The DUP are often keen to claim that they are ‘delivering for Ulster’ but their recent, often vehement, opposition to the recent electoral pact between the Conservatives and the UUP has given their game away.

A charge often levelled at the DUP is that of ‘little Ulsterism’. This is hardly surprising from a party whose former leader told a journalist to ‘get back to England’ when he didn’t like his line of questioning, yet manages to adorn all their literature with the Union Flag as if it is merely a symbol to be seen in a Northern Ireland context.

The worst example of little Ulsterism came in June last year when they decided to back Labour over 42 day detention, helping to prop up a government which has, for the last twelve years, been guilty of the worst type of constitutional vandalism and an erosion of liberties which the vast majority of British people find abhorrent.

People from Northern Ireland play a massive role in British society. Vast numbers of Northern Ireland’s youngsters now attend universities in England and Scotland. It is impossible to switch on any of the major news channels without hearing an Ulster accent. Soldiers from Northern Ireland excel in the ranks of the military, serving their country wherever they are required.

Northern Ireland punches above its weight in all aspects of British life. Seldom has a population of 1.75 million achieved so much, yet the lack of real representation at Westminster ensures that Northern Ireland’s voice goes unheard and that it remains at the edge of the Union, with its elected representatives content to negotiate payouts and concessions, rather than form opinions.

In his speech to the UUP conference, David Cameron told us he wants to “cement Northern Ireland’s position as a peaceful, prosperous and confident part of the United Kingdom”. DUP activists would surely argue that this is an aim all Unionists share, but why then, in the DUP’s view, is Northern Ireland not good enough to have the same input as the English, Scottish and Welsh to an all-British party of the Union?

The DUP’s vision of politics is dominated by contrasting images of hard and soft Unionism, backstabbing Englishmen and Catholics who are viewed purely through a religious prism. It’s horrendously rhetorical and counterproductive. It creates a party identification model based for the most part on religion and eschews the idea that people from different backgrounds can share common goals. Essentially, it is isolationist and far removed from the Unionism envisaged by Lord Carson on several counts. Eventually, the DUP’s particular brand of Unionism will fail.

Many Unionists complain that other British people fail to understand them. Indeed, questioning politically astute English friends about Northern Irish politics offers an insight into how little we are thought about, let alone understood. Unionism cannot be supported, if it is not understood and to be understood, it must have a presence at the heart of British politics. This is something the DUP have gone out of their way to avoid and an area where they will consistently fail to deliver. On the other hand, we Conservatives and Unionists see this as crucial.

The Conservative-UUP pact offers Northern Ireland two things. Firstly, the genuine chance of achieving the political representation it is due and secondly, of creating Unionism, based not on religion but by employing the best arguments we have – that the combined strength of the United Kingdom is far greater than the sum of all our parts.

The most pressing and reoccurring of issues is that of legacies of the past. Currently we have the Eames-Bradley consultative group on the past, an Historical Enquiries Team, high profile cases over the deaths of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright and a Police Ombudsman that has ruled over allegations of collusion within the police service. The Bloody Sunday enquiry alone has cost £182 million to date with no results and delay after delay. It is a delicate operation in dealing with atrocities than have happened during the ‘troubles’ due to the human cost and also considering we have convicted terrorists at the heart of the government of Northern Ireland who directed and participated in the death-dealing. The issue of the ‘disappeared’ has long been a shadow over Sinn Fein’s commitment to truth and reconciliation.

2009 will be a year where I think the Eames-Bradley consultative group on the past will be the one to watch. Their remit and their conclusions may well shape how the British and Irish governments wish to deal with the legacies of the past. Nationalist politicians from John Hume to Gerry Adams have attempted to construct a narrative in which to compare Northern Ireland to South Africa, and portray the nationalist community as the ever-suffering underclass. But it is the South African Truth Recovery Commission that has been focused on as some kind of existing model of which to base one specific to Northern Ireland on. The media hyperbole over the concept of perpetrators meeting the victims of their action was spun as some great participatory success. The South African model was flawed as it did not deliver the truth and it did not deliver justice. In a hypothetical situation a model for the troubles would have to have complete buy-in by not just the two governments (British and Irish) but by all the paramilitaries groups involved. I do not foresee any honesty from the paramilitary groups, and Gerry Adams’ continuing denial that he was ever even a member of the Provisional IRA should be treated with the contempt it deserves (although it does demonstrate the two-faces of Sinn Fein).

