Continue reading »]]>

Luke Springthorpe

As the lengthy debate over whether Scotland is to stay in or leave the United Kingdom finally begins to enter its climax, the big questions are beginning to be asked. One of the most significant questions undoubtedly centres on the issue of what kind of currency arrangement Scotland will look to adopt.

There are five obvious options for Scotland:

1) Adopt sterling, but not as part of a currency union
2) Adopt sterling as part of a currency union
3) Attempt to join the Euro
4) Adopt its own currency with a peg to a major trading partner (presumably Sterling or the Euro)
5) Adopt its own freely floating currency

Clearly, 1 through 4 appears to be flies in the ointment of the “independence” argument. None of these amount to true economic independence.

Given that it has been made clear that Scotland would not be considered part of the Sterling area under the jurisdiction under the Bank of England, the BoE would not factor Scottish considerations in to the picture when deciding interest rate policy or other open market operations.

By joining the Euro – more of a long term aim that would take the best part of a decade to complete – Scotland would actually have even less sovereignty over its affairs than it presently does. It would be subject to the whims of a central bank that intermittently forgets it’s a Central Bank, and belong to a Union backed by no common fiscal policy to share the burden of automatic stabilisers during downturns.

Pegs can be costly to employ, especially in the face of uncertainty. Presumably, such uncertainty would exist (especially in the present climate) over a new currency being issued by a small state with a new and unknown central bank standing behind its currency.

This leaves Scotland with the independent, free floating currency option. On paper, this is what seemingly gets people excited.

The viability of abandoning its present currency union to pursue this route should be assessed against the criteria of an “optimum currency area”. This is usually considered as the bench mark that a currency union has to meet. The criteria are, generally, a large volume of trade between each other, harmonised economic cycles and labour market mobility. From the economic data available, the UK largely meets the criteria for an optimum currency area and there appears to be little rationale in dismantling it.

The one area of contention, however, exists over just how harmonised the economic cycles are. The solution put forward is that Scotland could set its own rates, and has its own currency which is free to fluctuate according to its own cycles, rather than the UK cycles, which are supposedly distorted by the financial centre based in London (ignoring the fact Edinburgh is itself a sizeable financial hub).

The usual narrative in support of this policy usually goes a little like this:

The new currency would (so the theory goes) be subject to a sharp devaluation (in the 20-30% region). This would make manufacturing in Scotland comparatively cheaper than it would be in the UK or elsewhere, and would help lead a renaissance in Scottish industry which has been in terminal decline over the last generation.

The idea that a sharp devaluation is something to rejoice is fraught with problems, however. First and foremost, such devaluation would, in the short run, entail the Scots having to endure a cut in their real living standards relative to the remainder of the UK. For a small and open economy which would be dependent on imports for a number of areas, such devaluation would place upward pressure on a raft of consumables and capital inputs.

This, in turn, is likely to result in a ‘brain drain’ from Scotland. As the currency devalued, it is likely that any such devaluation would lead to an outflow of Scotland’s skilled workers as they looked to protect the value of the earnings generated from their skills. In a labour market that would presumably still be closely linked with the UK in terms of trade and immigration, this is not a difficult situation to envisage.

As for the “low income” earners that would still remain, problems are likely to be encountered at that end of the spectrum also. As inflation sets in stemming from the devaluation, trade unions would in all probability attempt to resist the erosion of their members’ real wages. They would no doubt also be unwilling to accept a visible deterioration in their pay conditions relative to the UK as the prices of other goods rise.

These could only be effectively countered by some form of capital or immigration controls. The problem here is that this would most likely be met with retaliatory measures by the remnants of the UK, and would not be an option if Scotland were a current or aspiring EEC member.

Yet the “devaluation” theory has one more large flaw when accepted as a given. If the SNP were to have their way, they would have a sizeable amount of North Sea oil & gas revenue flowing through their coffers. This would have the impact of making the Scottish currency a “petro currency” for as long as Scotland was a net oil exporter.

This would actually most probably lead to an appreciation of the currency, rather than the predicted deflation as the country would run a consistent current account surplus. This could also be exacerbated if Scotland became a haven for funds looking to seek a hedge against inflation or currency devaluations.

What’s more, the situation with oil and gas is a volatile one. With often wildly fluctuating prices, revenue streams can be volatile, as well as causing currency volatility. This is exacerbated by the fact that the remnants of the North Sea gas is highly capital intensive, making it vulnerable if (unlikely as it may seem) global prices were to drop. Needless to say, becoming an economy dependent on a resource which is by the SNP’s own measures likely to have dwindled significantly in 20-30 years is a great risk in itself.

Either way, an independent Scottish currency entails sacrificing the major benefits of a successful monetary union. Its exchange rate would, in all probability, be less predictable. It would also be less ‘liquid’ leading to higher transaction costs. Both of these would hamstring any exporters, who need both of these to be successful.

What’s more, Scotland would stand to gain little in terms of genuine independence. It would still be affected by the monetary and fiscal policies of the remainder of the UK, but would be left with absolutely no means of influencing either of these.

Clearly, Scottish independence presents a great risk to what has been a strong currency union. The scenario of an independent currency is one which is likely, even if only for a period of time before potentially being allowed to adopt the Euro.

As the great Scot Adam Smith said, “all money is a matter of belief.” As far as belief goes, few currency unions have navigated quite so many challenges and maintained the belief of international investors as well as the Sterling currency union. Let us all hope the Union survives this latest challenge.

Luke Springthorpe is Secretary of London Conservative Future and Deputy Editor of Crossbow, the magazine of the Bow Group think-tank. He also works for Charles Stanley stockbrokers.

Continue reading »]]> This piece is by “oneill”, formerly of A Pint of Unionist Lite and Slugger O’Toole.

What Sinn Fein stands for:

As old allegiances change and people from loyalist backgrounds consider voting for a republican party because it best represents their social and economic interests, the potential for dialogue with those from the unionist community about their place in a united Ireland becomes possible

What the DUP stands for:

The Democratic Unionist Party is committed to bringing Unionists together. Already in Belfast we have seen positive steps in that direction. The Unionist community wants to see such progress being built upon in the future.

“Community” is a very over-used word nowadays

If I were to ask a political analysis in England, Scotland or Wales to define of whom the “Unionist Community” is comprised, I would probably get a puzzled frown for my troubles. People in those three parts of the United Kingdom obviously believe fervently in the Union and will, if necessary, vote as a unit to maintain their nation but just as there isn’t a Conservative or socialist community, there isn’t a perceived Unionist one.

Yet as is clear from the two quotes, one presumably does exist in Northern Ireland

According to my trusty Cambridge International Dictionary of English the definition of a community is:

“the people living in one particular area or people who are considered as a unit because of their common interests, background or nationality”.

So… logical next question, what parameters define the Unionist community in Northern Ireland?

Religion?
National identity?
Location?
Voting preferences?
Cultural background?

Even favourite Scottish football team?

I can make a strong argument that someone who wishes the Union to continue in Northern Ireland need not tick all those categories- it’s a strong argument because the person in question (me!) at this moment in time would not tick 5 of those 6 categories and even with the 6th (national identity) would see himself more of a mosaic (or mongrel!) of mixed and interlinking identities.

Yet I consider myself very much pro-Union. But not a member of any Unionist “community”.

As a Unionist, I am not really that bothered about the future if Glasgow Rangers, I am very much an atheist secularist and haven’t voted in the last two elections. Culturally, if the Orange Order were to disappear tomorrow I wouldn’t lose much sleep.

Yet my vote in any future Border Referendum will counts just as much as a church-going, 100% Brit, UUP/DUP/TUV voter, Rangers’ supporting Orangeman.
As will the vote of a Catholic, Irish speaking, GAA supporter.

