Fair Deal (Belfast, Slugger O'Toole): After 28 years as deputy, Peter Robinson is poised to take over the leadership of the Democratic Unionist Party and assume the First Ministership of Northern Ireland. He will emerge fully from the shadow of Ian Paisley to lead Unionism, and the fourth part of the Union, in June.
The Paisley- Robinson relationship has been central to the DUP. Paisley with his oratorical skills and emotional intelligence of Ulster’s Unionist community was the standard bearer, but it was Robinson that honed the DUP machine. Robinson’s importance came into sharp focus as the DUP overhauled the Ulster Unionist Party and negotiated the St Andrews Agreement.
Post devolution, he used his powerful position as Finance minister to full effect, driving forward an agreed budget and programme for government. However, the relationship between Paisley and McGuinness, nicknamed the ‘Chuckle Brothers,’ caused unease among Unionists and finally accelerated Robinson’s accession.
The expectation is now that the bonhomie will decline - it's not Robinson’s style anyway. But the devolution will continue. Its path may be bumpier than in the past year, but this is because of genuine disputes rather than personalities. Robinson has already met with the leader-in-waiting of the Republic of Ireland, Brian Cowen, in a co-announcement of an investment package that could bring 5,000 jobs to Northern Ireland. The clear message was that when business can be done it will be done.
In terms of Unionism locally, a post-Paisley DUP creates new dynamics which can only be guessed at - but a scenario that gives the UUP much comfort is hard to find. Nationally, the relationship with Gordon Brown is probably the coolest of all, mostly at his own behest. Brown was indifferent to Blair’s peace project, gave short shrift to proposals for a better financial package and the DUP has been angered by the in-out (usually out) attitude to Northern Ireland in Brown’s Britishness project.
Beyond devolution, Unionism is eyeing the possibility of a hung parliament. If it does occur, Robinson will do business - but for a much higher price than the UUP in the Callaghan and Major eras. In that scenario Brown may rue his present approach.
Comments
Fair Deal,
Good to see a genuine Unionist on here at last!
But regarding this line:
Nationally, the relationship with Gordon Brown is probably the coolest of all, mostly at his own behest. Brown was indifferent to Blair’s peace project, gave short shrift to proposals for a better financial package and the DUP has been angered by the in-out (usually out) attitude to Northern Ireland in Brown’s Britishness project.
In my opinion, the DUP have always been and still remain an insular *Ulster* party; the attendance records of their MPs at Westminster is appalling and the strategic alliance against the "British/English" that they seem to be building with Salmond and the SNP seems very peculiar behaviour coming from a party which regularly declares itself as the saviours of the Union.
There are several reasons why NI is too often "in-out" of the "British project", but one of those is undoubtedly the historical reluctance of NI unionists to get involved in the wider struggle in England, Scotland and Wales, concentrating instead on the parochial and in the end, inconsequential battles "at home". The DUP and NI Unionism in general needs to stop putting so much emphasis on our own wee parliament and start getting involved UK-wide.
On the broad principle of more proactive engagement by NI Unionism we are in agreement. With devolution again we must not fall into the old attitudes of the past Stormont era with Westminster the after-thought.
On attendance, despite their multi-jobbery (something that needs to be addressed) , a number of DUP MP's are presently outperforming the UUP's Slyvia Hermon according to they work for you in voting attendance. Attendance is not the answer if you don't do anyhting while you are there other than warm a seat as the UUP demonstrated in the 1980's.
On the SNP relationship I'd be somewhat more relaxed. 'Tensions' between devolved bodies and the central authorities is simply natural especially in such an ill-considered and imbalanced system as our present settlement. It's as much the system as the who.
'Ulster Unionism' is a regional political movement so it will always be somewhat pulled in two directions. There is also the defintion of Unionism e.g. integration and devolution being the dual under-currents within it (although with Blair devolution became the new integration).
