At About 2.25- 2.40 in to the clip UUP MLA David McNarry notes the failure of the finance minister to fight harder to keep hold of funds allocated by Westminster. What he says in revealing, in a subtle way. ‘Look at the great contrast between the welsh assembly and the Scottish executive’s reaction…… they are angry at the penalties their countries are going to be affected by.’It got me thinking, does Mr McNarry equate the north with a separate country? What then is Britain? What is his country?
The launch of a new book by Robert Ramsay, reviewed here
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamon-mccann/what-unionists-must-do-now-to-get-the-thumbs-up-from-europe-14287760.html by Eamon McCann also examines how modern day unionism identifies itself.
Ramsay was a senior civil servant during the hey-day of the orange state in the mid sixties, and he now feels that Unionism has become outmoded, and old fashioned. One only has to look at the Orange Order to see his point. Rather, he sees Europe as the future for Ulster unionism. He states ‘To me, the most important aspect of the development of the Ulster Scots identity is that it would take (unionism) out of the internationally damaging context of religious division, into one which is not only understandable, but is even fashionably in harmony with the zeitgeist of today’s European Union.’
He believes that the ‘Ulster Scottish’ culture would fit in well as a minority culture within a European context, emphasising, apparently, their cultural differences with the British as well as their differences with the population of this island. Leaving the merits or demerits of this argument aside, that he considers it to be an Ulster Scottish identity is curious.
The Ulster Scots identity seems to be a new weapon in the inventory of unionism. The last 130 odd years unionism has been telling us that Ireland, and subsequently the north, were indivisible from Britain. For the last 90, they have been telling us they were British (never mind that the British themselves didn’t quite see it that way, note the Act of Union of Great Britain and northern Ireland).
So now they are Ulster Scottish.
And British.
And maybe Irish as well, depending on who you ask.
The Unionist Identity was probably always a frail thing. Indeed in reality it was an invention to attempt to defeat home rule. There was no organised unionist party until the late 19th century, and even then, there was no question of Ulster Unionism.
The union was to be preserved in its entirety. However as William Gladstone supported the Irish party’s request for Home Rule, the conservatives, whipped up a sectarian frenzy in the north of Ireland, with Randolph Churchill claiming Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right, and others still claiming Home Rule is Rome Rule.(The irony of Laudabiliter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudabiliter , surely lost on them)In the short term, the campaign was successful, home rule was defeated, three times in fact. But the conservatives had created a monster which survived the partial independence granted in 1921, a great edifice, an identity that purported to be more British than the British themselves, and one that equated the catholic population as a grave threat to their existence.
But then it was an identity that demanded paranoia anyway. And the fact is that as much as they distrusted the nationalist population of Ireland, it was matched by their distrust for those in the British government. Fuelled by a constant belief that the final treachery of Westminster was just around the corner.
The idea of an Ulsters Scots identity is interesting in itself. It implies an independent heritage from Britain, separateness. Perhaps this is a new Europhile version of Ulster nationalism, as advocated by some in the vanguard party and by the Ulster British dominion party. Indeed, much of the ideology of various loyalist groups has been tied in with a vague idea of a ‘Free Ulster’ and so on. At present they remain very much wedded to an idea of a ‘British Ulster’, but who knows what shape this could take in time to come, though embracing the idea of Europe would indeed be a battle in itself.
So what relevance does this have to us? Ultimately the creation of a united Ireland, and not just united in name but united in reality, depends on removing the great fear and paranoia inherent in the unionist identity, and deconstructing the attachment to a barely interested Britain. It is possible to persuade the unionist community that there is as much, and probably more room, within an Irish republic for a broad northern protestant identity as within a British Kingdom. And this will be our task in the next 5 10, 20 years, and more. And the fact is, the unionist community is in many ways a broken population. Distrustful of those to whom it pledges it allegiance, betrayed by their political leaders for generations. They are desperately seeking an identity and a vision for themselves that can give them peace of mind and some semblance of real nationhood. Why not Irishness?
To quote Gerry Adams ‘Republicans and democrats believe that the union with Britain is a nonsense, even in these more enlightened times. Under the union, unionists make up fewer that 2% of the Kingdom. They would constitute 20% of the New Republic. They would be citizens, not mere subjects. They would have rights, not concessions. They would belong. They would be welcome. We have to persuade them of that. So too does the Irish government.’
2 comments:
I see the outreach has had zero impact on thinking then
Great post, i think unionists should really think that Gerry Adams quote through well.
Post a Comment