Continue reading »]]> Last night Peter Robinson spoke on the topic of Edward Carson and Irish Unionism.
It was a significant speech for a number of reasons, not least for both the venue and the recognition that a new brand of Irish unionism (deliberate small “u”) may be evolving in Northern Ireland. The speech has been produced in full below:

It is fitting that the marking of this decade of centenaries should begin here in Dublin – the birthplace of the central figure of the era and the leader who formed and fashioned genuine traditional unionism. I’m grateful to Eamon for the invitation to deliver the ‘Edward Carson’ lecture and it is an honour to have such a notably distinguished audience. It is evidence of our collective determination that this decade of centenaries shall contribute to creating greater understanding rather than promoting division. It is also a sign of real progress that unionists and nationalists can consider the events of a century ago, in a spirit of respect, reconciliation and understanding of our shared history.

Each of us, unionist and nationalist alike, as we recall the people and events of that era which has so markedly shaped our lives, must take care to evaluate them by using timeless and enduring values and by recognising that the tools and rules of engagement and of resolving differences has changed materially over the century. It is especially apt that we are gathered here at Iveagh House, just a short distance from the birthplace in 1854 of Edward Carson.

To nationalists Edward Carson was the man who divided Ireland – to unionists he was the man who saved Ulster for the Union. Edward Carson was not merely another historical figure; he was the chief architect and creator of the Northern Ireland state – maintaining it, against the odds, as an integral part of the United Kingdom – a constitutional outcome that remains to this day. Politicians tend to focus and cite that segment of the life and times of great statesmen which best suits the case they seek to make. I don’t plead to be an exception to that rule. As a result, over the years Edward Carson has often been misunderstood by friend and foe alike. His was a life of great achievement and drama but he nonetheless experienced many unfulfilled desires and disappointed hopes.

Though a statue of Lord Carson takes pride of place in front of Parliament Buildings at Stormont, a Northern Ireland Parliament was an institution he had not sought. Though he did so much for unionism and Northern Ireland, he regarded the failure to retain the rest of Ireland in the United Kingdom as a massive loss. Paradoxically his failure to achieve his preferred fall-back position of retaining the nine counties of Ulster in the Union probably – in the longer term – strengthened unionism. Equally ironic the attempt by nationalists to confine the boundaries of Northern Ireland to much less than the present six counties, by hacking off large parts of the border counties, would have strengthened the Union even more.

Nor was Carson the inflexible leader that has often been portrayed. Rather, he was a man who was prepared to compromise and alter direction when the situation demanded it. When it became clear that all of Ireland could not be saved for the Union, he sought to maintain the historic, nine county, province of Ulster in the Kingdom. And when that goal became unattainable he cut a deal that preserved the six counties of what he termed statutory Ulster as part of the Union. He did not blindly pursue lost causes in the name of what would ultimately be self-defeating principle. His hope and belief had been that success for Ulster would thwart the entire Home Rule project for Ireland. It is ironic that the one part of Ireland which in 1912 did not want a local Parliament, within the Union, was the only part of Ireland that ultimately got it.

Edward Carson was a giant figure not just in Ulster or Irish politics, but on the national stage. He held several key Cabinet positions. He resisted the urging of colleagues at Westminster to challenge and replace the then Prime Minister.

Remarkably, he is one of a handful of non-monarchs to have received a state funeral in the United Kingdom. If I tell you the others include Winston Churchill, the Duke of Wellington and Horatio Nelson you will recognise what a testament this was to his place and standing in the life and history of the British nation. He was a relatively rare, though engaging, conviction-led politician. He was a man who always put the case to which he was devoted above any self-interest. Those close to him accused him of lacking ambition for undoubtedly he would have risen to the top national office if he had sought that office. But tonight, rather than indulging in too large a slice of history, I want to suggest that, one hundred years on, we – from the unionist tradition – the inheritors of the Carson legacy, have a real opportunity to build the kind of Northern Ireland which Lord Carson envisaged.

Edward Carson would not be what in today’s terms could be considered a stereotypical unionist. Though he became the leader of Ulster Unionism his origins are, of course, in Dublin. He defined himself as a “liberal” unionist. He had a thick Dublin brogue. He had leading nationalists among his close friends. Though leading the cause of Ulster he was proud to call himself Irish. He wanted to keep Ireland united and within the Union and he repeatedly sought accommodation with his nationalist fellow-countrymen. As part of the settlement Carson and Craig set structures in place to encourage harmony and co-operation between the two parts of Ireland. He would have regretted that it took almost a century for relations between the two new states to reach the level he had envisaged. If we are to do the past justice we must see all, and not just some parts of the picture. George Mitchell once remarked that people in the United States knew too little of their history while people in Northern Ireland knew too much. I suspect the truth is that too many of our people know too much of a partial and selective version of history, but little or nothing of the perspective of others.

You will have heard of Zhou Enlai’s response when Nixon asked the Chinese Premier for his views on the French Revolution which had occurred two centuries earlier. “It is too early to say,” he replied. Well, in this case perhaps it is still, “too early to say” what the real significance of the events of the 1912 decade have been. But having, in this generation, achieved a well established political settlement and enjoying a new era of peace and community stability, I believe we can, for the first time, look back in a more objective and considered way than has been the case in the past.

There is no doubt the island of Ireland in 2012 is a world away from that of 1912 or for that matter the Ireland of most of the decades in between. For us the past really is a foreign country. Today, relationships between the United Kingdom and Ireland; between Northern Ireland and the Republic; and within Northern Ireland, have been and are being transformed. It has not happened quickly or without considerable pain.That it has taken 100 years to achieve must be greatly lamented. Her Majesty the Queen, speaking in Dublin Castle last year, rightly counselled us all to bow to the past but not be bound by it. So before I turn to the issue of unionism today, let me bow to the past – to the heroes, the defenders, the brave and the wise.

Let me briefly offer a few thoughts on the events of one hundred years ago from the perspective of a unionist from this century. In doing so I acknowledge that even viewing through the prism of hindsight is not perfect in assessing the events of that time. In examining historical proceedings I am not an absolutist. I accept that just as there are many interpretations of modern day events so too will we find a myriad of opinions about this great passage of history. So, unapologetically I will give you mine.

Looking back now it is easy for us to conclude that in 1912, with the changes to the powers of the House of Lords, it was only a matter of time before Ireland – or at least a large part of it – would achieve Home Rule or independence of some kind. But more controversially, the benefit of hindsight should also lead us to conclude that the desire of Ulster to remain on the same terms within the Union – and to be prepared to fight for it – was not an unreasonable position to adopt. The North-East of Ireland was peopled by an identifiably distinct people. Of course Britain could eject them from the Union but having done so Britain had no locus standi or authority to determine that Ulster should be incorporated within a united Ireland.

We should remember that today, the right of self-determination for the people of Northern Ireland is a fundamental cornerstone of the political process.Perhaps if the right to self determination, which is so widely accepted today had been accepted in 1912, the history of the last century might have been very different. The signing of the Ulster Covenant and the events that were to follow were seen by unionists as a struggle for their very existence. As an endeavour to cleave to all they cherished and held dear. The introduction of the Third Home Rule Bill represented the start of a most perilous period for unionism.

For unionists, what was at stake was economic prosperity and religious freedom. At this point Ulster was the economic powerhouse on the island and there was a real fear that Home Rule would threaten the prosperity of the people of the north east of the island. Indeed, Carson believed that Ireland without Ulster would not have been economically viable. Those who see the response of Carson and his fellow unionists as an over-reaction to Home Rule fail to recognise that the inevitable outcome of Home Rule was complete independence.

Unionists in 1912 saw their very way of life as being under threat and, consistent with the modus operandi of the age, were prepared to go to whatever lengths necessary to defend their position. The Ulster Covenant, the formation of the Ulster Volunteers and the importation of guns demonstrated that unionists were prepared to resist to the last in order to defend their constitutional position. The logic was clear. Carson and the volunteers in defying the government were compelling them to back down or do the unthinkable – send troops to force subjects, who were loyal to the King, out of the nation they loved into an arrangement they feared. In taking these steps Ulster unionists were not on their own but had powerful and influential supporters in Britain.

However, the intervention of the First World War meant that any conflict between Ulster and the forces of the Crown was avoided and instead the men and weaponry which were in place to defend Ulster were used to defend the Empire. While events in Dublin in 1916 made independence more likely, events at the Somme were to make any betrayal of Ulster unachievable. The Curragh mutiny demonstrated that the British Army was not willing to advance on Loyal Ulster. The game was up and a deal was eventually agreed. Ulster’s stiff resolve and its stoic unionist leaders had endured. Ulster had survived.

