The Other View

Ulster Unionism
A Republician Perspective

By Tommy McKearney

In a region that is alleged to have once created the question whether a visitor from the Middle East was a catholic or protestant Jew, it is hardly surprising that we can be somewhat ambivalent as to the meaning of political terminology. We have people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a here-after yet are deemed to be catholic because of where they were educated. Simultaneously, we have now created the category of political protestant in order to identify a viewpoint that is often unaware of Calvin, Knox or Luther while claiming allegiance to the Reformation via support for a collection of uniquely Northern Irish prejudices.

In such an environment, political labels such as republican, nationalist, unionist or loyalist are frequently adopted more to identify ones tribe than as a result of deep and rational political analysis. This is not to say that there are not many articulate and thoughtful people who adhere to these differing and divergent philosophies. It does mean, however, that there is in some quarters a degree of confusion as to the exact nature of political philosophies.
Many republicans, for example, confuse what should at heart be a democratic doctrine with blind support for Irish nationalism. No body should be amazed, therefore, when unionism fails to distinguish between the two and more often than not views Irish republicanism as an armed and dangerous manifestation of Irish nationalism.

By a similar token Unionism often fails to make a clear and coherent rationalisation of its fundamental tenets. It is often difficult to tell whether advocates of the union do so from a position of clear headed conviction of the social, political, economic and perhaps cultural benefits of a constitutional connection between Great Britain and Northern Ireland or whether they do so from a position of Protestant Ulster Nationalism or even from a nihilistic sense of alienation and despair that views the Union as the best means of maintaining their contagion-free isolation.

Unionism is not of itself a political philosophy anymore than federalism or con-federalism is. Unionism in a Northern Irish context (or any other context) must surely depend on the merits of what the Union unites one with. Marriage, for example is a fine institution, but it really does depend for its success on the partner one marries. By the same token Unionism is greatly dependent on the merits or otherwise of the partner to the arrangement.
This indicates very clearly that the strength or weakness of Ulster Unionism is very much linked to the health and vibrancy of the political system in Great Britain. Moreover, this means that the fortunes of Ulster Unionism is inextricably linked to its ability - in reality, its inability - to impact upon affairs in Westminster.

Conditions are constantly changing and certain matters that were taken for granted a century back are no longer of quite such importance now. The all powerful British economy of the 19th century, relying on as it did on heavy industry, is now almost as much a part of history as the British Empire. To a similar extent the heavy industries of Belfast and the Lagan Valley, resting on shipbuilding and natural fabric manufacturing, are also gone for good. The symbiotic economic relationship between the two is also no more.
It has never been the case that the relationship between the Unionist people of Northern Ireland and those of Great Britain depended simply on mutually beneficial economic relations. Ties of history and culture go much deeper than mere finance. Nevertheless, advocates and defenders of the Union must now do so on a different terrain to that of the Covenanters of 1912.

Deprived of much of its traditional economic infrastructure in the fields of heavy industry, fabric manufacturing and agriculture, Northern Ireland's prosperity is now dependent on not just the generosity of the British Welfare system but also on Britain's economic relations with the rest of Europe and indeed the world. In the past it was commonplace to contrast the munificence of Britain's Welfare State to the poverty of social welfare provision in Southern Ireland. Furthermore, it was routine practice in Northern Ireland to look pityingly at the wretched state of the Southern Irish economy. Nowadays, however, and in spite of the current economic downturn south of the border, the standard of living in the Republic is at least on a par if not better than that experienced in the North.
While this latter point may allow Republicans to score points off unionism, it can only be of secondary concern to progressive unionists. The real difficulty facing them is how to cope with an economic system designed and geared to meet with the desires of Southern English entrepreneurs and the needs of British capital in a global economy. What best suits the City of London does not always match the best interests of Northern Ireland.

A strong but isolated sterling may profit the stock brokers in England but can do enormous damage to commerce in Belfast. The indifference to agriculture displayed by the ultra urban British MP's in Westminster has a calamitous impact on the farmers of County Down and Tyrone. Worst of all perhaps, London's commitment to a particular style of free market economics prevents an alternative economic model to be created in Northern Ireland.
There is an other factor, altogether apart from economics that can well bedevil any relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. This is British foreign policy. Whether a majority of people in this part of the United Kingdom has always endorsed the activities of the British Empire in the past is a moot point. Whether a majority of people will now feel content to endorse a policy that is more often set in Washington than in Whitehall is an even more contentious issue and one that will surely ask searching questions of defenders of the Union.
Whether Northern Irish Unionists can modernise their programme is a question only they can answer. How they address the issues of London centred economics and a Washington led foreign policy, will pose questions that unionism shall be obliged to answer if it is to retain credibility.

Back to Contents