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?

Continue reading »]]> Continuing OU’s occasional series on the various unionist youth movements in Northern Ireland, we present the Northern Ireland regional branch of Conservative Future.

Northern Ireland Conservative Future (NICF) is the organisation for those under the age of 30, and those in institutions of higher/further education, who are members of the Northern Ireland Conservative Party. NICF is the regional body of the national, UK wide Conservative Future organisation.

Currently, NICF is led in Northern Ireland by Matthew Robinson as Regional Chairman, and a six member regional executive including three Area Chairs – Greater Belfast & Antrim (Alex Huston), Londonderry, the South and the West (Conal O’Hare) and Down (Simon Warren). At a more local level, NICF at present has two active branches in NI, one at Queen’s University, Belfast and another based in North Down.

The goals and purposes of Northern Ireland Conservative Future are the same as those of CF organisations elsewhere in the UK. The CF constitution lists 6 in particular. These are:‘To advance the principles and policies of the [Conservative and Unionist] Party’ amongst our membership; to actively recruit new members into the Party; sharing particular CF expertise and experiences with the wider Party; representation of the interests of the membership and to promote their profiles; encouraging members to help form new branches, or to get involved in the running of existing branches; to work for the election of Conservative candidates in all elections.

Of course, NICF is keen to help members socialise and to ease introductions to others within the wider Party, and so organises and runs social events for CF members which are frequently attended by members of the senior party and interested guests.

We have been eager to pursue working relationships with other political youth groups within Northern Ireland, and in particular to provide a forum for centre-right political discussion and debate. In turn, members attend events run by the Conservative Party or other groups in order to represent the views and aims of Conservative Future.

Since early 2011, NICF has been working hard to restructure itself after a time of comparative dormancy, and to match the increased presence of the Party in Northern Ireland by developing our own. Recruitment has been a major focus of the organisation, which paid off at the QUB Freshers’ Bazaar on 28th September 2011, where CF members recruited 66 students into Conservative Future.

NICF has sought to build on that success by hosting events for members in the NI Conservative Party Headquarters in Bangor, and in Queen’s University, aimed at facilitating introductions, and encouraging activity.

With the launch of the organisation’s own website at www.nicf.co as well as an active Twitter feed @NIrelandCF and increasing use of other social media, NICF hopes to continue to build a presence in youth politics in Northern Ireland.

Simon Warren is currently Conservative Future Area Chairman for Down, and also serves as Secretary of the North Down Conservative Association. He lives in Bangor, where he campaigned for the Conservative Party at the 2010 General, and 2011 Local elections.

Continue reading »]]> Yesterday I provided evidence of how Irish Republicans are using words and language to, well, basically rewrite history. Today I’ll give you two more contemporary examples of the importance of words and language in modern political discourse and why pro-Union activists should pay more attention to their effect.

Imagine you are a Scot who is not politically committed and try to gauge your reaction (be it direct or subliminal) when reading the following:

1. a) “X/Y/Z is a British Unionist” or
b) “X/Y/Z is pro-Union”

2. a) “Alex Salmond is a pro-independence social democrat” or
b) “Alex Salmond is a nationalist separatist”

Remember, you are not politically committed, someone who has no firm opinion on the future constitutional status of Scotland.

If we want to present our argument in the most positive language possible, then I believe in both cases we should be using the latter definitions.

It is more than likely “X/Y/Z” is proud, as I am, to be a “British Unionist” but the effect on the neutral is more important and to be “pro” anything is almost always perceived as a positive (e.g. “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in the abortion debate) and if you are pro-Union then surely automatically you would also consider yourself “British” at least to some degree? By including “British” in the title however, you may (albeit perhaps only indirectly or subliminally) put off those people who would value the Scottish element of their identity higher that their British part. It may seem rather counter-intuitive but if those people still vote for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom, then really… who cares?

Similarly with Salmond. The term “pro-independence social democrat” conjures up a cosy, civic, Scandinavian type picture.

