The problem [of being nowhere nearer Irish "Unity"] in part lies with the brilliance of the Sinn Féin leadership. It has been superb at emoting and creating widely accepted personality cults of its dual leadership within its own community. No embarrassing revelation can dent the emotional investment which has now been built up. But superb as this exercise has been it has its counterpart in the equally dramatic failure to make any progress towards Irish unity. The very strengths of the current leadership are also its equally profound weakness when it comes now to the need to engage the unionist community.Despite that "community" popping up at the end, a very thoughtful article and well worth a read.
Sinn Fein, with its present policies and leading characters, cannot make the move out of the communal bunker needed to push the constitutional debate onto the kind of battle-field where they have any chance of success. Ironically, the reasons why they remain the leading nationalist party in N.Ireland are exactly the reasons why they have zero chance of fulfilling their raison d'etre and it does honestly baffle me why the SDLP don't do more to fill the gap and attempt the non-sectarian, secular soft sell by appealing to the undecided and apathetic, never mind disaffected Unionists and loyalists.
8 comments:
There are so many paradoxes contained therein Oneil and it does not surprise me in the least that you cannot see them. Suffice to say that because Unionism itself was born and exists in a bunker with a self-imposed superiority over her fellow Catholic Irishmen and wimmen that it is incapable of dealing without the English(british Gov.t) forcing them into it. We could debate all day about the minutiae, but it won't change the underlying premise.
Oh and you do seem to fall into the predictable line about associating SF with sectarianism. Compared to even 'decent Unionists' they are angels. And of course, nationalists will pick their own representatives, and by and large they have been reasonably happy. It is who unionists vote for (in the main with their overt anti-Catholic baggage) that is/are the only stumbling blocks to a healthy debate never mind a deal.
And of course, nationalists will pick their own representatives, and by and large they have been reasonably happy.
They can pick whomever they want and if they continue to pick the same ones as present then I'll be sort of happy."Happy" because an all-Ireland state will remain as far off as the day as I was born and only "sort" of because:
a) It breeds sterile and occasionally dangerous politics
b) It lets mainstream Unionism off the hook.
You seem to refuse to acknowledge that the dynamics have changed in the last 10 years. Communal unionism or nationalism cannot achieve their respective final targets because there is too big an undecided/apathetic/pissed off middle. That middle doesn't care about the communal (eg language, parades) issues as long as it doesn't impact on their everyday life. They need extra arguments than SF is capable of presently providing to change what is for the majority of them a pretty comfortable lifestyle under UK authority with an ever increasing recognition of the Irish identity of our part of Ulster.
Final question: in the unlikely event of an "United" Ireland do you seriously believe it will be the present SF that will be delivering it?
No, actually final-final question, ignore my argument, ignore the fact that he's a Unionist, do you agree with what Bew said
Busy weekend for me.
>>No, actually final-final question, ignore my argument, ignore the fact that he's a Unionist, do you agree with what Bew said<<
Actually I do but not for the reasons that you and he imply.
You actually make a good reasonable argument, and from you it makes sense simply because you have *mostly* shown yourself to be cut from a different cloth from mainstream Unionism. However to nationalists in general listening to Unionists make these very same points would smack of further pre-conditions(ie we will deal.......but not with them for this reason etc.) and of course the genesis of wishing to impose a nationalist leadership which is acceptable to Unionists is the underlying and inescapable implication.
Honestly Oneil is that even possible? To find a Nationalist leadership ameniable to unionism. If we are honest the answer is no simply because the very idea of dealing with anyone who wishes to end the union/Protestant domination cum hegemony is anathema to the majority(vast majority?) of Unionists.
Nationalists have had no qualms about dealing with whomever Unionism puts up. Be they terrorists(Robinson, Ervine), supporters of ethnic cleansing(Paisley et al) and those who have been involved in militant quasi-fascist groups(Trimble) Also they have dealt with leaders of various Orange groupings who in a normal society would not be treated as leaders of a community.
Now we come full circle, Unionists can reach for any number of legitimate reasons why they will not deal with representatives of nationalism. We can plainly see the rank hypocrisy in trying to square the circle here. Nationalists are not second class citizens and to fully comprehend this aspect of the discussion is paramount to why we may go round in circles.
