Worse still, from the Sinn Fein perspective, is that rather than the British presence diminishing, it has actually expanded. The new relationship between the UUP and Conservatives is forging a pan-UK unionist counterbalance to the disintegrating pan-nationalist front which dominated the political agenda in the 1980s. In truth, the extraordinarily hostile reaction to the 'Conservatives and Unionists' from columnists and editorials in the Irish News, Irish Times, Irish Independent and a wide variety of pro-unity bloggers, suggests that they, too, now understand the increasingly delusion-driven nature of the united Ireland project and, consequently, also understand the real threat posed by a unionism which spreads from Northern Ireland and across the entire United Kingdom.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Quote of the day
After a couple of dodgy weeks, Kane's back on form:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I think the wishful thinking here is on the part of the article's authors.
Surely nationalist opionion in the north is increasingly coalessing around Sinn Fien, with the Unionist camp split four ways the last time I looked. And now it is split further on the fundamental issue of whether it should organise automously or on a pan UK basis
And we have seen what happened to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. Whatever the short term attraction, it suggests to me that attempts to rally working classs unionists to a party directly linked to the party of the English political establishment will fail.
Furthermore, demography and secularisation are all on the nationalists side.
And if Scotland goes, surely the entire Irish unionist cause it up shit creek without a paddle?
“Surely nationalist opionion in the north is increasingly coalessing around Sinn Fien, with the Unionist camp split four ways the last time I looked. And now it is split further on the fundamental issue of whether it should organise automously or on a pan UK basis”
The overall difference in total votes for pro-Union parties and pro-Irish nationalism parties has stabilized since 2000. There are actually now three pro-Union parties, but the fundamental split is between two of them (DUP and TUV) who preach, for want abetter word, “Cultural” Unionism and the Conservatives and Unionists who (hopefully) will be preaching a more pan UK secular variety.
“And we have seen what happened to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. “
What has happened since it became more “autonomous”? Has it increased its support?
“Whatever the short term attraction, it suggests to me that attempts to rally working classs unionists to a party directly linked to the party of the English political establishment will fail. “
The idea is to rally all classes, religions and none to a pro-Union party. The fact that Cameron is investing so much time in both Scotland and NI (and linked with the recent healthy Tory results in wales) is an attempt to challenge that (imo) wrong perception you mentioned.
“Furthermore, demography and secularisation are all on the nationalists side.”
Oops, straying into ethno-natdom them AWC! But yep, if the irish nats want to rely on “demographics”, then let them, if nothing else proves they haven’t got much of an argument to begin with! Why do you think secularization would necesarily help the nats? Surely that works against your ‘demographics” point?
“And if Scotland goes, surely the entire Irish unionist cause it up shit creek without a paddle?”
Scotland does not = the United Kingdom!
>>Scotland does not = the United Kingdom!<<
In this context you are totally wrong. Scotland goes, the Welsh may just value themselves a little more instead of the all too dominant 'more British than the English' shite. And, and this is paramount. The English may then decide that they no longer wish to bankroll the dying throes of the sectarian state that is N.I. If nothing else you will have the growing number of English backwoodsmen (like wildgoose) and all the made up hysteria about spending English that brings, focus on you. Only this time they won't have to make so much of it up.
>>Oops, straying into ethno-natdom them AWC! But yep, if the irish nats want to rely on “demographics”, then let them, if nothing else proves they haven’t got much of an argument to begin with!<<
Really this takes the biscuit. Are you pretending that the reason that a part of Ireland was artificially removed(in political terms) was for any different reasons than 'demographics'?. The main difference is that Irish Nationalism has usually tried to include/welcome those from all backgrounds. Can the same ever be said for Unionism in Ireland?
ps. >>“And we have seen what happened to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. “
What has happened since it became more “autonomous”? Has it increased its support?<<
I reckon at the very least they are in the process of de-contaminating themselves in the eyes of Scots. A crucially important event.
Tony, I cant argue with much of what you say.
On the secularisation point though can I elaborate? Because Irish nationalism , despite attempts by unionists to portray it as a Catholic conspiracy, has never been religious based. Woolfe Tone was a prod! So was Casement and many many more. It rather is like most other nationalisms - driven by a desire for self determination. Just like American nationalism in 1776, Indian Nationalism in 1946, or Scottish nationalism now.
As Irish society, north and south decsecularises. attempts by unionists to present arguments like "Home Rule = Rome rule" will just look increasingly ridiculous. The case for Irish unity will stand or fall on its own merits - which in my view are overwhelming, paricularly with GDP per head in the previously impovererished pre independence South now 20% higher than the north and rising. Just simply looking at the strategic facts make the case.