"one of those is undoubtedly the historical reluctance of NI unionists to get involved in the wider struggle in England, Scotland and Wales"
Unionism's insularity/reluctance is something of a chicken and eg scenario. Many in E, S &W like NI off in its little corner keeping quiet not drawing attention to itself and keep its nose out etc.
Also it would be unwise to be overly introspective. If the goal is agreed the how is now more important that why it hasn't happened before. More difficult is the what? Can Unionists in NI agree on where we want the British constitution to go?
“Attendance is not the answer if you don’t do anyhting while you are there other than warm a seat as the UUP demonstrated in the 1980’s.”
That’s of course true, but they also need to be there to achieve anything! BTW I’m not UUP, I think we should be comparing the DUP’s performance and achievement to the other minor parties in the parliament rather than the UUP’s.
“It’s as much the system as the who.”
I really have to disagree there; when that “who” is dedicated to the destruction of the Uk and is probably the most capable (and machiavellian) politician in the UK today. The system has weaknesses and Salmond is the one guy we don’t want to be helping to exploit that fact.
“Unionism’s insularity/reluctance is something of a chicken and eg scenario. Many in E, S &W like NI off in its little corner keeping quiet not drawing attention to itself and keep its nose out etc. “
I kind of agree, there is nothing more irritating than someone from England, Scotland, Wales (or further afield for that matter) lecturing us on what we do wrong in NI. However, with the new media and technology, for example, you’re no longer Mr X , Ulster Unionist but an anonymous Fair Deal putting out reasoned and rational arguments about why the Union makes sense for all of the UK’s citizens. On the slightly bigger stage, both Sammy Wilson and David Simpson have spoken at Westminster on the English votes for English matters debate- everytime there are such debates every unionist MP, wherever they may come from in the UK, should be there arguing the case for the UK.
“If the goal is agreed the how is now more important that why it hasn’t happened before. More difficult is the what? Can Unionists in NI agree on where we want the British constitution to go?”
Probably not, I’d take very much a libertarian attitude to such questions as flying the flag, pledges etc- but I know many Unionists in NI and in the rest of the UK would disagree. That’s not a problem, Unionism is not a collective, we have never been a homogeneous movement and we should welcome debate and argument on these kind of questions.The problem and what we as NI Unionists should be fighting for, is the right to take part in that debate as equals to anyone else in the rest of the UK.
I wanted to ask some hypothetical questions (not meant to stir the pot or be disrespectful in any way, shape or form):
If the Scotland leaves the UK, what would NI do?
Would it form a union with Scotland?
Would it stay tied to England and Wales?
Would it opt for or consider creating a standalone country?
Would it consider merging with the republic in the south (yes, I know this is anathema to Unionist, but might as well ask)?
"If the Scotland leaves the UK, what would NI do? "
Head towards civilisation, and away from the UK.
"Would it form a union with Scotland?"
No.
"Would it stay tied to England and Wales?"
Much more likely.
"Would it opt for or consider creating a standalone country?"
No, but perhaps in the long term. The political divide is between those who want NI in the republic and those who want it in the UK. Those who want independence from both are a tiny minority, often with links to National Front successor groups.
Although the odd thing is, that Loyalists, despite their proclaimed allegiance to the Queen and the UK, have a tendency to be anglophobic.
"Would it consider merging with the republic in the south (yes, I know this is anathema to Unionist, but might as well ask)?"
Much more likely. They used to compare the roads on both sides of the border in Ireland - complaining that those of the republic were terrible and those of NI were wonderful. Now the comparison is vice versa. The Republic's not doing too badly, and more and more want in - as a bonus, it's becoming more and more secular, which makes it a more comfortable option for protestants as well.
"That’s not borne out by surveys and e;ctoral results since 2000:"
Sure, but as I understand it, sixty years ago, it would be unthinkable. Now it's become either undesirable (but not unthinkable) or possible (but not undesirable) amongst some of the people who would have never considered it before. Even Ian Paisley and David Trimble seem to accept some degree of cross-border co-operation.
"indeed there is a trend amongst the younger loyalists to follow the English national team rather than Northern Ireland as they feel it represents their strand of Britishness more."
