Lord Kilclooney, aka former deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party John Taylor, has made yet another stirring 'contribution' to our own independence debate in a letter to the Scotsman -
"As an Ulster Scot I am obviously anxious about the possible outcome of the independence referendum next year."
As shall we all be, for as long as one or two of your fellow Ulster Scots are running around demanding an Ulster-style partition of Scotland should the vote go 'the wrong way'. Oh wait - wasn't it you who suggested that, Your Lordship? (And naturally, this would be a get-out-of-jail-free card only available to the No campaign - if Scotland votes No, then Yes-voting regions wouldn't get the consolation prize of their own little statelet.)
"In reply to my parliamentary question this week the Treasury confirmed that some £30 billion of block grant was sent to Scotland in each of the past three years. Of course, an independent Scotland would lose this £30bn with resulting reduction in public funding for education, health, social services and transport. That is unless supporters of independence have a proposal to overcome the loss of this £30bn. I await their answer."
Await no longer, Your Excellency! You see, independence has upsides as well as downsides. On the one hand, we will no longer receive a block grant from Westminster, but on the other hand we will stop sending billions of pounds of tax revenues to Westminster - which is, after all, what the block grant is there to compensate us for at the moment.
Glad we could clear that up so quickly for you, Your Eminence, and please don't hesitate to ask if you have any other nagging doubts (for example, how Scotland will overcome its loss of latitude after independence). Mind you, I do hope you can actually see our answers, what with the Scotsman adopting a Labour Hame-style moderation policy of late.
And I fear that if you seriously think you have a personal stake in these matters (because Northern Ireland would "have to decide" after Scottish independence "whether to remain with England or remain with Scotland"), you may be labouring under something of a misapprehension. You see, we'll be becoming independent from the United Kingdom - and, as you remind us so often, Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Not wishing to be unkind, but we'll be becoming independent from you, Your Highness.
Showing posts with label Northern Ireland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Northern Ireland. Show all posts
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Why the Northern Ireland demographic shift does matter
Ten years ago, the results of the Northern Ireland census were greeted with a not inconsiderable amount of unionist gloating. All the expectations had been that there would be evidence of a significant demographic shift towards Catholics, heralding the potential for the ultimate irony - a Catholic majority in a Frankenstein statelet created with the sole intent of entrenching Protestant dominance over as wide a geographical area as possible (including two counties that were Catholic-majority even in 1921). But those expectations were confounded, and the 2001 census showed the Protestant population maintaining a substantial numerical advantage.
The story this time, however, could hardly be more different. The Protestant population has shrunk 5% to a 48% share, with the Catholic population's share now just 3% behind at 45%. A similar "swing" in another ten years' time would comfortably tip the balance. And yet, curiously, the unionist reaction is that it "doesn't matter". Why? Because polling evidence supposedly shows that even a majority of Catholics want Northern Ireland to remain subject to London rule. Yet this begs the obvious question - why the gloating last time round if the demographics quite literally don't matter?
There are a couple of explanations. Firstly, it's not all about the constitution for unionists. In their heart of hearts, they must know that these figures make a Sinn Féin First Minister an all-but-inevitable outcome in the medium term (barring some kind of improbable political realignment). Under the power-sharing arrangements such a development shouldn't be regarded as important, because the First Minister and his deputy are equals in all but name - their legal powers are literally identical. But the reality is that the symbolism would be unbearable for a great many.
Perhaps more to the point, though, is that polling on constitutional preferences needs to be taken with an even larger dose of salt in Northern Ireland than in Scotland. There is an extraordinary level of community cohesion in votes cast for NI political parties, and it seems highly likely that much of that cohesion would transfer to a constitutional referendum, if one is ever held. The only scenario in which that might not be the case would be if the SDLP changed its constitutional stance. But the chances are that both Sinn Féin and the SDLP would campaign for a united Ireland, and that most of the nationalist vote would prove to be solidly behind them. It's called the nationalist vote for a good reason.
All these grounds for optimism make it all the more baffling that Sinn Féin were content to place the sole power to determine when or if a referendum should take place in the hands of...the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Surely if the consent principle so beloved of unionists (known to the rest of us as self-determination) is to mean anything, there has to be an automatic trigger by which the electorate can actually express its consent, without requiring permission from the quasi-colonial overlord?
The story this time, however, could hardly be more different. The Protestant population has shrunk 5% to a 48% share, with the Catholic population's share now just 3% behind at 45%. A similar "swing" in another ten years' time would comfortably tip the balance. And yet, curiously, the unionist reaction is that it "doesn't matter". Why? Because polling evidence supposedly shows that even a majority of Catholics want Northern Ireland to remain subject to London rule. Yet this begs the obvious question - why the gloating last time round if the demographics quite literally don't matter?
There are a couple of explanations. Firstly, it's not all about the constitution for unionists. In their heart of hearts, they must know that these figures make a Sinn Féin First Minister an all-but-inevitable outcome in the medium term (barring some kind of improbable political realignment). Under the power-sharing arrangements such a development shouldn't be regarded as important, because the First Minister and his deputy are equals in all but name - their legal powers are literally identical. But the reality is that the symbolism would be unbearable for a great many.
Perhaps more to the point, though, is that polling on constitutional preferences needs to be taken with an even larger dose of salt in Northern Ireland than in Scotland. There is an extraordinary level of community cohesion in votes cast for NI political parties, and it seems highly likely that much of that cohesion would transfer to a constitutional referendum, if one is ever held. The only scenario in which that might not be the case would be if the SDLP changed its constitutional stance. But the chances are that both Sinn Féin and the SDLP would campaign for a united Ireland, and that most of the nationalist vote would prove to be solidly behind them. It's called the nationalist vote for a good reason.
All these grounds for optimism make it all the more baffling that Sinn Féin were content to place the sole power to determine when or if a referendum should take place in the hands of...the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Surely if the consent principle so beloved of unionists (known to the rest of us as self-determination) is to mean anything, there has to be an automatic trigger by which the electorate can actually express its consent, without requiring permission from the quasi-colonial overlord?
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Would-be hostage-takers demand "input" on whether they should have the legal right to hold you hostage (after all, they are "stakeholders" in the outcome)
My calendar seems to have gone seriously awry this year. I could have sworn it was September 26th, not April 1st...
"People with an Ulster Scots background should be allowed to vote in Scotland's independence referendum, a senior Orange Order member has said.
Dr David Hume said Ulster Scots had played a key role in Scottish history.
"We are stakeholders as well. Surely a decision such as this should not ignore our input?" he said."
Fair enough, David. And in line with this principle of genetic inclusivity, I'm sure you'd agree with me that everyone of Scottish descent in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand should also be allowed a vote in the referendum. I dare say we can all guess how that would pan out. Oh, and naturally anyone of Irish descent in Scotland (ie. me and hundreds of thousands of Celtic supporters) should be given a say on Northern Ireland's constitutional future.
No objections, I take it?
"People with an Ulster Scots background should be allowed to vote in Scotland's independence referendum, a senior Orange Order member has said.
Dr David Hume said Ulster Scots had played a key role in Scottish history.
"We are stakeholders as well. Surely a decision such as this should not ignore our input?" he said."
Fair enough, David. And in line with this principle of genetic inclusivity, I'm sure you'd agree with me that everyone of Scottish descent in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand should also be allowed a vote in the referendum. I dare say we can all guess how that would pan out. Oh, and naturally anyone of Irish descent in Scotland (ie. me and hundreds of thousands of Celtic supporters) should be given a say on Northern Ireland's constitutional future.
No objections, I take it?