As does that Grand Slam winning Rugby team and so much more
Aye we can
“It rather is like most other nationalisms - driven by a desire for self determination. Just like American nationalism in 1776, Indian Nationalism in 1946, or Scottish nationalism now.”
If it were ever a truly civic form of nationalism (which I’d dispute, but let’s agree it was for the sake of argument), it transmorphed in NI via The Troubles and the fact that SF is now its leading party into something very much more communal based. In other words, irish nationalism as an abstract theory could be secular, Irish nationalism as it is practiced in NI is closer to the version of nationalism offered by, for example the BJP in India rather than the Congress party (you did introduce India into the equation!)
“The case for Irish unity will stand or fall on its own merits - which in my view are overwhelming, paricularly with GDP per head in the previously impovererished pre independence South now 20% higher than the north and rising. Just simply looking at the strategic facts make the case.”
Two very strategic facts, first 60% of NI’s GDP is derived from the public sector. Secondly if NI joined the ROi tomorrow the Unity cost (to keep Ni in its present condition) would be approx 800-1000euros pa, per taxpayer. NI’s reliance on the public sector must change, the ROI doesn’t have the resources to effect that change.
One final point (unlike I believe the SNP in Scotland) no Irish nationalist party either side of the border has ever prodiced an independent costs and benefits analysis of the consequences of irish Unity. There’s a very good reason why not;)
Tony
In this context you are totally wrong. Scotland goes….
You’ve followed that up with quite a few “mays”. Whole set of possible scenarios, the only fact that we do know is that if Scotland left tomorrow, the (smaller) UK would still be in operation Friday. What happens after Saturday? You have as much clear grasp of the consequences of that (still unlikely) event as I do
.
“Really this takes the biscuit. Are you pretending that the reason that a part of Ireland was artificially removed(in political terms) was for any different reasons than 'demographics'?.”
At the time (which was now nearly 100 years ago) there were several compelling reasons to stay a part of the UK, the fear of “Rome Rule” was part of it, but only part.
“The main difference is that Irish Nationalism has usually tried to include/welcome those from all backgrounds. Can the same ever be said for Unionism in Ireland?”
Since Carson, no. This is why the Conservative & Unionist thing, if it succeeds in its declared aims, is so exciting and why (as Kane points out) it alarms irish nationalism so much.
“I reckon at the very least they are in the process of de-contaminating themselves in the eyes of Scots. A crucially important event.”
That’s a subjective opinion, objectively have they increased their support at the ballot box? That’s the one unarguable test.
>>You’ve followed that up with quite a few “mays”. Whole set of possible scenarios....<<
Not being mystic Meg I had no choice but to future. However, what is inarguable is that the fundamental dynamics of politics has changed in Scotland. Every confidence sapping demeaning piece of propoganda aimed at Nationalism on these islands has been rubbished for all time. A reasonably succesful Nationalist government(wildly successful compared to predecessors) has proved at the very least that the roof will not fall in.
The result of this (hopefully) is not just a change in the governing party in Holyrood, but a new realtionship between Scotland and England. Of the many possible outcomes I am betting it will be a relationship between two independent and friendly neighbours. As you say a version of the UK will still exist, but without a very important and significant part, and more importantly one who pays her way.
Also to get my two bobs worth over the economic points between yirsel and AWC. Irish unification has never hinged on an economic argument. It was only used these past ten years or so to refute one of the many strawmen put up by Unionists for not joining with their fellow Irishmen. That Ireland was a backward country economically amongst other things. I often get insulted by people summing up my patriotism(the scoundrel that I am) including economic arguments. To me they are a sideshow, albeit an important one. In the words of the proclamers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcWSpPkf78s
http://www.tiny.cc/
>>...the fear of “Rome Rule” was part of it, but only part.<<
Religous demographics meant that some of the brethren especially in parts of east Donegal, Lientrim, Cavan and Monaghan. Too many Taigs in those counties you see. Sorry O'neil but it was not 'only a part' but the raison d'etre, all else pales.
>>This is why the Conservative & Unionist thing, if it succeeds in its declared aims<<
Welcomed and not before time.
"Irish unification has never hinged on an economic argument."
"I often get insulted by people summing up my patriotism(the scoundrel that I am) including economic arguments. To me they are a sideshow, albeit an important one."
They are much more than a sideshow. the truth is that I've no hope of convincing you of the value of the Union, vice versa you can extol the joys of a United Ireland till the cows come home, it won't have moved my political convictions. But for many people with no real preferences either way (30-35% of the electorate for whatever reason don't vote) and I'm guessing for many "softer" Nationalists the economics are all important. Yet SF and SDLP have not produced any kind of independent analysis of the possible economic effects of a United Ireland. Something (some) Unionists need to bear in mind before they disappear for the umpteenth time down the communal route.
