Is the end of the Union in sight? (It may well be but then again…)

[Eamonnca1]

In actual fact, unionists said before the IRA ceasefire of 1994 that they wouldn't talk to an armed terrorist "movement".

They walked into the GFA negotiations literally shoulder-to-shoulder with the representatives of an armed terrorist "movement" namely the PUP and UDP representatives. Their aversion to talking to "terrorists" was entirely dependent on whose side said terrorists were on.

[tyroneman]

Still sticks in my throat every time someone (most recently on the Belfast bus tour) mentions David Trimble and Nobel Peace Prize like he was some form of latter day saint.

[Myles Na G.]

Unionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

The plantation of Ulster happened over 400 years ago. The Ulster British have therefore more right to be called natives of the place in which they were born than most of the people of America, Canada, Australia, etc. They are as Irish - as in, from the island of Ireland - as anyone from Cork or Galway or Dublin. The fact that they have a different political view on how Ireland should be governed may be inconvenient for the rest of us, but until we learn to accept the difference and even cherish it, there is fcuk all squared chance of there ever being a UI. Calling them imperialists, invaders, conquerors, just isn't going to convince them to like us.

Myles, you might answer a question for me, if you would.

I think it's fair to say that Unionists perceive themselves to be a very straightforward class of individuals; they are slow to accept any proposal or suggestion from elsewhere without examining it in the minutest detail.
However, once they commit themselves to anything, thereafter their word is their bond. (Okay, that a bit convoluted but I hope you can follow my meaning.)

In brief, they acknowledge that they are slow to accept the word of anyone but, once accepted, they will be equally slow to break their own.
Irish government negotiators during the GFA process were driven to the point of despair at times when proposals were put to various Unionist delegations and, without fail, each grouping would then retreat into the background to parse every word of every sentence therein.
But most southerners at the talks felt it was always worthwhile to give them time to make up their minds and not rush them along. Once they committed themselves to some course of action or other, all other parties concerned were confident that there would be no rowing back by any of the Unionist interests.
Bertie Ahern was to say later that, once he had won Ian Paisley's confidence, he felt he could take his word at face value.
Still, many Nationalists feel that this no-nonsense, plain talking stereotype is a caricature of the real Unionist persona. The impression I get from many posters on here is that it is almost impossible to get Unionists as a body to discuss mutual differences openly. For them, it's a case of Unionist prevarication and delaying tactics to the point where no progress can be made.
EG makes the point repeatedly that it's in Nationalists' own best interests to reach out to engage with their Unionist neighbours.
It's fair to say that the majority who respond to him tell him to go f**k himself as those who attempt to do as he says feel their approaches are going to be rebuffed.
Now, you strike me as a man who can appreciate both points of view.

What do you think?
Are Unionists as a body willing to enter into meaningful dialogue with their Nationalist counterparts?

I think that the GFA and the workings of the assembly at Stormont have shown that unionists and nationalists both have it within themselves to be pragmatic and reasonable when faced with the right set of circumstances. However, when nationalists / republicans talk of 'meaningful dialogue' with unionists, too often it's code for 'sit down and talk about what sort of UI you want'. If the unionists then say, 'we don't want a UI', they're accused of refusing to engage! Nationalism as a body needs to accept that a UI isn't on the agenda for the forseeable future. Once we've done that, and unionists are reassured that the only item on the agenda isn't the dismantling of the border, then there won't be a problem engaging. Like I say, the operation of the assembly shows that our political reps can do business handily enough in the right circumstances.

[thejuice]

Seems like big win for the SNP in Scotland yesterday. Salmond promised a referendum on independence. Will he deliver?

And will the people of Scotland deliver a yes to that is unclear but yesterdays vote has sent a few shockwaves.

[armaghniac]

If Nationalism in NI had a leader of the calibre of Salmond then the end would be advanced. Still Salmond is helping things along in Scotland. The Scottish referendum may not pass, first time. But there is considerable civic reasons for the UK to separate and in a less sectarian NI these forces will also come into play to some extent. The odd thing about NI is that figures like Robinson, who have little in common with the London rulers, are continually emphasising the union, while their equivalents in Scotland are emphasising separation.