Of course, it was not only the unionists of Carson’s era who have had their backs against the wall. And it was not only the unionists of Carson’s era who formed resistance to British government policy. In more recent years – albeit that time and circumstances had changed the means of resistance – unionists under attack and pressed to accept that which would have been destructive of their citizenship determined that it was right to say “No”. But that’s another story … I want, this evening, to reflect on what unionism today can learn from Edward Carson and how we can ensure the inheritance that we have been granted can be secured for the next century.

One thing that we can be sure of is that nothing stays the same. In my forty years in politics it is clear that only those who can adapt to changing circumstances remain standing. Carson recognised that, and the same is true of any identity or political philosophy. The key to continued success is to retain what is at the core of a philosophy, but not to become obsessed with what is peripheral or transient. It would be foolish to imagine that unionism has not changed over the last century – or that it will not change further over the next. That is how it has survived and that is how it will continue to prosper. What is important is that it has retained that which is fundamental. Partition vitally changed unionism.

What was once Irish unionism – albeit with a separate identity for the north east of the island evolved to become Ulster or Northern Ireland unionism. Edward Carson was unquestionably an Irish unionist, and while the legacy of Edward Carson lives on, it may be regretted that the idea of ‘Irish unionism’ in any meaningful sense, as historically defined, does not. I consider myself an Ulster or Northern Ireland unionist not an Irish Unionist. The same would be true of the vast majority of unionists in Northern Ireland. That is a significant change not just from one hundred years ago but even from fifty years ago. The change in identity did not come about overnight with the formation of the Northern Ireland state in 1921. Even as recently as the 1950s unionist Prime Ministers were comfortable describing themselves as Irish. That identity continues to evolve in complex and fascinating ways.

It is probably the case that most unionists will identify their homeland as ‘Northern Ireland’ rather than using any other term. For many centuries, Ulster was a place apart in Ireland, but until more recent decades there was still a real sense of being Irish. I accept that there are some unionists in Northern Ireland who are still relaxed identifying themselves as ‘Irish’ though they are a minority. Whereas Carson would have regarded himself as Irish and British I believe that most unionists today regard their identity as being from Northern Ireland and British. At the same time it is interesting to note that St Patrick’s Day is more widely celebrated across the community than has been the case for a long time. T

The identity of what was Irish unionism has morphed into Ulster unionism, Northern Ireland unionism and even for some northern Irish unionism, but no matter how people define themselves the core of unionism remains the same. As with any identity or ideology over time the true meaning or purpose can be obscured or even lost. We should remember that the unionism of Edward Carson was never exclusive or inward looking, though too often that is how the media has portrayed unionism over recent decades. There are many reasons why relations between Northern Ireland and, what was to become, the Republic of Ireland deteriorated in the early decades after partition and there’s probably plenty of blame to go around. As a general rule people who see themselves under threat tend to be defensive. That is a natural response and there is no doubt that events following the formation of the state, the increasingly belligerent approach of the then Irish Government and the threat of internal insurrection made it inevitable that the unionist leaders of the day would turn inward rather than reaching out.

Unionism in its simplest form is a desire to remain as part of the United Kingdom family. The precise reasons for that will differ. For me, it is a sense of history, culture and identity. It is support for the institutions of the state, the monarchy, parliament, liberal democracy and religious freedom. It is a way of life. For others, who do not share that emotional attachment, it may simply be a belief that it is in their best social or economic interests to remain as part of the UK. Yet again, there are some people, who, while supporting the present constitutional arrangements, may not even choose to identify themselves as unionists, because of many of the historical connotations that come with the term. I believe that unionism will be strongest if all are accepted as part of a patchwork quilt of identity.

Unionism is not a single homogeneous entity. It must be about opening up to new communities and building a broad and solid coalition. In saying unionism must now reach out to others I am not, in any way, being critical of those who have led unionism before me. I believe what has changed is not so much the aspirations of unionist leaders but the existence today of a much more benign environment. We now live in an era of peacetime unionism. The success of the peace process in the last five years has created new opportunities. The removal of the territorial claim, the IRA ceasefire, the acceptance of Northern Ireland’s right to self-determination, the establishment of stable political structures and the arrival of a sense of hope and anticipation have collectively created an environment within which we can all present our political philosophy – by advocating the positive virtues of our vision in a climate which allows people to weigh the strength of the proposition in the absence of the threat of violence. I embrace that freedom. I have confidence in the attraction of my unionist vision of the future. I am convinced that it more than matches any alternative that exists.

Ultimately the majority must be able to determine the constitutional status of Northern Ireland but if we have learned anything in recent years it is that the minority must also feel secure within the arrangements, whilst maintaining their own right to seek democratic change. I said earlier that identity continues to evolve in complex and fascinating ways.

What is most interesting is not how people from the Protestant community, but how those from a Catholic background are responding to the new dispensation.Separation over many generations has changed things for nationalists as well as unionists. Living in a separate political jurisdiction with different cultural and everyday experiences is bound to make a difference over time. More importantly, I believe the fact that all sections of the population now play a full and active part in government has made a significant difference to perceptions of the State. Whereas once Stormont was seen as the preserve of only one section of our community, today it is shared space. And for all the difficulties that we experience on a day to day basis while seeking to govern with a coalition of five parties, the importance of widespread buy-in to the political institutions cannot be overstated. Make no mistake, I want to see our structures at Stormont reformed and normalised – and I want to see it done as quickly as possible – but it must be on a basis which can command cross-community endorsement. In doing so we must not undermine the widespread support for the institutions that presently exists. The Stormont Assembly and Executive, for all of its imperfection is accountable to the people of Northern Ireland, and in many ways, has delivered better – in spite of the recession – than any of its predecessors. For countless years there was a real fear on the part of unionists that nationalists would use their place in government to act as fifth columnists to bring the State down. And some nationalists still fear that given half a chance unionists would seek to set up an Executive and Assembly that would exclude and act prejudicially to them. That unionist fear in the last century prevented modest reform in the early decades after partition just as it is probably true today that nationalist fears are inhibiting significant reforms at Stormont.

If people want change then we must work to address those concerns. Now that a settlement has been reached and the threat has gone we have entered a new political era. Numerous recent surveys have indicated growing support for Northern Ireland’s present constitutional status and diminishing support for a United Ireland among Catholics. Any individual survey could be dismissed as an aberration but the wider trend is unmistakeable. The 2010 ‘Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey’ is just one example of this growing trend. When asked, “do you think that the long-term policy for Northern Ireland should be for it to reunify with the rest of Ireland”, only 16% of the population and only 33% of Catholics favoured this option – and we should remember that the question referred to the long-term, and not merely the immediate future. I believe that number is driven by the new political climate and our new relationship with the Republic.

I have said on many occasions that from a party point of view I want to see more Catholics supporting the DUP. I have no doubt that there are many Catholics in Northern Ireland who have much more in common with the social and economic policies of the DUP than they do with either Sinn Fein or the SDLP and I welcome some early signs of modest progress. However, I suspect that the survey results do not point to an imminent avalanche of Catholics voting DUP but rather, outside party politics, to a wider acceptance of the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland and as importantly – their place in it. That is not to say that they will feel comfortable calling themselves British or even defining themselves as unionists, but they see their best future as part of Northern Ireland, within its present constitutional context as part of the United Kingdom. They might be classed as “no change” advocates. But is it possible that we are seeing the birth of a new brand of Irish unionism. A brand which is culturally Irish but unionist to the extent that they support the status quo of remaining within the United Kingdom. They may not yet, or indeed ever, identify themselves as such but if not Irish unionists in name – they are Irish unionists in practice. For unionism to prosper in the decades to come it must be inclusive and not exclusive.

I want to see a broad and inclusive unionism that can embrace all shades of those who support Northern Ireland’s present constitutional position. Unionism must reach far beyond its traditional base if it is to maximise its potential. That means forming a pro-Union consensus with people from different religious and community backgrounds. When one reflects on the record of the last one hundred years it is remarkable the extent to which, for the most part, neither side sought to persuade or accommodate the other in a way which would have been in their own best long-term interests. Perhaps in the past circumstances contrived not to allow that, but today I want to see it change.

