drawn from them..

Personally speaking I always identify myself as Irish or Northern Irish; but further, I’m British insofar as I’m a British passport holder – I’m not ashamed to be identified as “British”, and there are many aspects of British culture and history which I’m proud of. In practical terms as well, I’m British – when I went to live in Dublin, I had to get a new mobile phone, new bank account, used different currency etc etc. When I moved to London, I stepped off the plane and simply switched my mobile on again, drew the same money out of a hole in the wall etc etc, and these things, superficial as they are, nevertheless contribute towards a feeling of “difference” or “belonging”

I don’t feel that Irish people, from north or south, are foreigners by any means; my bookshelves creak under the weight of writers from Joyce and Yeats, to Joe O’Connor and Jennifer Johnson, I work myself into paroxysms as the Irish rugby team plays (at the minute without a single Northern Irish representative) etc.

Glancing quickly at your examples, I too feel great pride in Northern Irish figures like Best (on the pitch..) and Van, and others from Mike Gibson to Ash. I also take pride in Irish figures like the sublimely talented Brian O’Driscoll (I could go on about rugby all day..) in music Bell X1 and the Frames etc etc. (Roy Keane – not really, I’m not a ROI fan; U2 – I’m more likely to feel embarrassment at their shamelessly self-promoting frontman, wealthy dilettante and gobshite Bono... Heaney – never warmed much to him..)

But in my experience, in practice, there is a definite distinction when it comes to Northern Irish identity

To meander anecdotally for a bit: I remember organising a trip to Dublin with a university society, in fact a thinly-disguised piss-up, and we wound up, a big group of us, catholic, prod and dissenter, in a couple of bars in town, and halfway through the evening it occurred to me that in the eyes of most of the others in the bar we were a big crowd of undifferentiated “northerners” – not necessarily outsiders, or foreigners, but we were nonetheless distinct.

And since then I notice it all the time – just the other day an Irish girl was talking to me about her flatmates, and one was “an Irish guy, like” and then there was a girl who was “from Ireland, too, you know, from the north, like” – and if you look out for this little extra descriptor “from the north” you hear it all the time.. I worked at a bank in Dublin, where my (southern) colleagues would describe me and my (northern) colleagues as being “from the north” – nationalist or unionist we were “northerners”, just somehow, that little bit distinct..

I think the bottom line is that feelings of “identity” and “nationality” are nebulous enough to defy any concrete explanation, frustrating though that may be. I don’t deny my Irishness, but I equally don’t deny my Britishness; and ultimately it’s only me who can say what national identity I profess..

crap I’ve really got to get some work done..

If indeed there is such a thing as a `northern Irish' nationality, as distinct from just being Irish, when did this new nationality come into existence? 1921?

Not to argue about the official birth of "Northern Irish" as a concept, but I can only presume that it took on more popularity as the Unionist people of Northern Ireland saw it as necessary to use the term because being Irish was increasingly being interpreted to mean

1. Supporting the Irish government/state
2. membership of a strongly gaelic, catholic, Irish culture in which we have little interest
3. Being part of a national identity, a large proportion of which was based on anti-British sentiment

This is (although an incomplete list) why I think, being born so recently (relatively) as 1983, I have never seen myself as Irish, while my mother's family, who emigrated 30 years ago would still talk about home as "Ireland" (despite our protestations).

Between the associations above and the portrayal of the British and Irish as enemies, it seems to have become very difficult for Ulsters unionists to consider themselves Irish. This is not a trend I see being reversed, as the older generation gives way to a younger one who, like myself, have never felt any affiliation with Irishness, mainly due to what Irishness has come to mean to us.

That sounded really harsh - as if everyone portrays British and Irish as enemies, when in reality it is the minority of card carrying SFIRA and their "loyalist" equivalents.

Two really interesting posts there Slackjaw and Lafcadio.

As regards NI's status as nation of its own - one thing for sure is that it has written more pages unique to itself in history books in the past 35 years than many countries have in their existance.

Really interesting discussion.

To meander anecdotally for a bit: I remember organising a trip to Dublin with a university society, in fact a thinly-disguised piss-up, and we wound up, a big group of us, catholic, prod and dissenter, in a couple of bars in town, and halfway through the evening it occurred to me that in the eyes of most of the others in the bar we were a big crowd of undifferentiated “northerners” – not necessarily outsiders, or foreigners, but we were nonetheless distinct.

I found myself wondering about this, not because I disagree, but because I think that this phenomenon might be more the norm than anything. I've felt the same in pubs on the Northside of Dublin (I'm a Southsider, although not from any of the so-called "nice" bits). I've felt the same way in Cork, even though I've people from there. I'm looked at like I've two heads (of course, the fact that I do has nothing to do with my being President of the Galaxy...). Can't wait for April 29th. Must be calm.

Ahem. I suppose I'm saying that you don't have to be from a different political realm to feel like you are distinct.

