Irish Unionism has been fighting against a tide rather than for anything in particular since the 1870's. It is now the very essence of Unionist psychology and politics. The tone of blog above is the same as fingertips clawing, refusing to let go, as they have been doing for almost a century and a half now (with a period of relief, 1922-66).

If Irish Unionism doesn't engage in with the UK mainland after 150-odd years of existance, it is because the UK mainland is not the focus of attention of Irish Unionism. Irish Unionism is engaged soley in repulusing Catholic Irish control of Ireland, and not in asserting their 'Britishness' in a wider UK sense. If that was what Irish Unionism was about, why would Unionism have rejected Home Rule for (Catholic-dominated) Ireland in 1912 but accept virtual independence for a (Protestant-dominated) Nortern Ireland in 1920? Why would Unionist parties support devolution for Northern Ireland (albeit preferring not to share power with Catholics, if they could have avoided doing so) over direct rule in the 1990's? Surely this is at odds with UK Unionism? In any other country that would be called seperatism. The focus of Irish "Unionism"'s attention is not in maintaining the union, but in maintaining Protestant control over their 'wee country'. The Union is merely a vehical to stave off that loss of power.

"The most obvious problem is the one that faces any UK campaign, the general indifference of the GB public to a wide variety of political issues particularly constitutional."

What nonsense. Constitutional issues are to the fore of UK discussion on politics. The difference in this case is the same as has been Irish (nationalist) argument since the 19th century - the general indifference of the GB public to political issues relating to Ireland.

Again you're pushing this Unionist Academy farce. It;s the DUP policy unit with a new name, you know this.

“So should this ‘Unionist Academy’ keep the GB opportunities in mind?”

Fair Deal,

Well, I hope so and I hope you and others with influence within the DUP are making sure it is because it’s all very well protecting Northern Ireland’s place within the Union, but if the Union itself disintegrates in front of our very eyes, where does that leave us?

I remain to be convinced and whilst I’m not quite as cynical as Anonymous No.2, the fact that Robinson himself said that:

“It will offer a forum where DUP "policies can be formulated" but it will also be an educational vehicle.”

puts serious doubts in my mind about how much thinking outside, not only the normal boxes and comfort-zones, but also Northern Ireland will be taking place.

We need Unionist “Think Tanks”, we need Unionists from all four parts of our nation sitting down, working together and thinking how best we can bring the United Kingdom forward through its present crises; but the problem is that at the present moment placing “Unionist” and “Think” together in one phrase can be most kindly described as oxymoronicy and that’s not the sole fault of the DUP.

So, what we need most are ideas, but ideas derived from working together with other elements within UK Unionism, rather than restricting ourselves to NI. Do you think the DUP and their proposed Academy are up to that task?

As you correctly say, despite the appearance that may be given on here and other blogs, the Great British Public is profoundly disinterested in the constitutional niceties of devolution, the Union, independence etc. What it is interested in (and what presently is the greatest threat to the Union) are the inequities arising from asymmetrical devolution in such areas as health and education.

How will Unionism address these inequities within the present system?
That’s a good first question for any DUPers reading (whilst they get this Unionist Think-Tank up and running) to ponder.

Reply from Anon1 -

"It [Irish Unionism] has engaged with the mainland at various times in 150 years. [Followed by a list of Irish Unionism's opposition to various attempts at Irish home role and sweet FA else to do with the UK in a wider sense.]"

Indeed, you prove my point. As I wrote, "Irish Unionism is engaged solely in repulsing Catholic Irish control of Ireland, and not in asserting their 'Britishness' in a wider UK sense."

"In your analysis you omit this rather influential institution called the national government. Unionism was not the sole determinant or arbiter of the arrangements for Northern Ireland."

My analysis was that Irish "Unionism" was happy for virtual independence so long as it meant Protestant-dominated independence. You suggest that UK central government foisted Northern Ireland on Irish "Unionism", yet neglect to recall that Craig lobbied for dominion status on a par with the Free State. Unionism my ass!

"Define UK Unionism? The Union of the UK can exist with a variety of structures and still be a Union."