John Hume often said that the strength of unionists lay in our numbers and our geography. That is of course right but just think how our position would be strengthened if we were to reach out and draw into the ranks of the pro-Union community those who for whatever reason may have felt excluded or unwanted in the past. …

Continue reading »]]> The increasing urgency of the Scottish question in British politics has presented an interesting opportunity to observe the faultines in what one might have expected to be the unionist coalition. This has already thrown up some strange occurrences. For example, Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Labour leader, recently expressed a high regard for the Prime Minister’s flexibility regarding the constitutional shape of the UK.

Yet stranger still, and far uglier, is the bizarre coalition that appears to be emerging between a certain strata of anti-Union metropolitan ‘progressives’ and the English-nationalists-of-convenience on the right flank of the Tory party. Typical of this is today’s article by ConHome editor Tim Montgomerie in the Guardian. Notification of this article arrived in my inbox via a ConHome newsletter entitled “Cameron must face down the ‘uber-Unionists’ and deliver devolution for England and Scotland.”

The gist of the article was that Cameron needs to create a federal UK. There are several things here that bear commenting on:

- Why, to my knowledge, have neither the Guardian nor the Independent managed yet to express any editorial sympathy for the Union, perhaps one of the most successful examples of civic nationalism in history? Indeed, writers in both papers* are far more likely to express sympathy with Scottish nationalism than antipathy to it.

- Why did Mr Montgomerie choose to publish his article, which is dedicated to Conservative policy and strategy, in the house journal of the metropolitan left rather than a centre-right paper Tories are more likely to read?

- What lies behind his bizarre suggestion that Scotland doesn’t yet have ‘devolution’?

- What precise end-point do the Tory right have in mind as they attempt to exploit – rather than ameliorate – English resentment of the UK?

- How many southern Conservatives have forgotten that they are members of the Conservative & Unionist Party altogether?

All of these are important questions and I hope other unionist writers will join me in trying to answer them over the coming months. Yet there’s one thing I’d like to comment on now: Tim’s referral to non-federalists as ‘uber-’ unionists, rather than just ‘unionists’.

Unionists need to be careful of this sort of rhetorical sleight of hand. A common tactic in the devolution debate has been to cast integrationists as a species of extremist. Unionists who defend integrated areas of the UK constitution, or oppose the granting of ever-more powers to the Assemblies are cast as ‘hard-core’, ‘old-school’ or now ‘uber’ unionists.  The original such were those who campaigned against devolution, and whatever your view you can see a degree of sense in the label. But is that still fair now?

As devolution snowballs towards the disintegration of the UK, is it really fair to call people who think the latest compromise is enough rabid ideologues? Are anti-federalist unionists – remember federalism was until recently a niche policy of the Liberal Democrats to which certain right-wing Tories are very recent converts – really deserving of the appellation ‘uber’?  I don’t think so.

As I’ve written before, one of the main reasons that devolution has failed to stabilise the British constitution as hoped is because a large and influential chunk of the unionist coalition can’t bring themselves, or are perhaps not psychologically equipped , to maintain firm defences of the UK side of each settlement. Conditioned by defeat to seek the path of least resistance, we end up trying to solve each nationalist challenge via triangulation.

But the nationalist agitation never stops, and the devastating effects of this policy are clear. With the SNP’s constitutional position unambigious and unchanging, every ‘compromise’ simply drags the constitution further towards its eventual breaking point. So unless unionists can come up with a new strategy to replace the current trend of short-termist retreats in the desperate and unsubstantiated hope that glutting the nationalists with success will satiate them, this country is finished.

Perhaps we should turn Mr Montgomerie’s tactic back on him. He could be a ‘half-hearted’ unionist, perhaps even a ‘pseudo-’ unionist. Maybe we should start identifying such beliefs as what they are, Federalism, and make sure they are distinguished from the unionist position.  In the mean time, those of us from all parties who support the continuation of a measure of common governance across our country should defend and cherish our proper label: plain, un-prefixed Unionists.

—————————————————————–

*The fact that anti-Union progressive writers tend to dress the question up in the wholly inaccurate language of ‘empire’ demonstrates the mental contortion needed to sustain this progressive/separatist coalition.

H.C.H. Hill is the Editor of Open Unionism and author of Top 10 Conservative blog Dilettante.

Continue reading »]]> As the United Kingdom approaches its date with destiny and the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the debate surrounding the possible shape of a post-Union Scotland are only going to get fiercer. What Scotland might look like outside the United Kingdom, whether Scandinavian utopia or isolated backwater, is one of the key fronts on which the battle for the hearts and minds of Scottish voters will be fought.

Alex Salmond’s vision, designed to maximise separation’s appeal, is of a Scotland with options: joining the Euro; membership of the Common Market without the single currency; keeping the pound. All intended to give the impression that an independent Scotland would be the master of its own economic destiny.

Yet there are good grounds for suspicion that this is not the case. For a start, it is unlikely that Scotland would be able to claim automatic membership of the European Union as the SNP often claim.

In the instance of Scottish independence, the continuity-UK would almost certainly qualify for ‘successor state’ status under international law, due to possessing (much) more than 50% of the territory and population of the United Kingdom as presently constituted.

Thus the UK would retain its identity and membership, leaving none for Scotland to inherit. Were Scotland to then apply for membership in its own right, there are further hurdles. The UK’s treasured opt-out from the single currency is not offered to new members; likewise the option of joining the European Economic Area without acceding to the EU.

Thus Scotland would either have to join the EU, single currency and all, or not at all. Even assuming the SNP retained their former enthusiasm for the single currency and took the plunge, there’s no guarantee they’d be accepted. Spain, Italy and Belgium are all wrestling with their own separatist movements and will not want to establish the precedent of secessionists gaining EU membership – see Spain’s position vis-à-vis Kosovo.

If not Europe, then what? In an effort to soften the blow for soft-unionist Scots, the SNP are keen to stress the links that they would seek to retain with the UK. Scotland could, the nationalists argue, keep the pound, and British submarines could still be stationed at Faslane to fend off the fear of defence cuts.

Assuming all this was true (and in the case of defence it almost certainly isn’t), Scotland on the pound would be tied to the British economy without having a say in the governance of it, while trying to keep whole communities going via sustaining now-foreign military bases.

The SNP thus risk locking Scotland out of the UK without breaking free from it. As the pro-Union campaign put it, there are polities outside the UK with similar relationships. Until recently, they were called ‘dependencies’.

H.C.H. Hill is the Editor of Open Unionism. He is presently serving a short internship with the Adam Smith Institute, upon whose blog this article first appeared.

Continue reading »]]> One of the primary aims of  Open Unionism is to push our  readership out of its comfort-zone. We are therefore more than happy to publish this piece forwarded to us by the New Irelander blog: 

In the early 1970s, a New Ireland Movement was convened in order to provide an empathetic space for people from North and South, Catholic and Protestant who had been born into either the Unionist or Nationalist tradition or with family relating to both, yet who did not feel comfortable in any of the contemporary political parties. In particular, we emphasised that we would strive to develop ideas and promote discourse which might transcend the past; in so doing, we wished to point the way towards the foundation of a truly New Ireland.

Early on, the distinction was made between the vision of a New Ireland and that of a United Ireland. For us, the United Ireland which seemed to be on offer all those 35 years ago was one in which the north would be absorbed into an extension of the 26 Counties. A New Ireland, on the other hand, would be one with structures which would invite the participation of all the people in its formation. Back then, in the minds of many of the Irish minority (the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist people of the north), United Ireland implied a backward economy, an unacceptable theocracy and a cultural dominance from which those of the Irish minority tradition felt alienated. In short, the latter feared a significant loss of their identity and a severe down-turn in their standard of living.

A New Ireland, however, would hold aloft the vision of a programme designed to empower each citizen through a policy of individual and collective community development expanded through networking. With increasing self-confidence, change, which is inevitable, could be perceived more and more as a challenge rather than as a threat.