Some fantastic posts here, with particular honours going to Slackjaw and Lafcadio. (Surely Slackjaw must be high in the running for Poster of the Year? He makes me proud to be an Armachian.)

Re. Slackjaw’s central point. I don’t doubt that there are northern nationalists who consider themselves `Northern Irish’ – how could it be other? When you go abroad and someone asks where you’re from, it is unfortunately a fact that `Ireland’ is an incomplete answer, however much some of us might wish otherwise.

``One of the effects of partition has been to create, among some Northern Catholics like myself, a sense of ‘otherness’ from Irish people in other parts of Ireland. This does not manifest itself in allegiance to any Northern Irish nation, but it is there.’’

I know exactly what you mean. Would you accept my point though that though an Armagh man and a Cork man may be different in many ways (though to say `profoundly’ so seems OTT) we are both Irish and both have an equally valid contribution to make towards whatever the hell it is to be Irish these days? And most significantly, would you accept that Sammy on the Shankill and Alasdair in Bangor also have an equally valid contribution to make?
Mike

``By the way, you ignore the possibility of being Irish without it being your nationality - perhaps nationalism too should be open to different kinds of Irishness).’’

I think I see what you’re saying. I mean, what fundamentally is `Irish’? It’s a word. It’s a word used to describe the people who live here. There shouldn’t be anything prescriptive about it, and all forms of discourse or language or music or rugby or whatever else you might want to put the word `Irish’ before are inherently nebulous. Therefore Oscar Wilde was a great Irish writer, because he was a great writer who came from Ireland – that’s all the criteria he needed to meet. Louis McNeice was a great Irish poet according to the same criteria. George Best was the greatest of Irish footballers. Jackie Kyle was the greatest of Irish rugby players. Van Morrison is a great Irish songwriter. And Ian Paisley is a great Irish orator.

My point throughout all of this is that in Ireland, as in any country, notions of what it is to be `Irish’ are constantly in play, and a whole tranche of Irish people – who have made an immense contribution to our central ideas of what it is to be Irish – have absented themselves from the pitch. Now there might be something in their argument that there’s a bent ref – but my point throughout has been that for all that, and as much as their disillusionment with the game might be justified, it was and is a mistake to leave the field. The game will come back closer to your way of thinking soon enough. Perhaps there is a genuine fear that you’ll enjoy the game too much?

Lafcadio

``First, you decry a Northern Irish identity as “artificial” – but all national identities are ultimately artificial constructs, forged over time.’’

I wouldn’t say nationalities are artificial, but I see what you’re saying. I’d say it’s more that while nationalities are organic, they are in a perpetual state of flux. But some nationalities are quite simply artificial, and tend never to achieve stability. North Koreans, northern Cypriots, Yugoslavians, Czechoslovakians.

My point was more that the people who set up `Northern Ireland’ HAD a national identity and were part of a nation called Ireland. (I would stress that I fully acknowledge this in no way conflicted with their sense of Britishness and unwavering support for the union.) In fact they made a huge contribution to Ireland’s standing in the world. Jesus, in the 50 years before partition most of the Irishmen and woman who made Ireland considerable in the eyes of the world were unionists. (For example, I take pride in the fact that the largest shipyard in the world was once in little old Belfast – despite everything I know about Harland & Wolff’s Hyde-side, I’m still proud of how great it once was.)

Since partition it became necessary to patch together a new identity called `Northern Irish’, and since the troubles that necessity has been exacerbated. So while you’re spot on when you say nationalities are forged over time, it’s clear that `Northern Irishness’ has been a bit of a rushed job, and it shows.

``the only conclusion that it’s possible to draw is that questions of nationality are so subjective and arbitrary, that no absolutes can be drawn from them..’’

We’re fortunate in that we live on an island, in that there is one absolute we can draw. (Continental countries with land boundaries I don’t know about.) This land of ours is Ireland. The people who live here are the Irish. Everything else about `Irishness’ is arbitrary and subjective. So let’s play.

``To meander anecdotally for a bit: I remember organising a trip to Dublin with a university society… in the eyes of most of the others in the bar we were a big crowd of undifferentiated “northerners” – not necessarily outsiders, or foreigners, but we were nonetheless distinct.

Agreed. I lived in Dublin for six years and the `nordie’ thing was a fact of life. Initially it pissed me off and I self-righteously made a point of insisting that I was just as Irish as anyone thank-you very much. After a while I lightened up and came to realise that despite four generations of separate development and 30 years of the north going crazy on RTE, we nordies are still unequivocally regarded as being part of the family – even if we are the black sheep. That was the important point, and eventually I came to kinda cherish the exoticness of being from Ireland’s badlands. Fact is, life IS different when you cross the border, but this head-slappingly obvious reality doesn’t mean the people either side of the border are different nationalities, any more than two brothers – say one is a button-down careerist type and the other is a Marxist with a drinking problem – cease to be brothers if their personalities diverge sufficiently. I LOVED being a northerner in Dublin, but I was always a northerner with a small `n’.