Indeed, and home rule for Ireland might have been one ... but, oh no, Irish Unionism wouldn't like that one. Oh - but partition the country to create an artificial Protestant-dominated statelet and it suddenly turns out to be a sweet idea!

It wasn't unionism then and it's not unionism now. A perverted form of British nationalism - possibly - but not unionism.

A question, if it truly is: leaving GB aside, what would you imagine the 'Unionist Academy' doing to engage the 'three lost heifers' of the 26 counties? Or is Irish "unionism" satisfied with partition?

From Fair Deal

To Anonymous 3

It would appear we are in broad agreement. Anyone looking at the Union can't but engage with thinking in the other parts of the UK. The recent stuff from the Channel Islands looks interesting.

"Do you think the DUP and their proposed Academy are up to that task?"

It seems to be an idea that is still being shaped. Recognition of the need for a think tank and to identify and address strategic issues is certainly a good start but time will ultimately tell.

To Anonymous 1

Repetition of reductionism is as dull as it was the first time.

"Irish Unionism is engaged solely in repulsing Catholic Irish control of Ireland, and not in asserting their 'Britishness' in a wider UK sense."

It is about staying within the Union. As for Britishness in the wider sense they identify and participate in the various institutions of the British state and have done so for centuries.

Also your reductionism overlooks that a primary part of Unionism's campaigning in the mainland for support was around the importance of, attachment to and support for the key aspects of late 19th century and early 20th century Britishness - the monarchy, parliament and the empire.

"My analysis was that Irish "Unionism" was happy for virtual independence"
"yet neglect to recall that Craig lobbied for dominion status on a par with the Free State."

I have not forgotten. To claim they were happy is nonsense. You forget he made the call after government outlined plans to expel them from the Union exemplifying the point that "Unionism was not the sole determinant or arbiter of the arrangements for Northern Ireland.".

Unionism was also under massive significant from key supporters to not prevent an agreement being reached. This was not Unionism's Plan A, B or C but the result of a deeply unsympathetic government, wobbling support among supporters and trying to prevent the outbreak of as Lloyd George put it "war".

Unionism's preferred option was for all of Ireland to remain in the UK. It's next option was to keep as much of Ireland in the UK. It's next option was what stayed under the UK was under the same arrangements as elsewhere in the UK.

"what would you imagine the 'Unionist Academy' doing to engage the 'three lost heifers' of the 26 counties? Or is Irish "unionism" satisfied with partition?"

I doubt if a think tank in the 21st century will be seeking to re-open the debates of the early 20th century even if it would have some interest as an intellectual exercise.

I am not 'the' spokesperson for Unionism but I would assume that the general view would be the one Craig is purported to have said when receiving an appeal from East Donegal Unionists in the 1930's to be brought into Northern Ireland - a deal is a deal is a deal.

Reply from Anon1 -

"Unionism's preferred option was for all of Ireland to remain in the UK. ..."

Really? That was the first offer on the cards in 1912. Ulster said no, remember? Home Rule was Rome Rule, remember?

"... It's next option was to keep as much of Ireland in the UK."

Given the option for a virtually-independent Protest-dominated Northern Ireland over a Catholic-dominated Ireland within the UK as was offered in 1912 - even going so far as to lobby for dominion status - that is what Unionism went for. Hence the reduction that Irish Unionism was (is) more concerned with repulsing Catholic Irish control of Ireland rather than unionism.

I can repeat this argument as often as you like until you respond to it.

"... a deal is a deal is a deal."

I imagine Craig was more concerned about "not one inch". If the border was re-negotiable once it was re-negotiable forever.

I surmise from your answer that (as far as you are concerned) Irish "unionism" is satisfied with partition, just as was it was in 1922. So much for unity! Can we expect that Irish "unionism" would take the same approach in it's dealing with Scottish or Welsh or English separatism? Does the UK mean so little to you that you see its components as disposable, even willing to slice of members of your own constituent country, so long as you stay in?

If that is the kind of unionism that you want to 'engage' GB on, I imagine it is the quick road to The United Kingdom of Northern Ireland.

"As for Britishness in the wider sense they identify and participate in the various institutions of the British state and have done so for centuries."