The political climate and street violence of the 1970s was not, however, conducive to such ideas becoming acceptable to the people at large. This was especially so among the Unionist section who still felt they should cling on to their attachment to Britain. After all, they felt secure under the umbrella of British symbolism and confident that Britain was governed by a class of people that would never let them down!

The New Ireland Movement became conscious that the political realities of the 1970s were indeed not favourable to considering the challenge of departioning. Nevertheless, the Movement remained convinced that the historical conflict would keep recurring just as long as the island remained portioned. In one of its earliest pamphlets, “New Ireland: Sell Out or Opportunity?” (1972), the words of the Duke of Ormond (1660) were quoted; “There must be new discoveries made of a new Ireland, the old will not serve to satisfy these engagements.” In the New Ireland Group, we have done our best to keep the faith!

We now invite… Catholics as well as Protestants, Leafy Suburbs as well as Housing Estates, immigrants as well as indigenous, who may be uncertain, confused or bewildered, to join with us in helping to determine how Ireland will develop as the century proceeds. In this way, they can seize the opportunity to place a significant mark on the future of Ulster as part of Ireland and, in doing so, create a destiny for their children and their children’s children which will endure. Most assuredly, the greatest safeguard will lie in the respect of their neighbours as they commit to building with them a new life for a new era in a New Ireland.
 
By Dr. John Robb (an excerpt from “New Ireland Group: Converging to a New All Inclusive Ireland?”)

Continue reading »]]> So – it’s to be 2014. The date with destiny we all knew was coming but tried to place at the back of our minds will come around quicker than the London Olympics (2007 doesn’t seem that long ago, does it, eh?)

The Scottish people will have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shape the destiny of their nation, a decision that will directly and indirectly affect us all. But let us remember – the decision is theirs to make, and the SNP have the mandate to put that question to them. For Unionists, the challenge now is to create a positive, pro-Union message.

The message should, ideally, consist of three key strands: economic interest, patriotic fervour and institutional attachment. The referendum will not be won or lost over money, legal technicalities or questions of currency or defence – this is a question of identity, pride, patriotism and passion.

Scotland’s referendum will have real consequences on British identity and how we, as a British nation, see ourselves and the place of the United Kingdom in the world. So let us, at this time, exude patriotism, pride and passion for the cause of maintaining the union.

For most of us, reflection on nationality quickens the heart and stirs the soul – so the No campaign must be reflective, patriotic and loaded with a positive, passionate pro-Union rhetoric founded on the sharing of resources, our common bonds and our common institutions: the National Health Service, the BBC, the Monarchy and Parliament, for example.

Initial pro-Union arguments have been biased towards the (albeit incredibly strong) economic case and Unionists have been characterised as overly concerned with treaties and legal technicalities – issues that seem quite far removed from the life of an ordinary Scot, or any ordinary Briton for that matter. This is not the type of campaign the SNP and their colleagues will run – it will be loaded with the patriotic, nation-building rhetoric for which Alex Salmond is famed.

To win, the No campaign must counterbalance his rhetoric with its own evocative message. This message must start being communicated now, and it will require money and determination – because the separatist camp is short of neither. Here are my thoughts about how the Unionist Political Parties should go about it.

Build a grassroots, non-partisan campaign with a distinct Scottish identity.

The campaign needs to be Scottish through and through. This means a Scottish campaign director, Scottish Press Officers and Scottish music, dance and literature permeating every document, political broadcast and press release. Quotes from Burns, Bagpipies galore and Saltires – it’s what the Yes campaign will have front and centre, so the No campaign must do the same.

Yes, of course, figures, images and contributions from the rest of Britain should be an integral part of the campaign, but it’s Scotland’s referendum and should be Scotland’s campaign. It will also be important to tap into the wealth of Scottish talent that has made its indelible mark on the culture, politics or economy of the wider United Kingdom. There are huge numbers of successful Scots who, over the years, have been at the heart of British national life and have defined our shared history.

The No camp should be frantically ringing every celebrity, politician or sportsperson who has benefited from our Union. David Tenant, John Barrowman, Michael Gove, Michelle Mone, Chris Hoy, Gordon Brown, Edith Bowman should be on the call sheets of the No campaign director- because they are living and breathing examples of the benefits of Union, whether institutional (BBC and the Office of the Prime Minister springing to mind) or simply by using ‘Brand Britain’ as a platform for global success.

Wherever in the word you go you’ll find successful Scots making use of British Chambers of Commerce and their local British Embassy – their stories should be a key part of the message, highlighting how Scotland benefits from the global influence of the United Kingdom, not just because it will benefit the No campaign, but because it’s also a really great story to tell!

Begin the long journey towards a redefined and shared British identity.

This one can be seen as the most difficult, but it’s not actually very hard because England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – while rightly proud of their own unique histories and traditions – are not unalike! We shop in the same shops, talk about the same issues, read the same newspapers, watch the same TV programmes and have shared a Parliament for 300 years.

Some of this sounds altogether trivial, but in reality these tiny little elements of daily life are the kind of things, which build nations. We share so many common hopes, fears, dreams and aspirations- the kind of things, which, in the 21^st Century are central to the notion of a national community. So, I say to the No campaign – don’t frighten the electorate with statistics and legal jargon, but ask the Scottish people – would you miss the BBC? Do you value the pound in your pocket? Did you know that Scotland benefits disproportionately from UK military Spending?

To my mind, the only place where rivalry really exists is on the sports field – it’s the No campaign’s job to articulate this positive message of partnership and friendship. A message of a Scotland with a strong national identity but through the United Kingdom we are all greater than the sum of our parts. As recent Scottish Tory leadership candidate Jackson Carlaw put it: A Strong Scotland in a Great Britain.

It’s positive, powerful and undeniably simple. You may scoff and say that the fact that both Scots and the English shop at Sainsbury’s or watch Britain’s Got Talent is irrelevant – but to my mind, this commonality is an incredible gift to the cause. When our people share these little aspects of their daily lives they can find common bonds in conversation. Our Kingdom was created by a political and economic elite – today, it can be refounded on the shared bonds of family, friendship, institutions, history and even chatting about and watching X Factor! You won’t make a stronger case than that – it’s simple, shared and positive.

Use the Olympics, The Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games and the Diamond Jubilee to build momentum, and ensure the UK Government properly represents Scotland.

It goes without saying these events will be incredible! Britain will be on a global stage – so let’s make the most of them.

The British Government must ensure Scots have access to and feel a part of the great national celebration. You can’t plan for this but you can ensure these events are inclusive, spectacular and powerful. Of course, Chris Hoy winning a few more medals with the Union flag wrapped around him wouldn’t hurt! With the Jubilee and Olympics focusing on London, this could be a harder sell than one might initially think. But the Torch Relay, UK-wide Festival of Culture and Queen’s Jubilee Tour of the UK should ameliorate that argument – as long as Scotland has ample representation at every function, trade-related event and cultural celebration, if for no other reason than Scotland has great products to sell and a great culture to share – which is beneficial for all.

The UK Government should also play a much more active role in promoting Scottish events like the Edinburgh Festival on a UK-wide basis. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister visit the Edinburgh Fringe on a yearly basis? Could the FCO promote Burns Night and St Andrew’s Day celebrations more proactively for global Scots and Britons?  Will there be a Scottish element to the opening ceremony of London 2012? Basically – could the UK Government do more to promote Scotland as a nation on the global stage?

The benefits for both the No cause and the British nation as a whole would be incalculable – and would halt the SNP’s constant argument that only with independence can Scotland truly express herself on an international level. This will require effort and determination – but in the long-term, major UK-wide events combined with a greater presence for Scotland globally should prove beneficial to the protection of our Union.

Keep the campaign positive and don’t let Alex Salmond dominate it.

This one is difficult, because even to me Alex Salmond is likeable, funny and political force to be reckoned with. I want to make it clear, I’m not a fan of his political vision – but on a personal level, it’s really hard not to like him, or even his deputy Nicola Sturgeon. At Holyrood they are unmatched, because the UK party talent tends to drift to Westminster. It’s clear that they and the SNP genuinely believe that independence is the best way forward for Scotland – that cannot be denied, so it’s the job of the No campaign to identify and showcase an equally strong and positive set of faces for their campaign.