"Sorry O'neil but it was not 'only a part' but the raison d'etre, all else pales. "
If the rest of Ireland had been completely secular then would there still have been no resistance to Home Rule?
Economically Ulster was much closer to the industrial areas of England and Scotland than the rest of the island. Culturally and sociall, especially on the eastern seaboard, it had much more in common with the west coast of Scotland than much of Ireland outisde Dublin.
I personally think "losing" the other three Ulster counties was a mistake. Ulster as a 9 county geographical unit made more sense and with a higher Catholic population, the state appartaus would have had to make much more effort at including everybody in its operations and receiving its benefits. Carson (again) warned after its creation of creating NI as a mirror image "theocratic" state, unfortunately he was ignored because the Ulster Unionists felt that they didn't have to worry about a one third minority.
>>This is why the Conservative & Unionist thing, if it succeeds in its declared aims<<
Welcomed and not before time.
The "United Kingdom" that Ireland joined in 1801 was formed by the political union of England (inc. Wales) with Scotland.
If Scotland leaves then the United Kingdom no longer exists, which will mean that there won't be a United Kingdom for Northern Ireland to be in "union" with.
And as you've said yourself, Northern Ireland's historical links (other than with southern Ireland) are with Scotland, not England and Wales.
Now it's true that Northern Ireland could choose to join either of the successor states.
But not without a referendum which Irish nationalists would insist included re-union with the Republic.
I would also expect that a referendum would have to be held in whichever state you tried to join.
And I believe that you have to consider the serious possibility of rejection by all 3 possible candidates.
You can't just assume that you will remain in Union with England, you have to consider that Scotland leaving the Union could be just the excuse needed to rid England and Wales of an expensive economic basket-case whose main export seems to be terrorism and the blackening of England's name.
This is a high-stakes game being played. Fortunately, England with 85% of the population and nearly 90% of the economy, (and even more if Wales is included), can be fairly relaxed about the outcome.
Can you?
Oneill
You don't think you could could simply write a Kana article by going:
Look at X!
This shows how delusional republicans are
A United Ireland won't ever happen, ever
Now, I'm sure it is fun to have positive reinforcement sometimes, but good analysis? C'mon.
"Now, I'm sure it is fun to have positive reinforcement sometimes, but good analysis?"
kane's given reason for his analysis:
1. The IRA didn't achieve their military objective. NI is still British
2. SF sit in a "partitionist" parliament.
3. Adams in order to promote Irish Unity has been reduced to traipsing around the States and the Uk preaching the same old story to the same old converted.
4. NI is still governed from Belfast and London
5. THE UUP/Conservative link-up has the potential to push politics here onto an east-west axis.
Adams and the present SF leadership are a busted flush, they are no closer to a UI than the day the IRA took up arms or when they signed the Belfast Agreement. The voting figures have stabilised over the last 5 years. Saying there will be never a UI is silly, but unless there is an enormous shake-up on the part of Irish Republicanism I honestly can't see it happening in my life-time.
Wildgoose,
I think you've been infected by a dose of Aughey's Endism;)
The high-stake games are well, well off being played and you're assuming ven if they are played there's only one outcome. You seriously underestimate a whole set of factors if you really do believe that.
Couple of side issues:
1.Over history (going a long way back before the Plantation) there's been a lot of toing and fro-ing between Ulster and Scotland- the cultural and social connections range across a whole set of differing religious and social factors. But, especially in the W of the province, there is a strong anchestral link with England and in particular the border counties, Lancashire and Yorkshire (my own surname should give you a strong hint where my forefathers came from. In the modern world that English link, especially in the realm of music, literature and sport has got stronger.
2. The ROI's government played a very fly one with the Belfast Agreement. The ROI's electorate and not its government will have give the final decision regarding "Unification". Strange one, surely the govt of the ROI would be only reflecting the popular opinion in the 26 if they happily and automatically took back the "lost" 6?
this debate in genuinely englightening. But you live ther and i dont si i kind of need to defer - a little!
But it strikes me there is a dynamic here none of us can predict - essentially how ireland, north and south, reacts to say another decade of peace, significant constitutional movement in the UK, plus an crisis in public finances that forces England to look real seriously at where it spends its money, and why.
All bets are off, nothing is inevitable, is all i'd suggest
Aye We Can I'd bet my life that you and we and all the rabids on this site will be saying the same thing in another 10 years. Still one can always aspire.
Post a Comment