As have Irish (and Scottish and Welsh) nationalists for centuries. If that is that sum extent of what Britishness means to you, it is a very shallow and sorry sense of meaning that you intended to 'engage' GB on.

that would be the Democratic Unionist Academy, hardly likely to include a broad range of unionist opinion especially from the uup ranks

From Fair Deal

To Anonymous 1

"That was the first offer on the cards in 1912"

No its was offered arrangements different from everywhere else in the UK. Also that particualr prediction of the dangers of a dublin parliament proved to be a fair summation.

"I can repeat this argument as often as you like until you respond to it."

It has already been responded too. It is reductionism of what Unionism wanted and campaigned for to fit a preconcieved and denigratory notion that you hold and an obsession with early 20th century politics when the post is about early 21st century politics.

"I imagine Craig was more concerned about "not one inch". If the border was re-negotiable once it was re-negotiable forever."

Wrong a deal was done about the border to which all participants had agreed.

"I surmise from your answer that (as far as you are concerned) Irish "unionism" is satisfied with partition, just as was it was in 1922. So much for unity! "

So they are supposed to breach agreements they and more importantly the UK government have entered into? They did not succeed in their primary goal, it happens in politics. It came to a compromise agreement in response to significant pressure and the threat of war. How terrible and intransigent of them.

"would take the same approach in it's dealing with Scottish or Welsh or English separatism? Does the UK mean so little to you that you see its components as disposable, even willing to slice of members of your own constituent country, so long as you stay in?"

Still this pretence that Irish unionism was the sole actor on the stage. It was not Irish unionism that was the one keen on agreeing to Irish separatism it was the UK government. The other group which wished to do the slicing was Irish nationalism.

"As have Irish (and Scottish and Welsh) nationalists for centuries. If that is that sum extent of what Britishness means to you, it is a very shallow and sorry sense of meaning that you intended to 'engage' GB on."

LOL They weren't particuarly good 'separatists' then where they. There is nothing shallow about being and acting British.

Reply from Anon1 -

"They weren't particuarly good 'separatists' then where they."

Why? How does following the rule of law and respecting British institution (ones we all share) make one a 'bad' nationalist? Are the SNP less nationalist because they are not republicans? Are English unionists less unionist if they are? Is Plaid Cymru less nationalist because they interact with Parliament? The SDLP? Were the Irish National Party not nationalists because they spoke Gaelic, sang God Save the Queen and voted at Westminster?

You've got some funny ideas, mate, of what it is to be a unionist. I'm not surprised you have funny ideas of what it means to be a nationalist.

"It was not Irish unionism that was the one keen on agreeing to Irish separatism it was the UK government. The other group which wished to do the slicing was Irish nationalism."

Yet, it was Irish "unionists" that brought the arms into Ulster in 1912. The same Irish "unionists" that insisted the six counties be indefinitely partitioned in 1914. And the same Irish "unionists" again that sought dominion status for Northern Ireland in 1920. Tearing the UK asunder because you couldn't bear the thought of a Catholic-governed Ireland.

"No its was offered arrangements different from everywhere else in the UK."

As Northern Ireland was in 1920 - but that was OK so long as they were Protestant-dominated arrangements, no?

"So they are supposed to breach agreements they and more importantly the UK government have entered into?"

Breach agreements? Certainly not. I would merely expect a unionist to want to strengthen links between two parts of Ireland.

Heck, start with the current agreements. How about some enthusiasm for the North-South Implementation Bodies? How about attending the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body - the first assembly since 1922 to draw persons from the whole area of pre-1922 UK? Why is it that we see more enthusiasm from supposedly "nationalist" southern Irish delegates for these sort of things that from supposedly "unionist" northern Irish delegates?

If not re-integrate the 26 counties back into the UK then at least do one's best to reconcile the difference between the UK and the part that split from it. You seem negligent of even considering the possibility of interaction with the 26 counties - just as you seemed negligent when I ask you if you would treat Scotland, Wales or England the same way if they were to leave.

