We live in strange times politically, at least here in the United Kingdom; whereas US politics has been becoming more and more polarised with clearly defined conservative/liberal faultlines, the two main parties on our side of the pond are transmorphing into a kind of watery-grey set of values and beliefs, rather than the black/white, left/right one of yesteryear.
If you were to take the pronouncements of its Politburo at face-value, Labour is now more pro-(the) Union, socially illiberal and (again, if you were to believe the soundbites of Brown) racist than the Tories...who are now cuddling up to the hoodies, not so sure about them elitist grammar schools and determined to break even further the links that bind the Union.
OK, what the leadership proclaims and what the partys' grassroots continue to believe are may be completely different, but still, you can see what I mean about the "convergence" of political and moral values.
Moving beyond Labour and the Conservatives (and quite deliberately ignoring the Lib Dems and the nuttier fringe parties on the right), the motivations of the various separatist and unionist parties in the UK also take some working out. Originally when I started making the DUP – SNP comparisions, it was (I’ll admit now) a bit of poetic license, just a touch on the hyperbolic side...but think on this, Salmond has proclaimed his allegiance to the Queen of Scotland (Elizabeth II to the rest of us), has listened with too open ears to the church’s proclaimations on social issues such as abortion, has constantly berated Westminster’s stinginess with regards to the funding of Scotland plc, whereas Big Ian has, on the other hand, proclaimed his allegiance to Elizabeth II, employed, as far as possible, his own socially conservative agenda and has constantly berated Westminster’s stinginess with regards the funding of Northern Ireland plc. They also *engaged* in a very impressive group cuddle at the start of the summer.
The difference between Mr Salmond and Dr Paisley?
Former’s a nationalist, whilst the latter is a unionist..but a special type of unionist, an Ulster Unionist, who’s not that keen on “British” involvement in Ulster affairs, not that keen on seeing "British" social mores being applied in Northern Ireland and not that keen on the "English" “imposing” themselves on the good-old-down-to earth Ulster folk. An Ulster nationalist in other words, but a nationalist, who until the economic circumstances move in his favour, is quite happy to continue to rely on Westminster for the funding of his own narrow political project...whereas Alex is a Scottish nationalist, but a nationalist, who until the economic circumstances move in his favour, is quite happy to continue to rely on Westminster for the funding of his own political project.
I’ve preambled a bit further than I wanted here, I really wanted to point you in the direction of two loosely connected articles; first one shows Salmond up to his manipulative tricks again, this time trying to get the Scottish Tories on board, the second one draws very interesting (non-criminal, non-dodgy) parallels between Fianna Fail and Plaid Cymru…and if you just happen to be one of my Welsh-speaking readers, you can access the original here.
4 comments:
an Ulster Unionist, who’s not that keen on “British” involvement in Ulster affairs, not that keen on seeing "British" social mores being applied in Northern Ireland and not that keen on the "English" “imposing” themselves on the good-old-down-to earth Ulster folk.
Surely there is a bit of Ulster Nationalist in all Ulster Unionists. All Ulster politicians will surely, almost naturally, look do defend Ulsters interests first over those of other parts of the Union (matters or security excluded).
For instance, when paisley argued against the exclusion of NI beef from the ban on British beef. How did you feel on that issue. Did you disagree with him, because it made Ulster seem less British or agree with him because it was to the benefit of Ulster farming?