Friday, January 27, 2012
Kilclooney's baloney
I've just caught up with the extraordinary letter to the Scotsman a couple of weeks ago from Lord Kilclooney (former Deputy Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party), suggesting that Scotland should be subject to an Irish-style "partition" if the majority of the country votes Yes to independence, but a specific area votes No.
"Northern Ireland remained within the UK as was the desire of most people in that part of Ireland. Should there ever be a majority in Scotland for independence it should not be binding on all the people of Scotland.
If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland."
Hmmm. Well, what leaps out at me straight away is that there were two counties of Northern Ireland itself, Fermanagh and Tyrone, that had nationalist majorities at the time of partition in the early 1920s. The desire of "most people in that part of Ireland" to leave the United Kingdom was flagrantly ignored, in the interests of keeping the minority unionist population of those two counties snugly inside their beloved bunker statelet.
So in line with the intriguing new 'Kilclooney Doctrine', it must surely be long past time to right that historic wrong? Given the beliefs he set out in his letter, the noble lord can surely have no objection to the counties of Fermanagh, Tyrone, Armagh and Derry (the latter two now having nationalist majorities as well) exercising the right to decide their own constitutional future individually, without the requirement for any 'permission' from the unionist majority in Northern Ireland as a whole?
Oh wait - I think I'm hearing objections. How mysterious.
In truth, of course, Kilclooney is guilty of a very obvious logical fallacy. If, for example, South Ayrshire was to vote No to independence in the referendum, that is not the same thing as saying that they would prefer to leave Scotland in the event of independence. There is simply no Scottish equivalent of the regionally-based "if Ireland isn't in the UK, we're not Irish at all" phenomenon. If such a thing existed, it would have to be taken seriously by all of us who believe in self-determination - but it doesn't. We'd have noticed by now.
All the same, it would still be highly entertaining to hear Lord Kilclooney's convoluted explanation for why individual counties of Scotland have the right to choose their own constitutional future, but individual counties of Northern Ireland do not. No less entertaining has been the general hysteria and intemperate language from the NI unionist ranks in response to the events of the last few weeks. My message to them would be this - Northern Ireland has the right to self-determination every bit as much as Scotland does. But that is not the same thing as a right to demand that others stick around to provide you with an identity.
"Northern Ireland remained within the UK as was the desire of most people in that part of Ireland. Should there ever be a majority in Scotland for independence it should not be binding on all the people of Scotland.
If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland."
Hmmm. Well, what leaps out at me straight away is that there were two counties of Northern Ireland itself, Fermanagh and Tyrone, that had nationalist majorities at the time of partition in the early 1920s. The desire of "most people in that part of Ireland" to leave the United Kingdom was flagrantly ignored, in the interests of keeping the minority unionist population of those two counties snugly inside their beloved bunker statelet.
So in line with the intriguing new 'Kilclooney Doctrine', it must surely be long past time to right that historic wrong? Given the beliefs he set out in his letter, the noble lord can surely have no objection to the counties of Fermanagh, Tyrone, Armagh and Derry (the latter two now having nationalist majorities as well) exercising the right to decide their own constitutional future individually, without the requirement for any 'permission' from the unionist majority in Northern Ireland as a whole?
Oh wait - I think I'm hearing objections. How mysterious.
In truth, of course, Kilclooney is guilty of a very obvious logical fallacy. If, for example, South Ayrshire was to vote No to independence in the referendum, that is not the same thing as saying that they would prefer to leave Scotland in the event of independence. There is simply no Scottish equivalent of the regionally-based "if Ireland isn't in the UK, we're not Irish at all" phenomenon. If such a thing existed, it would have to be taken seriously by all of us who believe in self-determination - but it doesn't. We'd have noticed by now.
All the same, it would still be highly entertaining to hear Lord Kilclooney's convoluted explanation for why individual counties of Scotland have the right to choose their own constitutional future, but individual counties of Northern Ireland do not. No less entertaining has been the general hysteria and intemperate language from the NI unionist ranks in response to the events of the last few weeks. My message to them would be this - Northern Ireland has the right to self-determination every bit as much as Scotland does. But that is not the same thing as a right to demand that others stick around to provide you with an identity.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
A motorway without logic
Much as I would like to buy into Tam Dalyell's theory that by opting for devolution in 1997 we drove onto a motorway without exit heading for independence, his reasoning seems distinctly peculiar. Any parliament that is set up is bound to seek more and more powers? In actual fact, most sub-national parliaments around the world are reasonably content with their powers. What makes the difference in Scotland is our status as a nation, and the fact that our political centre of gravity has progressively drifted away from that of the UK as a whole ("progressively" in every sense of the word).
To illustrate his theory, Dalyell recalls that Barbara Castle was an arch Euro-sceptic until she became a member of the European Parliament, at which point she started pressing for more powers for that parliament -
"Not within months, but within weeks, she was wanting more powers for the parliament. Why? Because she was bloody well there."
Hmmm. More probably, she suddenly realised the absurdity of a situation where the only democratic body in the Common Market was also the only one that held none of the power. If so, she was absolutely right and there was nothing hypocritical in that stance at all.
We also learn, bizarrely, that the source of Dalyell's fundamentalist unionism was a brush with the politics of Northern Ireland in 1969 -
"...he had been warned by the then home secretary Jim Callaghan not to embark on a trip to Northern Ireland just when the Troubles were escalating. Mr Callaghan's reasoning was that he did not want a Scottish MP involved in the province.
In his book, Mr Dalyell writes: "At that point in time, Callaghan was right and I was wrong. I did not go. Scotland was tinder dry and the Troubles could easily have spread to the land of Glasgow Rangers and Celtic.
"Indeed, I made up my mind to oppose devolution for Scotland tooth and nail on the sweaty summer evening when I watched Glenn Barr, the Ulster Protestant leader, and his Ulstermen's reed pipe band, making its way along Linlithgow High Street… I believed - and still believe - that it is much better for Scotland to be fully part of Britain and not to be hived off as an inward-looking community as in Northern Ireland at that time.""
The difficulty here is that Dalyell's dream prescription for a better Scotland (ie. the abolition of devolution) actually happened in Northern Ireland just three years after the start of the Troubles. Did direct rule from London usher in a golden new era of outward-looking pluralism? Er, not exactly. The return of self-government several decades later, this time with nationalists sharing power, proved much more effective on that score.
To illustrate his theory, Dalyell recalls that Barbara Castle was an arch Euro-sceptic until she became a member of the European Parliament, at which point she started pressing for more powers for that parliament -
"Not within months, but within weeks, she was wanting more powers for the parliament. Why? Because she was bloody well there."
Hmmm. More probably, she suddenly realised the absurdity of a situation where the only democratic body in the Common Market was also the only one that held none of the power. If so, she was absolutely right and there was nothing hypocritical in that stance at all.
We also learn, bizarrely, that the source of Dalyell's fundamentalist unionism was a brush with the politics of Northern Ireland in 1969 -
"...he had been warned by the then home secretary Jim Callaghan not to embark on a trip to Northern Ireland just when the Troubles were escalating. Mr Callaghan's reasoning was that he did not want a Scottish MP involved in the province.
In his book, Mr Dalyell writes: "At that point in time, Callaghan was right and I was wrong. I did not go. Scotland was tinder dry and the Troubles could easily have spread to the land of Glasgow Rangers and Celtic.
"Indeed, I made up my mind to oppose devolution for Scotland tooth and nail on the sweaty summer evening when I watched Glenn Barr, the Ulster Protestant leader, and his Ulstermen's reed pipe band, making its way along Linlithgow High Street… I believed - and still believe - that it is much better for Scotland to be fully part of Britain and not to be hived off as an inward-looking community as in Northern Ireland at that time.""