Going negative is not an option in this referendum. The No campaign must exude positivity – outlining the benefits of Union, explaining the downsides of independence and, as afore mentioned, be Scottish through-and-through. The Scottish are a proud people and with over ten years of a Scottish Parliament, will not be lectured to – so the No camp must ensure this simply does not happen!

With relatively new leaders for all three Scottish Unionist parties, a wealth of Scottish political talent in English constituencies and a huge number of Scots in civic, military and cultural life in support of the union – the movement to protect the it must counter the cult of personality that surrounds Alex Salmond. He will make superb speeches and a convincing case each and every time and the No campaign’s retort must be stronger, sharper and more patriotic. Salmond will wrap himself in the Saltire and  so must the No campaign.

Salmond seems to be using the slogan ‘FORWARD.’ That’s powerful stuff. A similar message, perhaps ‘BETTER TOGETHER’ might be a good strapline for the No campaign. I’m sure some very smart people will be paid a lot of money to come up with a better one. Scottish Labour tried scaremongering in past Holyrood campaigns, and it didn’t work. As time progresses, if the message is clear, constant and positive the pro-Union message will prevail. The United Kingdom is an entity to which all can belong, all can have a place and all can make a contribution - now that’s powerful stuff!

Independence must not be allowed to be portrayed as the Promised Land – the wrongs of Scotland will not be solved overnight if independence is delivered. Scots must be reminded that without the benefits of Union, some wrongs will be worsened – but how do you discuss these concerns, without going negative?  That’s a question those very well paid consultants and pollsters will have to work out.  Every leaflet should be filled with successful Scottish companies who use ‘Brand Britain’ as their platform; every article should be filled with the civic, political and business leaders who believe Scotland is better off in Britain.

Salmond is a credible political voice that Scots listen to, even some Unionists can see him as the ‘father of the nation,’ – but if fellow Scots passionately speak against him in increasing numbers and with clarity, he will eventually be drowned out.

The result, post referendum, should not be division, but instead Scotland and the entire United Kingdom should be able to look back on a positive and enriching conversation on our constitutional future. The conversation should never be Scotland can’t be independent – that’s patronising and will be rejected. The argument should be that Scotland is strong in herself and stronger in the Union. That’s the message that will win.

Respect the Scottish people – it’s their choice.

David Cameron promised the “respect agenda,” but has he really lived up to it? We simply cannot have the campaign fronted by a Southern, English Conservative Politician. I’m a supporter  of the Prime Minister’s and I suspect this is something he has already worked out for himself, but for the next few years the Prime Minister must show deference, not just respect, to the Scottish people, if he does not want to be the Prime Minister who presided over the ending of the United Kingdom.

How this deference will play with certain elements of the English electorate, or those elements of his own party who tend view Scotland as the subsidised guarantor of Labour majorities in Parliament, remains to be seen.  GT Chief Henry Hill, in his review of Conference 2011, said that the Prime Minister is at his best when he delivers positive, visionary messages. Let’s hope someone in the No camp can do something similar, because he cannot be the man who delivers that message.

Of course, whoever delivers the message, we will live with the consequences of Scotland’s decision; but the No camp must always be mindful that Scots are a sovereign nation, who must be given the breathing space to decide their own future.  The challenge for unionists is to be open-armed, positive and ready for dialogue whatever the question, whichever body administers the election, whatever the Nationalists say or do and regardless of what part of Britain they are from.

I am not a Scot but I am a Briton who is proud of the nation we have built together. I am mindful of how wrong Unionists in Northern Ireland have been in making a clear and cogent argument for the Union beyond the dire state of economy or dependence on the Treasury. The No campaign must fight for the legacy of this referendum to be a more self-confident Scotland at the heart of a redefined and strengthened United Kingdom. Scotland is part of our family of nations and must be treated with the respect we would show our own family members – it’s that simple.

The argument must also be made that the United Kingdom, without Scotland, would be devoid of the enormous contribution our fellow citizens make. Scots have been integral in shaping the story, culture and economy of our nation, and Scotland, despite her own independent spirit and unique contribution to humanity through science, the arts and technology, retains more currency and has more influence as part of the United Kingdom – it’s the classic “stronger together, weaker apart” argument.

I’ve never been much of a one for rallying cries, but I think this occasion deserves it. I can think of no better call than that made by the Prime Minister in his speech to the 2010 Conservative Party Conference, in front of the “party I lead and the country I love.” It’s one of my all-time favourite speeches because his theme was about coming together in the national interest. This time, a new type of coalition must be built – a coalition of pro-Union groups, political parties and individuals, coming together to protect the Union and, resultantly, the country we love.

The question is, after the referendum, momentarily presuming the Union will be retained, what next? We cannot rest on our laurels post-referendum – every one of us must set about not nation-building (we’ve been at that for 300 years) but nation re-building; redefining what Britishness is beyond the usual multicultural urban English dialogue which the political classes tends to dig.

I think we need instead a root and branch re-examination of who we are as a nation, what our values are and where we go from here. Another question springs to mind, should a No result be delivered: what of those Scots who voted for independence? How do we better include them in the new United Kingdom? If politicians were to go about trying to understand their frustrations perhaps we could remedy their malaise? Their contribution and suggestions for reform could be of benefit to us all, in helping Britain become safer, fairer, healthier, wealthier and more confident.

To me, it is those next steps which will be a much more difficult, but ultimately rewarding, than any referendum Alex Salmond holds. So, I say to Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie, as well as Ed, Nick and Dave – it’s time to work together.  For the referendum and beyond you must, in the words of David Cameron, “[Let’s] pull together. Let’s come together and work, together, in the national interest.”

***************************************************************

Conal is a Final Year Law student from Queen’s University Belfast and is Chairperson of QUB Conservative Future. He is area chairman of the South, West and Londonderry division of NICF and is their Deputy Chair Political and Universities. He is particularly interested in issues surrounding Education, having worked as an Intern at the US Department of Education. He is an alumnus of the Washington Ireland Programme for Service and Leadership, Campaigned in the 2010 General Election and hopes to work as a political adviser. You can contact him at conal.ohare@nicf.co

Continue reading »]]> After my mini-rant last month on what I see as a fundamentally broken approach to UK modus operandi it seems logical to follow up on how this wrong should be righted. In fact Cameron has quite admirably sought to bring this ‘limbo’ to a decisive end with his legally binding independence vote. It’s a tactic that has previously been mooted by unionists here in NI. And in Scotland with a large percentage of the public wishing just to get on with some semblance of governance, it should strike a cord past all the usual English/Tory/Overlord rubbish.

Continue reading »]]> Since David Cameron became Conservative leader in 2005, he’s done a lot of backtracking. Yet one project he’s stuck with through thick and thin: breaking the Conservatives into Northern Irish politics. From employing full-time party staff to negotiating a fragile alliance with the Ulster Unionists, the party has put a lot of work into a project that has not yet returned a single MP, MLA or local councillor. Why do they persist, and do they have any hope of success?

It is a strange twist of British politics that despite being a predominantly English party, the Conservatives have always been the staunchest defenders of the Union between the four home nations of the UK. This is strange enough in Wales and Scotland, where the party enjoys or at least has enjoyed electoral success.

But Northern Ireland hasn’t returned any MPs with links to the mainland since 1970. So why do the Conservatives show such an interest in this often isolated, conflicted part of the United Kingdom?

The Tories and Ulster – A History

The unionist tradition in the Conservative party dates back to the end of the 19^th Century, when it was at the forefront of the opposition to Irish independence. In alliance with the anti-independence Liberal Unionists they were able to block Home Rule and delay independence for decades.

Once it became inevitable that most of Ireland would leave the Union, the Conservatives strongly supported the right of northern, largely Protestant unionists to stay within the UK, and played an important role in the creation of Northern Ireland.

Sir Edward Carson, MP for Trinity College Dublin, ran for leadership of the Conservatives and then went on to found the Ulster Unionist Party.

Tory leader Bonar Law even took the salute of armed loyalists threatening to rebel against any attempt to force Ulster into independence.