In terms of gaining some truth, knowledge and understanding of the ordeal the people of Northern Ireland went through we have been dependent on the British government going through the motions in terms of the Saville Inquiry and opening up its archives – and as they are the only active participants they are the ones under intense scrutiny.

The old clichés about a shared future and reconciliation are indeed the goal to which we should all be aiming towards, but frankly we are not there yet. There has been no movement from the loyalist paramilitaries to decommission their weapons; we have witnessed RPG attacks on the PSNI where old stocks of PIRA semtex has been used; and we have a system of government that, at it’s heart, lacks the ability to be held to account. No-one should be getting ahead of themselves, we are still peace-processing and have a long way to go for “normal” politics to prevail.

(Apologies, cannot for some reason embed the video)

Here is the the speech in full at the UUP website.

These comments by Gerry Adams are a true expression of Sinn Fein’s attitude. Sinn Fein goes to great lengths to portray them as an inclusive and constructive ideology. Sinn Feins [London]Derry website says
“Creating the conditions for establishing an equal society means recognising that many diverse groups and sections of Irish society need enhanced protection from the State. We must tackle the trend to blame a person or group for their exclusion from society.”
These comments sit ill at ease alongside Mr Adams’ sectarian outburst.
However what concerns me particularly about this particular incident is its timing. Sinn Fein usually engages in this pathetic posturing when Stormont isn’t running. Sinn Fein has nothing to lose in this situation and can talk tough all they like. The latest instance however took place in the middle of crucial negotiations by all parties to get the executive back on track. This outburst shows how detached Mr Adam’s is from real politics in Northern Ireland and I think that the announcement by the BBC today that a deal might have been worked out despite Mr Adam’s insult shows that he has become an irrelevance in Northern Ireland.
I am glad that we are in a situation in Northern Ireland were these tirades ARE unacceptable to constitutional politicians. I thank the SDLP and Mark Durkan for condemning this statement and I think that his willingness to do so is the surest sign that the SDLP respects the different but shared traditions of Northern Ireland.

Cards on the table first of all, I’m not a member of the Ulster Unionist Party (nor unfortunately that young any more), so I will understand if the end of this rather over-long short post you all tell me to go away and mind my own business!

I’m a non-aligned Unionist; for a number of reasons I believe in the continuing Union of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. There’s four parts to the United Kingdom and when we (or more often the DUP) speak of safe-guarding N.Ireland’s place in the Union, we must never forget that there are two parts to that statement, there’s no point safeguarding N.Ireland’s status in the Union, if that Union itself no longer exists.

Our first priority, as Unionists of whatever description, should therefore be ensuring that the United Kingdom as a political entity remains in existence. We should be pushing our representatives to have a much closer involvement in United Kingdom politics, fighting with like-minded allies “the politics of the Union”, looking to strengthen east-west ties, looking to directly influence the decisions being taken at the centre of our nation. The second priority is to ensure that any future Border Poll provides a healthy majority for Northern Ireland’s continuing future within the United Kingdom. At the minute, if surveys are to be believed, there is a large majority (ranging from 20-30%) of Northern Ireland’s population that wishes our constitutional status to remain unchanged. Yet, at the last election the difference in total % votes cast between Unionism and nationalism was less than 5%. You should be all asking yourselves the question, “Why?”

It’s actually an easy one to answer. The UUP and DUP presently do not offer a comfortable home for all those who would be in favour of the Union continuing, simple as that. The DUP make no bones about what market they’re concentrating on and that’s the communal Ulster protestant one; look at their website, the articles stress their defence of the Orange Order, social conservatism (e.g. the abortion question) and the constant never-ending fight (as they would define it) against the “encroachment of Irish culture” (be it the Irish language or the GAA). And in terms of that narrow focus they do the job well…but it will not reduce that difference between the number of unionists (with a small “u”) and actual Unionist voters at the ballot box- look at again those election results over the last ten years; as the DUP have gained in strength vis-à-vis the UUP, the total % voting Unionist has remained static or, in some cases, even dropped. They may well be maximising their share of the existing Unionist vote, they are not, however, increasing the total Unionist vote.