The difficulty here is that Dalyell's dream prescription for a better Scotland (ie. the abolition of devolution) actually happened in Northern Ireland just three years after the start of the Troubles. Did direct rule from London usher in a golden new era of outward-looking pluralism? Er, not exactly. The return of self-government several decades later, this time with nationalists sharing power, proved much more effective on that score.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
When 'lucky' is the greatest compliment
I've just caught up with an intriguing little post by O'Neill from a few days ago at Northern Ireland blog A Pint of Unionist Lite. The gist of it is that Alex Salmond can count himself extraordinarily lucky on two counts - first of all that the independence referendum didn't take place, saving him from certain "crashing humiliation", and secondly that the unionist parties were crazy enough to concede so much ground in the Scotland Bill when they could instead have been busy delivering that "crashing humiliation" (yes, he really does say it twice). For good measure, our trusty old pal Chekov pops up in the comments section to concur that "the Scotland Bill represents an extraordinary gain for the SNP in extremely unpropitious circumstances".
Isn't it fascinating that unionist fantasy is never content for these entirely hypothetical defeats for Alex Salmond and the national movement to be mere defeats - they always have to be "humiliations" and "routs"? I'm struggling to see what actual rational basis there is for assuming that an independence referendum this year would have resulted in such abject failure for the Yes side. The most recent YouGov poll had Yes on 34%, No on 50% - which would have represented defeat, but scarcely "humiliation". More pertinently, it was a mere snapshot of opinion which almost certainly would have changed over the course of an intensive campaign. I don't know in which direction opinion would have changed - but apparently the unionists know for certain. Who exactly are they trying to convince? Themselves, would be my best guess. Which probably goes some way towards explaining why Salmond's "crashing humiliation" remains purely the stuff of pleasured imaginings. It's all very well for O'Neill to rage at the timidity of the unionist parties, but when all three of them separately conclude that an independence referendum is too much of a risk it ought to tell him something. It also ought to assist Chekov in his calculations of just how strong or weak Salmond's hand has really been.
Incidentally, O'Neill would clearly prefer us to look at the figures from the recently released Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, which has support for independence down at 23%. Just a couple of problems with that, though - it's a multi-option survey, so supporters of greater self-government are split between independence and the prospect of enhanced devolution (the overwhelming popularity of which scarcely supports the contention that unionist concessions were unnecessary), and in any case the fieldwork is highly likely to significantly predate the recent YouGov poll. I can't find the exact dates, but if they're similar to last year some interviews may even have taken place before the general election.
Rather amusingly, O'Neill concludes by observing that despite his "whingeing" about the Scotland Bill, Salmond has been handed a "respectable consolation" in place of his deserved "rout" - not through his own doings, naturally, but by pure 'luck'. But in his preceding sentence, O'Neill had dismissed that very "consolation" as a "dog's dinner". So it seems Salmond's "whingeing" on the subject of Calman is uncannily similar to O'Neill's own!
Question : can there be a more eloquent testament to a politician's talents than to be branded outrageously lucky by his opponents?
Isn't it fascinating that unionist fantasy is never content for these entirely hypothetical defeats for Alex Salmond and the national movement to be mere defeats - they always have to be "humiliations" and "routs"? I'm struggling to see what actual rational basis there is for assuming that an independence referendum this year would have resulted in such abject failure for the Yes side. The most recent YouGov poll had Yes on 34%, No on 50% - which would have represented defeat, but scarcely "humiliation". More pertinently, it was a mere snapshot of opinion which almost certainly would have changed over the course of an intensive campaign. I don't know in which direction opinion would have changed - but apparently the unionists know for certain. Who exactly are they trying to convince? Themselves, would be my best guess. Which probably goes some way towards explaining why Salmond's "crashing humiliation" remains purely the stuff of pleasured imaginings. It's all very well for O'Neill to rage at the timidity of the unionist parties, but when all three of them separately conclude that an independence referendum is too much of a risk it ought to tell him something. It also ought to assist Chekov in his calculations of just how strong or weak Salmond's hand has really been.
Incidentally, O'Neill would clearly prefer us to look at the figures from the recently released Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, which has support for independence down at 23%. Just a couple of problems with that, though - it's a multi-option survey, so supporters of greater self-government are split between independence and the prospect of enhanced devolution (the overwhelming popularity of which scarcely supports the contention that unionist concessions were unnecessary), and in any case the fieldwork is highly likely to significantly predate the recent YouGov poll. I can't find the exact dates, but if they're similar to last year some interviews may even have taken place before the general election.
Rather amusingly, O'Neill concludes by observing that despite his "whingeing" about the Scotland Bill, Salmond has been handed a "respectable consolation" in place of his deserved "rout" - not through his own doings, naturally, but by pure 'luck'. But in his preceding sentence, O'Neill had dismissed that very "consolation" as a "dog's dinner". So it seems Salmond's "whingeing" on the subject of Calman is uncannily similar to O'Neill's own!
Question : can there be a more eloquent testament to a politician's talents than to be branded outrageously lucky by his opponents?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Terrors of the tongue
Iain Dale wrote a long post yesterday morning criticising the decision to allow a Sinn Féin member of the UK Youth Parliament to speak in the House of Commons chamber. All the way through reading it, I assumed that Iain must be one of those Tory diehards who take the (misguided, but perfectly legitimate) view that the compromises made with Republicans during the peace process went too far. And yet he actually draws his remarks to a close by declaring - "I applaud the peace process. It is remarkable what has been achieved on both sides of the political divide."
So it's a mystery. Here are a few points on which I don't think Iain's logic stands up to much scrutiny at all -
1) He says that Sinn Féin MPs should not be allowed to speak in the chamber unless they are prepared to take the oath. But this young man is not a Sinn Féin MP (duh). Moreover, the session was self-evidently not an official meeting of parliament, and thus presumably none of the participants were required to swear allegiance to the Queen as a condition of taking part.
2) He refers to how sickening it is that someone who "clearly" sympathises with those who murdered Tory MP Ian Gow twenty years ago was allowed to speak from the benches where Gow sat. Now, there is no doubting the enormous hurt that has been caused by welcoming unrepentant killers into the political fold - but for someone who believes in the Belfast Agreement, as Iain claims to, why does it appear to be so much worse if it happens in London, rather than in Northern Ireland itself? Sinn Féin's participation in both the Assembly and the Executive was an integral part of the settlement, and the families of victims have long since had to try to reconcile themselves to the likes of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Kelly holding executive power in their part of the world. The issue of whether a member of what is effectively a 'mock' parliament should be allowed to open his mouth seems absurdly trivial by comparison.
It's also worth pointing out that even at the height of the Troubles, there was actually nothing to stop Sinn Féin MPs speaking from the Commons benches if they so chose. Even if they had refused to take the oath, they could have participated in the first session of each parliament when the Speaker is elected - that takes place before the oath is administered to anyone.
3) Where Iain really seems to lose the plot is over the fact that the Sinn Féin representative planned to speak in Irish. Why should this even be an issue at all? If it's because of the rule that proceedings in the Commons should be in English, well, once again, these were not Commons proceedings. So once we eliminate that as the reason, what is there left? Perhaps Iain finds the Irish language itself offensive for some reason? Does he imagine it's some kind of 'terrorist tongue'?