In modern times, the relationship between the Tories and Northern Ireland was defined by the Troubles. The Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972 happened under Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath. Until 1974 the Ulster Unionists took the Tory whip.

In many ways the Eighties continue to define the relationship between the Tories and Northern Ireland, from Bobby Sands and the Hunger Strikes to the infamous attempt by the IRA to assassinate then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984.

Although she was lucky enough to survive, Lady Thatcher’s time in office was bookended by the murder of two of her favourite Conservative MPs, Airey Nieve and Ian Gow, who both had very strong Irish connections.

Breaking In – 1989-2005

Until 1974, the Conservatives were represented in Northern Ireland by the UUP. After they rejected the Tory whip no mainland parties were represented in the province. This began to change under John Major.

Not everybody in Northern Ireland liked this isolation, and the Campaign for Equal Citizenship (CEC) was founded. This campaigned argued for a policy of integration – a permanent end to devolution and for mainland parties to contest Northern Irish elections.

Noted political writer and unionist politician David Vance used to be Deputy Leader of the United Kingdom Unionist Party (UKUP). He said: “The point of CEC was to broaden the political choice available to the Northern Ireland electorate by encouraging all the major UK parties to organise and stand for election in Northern Ireland.

“By engaging the electorate on broader UK wide issues there was a chance to move politics beyond the parochial and onto the national stage.”

It was this campaign that led to the re-creation of the Northern Irish Conservatives in 1989 after sustained lobbying from pro-Conservative CEC members, led by Dr Laurence Kennedy, in the affluent constituency of North Down.

In the build-up to the 1992 general election opposition to devolution in Scotland and Wales was at the front of John Major’s campaign, so the concept of anti-devolutionary ‘equal citizenship’ found plenty of support from the rank and file.

The North Down Conservative Association enjoyed some successes. In 1989 six local councillors were elected to North Down Borough Council. In the 1992 election Dr Kennedy came second in the North Down constituency with 32% of the vote and over 14,000 votes – the closest a Conservative had come to holding the seat since 1885. The party took a total of 44,608 votes across the province.

However, after 1992 the collapse of the Conservatives across the country hit Northern Ireland too. In the 1995 by-election in North Down the Conservatives suffered their worst by-election result since 1918 and their vote collapsed to just 2.1%.

Northern Ireland Conservative Chairman Irwin Armstrong attributed this both to the Tories’ ongoing collapse on the mainland and the development of the peace process.

He said: “There was a certain amount of disruption within the national party in the run up to the 1997 general election and there were the negotiations which eventually led to the Good Friday agreement, where local parties were central to the deal.”

He continued: “During those years the local party virtually collapsed and subsequently it stood only a few candidates when elections were called and there was very little serious campaigning. The Conservative Party nationally then underwent a long process of soul-searching and reinvention during the years of Opposition.

“Naturally the party’s energies were devoted to GB and recovering as a serious electoral force, rather than pushing its presence in Northern Ireland.”

For the next ten years, the Northern Irish Conservatives were almost entirely unsupported as the Tories tried to rebuild themselves as a force in British politics. By 2001, their general election vote was only 2422 across all 18 constituencies and they were no longer contesting many local and European elections at all.

Vote share of the Conservatives in various Northern Irish elections from 1989 to 2011. Statistics courtesy of the University of Ulster.

UCUNF – Cameron Tries Again

After David Cameron was elected Conservative leader in 2005, his own deeply held unionist convictions led the party to try once again to break into Northern Ireland. For the first time the party opened a permanent staffed office after hiring Owen Polley, author of the widely-respected pro-union blog 3000 Versts of Loneliness.

However, the approach taken was very different from the go-it-alone approach of Dr Kennedy and the CEC Conservatives of the Nineties. Instead, Cameron negotiated an alliance with the waning Ulster Unionists, hoping to trade on their brand awareness and established base.

This was a highly controversial move that caused a lot of problems, especially amongst those who had earlier supported the Conservatives in the province. Writing in 2009 Dr Kennedy declared that the Conservative movement he had led was being ‘stitched up’.

He continued: “The Ulster Unionists will just take the Tory whip, not be required to run as Conservatives – the same old client relationship that will again ensure that a “Conservative” vote will be just as sectarian as an Ulster Unionist one.”

This concern was shared by Ian Parsley, the 2010 Conservative candidate in North Down who had defected from the cross-community Alliance party.

“The agreement of a ‘Unionist Unity’ candidate in Fermanagh/South Tyrone gave the lie to the notion that UCUNF was some kind of ‘centre-right Alliance Party’, which is what I’d signed up to,” he said.

He continued: “The failure to shift the agenda away from the DUP’s obsession with ‘Unionist Unity’ and ‘balance of power’, and towards non-sectarian politics and playing a role on welfare reform, fiscal policy, European issues and so on, led to the DUP controlling the campaign.”

Sectarianism was to prove a major pitfall during the campaign. In January the party was caught holding secret talks with the DUP at Hatfield House. These talks appeared to bear fruit when the Conservatives, Ulster Unionists and Democratic Unionists all decided to support one Unionist candidate in the ultra-marginal Sinn Féin seat of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Although this independent would take the Tory whip, this was almost a step too far for many Conservatives. Even provincial Chairman Irwin Armstrong was pushed to the brink of resignation.

He said: “Then the abandonment of a pledge to fight all constituencies, including Fermanagh South Tyrone, did the project enormous damage.

“That was a key moment, which undermined everything the pact was supposed to stand for. It’s not widely known, but it was only the national party interest which persuaded me not to withdraw my nomination as the candidate in North Antrim.”

He continued: “I felt that the Conservative Party and its members had been betrayed and were forced to compromise their important cross community credentials. The promise to give every single voter in the UK a chance to vote for a Conservative candidate had been abandoned.”

Aftermath of the 2010 Election

In the end, UCUNF delivered no MPs in the 2010 general election. This led to the resignation of UUP leader Sir Reg Empey, who had been a key supporter of the partnership. Despite his assurances that the new leadership believed in the alliance, new leader Tom Elliott led the UUP into the 2011 Assembly elections without the Conservatives.

Everybody has their own list of reasons for this disappointing result. These can be divided into two types: problems with the campaign, and problems with the concept.

There appears to be a broad consensus about where the campaign went wrong. Apart from the problem with sectarianism listed above, a major complaint was the last minute nature in which it was organised.

Ian Parsley claimed that ‘the catastrophic failure to select candidates until barely a month before the election itself’ created all kinds of further difficulties.

For example, the DUP had time to recover from the scandals that rocked Peter and Iris Robinson at the beginning of the year because there were no UCUNF candidates ready to exploit the issue. The electorate also had ‘six months of literature pushed through their doors in six weeks’.

This same difficulty was picked up on by Trevor Ringland, former international rugby player and the Ulster Unionist candidate for East Belfast.

He said: “UCUNF was the right idea but it had a lot of problems. We only had a six week lead-in in each constituency before polling day and it just wasn’t enough.”

David Vance concurs, adding: “Another factor behind the failure of UCUNF is that it seemed to appear from nowhere, was not sold effectively as a major initiative and seemed to reduce to a few contrived photo calls with little evidence of widespread UUP support.”

This rushed campaign also undermined what should have been one of UCUNF’s key assets – new, fresh candidates. Ian Parsley said:

“To look new and vibrant, the project needs new and vibrant candidates – but they needed to be selected in time for the electorate to get to know them. Big opportunities to get known, such as Christmas activities and so on, were thus missed.”

The final major reasons for the failure of the campaign were divisions both between the Conservatives and the UUP and within the UUP itself.

According to Cllr Parsley: “The UUP was unable to move beyond its dislike of the DUP and thus campaigned primarily on parochial issues, which was to the DUP’s obvious advantage.”

These divisions became clearer after the election when Sir Reg Empey became a Conservative peer and Tom Elliott, the new leader, dissolved the alliance.

The supposed point of the Conservative project – introducing normalised, non-sectarian politics to Northern Ireland – was thus undermined by attaching it to a pre-existing local party steeped in sectarian issues. It had certainly come a long way from the initial ambitions of Dr Kennedy and the CEC.