And the UUP? What have you done…or are doing… or are planning to do, to mobilise that potential for Unionism? Are you concentrating too much on fighting the “politics of Unionism” and forgetting the wider picture? A hard, but true fact is that you have lost the battle for the cultural wing of Unionism to the DUP- the mythical “Unionist People” (in reality those who primarily believe themselves to be British because of their birthplace, religion and attitude on matters of social conscience) are never coming back to your party. That certainly is of little consequence towards the overall fight for the Union, but more specifically, is that really such a bad thing for the UUP?

I believe not, but only if you maximise the opportunities that are at the moment presenting themselves to you. You have the chance to build up firm links (be it as a merger or as an alliance) with a secular, modern and well-resourced (financially and intellectually) party that operates throughout the United Kingdom. By doing so, you will be strengthening the east-west links which hold us to the mainland and also gaining the opportunity to influence the politics that affect all of our nation, not just our own, small corner. You will be showing to those passive unionists I’ve spoken of earlier, that you are no longer interested in fighting on the sectarian battlefield, presently dominated by the DUP and Sinn Fein, but are, at least, trying to push politics here towards what would be considered as normal in the rest of our nation; those passive unionists are unionists because of economic and social, not cultural reasons and those are the arenas in which we should be choosing to fight Irish nationalism.

For the more pragmatic amongst you, the question probably will be; “All very well, but it will increase our vote at the next European/ local government, Westminster election”? And the answer is a simple “Who knows?” But I’m not quite sure what your alternative is; continue to fight the DUP on their terms, whilst the overall vote for Unionism continues to stagnate? At the very least, by building a stronger link with the Conservative Party you’re going to shake politics here out of its present sectarian stalemate, you’re going to push many people beyond their normal comfort-zone and you’re going to contribute towards a genuine United Kingdom form of Unionism.

And yes, I think, as a rather handy side-effect, it will bring greater success for you at the ballot-box.

Lately we have been treated to the dulcet tones of Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams announcing to the world that the devolution of Policing & Justice was agreed to be completed by May 2008 in the St. Andrews negotiations and subsequent agreement. Sir Reg Empey has clearly stated that ‘blackmail‘ will not cut it, and here Sir Reg and First Minister Peter Robinson will need to stand together in the face of Sinn Fein’s demands. Both the DUP and UUP have explicitly stated that the marker for devolution of Policing & Justice will be the confidence of the unionist community, nothing less.

Let’s get back to Sinn Fein’s self-inflicted predicament. What do Sinn Fein not understand by ‘gaining the confidence of the unionist community’? Gerry Kelly is a prime example. How can a person with Gerry Kelly’s past where his bread and butter was the killing, maiming and sectarian pursuit of a united Ireland through terrorism be best suited for this role? Then just to rub salt in the wounds Junior Minister Kelly appears on ‘Breakout’ discussing his unrepentant pursuit of his ‘political’ goals. We can also throw into the mix the ‘unionist outreach’ approach headed up by another convicted terrorist, Martina Anderson. What were Sinn Fein trying to achieve if not to wind up unionists?

Unionisms approach to the peace process has frequently featured a requirement for repetence. If not repetence, then surely it is reasonable for civic society to expect that a shared future somehow requires a coming together over shared values. While we all aspire to a shared future, Sinn Fein’s deliberate strategy, exemplified by the staging of hunger strike and Loughgall ‘martyrs’ commemerations recently at Queen’s University; Gerry Kelly’s most recent contribution is unlikely to build confidence that a new generation of young nationalists and the republican movement, in a post-agreement Northern Ireland, regard respect for life, human rights, policing and law & order as prerequistites in a democratic society.

1. It should not be regional nor party-driven- there are Unionists spread all over the United Kingdom’s political spectrum; we need much more closer cooperation and cross-pollination of ideas throughout that political spectrum- the time for a Pan UK-Unionist Front has most definitely arrived.

2. Linked with 1) it should deal with ideas wider than the normal day to day parochial; e.g in Northern Ireland there will still remain enough foot-soldiers on the ground to ensure that the Orangemen retain their toilet facilities in Armagh, considering how we can best deal with the Barnett Formula is quite another and rather more important question for the future of the Union.