Surely a true-found unionist wouldn't just walk away? Mainland-based unionists haven't. In their writings (for example, Simon Partridge), thought is always given to the role the 26 counties can play in UK unionism. Yet it doesn't seem to have crossed your mind. Likewise I can't imagine many unionists on the mainland shutting Scotland out of their minds were the Scots to excuse themselves from the table (or a part of them). The majority of Ireland may have left the UK, but it hasn't fallen of the face of the earth. What kind of loyalism can boast turning one's back on one's best friend?

"There is nothing shallow about being and acting British."

Nothing what-so-ever, but genuine British qualities appear absent in your dealings with the 26 counties and you don't appear to have a clue of what you can bring over to 'engage' Great Britain (- oh, except that if elected you promise to turn up at Parliament 30% of the time and vote on stuff - wow!).

Britishness deserves more than you can offer. So does unionism.

"Why? How does following the rule of law and respecting British institution (ones we all share) make one a 'bad' nationalist?"

I made no claim about other nationalist groups in the UUK and the rule of law and find it curious to try to imply otherwise.

Nice try to dance around it but the term was not "respect" but "identify" and "participate". An opponent of the British state will hardly identify with the institutions of it when they wish to separate from it. They may participate as part of their peaceful campaign to achieve change but they do not wish to sustain such institutions which a Unionist would.

"Yet, it was Irish "unionists" that brought the arms into Ulster in 1912. The same Irish "unionists" that insisted the six counties be indefinitely partitioned in 1914. And the same Irish "unionists" again that sought dominion status for Northern Ireland in 1920. Tearing the UK asunder because you couldn't bear the thought of a Catholic-governed Ireland."

You knowledge seems rather limited if you think guns came into politics in 1912.

This is so simplistic its funny. You present the third home rule crisis as if it is was a one man show production when it owes more to Aida.

"As Northern Ireland was in 1920 - but that was OK so long as they were Protestant-dominated arrangements, no?"

Yes after this minor event called the Great War and that other trifle of the IRA camapign after it. After the pressure from the UK government and some supporters to ensure a deal was done even if it included unsavoury parts.

"I would merely expect a unionist to want to strengthen links between two parts of Ireland."How about some enthusiasm for the North-South Implementation Bodies?

Unionist are full participants in the NS Ministerial Council. Economic co-operation has been taken forward eg the financial jobs agreement.

You are also moving the goalposts. First it was complaining irish Unionists weren't trying to get Ireland back into the Union now it is about what role they play in relations.

"How about attending the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body - the first assembly since 1922 to draw persons from the whole area of pre-1922 UK?"

A quick reconstitutuon to get over the historical baggage and I doubt there would be much problem.

"Surely a true-found unionist wouldn't just walk away? Mainland-based unionists haven't. "

You are disappearing into fantasy land. Name the last time any mainstream UK party publicly proposed the re-integration of Ireland? When did they last campaign for such?

"Yet it doesn't seem to have crossed your mind."

The republic is not shut from the mind because you don't think it is politically credible or achievable to campaign for re-integration. The celtic tiger has enabled ireland to move on from its historical baggage enabling better and positive relations to be developed.

"Likewise I can't imagine many unionists on the mainland shutting Scotland out of their minds were the Scots to excuse themselves from the table (or a part of them). "

Neither would Unionists in Northern Ireland.

"just as you seemed negligent when I ask you if you would treat Scotland, Wales or England the same way if they were to leave.Surely a true-found unionist wouldn't just walk away?"

You have now contradicted yourself. Unionism was terrible for opposing irish nationalism in the 1st/2nd/3rd Home rule crises but is somehow equally terrible for not continuing in the same vain after 1922?

"genuine British qualities"

Define them?

"(- oh, except that if elected you promise to turn up at Parliament 30% of the time and vote on stuff - wow!)."

What part of "it needs to look at people, especially its Westminster team. They should be Unionism’s primary ambassadors in GB. It goes without saying that full-time ambassadors are best." did you not understand?

"Britishness deserves more than you can offer. So does unionism."

Sorry to crush the ego but you are not the arbiter of britishness nor Unionism. Although the scale of arrogance it displays in purporting to be so is mildly amusing.