David Vance, who as Deputy Leader saw the pro-integration UKUP win the North Down constituency and a clutch of assembly seats in the late Nineties, agreed that the modern Conservatives in Northern Ireland only offer equal citizenship ‘in principle, but not in reality’.

Going Backwards?

All this begs the question: where do the Northern Irish Conservatives go from here? Despite a cosmetically high vote share for UCUNF in 2010, the Tories themselves have not come close to matching their early Nineties success.

In the 2010 election, Ian Parsley in North Down took only 6,800 votes – nothing close to Dr Kennedy’s 14,000. In Northern Ireland’s 18 constituencies UCUNF fielded only two Conservatives – Parsley in North Down and Armstrong in the rock-solid DUP seat of North Antrim. In the Nineties the Conservatives also elected six local councillors in North Down, but do not even have one today.

There are those that argue that performance in North Down – traditionally regarded as the most ‘mainland’ of the Northern Irish constituencies and the Tories best hope for a breakthrough – can’t be taken as evidence of the party’s broader prospects.

Matthew Robinson, Chairman of the Northern Ireland Conservative Future youth movement, thinks that the 1992 result has distracted the party. He said: “I think North Down was a fluke, to be honest. North Down is a very special case. Bob McCartney came in during the late 90s as the UKUP MP and blew out a lot of Tory support.”

David Vance agrees that personality politics plays a large role in the seat. According to him: “A dominant and colourful personality tends trump party loyalties. James Kilfedder had a large personal vote in 1992 and it was most likely this that stopped the Tories winning.”

But he believes that the seat is not the naturally Conservative seat some presume it is.

He explained: “There also seems to be an anti-Conservative dimension to North Down, exemplified in Lady Hermon’s antipathy towards the Conservative Party and her serial voting with Labour.

“Champagne socialism is vintage in this area and despite the ABC1 demographic I do not believe that North Down is fertile ground for the Tories at this time.”

In terms of electoral success, the Conservatives appear to have gone backwards since the Nineties. But in allying with the UUP to reverse this decline have they also gone backwards in what they offer the electorate?

Dr Kennedy described the UUP/Conservative alliance as ‘quite a cycnical, backward step’. He sees his project to bring Northern Ireland into normal mainland politics apparently reduced to an attempt to bring the Ulster Unionists back under the Tory whip, which they withdrew from in 1974.

He finishes: “Please explain to me how Catholic conservatives in NI will be attracted by a cobbled up arrangement with the UUP.”

However, Ian Parsley believes that an alliance with a local party is the only way for the Conservatives to make an impact in Northern Irish politics. He explained:

“NI has had a stable five-party system effectively since the Hunger Strikes, and although there is the occasional breakthrough by others – such as the Conservatives in the early ’90s, local Labour in the late ’90s, the TUV and the Greens now – those breakthroughs have never proved to last more than a full electoral cycle.”

Moving Forward

Not everybody is so pessimistic. Irwin Armstrong believes that the Conservatives have a positive role to play in the future of the province’s politics.

Percentage results of the 2011 NILT survey.

He said: “Our own internal research indicates that many voters believe in mainland politics, that they’re unhappy with the performance of the assembly and that they’re looking for an alternative.   The NILT survey and the fall in turnouts are also evidence of this.”

He refers to the Northern Ireland Life and Times survey, which is taken every year. Since 2008 it has showed a majority of Catholics favour remaining within the United Kingdom – a truly monumental development in a province where ‘Catholic’ and ‘nationalist’ have been used interchangeably for generations.

The partnership also appears to benefit the UUP, despite the position of their current leader.

Mr Armstrong also stresses that the Conservatives remain hopeful that the alliance with the UUP can be revived. When asked about the party’s plans going forward, he writes:

“Our joint Chairman, with support of the Prime Minister, the Party Board and I, has made a broad and generous offer to the UUP. The offer is to set up a new party under the auspices of the Conservative Party, if the UUP and local Conservatives disband. We still await a final response from the UUP by Christmas and we will announce our plans for the future in the New Year once that has been received.”

This might come to something, despite the reluctance of the new UUP leadership. Several former members of the UUP have publicly supported Lord Feldman’s push for a merger.

As Ian Parsley points out: “For all the problems, I would note that 102,000 people voted UCUNF in the 17 constituencies in which there were candidates, while the UUP received just 78,000 first-preference votes in the same 17 constituencies a year later.

“It is my view that maintaining the relationship and correcting some of the above issues would have been beneficial to both parties.”

Conclusion

The Conservative and Unionist Party has a long and chequered history with Ireland. Yet despite the near-death of one of their strongest leaders, the assassination of two popular MPs and the killing and maiming of other party members in acts of republican terrorism, the Tory commitment to the Union remains undiminished.

This commitment is reflected in the tenacity of their attempts to get into Northern Ireland. Despite the potential for scandal and the lack of electoral success, the local Conservatives remain doggedly loyal and under David Cameron the national party leadership is backing them up.

The reasons for this commitment are rooted in the history of the party as much as any up-to-date political calculations. It is hard to tell whether or not this latest move by the Conservatives to woo the UUP will be any more successful than the last. With the DUP – formerly the bastion of ultra-Protestantism – planning to appeal to Catholic voters, the anti-sectarian pro-Union niche the party plans to occupy may disappear.

One thing seems certain, however. Whether this latest plan works or not, the Northern Irish Conservatives aren’t giving up.

Continue reading »]]> This is a piece from “St Etienne” who is normally to be found blogging here.

The first drips of social unrest are permeating through Italy and Greece. Merkel is fighting the crosscurrents of Eurozone leadership and Germany domestic leadership. The French are being well, French. And everyone it seems is wanting a different version of the 9th December ‘agreement’ in Brussels.

This treaty, yet to be ratified by state parliaments anyway, is political gloss applied over the cracks of the EZ experiment. And we’ve seen it all before. This is the fifth agreement to end all agreements. A few days after the summit with bond markets resuming their declines, Merkel said ‘there were no easy solutions’. She said that back in October after the fourth agreement – remember the one that promised a €1bn leveraged EFSF to bailout insolvent governments? We didn’t get anywhere near that leverage – a meeting of EU finance ministers at the end of November agreed to a fraction of that if at all. Another €200bn was pledged by EU central banks this time round.

Each time those whose primary task is to stay in domestic power create a frenzy hailing a measure here and resolution there, how wonderful it is that all of the Eurozone has at last come together, that this time will be different. Then they head home and the disagreements & recriminations begin. Watered down, delayed and ultimately out of date proposals eventually get implemented months later, and by that time the market has hammered out new losses for the politicians to deal with. They blamed speculators to begin with, then discovered the holders of the derivatives were their own banks protecting their money with hedges. Then they blamed the ratings agencies, for doing nothing other than what is in their job description.

This is political dysfunction.

Devolved administrations would be best remaining contrite, rather than blame Westminster for all their ills. All 3 UK regional structures are illiquid. If ourselves and Wales had exited the UK say at the dawn of the EU we would likely be as insolvent as the Southern European states today. That is a big wake up call. Or rather it should be. But Edinburgh especially is busying itself with talk of further isolation from the UK – turning 3rd level education policy on it’s head (& shamefully discriminating against others into the bargain), the first minister talking up joining the Euro (think Last King of Scotland type madness but actually in Scotland). While at Stormont too we have failed to grasp the fallacy of breaking away from the unified fiscal authority and are pushing for tax changing powers. This is bad policy in action – divergent, competing interests is precisely the opposite of what the Eurozone needs to fix their predicament. Why would we want it here?

Don’t get me wrong I’m all for lowering corporation tax – throughout the UK. Tax is simply not an NI-specific issue. Productivity is. But that means horrible non-populist measures such as pension reform in an aging population, cracking down on sick leave abusers, management reform in several large state organisations and so forth. Changing attitudes is the real nub of the problem in NI but our political structures encourage politicians to ignore it rather than to face up to difficult realities.

And so in our festering regional mess we apply a peculiarly backwards logic – more devolution! more power to the people! – when it has been shown that the drug of populism has only condemned the Eurozone to a fate that will take many years to unwind itself fully. The UK is a single market with fiscal union free of charge – why destroy what everyone else is attempting to achieve?