So it's a mystery. Here are a few points on which I don't think Iain's logic stands up to much scrutiny at all -
1) He says that Sinn Féin MPs should not be allowed to speak in the chamber unless they are prepared to take the oath. But this young man is not a Sinn Féin MP (duh). Moreover, the session was self-evidently not an official meeting of parliament, and thus presumably none of the participants were required to swear allegiance to the Queen as a condition of taking part.
2) He refers to how sickening it is that someone who "clearly" sympathises with those who murdered Tory MP Ian Gow twenty years ago was allowed to speak from the benches where Gow sat. Now, there is no doubting the enormous hurt that has been caused by welcoming unrepentant killers into the political fold - but for someone who believes in the Belfast Agreement, as Iain claims to, why does it appear to be so much worse if it happens in London, rather than in Northern Ireland itself? Sinn Féin's participation in both the Assembly and the Executive was an integral part of the settlement, and the families of victims have long since had to try to reconcile themselves to the likes of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Kelly holding executive power in their part of the world. The issue of whether a member of what is effectively a 'mock' parliament should be allowed to open his mouth seems absurdly trivial by comparison.
It's also worth pointing out that even at the height of the Troubles, there was actually nothing to stop Sinn Féin MPs speaking from the Commons benches if they so chose. Even if they had refused to take the oath, they could have participated in the first session of each parliament when the Speaker is elected - that takes place before the oath is administered to anyone.
3) Where Iain really seems to lose the plot is over the fact that the Sinn Féin representative planned to speak in Irish. Why should this even be an issue at all? If it's because of the rule that proceedings in the Commons should be in English, well, once again, these were not Commons proceedings. So once we eliminate that as the reason, what is there left? Perhaps Iain finds the Irish language itself offensive for some reason? Does he imagine it's some kind of 'terrorist tongue'?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The loneliest branch of unionism
It's been far too long, but the good news can now ring out - self-styled 'liberal unionist' Northern Ireland blogger Owen Polley (aka Chekov) is firmly back on Broken Record Duty, railing against unionists in the Northern Ireland Executive for making common cause with the Evil Nats in Scotland and Wales against the just and benevolent cuts being handed down by our masters in London -
"Certainly, by a nationalist analysis, the current government draws its strongest endorsement to cut spending from England. Even the most nominal unionist, however, will respect that its mandate to tackle the deficit encompasses the entire United Kingdom...The government has to look at the UK economy as a whole, it cannot sacrifice the greater good to the needs of the periphery.
No-one would seriously suggest that politicians from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales should not put their regions’ respective cases forcibly. However self-styled unionists should, at the very least, refrain from undermining the very basis of Westminster’s sovereignty over the United Kingdom. Allying with nationalists, against the national interest, is a fundamentally anti-Union act."
Hmmm. I think what Owen is really trying to tell us here is that it's OK for the devolved governments to make their "regions'" case, just so long as they have the decency to do it ineffectively. Heaven forbid that they should come up with a strategy that actually has a chance of making an impact. But small hint - if such a common cause strategy really were so apocalyptic in its potential effects as to "undermine the very basis of Westminster's sovereignty over the United Kingdom", I have a feeling there might just be a law against it or something.
As I've mentioned before, I never cease to be entertained by Owen's apparent belief that he can vanquish the Evil Nats on the linguistic battlefield, by relentlessly putting Scotland in its place as a mere 'region'. His fellow unionists in Scotland gave up the ghost on that one years ago - did no-one send Owen the memo? Ah well, the sheer loneliness of the fight makes it all the more plucky, I suppose. But I'd gently suggest that the logical consistency of some of his terminology still needs a fair bit of work. For instance, how can people called "nationalists" be working against the "national interest"? If what they're doing is working for a regional interest against the national interest, doesn't that instead make them "regionalists"? Come on, Owen, get it sorted - the "nation" is relying on you.
"Certainly, by a nationalist analysis, the current government draws its strongest endorsement to cut spending from England. Even the most nominal unionist, however, will respect that its mandate to tackle the deficit encompasses the entire United Kingdom...The government has to look at the UK economy as a whole, it cannot sacrifice the greater good to the needs of the periphery.
No-one would seriously suggest that politicians from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales should not put their regions’ respective cases forcibly. However self-styled unionists should, at the very least, refrain from undermining the very basis of Westminster’s sovereignty over the United Kingdom. Allying with nationalists, against the national interest, is a fundamentally anti-Union act."
Hmmm. I think what Owen is really trying to tell us here is that it's OK for the devolved governments to make their "regions'" case, just so long as they have the decency to do it ineffectively. Heaven forbid that they should come up with a strategy that actually has a chance of making an impact. But small hint - if such a common cause strategy really were so apocalyptic in its potential effects as to "undermine the very basis of Westminster's sovereignty over the United Kingdom", I have a feeling there might just be a law against it or something.
As I've mentioned before, I never cease to be entertained by Owen's apparent belief that he can vanquish the Evil Nats on the linguistic battlefield, by relentlessly putting Scotland in its place as a mere 'region'. His fellow unionists in Scotland gave up the ghost on that one years ago - did no-one send Owen the memo? Ah well, the sheer loneliness of the fight makes it all the more plucky, I suppose. But I'd gently suggest that the logical consistency of some of his terminology still needs a fair bit of work. For instance, how can people called "nationalists" be working against the "national interest"? If what they're doing is working for a regional interest against the national interest, doesn't that instead make them "regionalists"? Come on, Owen, get it sorted - the "nation" is relying on you.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
There are some 'separatists' who Labour are rather fond of...
Looking at Northern Ireland politics from a distance, it's always seemed that the main faultline in the internal politics of the SDLP lies between the party's twin ideologies - social democracy and Irish nationalism. The caricature is that under Gerry Fitt's leadership until 1979, social democracy had the upper hand, but since then the party has been an out-and-out nationalist outfit. I had been gaining the impression recently that the newly-elected leader Margaret Ritchie was perhaps returning to a more social democratic emphasis, with her unexpected announcement at the Irish Labour Party conference that a merger with Fianna Fáil was now completely off the agenda. It had always been slightly puzzling how a centre-left party could possibly imagine FF to be its closest natural allies in the Republic - unless the common ground of nationalism trumped all other considerations, of course.
Nevertheless, on the news this evening, Ritchie didn't seem to be shy about burnishing her nationalist credentials either, with a call for sweeping new economic powers for the devolved Northern Ireland administration, and a reaffirmation that Irish unity was still very much the ultimate aim. So here we have a party that is avowedly both nationalist and social democratic in its outlook, that wants to further devolution, and that ultimately wants to break all ties with London. Does any of this sound vaguely familiar? Well, for all that they have in common there is still one huge difference between the SNP and the SDLP - and that is in Labour's attitude towards the two parties. In the eyes of the 'People's Party', the SNP are dastardly 'separatists' who are hellbent on 'breaking up Britain', but mysteriously the SDLP are...Labour's sister party.
I'm sure if you challenged a Labour politician over that blatant inconsistency, they would conjure up some rough-and-ready sophistry about historical differences between Scotland and Northern Ireland - but in truth there is only one historical difference that is of any real relevance, namely that Scotland is a traditional Labour stronghold, and NI never was. Amazing how 'separatists' suddenly seem so much more objectionable when they threaten to take parliamentary seats away from you.
Nevertheless, on the news this evening, Ritchie didn't seem to be shy about burnishing her nationalist credentials either, with a call for sweeping new economic powers for the devolved Northern Ireland administration, and a reaffirmation that Irish unity was still very much the ultimate aim. So here we have a party that is avowedly both nationalist and social democratic in its outlook, that wants to further devolution, and that ultimately wants to break all ties with London. Does any of this sound vaguely familiar? Well, for all that they have in common there is still one huge difference between the SNP and the SDLP - and that is in Labour's attitude towards the two parties. In the eyes of the 'People's Party', the SNP are dastardly 'separatists' who are hellbent on 'breaking up Britain', but mysteriously the SDLP are...Labour's sister party.