[bennydorano]

Seems like big win for the SNP in Scotland yesterday. Salmond promised a referendum on independence. Will he deliver?

And will the people of Scotland deliver a yes to that is unclear but yesterdays vote has sent a few shockwaves.

Interesting times ahead, Scotland is undoubtedly a bigger threat to the future of the Union than this place.  Elections and Referenda are different kettles of fish (as a panicky EG will undoubtedly be along to tell us before long ) but if the Scottish Assembly Election results are anywhere near replicated (and assuming that a fair smattering of Scottish Labour and possiby Scottish Liberals wouldn't be averse to Independence) it would have to have a fair chance of success.  The SNP have went from non-entities to the main (looking like sole) party of Government in what 50 odd years?  The political trajectory is quite clear.

What's clearly in the SNP's favour now is that the greater UK economic argument has been scuppered by the financial crisis of recent times, why should smaller nations be afraid to go it alone? especially as Scotland would presumably still be a member of the EU and be able to avail of it's considerable support in weaning it off it's Public Sector dependence.

[thebigfella]

Seems like big win for the SNP in Scotland yesterday. Salmond promised a referendum on independence. Will he deliver?

And will the people of Scotland deliver a yes to that is unclear but yesterdays vote has sent a few shockwaves.

Interesting times ahead, Scotland is undoubtedly a bigger threat to the future of the Union than this place.  Elections and Referenda are different kettles of fish (as a panicky EG will undoubtedly be along to tell us before long ) but if the Scottish Assembly Election results are anywhere near replicated (and assuming that a fair smattering of Scottish Labour and possiby Scottish Liberals wouldn't be averse to Independence) it would have to have a fair chance of success.  The SNP have went from non-entities to the main (looking like sole) party of Government in what 50 odd years?  The political trajectory is quite clear.

What's clearly in the SNP's favour now is that the greater UK economic argument has been scuppered by the financial crisis of recent times, why should smaller nations be afraid to go it alone? especially as Scotland would presumably still be a member of the EU and be able to avail of it's considerable support in weaning it off it's Public Sector dependence.

If anything this is more a reason to vote No for independence but do please explain.

[bennydorano]

How so?

[bennydorano]

Can the same argument be trotted out now - your safer in the union as you'll be better insulated from Economic catasrophes?  The SNP would have an excellent war footing to fight an Independence campaign - the actual realities of the Economics are a different matter.

[Franko]

When Scotland pull the plug and go for full independence, how secure with NI be within the Union, especially when most NI Unionists are of Scottish extraction in the first place.

Interesting couple of decades ahead for those around to see it.

There is no more sign of a majority in Scotland opting for independence than there is for a majority in NI opting for a UI.

In fact, all the evidence of successive elections proves that there is even less appetite for Independence in Scotland, than for Unity in NI.

P.S. Can somebody explain to me why Republicans appear so insistent about their right to vote etc, at the same time as being so capable of ignoring the results whenever a vote actually does take place? 

Where exactly did this 'evidence' come from EG?  If that's the calibre of the rest of your evidence the postboxes could be green by the morning!

[Banana Man]

When Scotland pull the plug and go for full independence, how secure with NI be within the Union, especially when most NI Unionists are of Scottish extraction in the first place.

Interesting couple of decades ahead for those around to see it.

There is no more sign of a majority in Scotland opting for independence than there is for a majority in NI opting for a UI.

In fact, all the evidence of successive elections proves that there is even less appetite for Independence in Scotland, than for Unity in NI.

P.S. Can somebody explain to me why Republicans appear so insistent about their right to vote etc, at the same time as being so capable of ignoring the results whenever a vote actually does take place? 

Where exactly did this 'evidence' come from EG?  If that's the calibre of the rest of your evidence the postboxes could be green by the morning!

+1 EG i would like to know where this bold assertion of your's came from especially given the results coming out of the Scottish Parliament election results this morning....

[snoopdog]

There is no way Westminister will let scotland go, not until the north sea is drained of

[snoopdog]

There is no way Westminister will let scotland go, not until the north sea is drained of its resources

[Evil Genius]

When Scotland pull the plug and go for full independence, how secure with NI be within the Union, especially when most NI Unionists are of Scottish extraction in the first place.