And maybe because it does a bit better. ;-)
More than once I've read bizarre loyalist graffiti which says "God save the Queen" and "Keep Ulster British" (words to those effect) right next to "F*** the English" and similar sentiments... written in the same handwriting! Personally I find such doublethink bizarre, but it does go to show that for some of them, it is not a logical choice, but an emotional one of some kind.
Michael Langstrom,
It's an interesting hypothetical question, although hopefully one we'll never have to face.
Scotland leaving the Uk would be a very sad day for Ulster Unionists as it is the part of the UK which perhaps we have the closest cultural and family connections with. However, such a move, if it left the rest of the UK intact< would not affect our constitutional status under the Belfast Agreement. Whilst a majority wish to remain part of the UK (and obviously while a UK still exists) we stay!!
And just to pick up on a couple of Ray's points:
"The Republic’s not doing too badly, and more and more want in "
That's not borne out by surveys and e;ctoral results since 2000:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/
The percentage pro-Union and pro-Unity with the ROI has stabilised.
"Although the odd thing is, that Loyalists, despite their proclaimed allegiance to the Queen and the UK, have a tendency to be anglophobic"
There's a (healthy!) tendency to be very suspicious of the British/English political establishment but I don't see much evidence of that anglophobia towards the ordinary English; indeed there is a trend amongst the younger loyalists to follow the English national team rather than Northern Ireland as they feel it represents their strand of Britishness more.
Scotland cannot "leave the UK" because the UK was created when Scotland and England entered into Union. If Scotland leaves then England and Wales remain united but the UK is no more, and the 6 counties of Northern Ireland are in a constitutional limbo. And arguably, it is Scotland who should be responsible for Northern Ireland along with its Scottish Presbyterian Protestants speaking their "Ulster Scots" language. (Please note the assertion that they don't speak "English" - after all, it just wouldn't do to acknowledge any association with the hated English now would it?).
No doubt there would be a general insistence that England should take responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I think this should be resisted - Northern Ireland was alway really a Scottish problem that they cleverly palmed off onto us, responsibility, "blame" and all. Which is why the mainland bombs were always directed at the English and never at the Scots.
You'd think that the impending breakup of the UK caused by NuLabour's assymmetric devolution might actually concern the so-called "Unionist" parties in Northern Ireland. However you'd be wrong. As an example, I have personally written to all of the Northern Irish parties (except Sinn Fein) on behalf of the Campaign for an English Parliament and didn't even receive a single acknowledgement never mind any kind of reply. (In complete contrast to Alec Salmond I might add). I was still a Unionist when I wrote those letters. Sometime later I now realise that I and my fellow English have been sadly misguided by the myth that we are one people - the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish don't believe that, it's just a handy fiction to keep the English downtrodden and paying for everything.
Northern Ireland could well become a very successful state if Robinson leads the DUP in the right direction.The opening up of the North as a free for all for multinationals is inevitable. What happened in the Republic in the 1990s is due to happen again up north. If the Unionists have any sense they will want to hone their success and could make what was a disastrous political entity into a prosperous one.
As for the direction of the union. It's still early days to tell.
"Scotland cannot “leave the UK” because the UK was created when Scotland and England entered into Union. If Scotland leaves then England and Wales remain united but the UK is no more, and the 6 counties of Northern Ireland are in a constitutional limbo."
Technically this is correct, however, the Rest of the UK, I suspect will probably remain being called the UK, or else GB (which would be incorrect in the case of NI).
I've heard someone say that without Scotland, the UK would become England. This is so obviously untrue as to be laughable. Neither Wales nor Northern Ireland, nor maybe enigmatic Cornwall, and all the millions that live in them can be termed England or English. Mind you, I hear the Isle of Man and Channel Islands misdescribed as England on a frequent basis, so who knows...
"Northern Ireland could well become a very successful state if Robinson leads the DUP in the right direction."
Yes, it could be the Kalingrad/Konigsberg of the West...
Post new comment