3. Funding. Full-time staff would be required to supplement the large number of amateurs presently flying the flag. In practical terms, a UK-wide organization will need funding from the UK-wide parties.

4. Positivism. It’s fun ripping apart the various nationalist arguments, but long-term it doesn’t drive the movement forward; new ideas re the economic, cultural, social development of the United Kingdom are needed.

5. Best utilisation of resources- eg an actual brick and cement building is not needed for such an “academy” or “think-tank” to operate, access to a PC will be quite sufficient.

6. Most important of all and linked to point 1)- a full and complete independence to deliver its views and options.

Is the DUP prepared to deliver on points 1) and 6)?

I share some of O’Neill’s concerns over the intentions behind the ‘academy’ but I am still intrigued and drawn to the idea of a think-tank to explore and bring together the many different strands of unionism, both within and outside of Northern Ireland. Regarding the ’sticking points’ of criteria 1 and 6 I wholeheartedly agree with O’Neill; I would like to see the party political actors sit together solely as unionists and set down a vision of where they would like to see unionism going in the future. It may seem a bit airy fairy and conceptual, but a unionist narrative and coherent response is needed to counter the ever growing ‘cultural war’ in Northern Ireland.

I for one will not be writing off the DUP’s proposal until I can see some of the detail yet to emerge, and I hope it is more than a cheap gimmick. With a bit of work and cross-party support this could be the beginning of an important journey.

Little Ulsterism, Ulster nationalism, ‘ourselves alone’ unionism, you can roll out the pejorative epithets and they perfectly encapsulate the tone of an editorial carried in yesterday’s News Letter. In many ways this piece illustrates tendencies which have done most to handicap Northern Ireland throughout its history and damage the cause of unionists within it.

The piece is a simplistic litany whereby Ulster’s stout defenders are perpetually let down by the perfidious Brits at Westminster. It represents Ulster unionism with the drawbridge up, besieged and confused, with no intention of attempting to alleviate its predicament.

There is no acknowledgement here that unionism itself, by failing to engage constructively with successive British governments, contributed to the various reverses which the editorial lists. There is no ambition to strengthen Ulster unionism’s position, learn from past mistakes, actively strive toward “making Northern Ireland’s status within the UK more solid and binding”.

Cameron is currently offering Ulster Unionists a chance to advance those very objectives. He is making the offer because the United Kingdom is a different place to that in which previous perceived Conservative wrong-doings were inflicted on Northern Irish unionists. The Union is under attack from various quarters and Northern Ireland is no longer so clearly a ‘place apart’. Rather, the attempts of Ulster Unionists to bolster the Union and protect the constitution, strike an increasingly harmonious chord right across the UK.

The opportunity is there for Ulster Unionists, both to strengthen the Union and participate in a modern, revitalised pan-UK unionism. It is no time to heed the voices represented by this article, or those from within the DUP, which wish unionists to collectively repair to a bunker. From there to cry ’sell-out’ whenever political developments, which we have abdicated responsibility for, go against us.

The topic of the moment (apart from the non-meetings of the Northern Ireland Executive) is the ongoing speculation over the talks between David Cameron’s Conservative Party and the Ulster Unionist Party. I do not intend to sugar coat my analysis of the situation nor do I intend to spin a line simply to stay out of limelight: what I can offer is simply how I read the ongoing negotiations and the speculation by the media (blogosphere included) that can hopefully engender a healthy debate. I will try and take it point by point but I will be happy to respond to any issues raised at a later date or simply by replying to any comments.

Is it a merger?

To the best of my knowledge there has been zero talk about a merger within the UUP. To be frank a merger would be a crazy path to follow as beyond a few statistics gleamed from polls the two parties have very little firm evidence of what electoral response they will have. A federal model for cooperation appears much more workable, and certainly from an Ulster Unionist perspective, this will be the avenue that answers a lot of the questions. Models that have been mentioned elsewhere are the CDU/CSU model from Germany and a Canadian federal model. I have taken a look at the Bavarian model from Germany in a bit of detail and it certainly is interesting, but we will be setting our own precedent and looking at other models for inspiration.

What about those who identify with Labour, Lib Dem or anti-Tory?