Interesting couple of decades ahead for those around to see it.

There is no more sign of a majority in Scotland opting for independence than there is for a majority in NI opting for a UI.

In fact, all the evidence of successive elections proves that there is even less appetite for Independence in Scotland, than for Unity in NI.

P.S. Can somebody explain to me why Republicans appear so insistent about their right to vote etc, at the same time as being so capable of ignoring the results whenever a vote actually does take place? 

Where exactly did this 'evidence' come from EG?  If that's the calibre of the rest of your evidence the postboxes could be green by the morning!

+1 EG i would like to know where this bold assertion of your's came from especially given the results coming out of the Scottish Parliament election results this morning....

Where is my evidence?

Simple. It comes from the voting figures.

If we accept (from the NI voting figures) that support within NI for a UI is somewhere around 45%, I believe that the support within Scotland for Independence is rather less, as follows.

Given that the SNP is the only Independence Party contesting elections within Scotland, here are its election results since 1974, when it made its big breakthrough:

1974 - 30.4% Westminster ("WM")
1977 - 12.4% Local
1977 - 24.2% Local
1979 - 19.4% WM
1980 - 15.5% Local
1983 - 11.7% WM
1984 - 11.7% Local
1987 - 14.0% WM
1988 - 21.3% Local
1992 - 21.5% WM
1995 - 26.1% Local
1997 - 22.1% WM
1999 - 28.7% Holyrood ("HR")
        - 28.9% Local
2001 - 20.1% WM
2003 - 23.8% HR
        - 24.1% Local
2005 - 17.7% WM
2007 - 29.7% HR
2011 - 19.9% WM

The conclusion to be drawn from the above is clear. That is, whilst Scottish voters "trust" the SNP on local or regional issues etc, when it comes to Westminster, they draw back from voting for the only independence party and instead vote for the Unionist parties (in varying proportions).

In particular, I would point to the Westminster election of last year, where the SNP gained only one fifth of the vote.

Of course, they have had a staggering jump in support at yesterday's Holyrood elections, and perhaps some of their new voters might be being persuaded as to the merits of independence. However, I do not believe that these "new-born Independents"  are sufficiently numerous to take the Independence vote from around 20%(?) to over 40%, for the following reasons:

1. Alex Salmond clearly stated before the Holyrood election that it would NOT be a Referendum on Independence, and his party studiously avoided bringing it to the fore in their campaigning (i.e. not wishing to "frighten the horses");
2. If sentiment had switch decisively towards Independence in yesterday's vote, you might have expected the most obviously pro-Union party - Tories - to have been obliterated. In fact, their vote held up better than eg the Lib Dems, who are the most "wishy-washy" of the pro-Union parties and were absolutely "caned";
3. If sentiment had, indeed, switched towards Independence, you would expect Salmond to "Strike whilst the Iron is Hot" i.e. call for a Referendum asap. Instead, he has been extremely cagey, only saying he expects one "towards the back end of the new Parliament" i.e. 3 or even 4 years away. The only conclusiion which can be drawn from this is that he knows he has a considerable deal of work to do before he has a realistic chance (40%+?) in any Referendum.

So the above is my evidence for believing that support for Independence in Scotland is less than that for a UI within NI.

When may I expect your evidence to the contrary?   

[Evil Genius]

If Nationalism in NI had a leader of the calibre of Salmond then the end would be advanced. Still Salmond is helping things along in Scotland. The Scottish referendum may not pass, first time. But there is considerable civic reasons for the UK to separate and in a less sectarian NI these forces will also come into play to some extent.

By all accounts, Salmond is a very capable leader. Of course, it helps that he continues to live in his home city and campaign from there, rather than emigrating to another jurisdiction entirely (as another well-known "Celtic Nationalist" did recently)...

The odd thing about NI is that figures like Robinson, who have little in common with the London rulers, are continually emphasising the union, while their equivalents in Scotland are emphasising separation.

Further evidence of the difference between those two nations of the UK and the danger, therefore, of trying to draw conclusions about one by reference to the other.