I'm sure if you challenged a Labour politician over that blatant inconsistency, they would conjure up some rough-and-ready sophistry about historical differences between Scotland and Northern Ireland - but in truth there is only one historical difference that is of any real relevance, namely that Scotland is a traditional Labour stronghold, and NI never was. Amazing how 'separatists' suddenly seem so much more objectionable when they threaten to take parliamentary seats away from you.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The Tories' 'non-sectarian' pretence definitively exposed
I couldn't resist having a peek to see how self-styled 'liberal unionist' Northern Ireland blogger Chekov is reacting to the news that the Tories have comprehensively reneged on their promise not to enter into any sectarian deals with the DUP, by caving in to their UUP partners' wishes to step aside in favour of a joint unionist candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Perhaps predictably, Chekov merely goes through the motions of expressing his disappointment, before emphasising at considerable length the supposed up-sides of the Tory sell-out. Rodney Connor, we are assured, is a "promising candidate" with "impressive cross-community credentials" (which, if they exist, are surely about to be somewhat tarnished by standing on such a blatantly sectarian ticket), and a victory for him will ensure the constituency is "represented by a Conservative and Unionist MP".
The latter point is particularly disingenuous. There can be no dispute that Connor is not standing as a Tory, and although he has pledged to accept the Conservative whip if elected, there is a subtle distinction between doing that and being a full member of the Conservative parliamentary party (which is what any of the proper 'Conservative and Unionist' candidates will be if successful). In some circumstances that distinction might be a technicality, but not when the prospective MP is pledging to regard the whip as non-binding on "matters concerning Northern Ireland". A part-time affiliation to a party is as meaningless a concept as a part-time pregnancy - so, unless Connor is cynically misleading the electorate about his intentions, he simply isn't going to be a Tory MP.
The main point here is that this decision makes a mockery of Conservative claims that their entry (or vastly stepped-up involvement in) Northern Ireland elections was intended to promote a new non-sectarian politics. As ever, actions speak louder than rhetoric, and when it really came down to it, the opportunity to replace a Sinn Féin MP with a unionist - any unionist - was more important to them than offering the electorate of Fermanagh and South Tyrone a non-sectarian alternative. It also means, incidentally, that the Tories have abandoned their pledge to stand in every single constituency in the United Kingdom. They were already in technical breach of that due to John Bercow nominally not standing as a Tory in Buckingham. However, that was unavoidable due to convention, this one certainly isn't - and thus the Tories have turned their back on the chance to crow about being the only 'national' party. It also means that if the broadcasters follow Liam Byrne's strictures that participation in the Prime Ministerial (sic) Debates is only appropriate for those parties standing in "every single seat", it won't just be Alex Salmond, Ieuan Wyn Jones, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown watching them from the sidelines. It'll be David Cameron as well. But never fear - ninety minutes of silence would probably be considerably more elucidating than what's currently planned.
In other campaign news, it appears that David Cameron's "modern, compassionate Conservative party" wants to get back to the good old Victorian values of encouraging us to marry for monetary gain rather than love. But as Vince Cable has pointed out, it'll probably take more than £3 a week to pull off that particular trick. What say they chuck in some free carpets? Or some air-miles. And I've always fancied a wok...
Interesting to read that Gary McKinnon's mother is planning to stand as an independent against Jack Straw. It's a timely reminder to me that, while I think on balance a Labour government would be the lesser of two evils, there are some specific points on which that wouldn't be the case. McKinnon's future probably hangs, at the very least, on Labour not emerging from this election as the sole party of government. But then again, would the Tories once in office simply revert to their slavishly pro-American instincts, and pretend there's nothing they can do? I wouldn't exactly faint with amazement if they did.
The latter point is particularly disingenuous. There can be no dispute that Connor is not standing as a Tory, and although he has pledged to accept the Conservative whip if elected, there is a subtle distinction between doing that and being a full member of the Conservative parliamentary party (which is what any of the proper 'Conservative and Unionist' candidates will be if successful). In some circumstances that distinction might be a technicality, but not when the prospective MP is pledging to regard the whip as non-binding on "matters concerning Northern Ireland". A part-time affiliation to a party is as meaningless a concept as a part-time pregnancy - so, unless Connor is cynically misleading the electorate about his intentions, he simply isn't going to be a Tory MP.
The main point here is that this decision makes a mockery of Conservative claims that their entry (or vastly stepped-up involvement in) Northern Ireland elections was intended to promote a new non-sectarian politics. As ever, actions speak louder than rhetoric, and when it really came down to it, the opportunity to replace a Sinn Féin MP with a unionist - any unionist - was more important to them than offering the electorate of Fermanagh and South Tyrone a non-sectarian alternative. It also means, incidentally, that the Tories have abandoned their pledge to stand in every single constituency in the United Kingdom. They were already in technical breach of that due to John Bercow nominally not standing as a Tory in Buckingham. However, that was unavoidable due to convention, this one certainly isn't - and thus the Tories have turned their back on the chance to crow about being the only 'national' party. It also means that if the broadcasters follow Liam Byrne's strictures that participation in the Prime Ministerial (sic) Debates is only appropriate for those parties standing in "every single seat", it won't just be Alex Salmond, Ieuan Wyn Jones, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown watching them from the sidelines. It'll be David Cameron as well. But never fear - ninety minutes of silence would probably be considerably more elucidating than what's currently planned.
In other campaign news, it appears that David Cameron's "modern, compassionate Conservative party" wants to get back to the good old Victorian values of encouraging us to marry for monetary gain rather than love. But as Vince Cable has pointed out, it'll probably take more than £3 a week to pull off that particular trick. What say they chuck in some free carpets? Or some air-miles. And I've always fancied a wok...
Interesting to read that Gary McKinnon's mother is planning to stand as an independent against Jack Straw. It's a timely reminder to me that, while I think on balance a Labour government would be the lesser of two evils, there are some specific points on which that wouldn't be the case. McKinnon's future probably hangs, at the very least, on Labour not emerging from this election as the sole party of government. But then again, would the Tories once in office simply revert to their slavishly pro-American instincts, and pretend there's nothing they can do? I wouldn't exactly faint with amazement if they did.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
I've never voted Conservative before, but I'm a progressive, liberal unionist
A few months ago, the self-styled 'liberal unionist' Northern Ireland blogger Chekov went off on one about the DUP, on an issue that any liberal ought to be proud to do so, namely the elements within that party still supportive of the death penalty. However, I think I mentioned at the time my bemusement at Chekov's apparent incredulity over the issue, as if he was revealing the reason why the DUP could be regarded as the most neanderthal party in the western world. Sadly, support for capital punishment remains considerably more mainstream than we might wish on the right of politics in the United Kingdom - if not, ironically, in the Republic of Ireland!
But there's another irony - or to be more blunt, a gaping hole of illogicality - in Chekov's position. For the other thing that regularly gets his goat up is even the slightest suggestion that the new link-up between the Ulster Unionist Party and the Conservatives may not be the most exciting development in politics since the advent of universal suffrage. Whenever it's pointed out that the UUP is an ideologically-mixed party, and that there are many left-of-centre party members who can only feel naturally at home in a moderate unionist rather than conservative party, Chekov simply repeats the rather jaw-dropping mantra that everyone knows the Conservatives are now the most 'progressive' party in UK politics, and any argument to the contrary is simply not 'sustainable'. Really? Even when you consider the new survey findings that twenty per cent of Conservative prospective parliamentary candidates favour the restoration of the death penalty? Given Chekov's claimed astonishment that anyone at all could hold such views in the modern world, I'd suggest a true progressive could only really feel comfortable in a party that doesn't put up candidates who do. But if Chekov really does have his heart set on a British mainland party, there are thankfully many that fit the bill for him to choose from - Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens...but not the Tories. Categorically not the Tories.