Down through the years of NI's existence, have Ulster Unionists did Ulster Unionists ever seriously consider the abolishment of the Stormont assembly in favour of full integration with the UK parliament ? Im not sure if that was even possible, but I wonder if that was ever seriously on the minds of leading Ulster Unionists. If not, then why ? Could it be that Ulster Unionist politicians enjoy political power in NI, and while feeling British and wanting to be part of the UK, still wish to have some control over local affairs
From my perspective Kloot, I think that there’s a subtle difference between prioritising your constituents or your region within the UK and actively undermining the fabric of the Union. That is the barrier over which I believe that Paisley and others within the DUP step. Now I’m not claiming that everyone within that party is of Ulster Nationalist tendency, nor would I try to claim that no-one in the UUP is – but I think that blatantly the “ourselves alone” attitude is more predominant in the DUP. Whilst there are instances of assertive independence in the history of unionism they tend to manifest themselves when unionists feel let down by Westminster or Britain. Paisley’s nationalism is of a different stripe to that displayed in these situations. He is hungry for power and doesn’t mind seeking that power at the expense of the Union. Integrationism has had a following in the UUP since the 1970s. The current revival of UK unionism within the party is something, I personally find encouraging.
Kloot
For Paisley and the fundamentalist wing of the DUP, the fight against the IRA, a United Ireland and, at times, the British government was seen principally as a religious one; the provos were trying to destroy the protestantism of Ulster not its Britishness; the victims of La Mon, Enniskillen etc were labelled as merely the latest in the long line of protestant martyrs that stretched all the way back to Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley. The British link (and his Britishness) was/is only important in so much as it guaranteed the continuation of protestantism within NE Ulster and his loyalty to the British Monarchy is contingent on the Act of Settlement preventing a “romanist” from ever taking the throne.
So, nothing wrong whatsoever in him and the DUP fighting his region’s corner ,as do Yorkshire MPS for Yorkshire or Cornish MPs for Cornwall, but whereas the two latter groups will still regard themselves as an integral part of the bigger British family, I’m convinced that the Paisley brand of “unionism” would be as at home within a federal Ireland as it would be within a federal UK.
Regarding your last paragraph,Stormont and the quasi-federalist N. Irish state set up in the 20s was originally regarded by unionists as a poor second choice; Sir Edward Carson was an Irish, not an Ulster Unionist and he had the foresight to see the possible dangers of an Ulster parliament, to all intents and purposes, working separate from Westminster. If Ulster Unionism had listened a bit more to him then rather than taking the easy, parochial way out we might have avoided the mess we’re in today.
O'Neill,
Interesting comments on Paisley. Being from the ROI I suppose I would only have seen him in terms of 'traditional' unionism, as opposed to a brand of Ulster Nationalism.
The British link (and his Britishness) was/is only important in so much as it guaranteed the continuation of protestantism within NE Ulster
In fairness, it could be argued that the preservation of Protestant ascendency within the island of Ireland itself was one of the major factors in convincing a majority of Irish Parliamentarians to vote in favour of the Union in the first place, along with other reasons of course.
But I think what your saying here is that Paisley appears to have a stronger Ulster-Protestant identity then a British identity.
As someone from the ROI, it was quite confusing ( while somewhat comforting, in a strange way ) to see Paisley greeting Bertie so well that time shortly after all was back on track again, and some of his comments since have been equally... well strange, in the sense that having been on the butt end of so many lambasting speeches from the man, it now appears that he is almost endearing to the ROI.. which must really annoy quite a few. Also, Paisley and the DUP seem to take a positive stance towards lowering Capital gains tax in NI, which to me seems a dangerous precedent in the context of the UK. Whats to stop Scotland from jumping on the same bandwagon, what then for the economic harmony of the UK.
Paisleys connections with the SNP are also a tad confusing. Why would any 'Unionist' wish to form close relations with a 'separatist'.
Stormont and the quasi-federalist N. Irish state set up in the 20s was originally regarded by unionists as a poor second choice
You know its a real pity that there appears to be so very little published material on those early years of the NI state. Yes, you have large volumes of books on Irish history which will give it some coverage, be it in the wider context of Irish history or in the context of Home Rule or the 1920s war, however, finding books whose primary focus is on Ulster Unionism or indeed Irish Unionism at that period, is hard.
One of the more interesting reads for me so far concerning early NI history, was 'Carson:The Man who divided Ireland'. A good read in my view.
Post a Comment