Now we come full circle, Unionists can reach for any number of legitimate reasons why they will not deal with representatives of nationalism
I actually agree with those like Chris Donnelly who argue that "Unionist Outreach" is a waste of time from a strategic point of view. Not one Unionist I know of has been brought over the other side and it is also a mistake people made when discussing the UUP/Cons thing- it had zero chance of converting someone who believes in a United Ireland over to the Union. If I were a nationalist strategician I'd be concentrating on that middle unconvinced segment that I mentioned.
But that doesn't mean that political Unionism and nationalism shouldn't be working together to make the place a better one to live in. And it does happen at a very basic level eg along the various interfaces - the one I'd know most about in E Belfast has been kept relatively quiet since the middle of the last decade due to a working relationship between community and political reps on either side.
At a higher level, in the councils and in Stormont it doesn't make sense on a whole range of levels for the UUP/DUP and TUV not to work together with the nationalist parties on everyday issues. Some make the attempt, some don't. Those that don't, for whatever reason, damage their own constituents, NI and ultimately the Union. Outside those everyday issues,I think the devolution of "cultural issues" was the one guarantee that Stormont would remain a dysfunctional mess and an excuse to keep engagement for many at the megaphone level.
But, as I say, in the area of "national aspirations" I genuinely think it's a waste of time at this stage in our history to even make the pretense of outreach in either direction.
It is obvious that you are too sensible to be a Unionist Oneil. Your cogent agendaless comments set you apart. Don't be bashfull that is fair dinkum well earned praise!
The only part where i would *slightly disagree is that Unionism and Nationalism have always reached out to the other side. Perhaps I am biased but Republicans have always welcomed everyone despite the sectarian trenches that have inevitably been built from the seventies. Believe me if I thought otherwise my sympathies could not lie there.
Unionists have gathered the odd Catholic here and there(but not Nationalists obviously) they are almost all from a certain social class and have vested interest in the establishment/status quo. And ultimately have had to accept the baggage around that decision.
Actually this has got me thinking. Are you seriously positing the idea that Republicanism, shorn of whatever sectarian baggage(ie leadership/personalities) accrued (real and imagined) from the conflict. Then young Unionists may well view this ideology more favourably?
Sorry but at times like this I can't help think of Susan McKay's book 'Northern Protestants'. My family and I have witnessed/experienced the kind of raw naked hatred many times in the past that she exposes. It is an inescapable barrier Oneil.
Are you seriously positing the idea that Republicanism, shorn of whatever sectarian baggage(ie leadership/personalities) accrued (real and imagined) from the conflict. Then young Unionists may well view this ideology more favourably?
No, or at least no more favourably than a US Republican views the Democrat party favourably, or a Labour supporter in Scotland views the SNP. But by doing so it would make the argument one of political ideologies and not communities; in other words Republicanism would only become a political ideology like socialism, conservatism, liberalism etc and to argue against an ideology requires much more thought than mainstream Unionism needs at the minute when Gerry simply can be held up as the bogeymen.
But again you're spending time thinking about the wrong people, Irish nationalism would be much forgetting about debating with or arguing against the Unionists and wonder why the 35% or so of the electorate who don't vote are not prepared to vote for a pro United Ireland party. I'm obviously looking at it through partial glasses but I'd be highly sceptical that any of the arguments from yesterday's conference convinced any of that 35% - "why not" should be the question. It can't be merely "communal" or otherwise those people would be already voting for the DUP/UUP or TUV.
Yep I can see the clear logic there, but the 'inescapable barrier' that I reffered to previously must impinge on your logic, it must! Thus whilst your logic deals with a part of the problem it ignores the lions share.
Also many of these 35% that you speak of probably live in areas that are safely Unionist and if push came to shove in a border poll perhaps they would surface.
Am I being overly pessimistic?
"Also many of these 35% that you speak of probably live in areas that are safely Unionist and if push came to shove in a border poll perhaps they would surface"
Nearly a 150,000 "new" voters voted in the Belfast Referendum and then disappeared never to be heard of again.
It was assumed they were mainly Unionist "background", they might wll have been but I also suspect labelling them blanketly as such was handy for those who needed the referendum to pass the 50% of each community mark.
Whatever, the reason, they weren't sufficiently motivated (or bothered by the Union) by the DUP or UUP to vote for them afterwards.
Post a Comment