And a small postscript. After the industrial quantities of bile he's heaped on Sylvia Hermon for daring to disrupt - by perfectly democratic means - the carefully laid plans to install a Tory/UUP MP for North Down, it's also rather startling to see Chekov suddenly do a complete about-turn now that there's a vague (and not very plausible) suggestion that she could stand as a Labour candidate, rather than as an independent. It would be the 'honourable' thing for Hermon to do, he tells us.
Words fail me. You can have any colour you like, as long as it's black. In Chekov-world, any political stand is a principled stand - just so long as it's a UK integrationist political stand.
But there's another irony - or to be more blunt, a gaping hole of illogicality - in Chekov's position. For the other thing that regularly gets his goat up is even the slightest suggestion that the new link-up between the Ulster Unionist Party and the Conservatives may not be the most exciting development in politics since the advent of universal suffrage. Whenever it's pointed out that the UUP is an ideologically-mixed party, and that there are many left-of-centre party members who can only feel naturally at home in a moderate unionist rather than conservative party, Chekov simply repeats the rather jaw-dropping mantra that everyone knows the Conservatives are now the most 'progressive' party in UK politics, and any argument to the contrary is simply not 'sustainable'. Really? Even when you consider the new survey findings that twenty per cent of Conservative prospective parliamentary candidates favour the restoration of the death penalty? Given Chekov's claimed astonishment that anyone at all could hold such views in the modern world, I'd suggest a true progressive could only really feel comfortable in a party that doesn't put up candidates who do. But if Chekov really does have his heart set on a British mainland party, there are thankfully many that fit the bill for him to choose from - Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens...but not the Tories. Categorically not the Tories.
And a small postscript. After the industrial quantities of bile he's heaped on Sylvia Hermon for daring to disrupt - by perfectly democratic means - the carefully laid plans to install a Tory/UUP MP for North Down, it's also rather startling to see Chekov suddenly do a complete about-turn now that there's a vague (and not very plausible) suggestion that she could stand as a Labour candidate, rather than as an independent. It would be the 'honourable' thing for Hermon to do, he tells us.
Words fail me. You can have any colour you like, as long as it's black. In Chekov-world, any political stand is a principled stand - just so long as it's a UK integrationist political stand.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Dealing with idle dreams from the fringe
Watching the edition of Question Time from Northern Ireland, I genuinely surprised myself by how irritated I became at the treatment of anti-agreement unionist Jim Allister. He undoubtedly is, as was pointed out on the programme, a real political dinosaur who offers a thoroughly uninspiring prospectus for Northern Ireland's future. But the rhetoric deployed against him, especially by the Labour (also ex-Tory) NI Secretary Shaun Woodward went considerably further than that - at one or two moments it even seemed vaguely reminiscent of the treatment of Nick Griffin on Question Time a few months ago, ie. implying that he is a politician who operates outside the bounds of mainstream and legitimate discourse.
There's a supreme irony here. Twenty or twenty-five years ago, another party played the 'untouchable' role that now seems to have been bestowed upon Allister's Traditional Unionist Voice - and that party was Sinn Féin. Even before the broadcast ban, it was considered almost a thought-crime to say or do anything that implied Sinn Féin were a legitimate party. It wasn't enough to condemn IRA violence as utterly repugnant - John Hume spent his career doing so, and yet in the early 1990s he was demonised by the establishment for holding talks with Gerry Adams and trying to bring Sinn Féin in from the cold. There was no room for subtlety or shades of grey - 'talking to terrorists' was simply wrong and immoral regardless of circumstance. But can anyone now doubt that Hume's courageous thinking 'out of the box' was absolutely correct and necessary?
And now we have moved miraculously and seamlessly on to a situation where Sinn Féin are in the mainstream, and the designated untouchables are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum. What was so objectionable about Woodward's attack was his cynical blurring of the distinction between Allister's opposition to power-sharing on the one hand, and a support for a return to violence on the other. However misguided and backward-looking it is, opposition to mandatory coalition in the Northern Ireland Assembly is a perfectly legitimate policy for a political party to put forward and argue the case for in a democratic election, and for Woodward to speak of it as if it was somehow akin to, say, the BNP's repatriation policy was thoroughly disreputable.
It seems to me Northern Ireland politics will only really have come of age when the idle dreams of fringe politicians can be swatted aside in a rather more civilised manner than we saw last night.
There's a supreme irony here. Twenty or twenty-five years ago, another party played the 'untouchable' role that now seems to have been bestowed upon Allister's Traditional Unionist Voice - and that party was Sinn Féin. Even before the broadcast ban, it was considered almost a thought-crime to say or do anything that implied Sinn Féin were a legitimate party. It wasn't enough to condemn IRA violence as utterly repugnant - John Hume spent his career doing so, and yet in the early 1990s he was demonised by the establishment for holding talks with Gerry Adams and trying to bring Sinn Féin in from the cold. There was no room for subtlety or shades of grey - 'talking to terrorists' was simply wrong and immoral regardless of circumstance. But can anyone now doubt that Hume's courageous thinking 'out of the box' was absolutely correct and necessary?
And now we have moved miraculously and seamlessly on to a situation where Sinn Féin are in the mainstream, and the designated untouchables are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum. What was so objectionable about Woodward's attack was his cynical blurring of the distinction between Allister's opposition to power-sharing on the one hand, and a support for a return to violence on the other. However misguided and backward-looking it is, opposition to mandatory coalition in the Northern Ireland Assembly is a perfectly legitimate policy for a political party to put forward and argue the case for in a democratic election, and for Woodward to speak of it as if it was somehow akin to, say, the BNP's repatriation policy was thoroughly disreputable.
It seems to me Northern Ireland politics will only really have come of age when the idle dreams of fringe politicians can be swatted aside in a rather more civilised manner than we saw last night.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Lady Hermon is not for turning
Ronald Reagan famously summed up his change of political allegiance in the following terms - "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left me". Well, all I can say is thank heavens it did - it's hard to see how an American political system comprised of two far-right parties would be any healthier than the actual current position of one far-right party and a centre-right alternative. But his choice of words could hardly be more apt for the situation the UUP member of parliament for North Down, Lady Sylvia Hermon, now finds herself in. In her time at Westminster, she has become noted for her disdain for the Conservative party, a stance which has left her in an utterly impossible position now that UUP candidates will be required to stand on a joint ticket with the Tories, and accept the Tory whip if elected. In a nutshell, if she defended her seat for her current party, she would find herself instantly transformed into a Conservative MP.
Chekov, the NI blogger I referred to in my previous post who is as zealous in promoting the new Tory-UUP link-up as he is in his irrational feelings towards the SNP, has repeatedly been utterly scathing about Lady Hermon's apparent plans to stand as an independent against the Tories, which she appears to be moving towards a final decision over. His main complaint is that she hasn't given any other reason for her decision other than 'not being a Tory'. In truth, I'd have said that was an admirably succinct summary of feelings that any reasonable person ought to be able to understand and respect. Lady Hermon was elected an MP for a party that was ideologically mixed, containing self-identified social democrats who openly stated that they would opt for Labour over the Tories if they lived in mainland Britain. Of course there was a clear centre-right majority in the party, but the glue that bound the party together was unionism, not conservatism. Now, there may be many things to be said for the UUP essentially subsuming itself into another party and giving NI voters the opportunity to vote Conservative, but lambasting principled UUP politicians for simply realising that the party has left them stranded (and drawing the obvious conclusion) is rather unseemly to say the least. But then, Chekov is seemingly confused enough to feel that he as a self-described 'liberal' has found his natural home in the Tory party, so perhaps we should see his refusal to accept that 'not being a Conservative' is a good enough reason not to join the Conservative party in that (rather peculiar) context.