``I think the bottom line is that feelings of “identity” and “nationality” are nebulous enough to defy any concrete explanation, frustrating though that may be. I don’t deny my Irishness, but I equally don’t deny my Britishness; and ultimately it’s only me who can say what national identity I profess.’’
Fair dos.

Beano

Good post. You’ve given a good explanation as to why we are where we are. But that accepted, would you accept my point though that `Irishness’ doesn’t belong to Sinn Fein any more than it used to belong to DeValera? That it is shared both by those who support union with Britain as well as those who support the reunification of Ireland? Do you take my point that there is a game afoot here, but unionism is sitting it out? Do you think I have a point?

"And Ian Paisley is a great Irish orator."

Thanks a lot Billy. I was just taking a slug of coke and nearly choked on it when I read that. Ya fecker! ;)

Brilliant discussion lads, very interesting. Note the complete lack of insults or personal attacks!!

``Brilliant discussion lads, very interesting. Note the complete lack of insults or personal attacks!!''

Not to worry Maca, I'm sure we won't be waiting too much longer...

My point was more that the people who set up `Northern Ireland’ HAD a national identity and were part of a nation called Ireland.

(I agree with Maca, brilliant discussion.)

Can you define this national identity Billy?
Can you define the 'nation called Ireland' ?

Essentialism is simple and superficially attractive, but does it bear close examination?

I posted earlier in something of a rush, as my “few observations” ended up chewing up about an hour at my desk! And I missed my last train home, and am consequently late for dinner tonight!

So I don’t have time for anything more than another couple of observations..

Firstly, Billy: I agree with your first two paras in response to me (“I wouldn’t….once was”), but not entirely with the third. I think a Northern Irish identity has been largely down to the fact of partition, for right or wrong, but while I accept that for you it’s not a satisfactory identity (I have read with interests past posts on the matter), I think that you must accept that it is for others – me for example – as it recognises Irishness, but recognises the “otherness” that slackjaw mentioned (more eloquently..) in his excellent post above.

“I LOVED being a northerner in Dublin” me too, among other things I discovered that Irish girls loved my accent!

As for what you say to slackjaw: “Would you accept my point though that though an Armagh man and a Cork man may be different in many ways (though to say `profoundly’ so seems OTT) we are both Irish and both have an equally valid contribution to make towards whatever the hell it is to be Irish these days? And most significantly, would you accept that Sammy on the Shankill and Alasdair in Bangor also have an equally valid contribution to make?”

This is pretty much my take on the “Irish identity” question – and I would love to believe that most people out there, north and south, bought into this. However, quite apart from all those recalcitrant “Brits” in the north who have been the focus of this thread so far, I have met many southerners whose take on Irishness is informed by a much narrower set of parameters – to give one example, I lived in Paris for a year with a bunch of Irish people, and met one girl in particular who really took issue with me for calling myself Irish! Her brain was simply hot-wired to conflate “Irishness” with “republican” or “Gael”, and I’ve met with this many times subsequently.

I think beano makes a good point above – a lot of the vocabulary and imagery of “Irishness” has been lost to Unionists as it is perceived to have been appropriated by nationalists / republicans to their exclusion (and I’m not stating that this has necessarily always been the case, just that the perception exists) and so to an increasing extent both national identities in the north have come to increasingly define themselves in opposition to the other.

right, must go, again (I’m starting to feel like the rabbit from Alice..)

Good post. You’ve given a good explanation as to why we are where we are. But that accepted, would you accept my point though that `Irishness’ doesn’t belong to Sinn Fein any more than it used to belong to DeValera?

Billy, first of all this will be slightly rushed (and probably not well thought out) so I apologise. In answer, it's hard to say. Obviously, legally they don't "own" Irishness. But on the otherhand they seem to have developed a monopoly on defining it. Kind of a catch 22. They define it as anti-British, "we" reject it, handing them more control to redefine it in their terms. Foreign (read American) media tends to help in that most Americans sympathise with this republican idea that the Irish are oppressed bitter enemies of the British occupiers, which we don't accept.

That it is shared both by those who support union with Britain as well as those who support the reunification of Ireland?

Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. It's got to the point now where its not in my interests how Irishness is defined (except when it that defined is in relation to my own Britshness or Northern Irishness).

Do you take my point that there is a game afoot here, but unionism is sitting it out? Do you think I have a point?

It does worry me slightly that in some people the Northern Irish consciousness isn't secure enough to admit the extent of (historical) Irish influence in it. For example how many unionists on the street would actually know the story of Cúchulainn or the origins of the Red Hand? Yet we're all taught 1066, Wolfe Tone etc. However I don't think there is any desire to reclaim any sense of ownership of or belonging to Irishness.