Bob McCartney is probably best known for his campaign for equal citizenship and calls for the mainland UK parties to organise and campaign in Northern Ireland; I for one will relish the day when we have the established parties based along socio-economic lines, and those days are certainly getting a bit closer. Chris McGimpsey has already declared his discomfort and I respect him for his views as he has been a strong advocate for the union for many a year. Of course it is to be expected that those who are not naturally conservatives to look else where, but there are not many of them currently within the UUP or if they are they are more likely to horrified by Gordon Brown and New Labour.

I have heard a lot about the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 that has led to anti-Tory feelings. Let me be clear: are unionists more happy to have Sinn Fein in government than to vote for a Conservative? If so I am worried.

What if the UUP are lumped with policies that are adverse to their own electorate?

A federal model, speficially for the Northern Ireland Assembly, allows the UUP to shape its manifestos and pledges to their own immediate electorate. At Westminster the ideal scenario for the UUP is to negotiate and sign up to a Conservative manifesto; the worst case scenario is they stand up for Northern Ireland’s interests when there is a conflict ie vote against the Conservative line.

What’s in it for the UUP?

An optimist would say to articulate the need for pan-UK Unionism, potentially having Ministers or Junior Ministers in the Cabinet, playing a full-time role representing Northern Ireland and of course injecting a bit of life-blood into the party. A cynic would say finance, direction and a slice of the pie (peerages). It is too early to pass judgment.

What’s in it for David Cameron?

Times have changed, the fight for the Union does not have Northern Ireland as the primary battlefield: It is now in Scotland in the shape of Alex Salmond. Being a ‘party of the union’ David Cameron needs to have a Conservative Party representing all the constituent parts of the UK and that (if you need reminding) includes Northern Ireland. The UUP can fulfill that role. Is it hard to see David Cameron as a Unionist? He is making the right noises and the move away (a deliberate move at that) from an English orientated party is positive and I dare say rewarding.

What’s the downside?

Here’s where I will get a few looks to kill over the next few days. Not only were the electorate blissfully unaware of the ongoing negotiations between the UUP and the Conservatives – so were the UUP party members which appears to stand in complete contrast to the NI Tories. For something as potentially important preparation is needed to enable the party to filter the news down in a controlled and manageable fashion. Too late now. Having just gone through a drawn out constitutional review with consultations throughout Northern Ireland I for one would have expected some effort by the leadership in this regard.

Scare tactics are being used to talk about Tory Candidates already ’selected’ to contest seats in Northern Ireland which is just a nuisance. David Trimble’s recent appearance at the Conservative Conference got a few tongues wagging about his role in all of this. For myself the Westminster seats of South Belfast and Fermangh & South Tyrone are an obstacle that needs to be dealt with delicately and I fear Lord Trimble’s remarks were out of touch with his former party.

Well I was going to do something like a ‘logical conclusion’ but I feel all unionists need to think long and hard about the UUP-Conservatve talks and potential future relationship. I am a unionist first and foremost and that will not change. The question I have asked myself is simple: ‘Would I feel uncomfortable as a Conservative Unionist?’.

The answer is no. I already am one.

Gerry Kelly, having escaped from incarceration for a bombing campaign that killed one and injured more than 200 , fled to the continent.  He told of how he rejected disappearing into a new life, and chose to continue with the “struggle” from there.  The ending sequence of the programme showed Mr Kelly struggling against the British state and its oppression from the vantage point of the Northern Ireland Assembly in his role as a Junior Minister in British Northern Ireland.

The boxes the Belfast Agreement constructed for Sinn Fein and the DUP have proven to be resilient.  The IRA has surrendered its capacity to murder and destroy, the DUP the pretence of opposition to the Belfast Agreement.  There is still a fear in rural areas of the IRA, and here the legacy of it’s sectarian murder campaign is particularly apparent.  But in this same area not two weeks ago the DUP’s political blackmail, once so effective, was a swing of 120 votes away from failing to win them a by-election.  Sinn Fein continue to agitate about Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and the repercussions of that, but are reduced to criticizing a school in an area they count as “theirs” for daring to do other than what they are told.

Northern Ireland is changing.  The UK is changing. The UUP must change in order to achieve our goals.  Sinn Fein are a party incapable of responsible politics.  The DUP are a party incapable of a positive future for Unionism.  We must do all that we can shape the future we want to see, and take Northern Ireland to where it should be.