By all accounts, Hermon is a very popular constituency representative and would stand every chance of defeating her Tory opponent in May - which would be ironic, given that North Down is the one seat that the Tories have come even vaguely close to winning in Northern Ireland since their previous arrangement with the UUP broke down over Sunningdale in 1973.
Chekov, the NI blogger I referred to in my previous post who is as zealous in promoting the new Tory-UUP link-up as he is in his irrational feelings towards the SNP, has repeatedly been utterly scathing about Lady Hermon's apparent plans to stand as an independent against the Tories, which she appears to be moving towards a final decision over. His main complaint is that she hasn't given any other reason for her decision other than 'not being a Tory'. In truth, I'd have said that was an admirably succinct summary of feelings that any reasonable person ought to be able to understand and respect. Lady Hermon was elected an MP for a party that was ideologically mixed, containing self-identified social democrats who openly stated that they would opt for Labour over the Tories if they lived in mainland Britain. Of course there was a clear centre-right majority in the party, but the glue that bound the party together was unionism, not conservatism. Now, there may be many things to be said for the UUP essentially subsuming itself into another party and giving NI voters the opportunity to vote Conservative, but lambasting principled UUP politicians for simply realising that the party has left them stranded (and drawing the obvious conclusion) is rather unseemly to say the least. But then, Chekov is seemingly confused enough to feel that he as a self-described 'liberal' has found his natural home in the Tory party, so perhaps we should see his refusal to accept that 'not being a Conservative' is a good enough reason not to join the Conservative party in that (rather peculiar) context.
By all accounts, Hermon is a very popular constituency representative and would stand every chance of defeating her Tory opponent in May - which would be ironic, given that North Down is the one seat that the Tories have come even vaguely close to winning in Northern Ireland since their previous arrangement with the UUP broke down over Sunningdale in 1973.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Brit Nat blogger attacks 'identity politics'
Our old favourite Chekov is at it again - despite the pivotal stage the political process in Northern Ireland has reached, the UUP/Tory blogger has chosen this moment to return to Nat-bashing of the Scottish variety, leaping on a report commissioned by the Scotland Office that purports to show that Scotland has received a £76 billion 'devolution dividend'. Chekov characterises the SNP's response to the report in the following terms -
"If you believe the government’s figures then you are ‘doing Scotland down’, hence you are not a good Scotsman. It’s the type of reductionist, identity based politics we’re accustomed to in Northern Ireland."
Actually, the principal way I would describe anyone who believes the Scotland Office figures is "credulous". But Chekov is not a Scotsman, and yet I have no hesitation in saying that he most certainly is doing Scotland down. How else can you characterise the sneering tone he employs upon encountering any suggestion that Scotland could stand on its own two feet economically - "sense of entitlement to dwindling oilfields", "saved from collapse by the British taxpayer"?
The bottom line is that if you have to rely on undermining Scotland's confidence in its own economic self-sufficiency to quite that scathing degree, it's an implicit acknowledgement that the alternative arguments for the union are wearing a bit thin. Chekov seems to instinctively register this point at the end of his post, when he goes through the motions of essentially saying "other pro-union arguments are also available" -
"Of course economics only form part of the pro-Union case. The Conservative reaction to this story is the most pertinent, from a unionist perspective - “People know Scotland is better off socially, culturally, financially and politically as part of Britain”."
Well, if the Tory reaction is the most 'pertinent', it's certainly not the one that's actually resonating among the Scottish electorate. Scotland-as-part-of-Britain is socially, culturally, politically and financially superior to Scotland-as-a-nation...and this from a man who claims to disdain identity politics? Perhaps this would be an appropriate night of the year to invite the gloriously un-self-aware British Nationalist Chekov to ponder the immortal words -
"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion."
I think it's an observation I've made before, but Chekov on the subject of Scottish politics is essentially AM2 without the laughs.
"If you believe the government’s figures then you are ‘doing Scotland down’, hence you are not a good Scotsman. It’s the type of reductionist, identity based politics we’re accustomed to in Northern Ireland."
Actually, the principal way I would describe anyone who believes the Scotland Office figures is "credulous". But Chekov is not a Scotsman, and yet I have no hesitation in saying that he most certainly is doing Scotland down. How else can you characterise the sneering tone he employs upon encountering any suggestion that Scotland could stand on its own two feet economically - "sense of entitlement to dwindling oilfields", "saved from collapse by the British taxpayer"?
The bottom line is that if you have to rely on undermining Scotland's confidence in its own economic self-sufficiency to quite that scathing degree, it's an implicit acknowledgement that the alternative arguments for the union are wearing a bit thin. Chekov seems to instinctively register this point at the end of his post, when he goes through the motions of essentially saying "other pro-union arguments are also available" -
"Of course economics only form part of the pro-Union case. The Conservative reaction to this story is the most pertinent, from a unionist perspective - “People know Scotland is better off socially, culturally, financially and politically as part of Britain”."
Well, if the Tory reaction is the most 'pertinent', it's certainly not the one that's actually resonating among the Scottish electorate. Scotland-as-part-of-Britain is socially, culturally, politically and financially superior to Scotland-as-a-nation...and this from a man who claims to disdain identity politics? Perhaps this would be an appropriate night of the year to invite the gloriously un-self-aware British Nationalist Chekov to ponder the immortal words -
"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion."
I think it's an observation I've made before, but Chekov on the subject of Scottish politics is essentially AM2 without the laughs.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Liberal conservatism was last year
I hope I'm not in danger of turning this blog into Chekov-watch (perhaps I'm still suffering withdrawal symptoms due to the abrupt departure from the scene of Scottish Unionist), but once again I can't help noticing a bit of a problem with his post today. In it, he draws some damning conclusions on the nature of the DUP - namely that they are divorced from the 'mainstream' of British politics - based on the fact that only their representative Gregory Campbell spoke in favour of the death penalty in a debate in Westminster Hall. The snag for Chekov is that Campbell's views are in fact shared by a significant minority of parliamentarians at Westminster - and most of them are to be found on the Conservative benches. Which poses the question of why on earth a self-described 'liberal Unionist' would be quite so keen on his party's return lock, stock, and barrel to the Tory fold, when the other two GB-wide parties have a centre of gravity on this issue much closer to his own views? There may well be a case for fathoming a credible way to allow voters in Northern Ireland to vote on ideological rather than sectarian grounds if they so wish, but if and when that happens, my guess is that a 'liberal unionist' could only ever ultimately feel comfortable in a liberal unionist party. Such a beast exists - but it's not called the Conservative party. There's a reason for that.