“Nationalist”? Well, in most political circles in the developed world, that would be a term of abuse to describe the loony far-right.
And if I say “separatist” what’s the first image coming to mind?
The Tamil Tigers? ETA? Chechnyan rebels?

Of course, Salmond has never murdered his opponents on account of their religion or national identity but as he believes in Scotland separating from the rest of the United Kingdom, then it’s not stretching the truth to describe him as a “separatist” is it?

In both cases, we are not telling lies, we are merely crafting the image in a potential supporter’s mind and in the fight (Struggle? Battle? War?) to preserve (Save? Develop? Improve?) our nation, word and language should be an integral part of our armoury.

*If you check the comments from yesterday’s post and also the discussion page of the Kingsmills Massacre, you will see that an attempt to include the victims’ names has once again been thwarted.

However, I’m pleased to report that there has been a positive development with this specific case.
The question of the selective naming or not of victims will now become a more centralised discussion on all affected articles in an attempt to reach a “general consensus” (i.e. not one directly solely by Republicans) on the matter. Sometimes persistence does pay off!

Continue reading »]]> Recently Chris Tribble pondered on what we should call those who have heroically introduced the Arab Spring this year- Rebels? Protesters? Campaigners? Fighters? Guerrillas? Insurgents? Dissidents? Revolutionaries? Maybe even, depending on whom you ask, terrorists?

Does it matter how we describe them? Yes, it does. How language is employed is important in determining not just how history is recorded and interpreted but also in how we may influence the present and future- there’s a mighty difference between defining someone as an ex-”volunteer” and a “terrorist”; between describing a party as “separatist, nationalist” and as “pro-independence, social democratic”. Words and language most definitely do matter in the creation of a political and historical narrative.

As an example, check out these two Wikipedia entries- this for the Kingsmill Massacre, this for the Loughinisland atrocity. Check how differently the context is dealt with. In the latter, the attack itself rightly takes prominence whilst in the former, it’s almost added as an afterthought. But more importantly, where are the names of the victims in the two cases? You could study the Kingsmills entry all night and you would be still none the wiser, in contrast the six victims of the Loughinisland shooting are (again rightly) recorded. The Loughinisland/Kingsmills juxtaposition is not an exception.

Compare Ballymurphy with Enniskillen. Only one event qualifies as a “massacre” apparently, in only one case again are we given what you would think were the historically important details of the victims’ names. Compare Bloody Sunday with the Birmingham Bombings; Milltown “Massacre” with the La Mon “restaurant bombing” and a clear pattern emerges, one which has been crafted by Republican activists who recognise the importance of moulding history to their way of thinking. This is a quote which one of their Wiki-Warriors lists on his own page:

Impartiality in Irish history writing has meant in every case a non-acceptance of the historic Irish Nation, and the result has been a political pamphlet rather than a history

Patrick Sarsfield O’Hegarty

In other words, “impartiality” must be sacrificed in the interests of the greater Irish “national good” and if that means the dehumanisation (and in some cases, even demonisation) of the victims of the Republican terror gangs, then so be it.

Of course, the value of Wikipedia as a resource tool can be argued and of course we can complain about the morality of a movement, which not only slaughtered innocents but also now attempts to whitewash their memory from history. For the purpose of this article, both debates are beside the point. If someone not au-fait with the event, googles in “Kingsmills” the wikipedia article is the first one up on the list and in that article the crime of murdering ten men solely because of their religion has been “contextualised” and ultimately trivialised for the purposes of political expediency by Republican activists*.

The point is that in this case “reality” can and is being created and this “reality” is coming from the mouths and keyboards of extremely ruthless, politically motivated and amoral users of the medium. They are proving words and language matter in the creation of a political and historical narrative and if not challenged, that will be the narrative posterity will regard as “the historical truth”.

Tomorrow in the second part of this article, I’ll expand on why pro-Union activists need to be aware of the wider Nomenclature Wars now taking place in our United Kingdom