The Other View

Unionist Alienation

By Tommy McKearney

There is something oddly incongruous about the concept of unionists alienation from or within Northern Ireland. This political entity was created after-all to accommodate northern Irish unionism. It was done moreover, against the wishes of a substantial majority of people on the island of Ireland and maybe more crucially, against the wishes of a significant minority within the six-county territory itself. On the surface, this phenomenon is as difficult to grasp as if the Windsors were to feel unwelcome in Buckingham Palace. Yet without doubt, many unionists - indeed large unionist communities in some cases - no longer feel as comfortable as they once did within the political structures that they helped create.
It is not always easy, from a non-unionist perspective, to understand what lies at the heart of this mood of frustration or despair. The Good Friday Agreement has led to an end (breaches apart and then mostly directed against nationalists and republicans) to the Provisional IRA campaign, an Ireland-wide referendum accepting the status of Northern Ireland within the UK and widespread participation by Sinn Fein and the SDLP in the administration of the northern state. In addition, the governments of Britain, Ireland and the USA have all endorsed this Agreement guaranteeing the permanence of the union for so long as a majority in Northern Ireland wish to retain the connection.
Had James Craig been offered this deal during the days when a boundary commission was pondering the location of the border, he would have been a happy man. Had Basil Brooke known of such an arrangement when Churchill contemplated swapping Belfast for access to southern Irish ports during World War II, the Fermanagh aristocrat would have accepted it greedily. What has happened subsequently to unnerve unionists?
For a start, it is important to say that not all unionists are so deeply worried. It is obvious that David Trimble and his supporters are very supportive of current political arrangements. They recognise too the significance of the Sinn Fein leader¹s confirmation in New York that he and his party now accept what in other days was described as a unionist veto over the constitutional future of Northern Ireland. Nor has the import of Gerry Adam¹s statement been lost on the loyalist political community. The ever-astute David Ervine of the PUP was one of the first to point out the importance of the Waldorf Astoria declaration.
Away from the high ground of electoral office there are signs too that a substantial number – majority indeed – of unionists are content to ³bank their earnings² and enjoy their new found security. It is difficult to present water tight evidence but it is reasonable to say that there is clearly a more relaxed outlook among many unionist communities (especially west of the Bann) than has been noticeable for many years.
Nevertheless, it is all too apparent that some unionists do not share this sense of optimism or even relief. The death of two loyalist teenagers in premature explosions illustrates the intensity of emotion among a section of a unionist generation. In a strange way it illustrates this even more starkly than does the deaths of those killed by these young men¹s colleagues.
There is a well-argued case that some of this anger stems from the insensitive triumphalism of certain people on the nationalist/republican side. Coupled with actual assaults by nationalists on individuals from within the unionist community, the dangerous passion of these youthful militants is to an extent understandable.
It would be silly to deny the existence of provocation and injury. Yet it is also important that the issue be put in perspective. In most normal societies, loutish, boorish or even hooligan behaviour does not drive whole communities into paroxysms of rage. Nor does it lead otherwise level headed people into self-destructive not to mention self-defeating campaigns of retaliation.
Another or perhaps additional explanation being proffered is that a section of the unionist people view much of the current legislation as benefiting only one side (i.e. republicans and nationalists) in Northern Ireland. To seek an explanation in terms of biased legislation is more difficult to understand as even many loyalist leaders have pointed out that the current process is not inimical to unionist policy or design.

Some, of course, will look for a self-servicing rationale in the so-called inherent nature of Ulster unionism, claiming that there is a form of almost congenital bigotry within that community. Peddlers of this smug but frankly sectarian line ignore two very basic facts. They overlook the history of the region and fail to take account of the underlying socio-economic factors at work in this area.
For many years unscrupulous elements told unionist rank and file that they were a chosen people who could rely on the power of the London government (rather than a compromise brokered among neighbours) to settle local disputes. Objectively speaking, working-class unionists may not have been much more prosperous than nationalists but as the old saying goes Œ...tuppence will always look down on threehappenceä¹
When this old, lingering feeling of Œwhat used to be¹ is mixed into the current, harsh economic reality in large parts of Northern Ireland, it is not surprising that there is a deep and dangerous frustration among many unionists. No one should underestimate the plummeting of self-esteem among a community that has long prided itself in its Œhard-grafting¹ protestant work ethic. A somewhat similar frustration is evident among many of their contemporaries in other areas of industrial decline right across Europe and North America. The difference here is that it manifests itself in our locally produced regalia.
Honest people should have no difficulty recognising the predicament of the less well-off unionist communities nor should there be any refusal to understand their fears and frustrations. The real problem is to persuade them that the solution to their plight lies in a very different option to anything they are currently used to considering. There will be no return to the ancien regime and it is pointless hankering after it. Moreover, the socio-economic politics of the New World Order, as ordained by London, is surely incapable of delivering any of us from our troubles and it is imperative that we opt for a very different model.
The most realistic means of doing this is by breaking free from the constraints imposed by London. Paradoxical as it may seem to many supporters of their cause, Ulster unionism¹s best chance of preserving its identity may lie in breaking the Union. To do so in circumstances favourable to themselves requires much thought and courage.

Back to Contents