It's lonely at the apex
I've been having a look once again at the pro-Ulster Unionist (and therefore now by automatic extension, pro-Conservative) blog Three Thousands Versts of Loneliness. I was planning to say something about the new Tory-UUP alliance, but first of all I can't resist responding to Chekov's second most recent post, as it contains a series of digs at the SNP and Alex Salmond. Apparently, the First Minister's "smug countenance" will have been replaced by a look of "indignation" upon encountering the "news" that David Cameron regards the SNP as irrelevant at the next election. Now I don't follow his blog closely, but my guess is that Chekov must have an awfully earnest, almost 1950s view of politics and the Conservative party in particular. In his mind, there's David Cameron, a sage-like figure at the apex of British politics, imparting pearls of wisdom, while lesser mortals such as Salmond can only hang on to every word, desperately longing for any small sign of recognition or respect. In truth, I'd imagine Salmond and his advisers wouldn't have been so much crestfallen at Cameron's snub as rather gratified to note that a political rival who feels the need to 'talk up your irrelevance' is obviously a tad worried that many people don't see it that way.
Cameron knows perfectly well that he doesn't get to choose how 'relevant' the SNP will be at the next election, and words won't make that reality go away. If the SNP stay with only the seven seats they currently hold, they're unlikely to hold much clout even in a hung parliament. On the other hand, if the UK-wide race tightens, and if the SNP end up with 15-20 seats, it's a different ballgame. But even if we assume that Chekov is taking it as read that the former will happen and not the latter, what does the irrelevance of a party with seven seats say about the influence that a party that currently holds just one seat - the Ulster Unionist Party - can credibly hope to ever exercise in their hopelessly unequal new alliance with the Tories?
Chekov goes on to note that Cameron is "right to point out" that Salmond will not be a candidate at the general election. Memo to Chekov - Alex Salmond has made no secret of that, and it's hardly a point of shame for anyone in the SNP. Indeed, I seem to recall the criticism up to now from Unionist politicians has been that Salmond was - as a nationalist - rather too keen to hold on to his Westminster seat. Which raises a simple question - would Alex Salmond be justified in a) staying at Westminster and leaving Holyrood, b) holding on to his seats at both Westminster and Holyrood, or c) leaving Westminster and staying at Holyrood? If the answer is, incredibly, none of the above (and it may well be given that he's been criticised for all three at various points in the last eight years), it's little wonder Unionists find the First Minister so objectionable almost regardless of what he says or does.
Finally, perhaps in an effort to convince himself that everything's going to work out just fine, Chekov asserts that "in previous general elections, Scots have always rejected the SNP in favour of participating in a national contest". Well...up to a point, Lord Copper. I take it he means that the SNP have never won the popular vote in a general election, which is quite true, but they have finished in second place on three occasions, and beaten the Conservatives no fewer than four times (including all of the last three elections). Hardly suggests that Scots have been fully buying into this "only two parties are relevant in Westminster elections" line that both Chekov and Cameron so dearly wish they would. It's also worth noting that until eighteen months ago the SNP had never won the popular vote at any election, Westminster or otherwise - they've now done so twice. Records are only ever there to be broken.
Cameron knows perfectly well that he doesn't get to choose how 'relevant' the SNP will be at the next election, and words won't make that reality go away. If the SNP stay with only the seven seats they currently hold, they're unlikely to hold much clout even in a hung parliament. On the other hand, if the UK-wide race tightens, and if the SNP end up with 15-20 seats, it's a different ballgame. But even if we assume that Chekov is taking it as read that the former will happen and not the latter, what does the irrelevance of a party with seven seats say about the influence that a party that currently holds just one seat - the Ulster Unionist Party - can credibly hope to ever exercise in their hopelessly unequal new alliance with the Tories?
Chekov goes on to note that Cameron is "right to point out" that Salmond will not be a candidate at the general election. Memo to Chekov - Alex Salmond has made no secret of that, and it's hardly a point of shame for anyone in the SNP. Indeed, I seem to recall the criticism up to now from Unionist politicians has been that Salmond was - as a nationalist - rather too keen to hold on to his Westminster seat. Which raises a simple question - would Alex Salmond be justified in a) staying at Westminster and leaving Holyrood, b) holding on to his seats at both Westminster and Holyrood, or c) leaving Westminster and staying at Holyrood? If the answer is, incredibly, none of the above (and it may well be given that he's been criticised for all three at various points in the last eight years), it's little wonder Unionists find the First Minister so objectionable almost regardless of what he says or does.
Finally, perhaps in an effort to convince himself that everything's going to work out just fine, Chekov asserts that "in previous general elections, Scots have always rejected the SNP in favour of participating in a national contest". Well...up to a point, Lord Copper. I take it he means that the SNP have never won the popular vote in a general election, which is quite true, but they have finished in second place on three occasions, and beaten the Conservatives no fewer than four times (including all of the last three elections). Hardly suggests that Scots have been fully buying into this "only two parties are relevant in Westminster elections" line that both Chekov and Cameron so dearly wish they would. It's also worth noting that until eighteen months ago the SNP had never won the popular vote at any election, Westminster or otherwise - they've now done so twice. Records are only ever there to be broken.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
A little oath goes a long way
Chekov at Three Thousand Versts of Loneliness is pondering the Conservative Party's plans to strip Sinn Féin MPs of their relatively recently won right to claim MP expenses, which they enjoy despite failing both to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen and to take up their seats at Westminster. The Tories' Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Paterson approvingly recalls former Speaker Betty Boothroyd's ruling that there could be no 'associate membership' of the House of Commons. But that ruling was always a nonsense, because to all intents and purposes associate membership of the Commons was exactly what Sinn Féin held even under the 'Boothroyd doctrine'. They were denied parliamentary offices, and the financial support to properly represent their constituents. You might reasonably think the logic of such a stance is that they were no longer MPs at all. They should therefore have been instantly debarred and their seats put up for re-election, as would automatically be the case if an MP were to be declared bankrupt or sentenced to a jail term in excess of twelve months. But of course Sinn Féin MPs were not debarred, and it's not difficult to see why - because in most cases the constituency would simply have re-elected a Republican in the subsequent by-election. Unless the government then took the incendiary step of banning Sinn Féin from even putting up candidates for Westminster, it would just have gone on and on as an eternal farce. So we were instead left by necessity with a kind of purgatory situation in which Sinn Féin representatives were neither full MPs or non-MPs. "Associate membership" does indeed seem like a very good way of describing such an arrangement.
But however such a situation came about, it seems to me that by not debarring such people and putting their seats up for re-election, you are tacitly conceding the point that they are in fact ultimately legitimate MPs. And, that being the case, it's only logically consistent for them to be given all the facilities and financial assistance to represent their constituents that is afforded to every other legitimate MP.
I'm left with the impression that rather than taking a rational approach to the effective and just distribution of resources, the Tories - perhaps unsurprisingly - are instead transfixed by their belief in the mythical significance of the oath of allegiance to the Queen. After all, it would be perfectly possible for an MP who has taken the oath to then never turn up to the Palace of Westminster again and to be considerably more lax than the five current Sinn Féin MPs in taking on his or her constituency responsibilities. And yet under the Tory plans, as far as I can see such an MP would not lose a penny.
But however such a situation came about, it seems to me that by not debarring such people and putting their seats up for re-election, you are tacitly conceding the point that they are in fact ultimately legitimate MPs. And, that being the case, it's only logically consistent for them to be given all the facilities and financial assistance to represent their constituents that is afforded to every other legitimate MP.
I'm left with the impression that rather than taking a rational approach to the effective and just distribution of resources, the Tories - perhaps unsurprisingly - are instead transfixed by their belief in the mythical significance of the oath of allegiance to the Queen. After all, it would be perfectly possible for an MP who has taken the oath to then never turn up to the Palace of Westminster again and to be considerably more lax than the five current Sinn Féin MPs in taking on his or her constituency responsibilities. And yet under the Tory plans, as far as I can see such an MP would not lose a penny.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)