The Other View

John Reid speaks to the unionists

 By Gordon Lucy

Dr John Reid's thoughtful, wide-ranging and well-crafted address to the Institute of Irish Studies, University of Liverpool, on 21 November may prove to have been the most significant speech delivered by a Secretary of State since Sir Patrick Mayhew's Coleraine speech almost a decade ago.
Speaking recently about reactions to himself in Northern Ireland, Dr Reid came up with a perhaps unfortunate joke:
When they got hit with a wee, fat, balding, working-class communist, Celtic-supporting British Unionist they take a wee bit of time to figure it out.
Unhappily for Dr Reid, local people do not take long to figure these things out. Dr Reid is clearly a Unionist in a Scottish context. For many Unionists and Protestants the inference was clear and it contributes to Unionist and Protestant unease.
Dr Reid is clearly exasperated by the preoccupation of many Unionists and Protestants with flags and symbols. However, when communities feel their identity is being threatened they inevitably turn and cling tenaciously to these things. This phenomenon was very evident in the USA after the events of 11 September. Americans chose to affirm their identity with a great out pouring of popular patriotism, manifest in the purchase and widespread display of 'Old Glory'.
Whether we like it or not many Unionists and Protestants view the loss of the name RUC, its badge and its traditions and the stripping away of British symbolism from the courts as part of the process of 'hollowing out Ulster's Britishness', a phrase erroneously attributed to Dr Martin Mansergh immediately after the Belfast Agreement was negotiated.
Politics need not be a zero-sum game, as Dr Reid acknowledges, but if the symbols of Britishness are being systematically removed can ordinary Unionists and Protestants be faulted for thinking so?
The problem is not solely about Symbolism. Much of the unrest within Unionist and Protestant communities is attributable to a growing and widespread belief that the Agreement which they as pro-Agreement Unionists voted for on 22 May 1998 is not the agreement which is currently being implemented. Indeed, when they hear repeated calls for the Agreement to be implemented in full they no longer know what this means. For them, 'a new beginning for policing' did not most emphatically mean the abolition of the RUC. An article in the Daily Telegraph in August by Kate Hoey MP, a parliamentary and party colleague of Dr Reid, has a particular resonance for such people in the Unionist and Protestant community.
We (the Labour Government) claim to be tough on crime but we demoralise the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the behest of the paramilitaries. Would we dream of making the Metropolitan police accommodate the Yardies?
Dr Reid recognises that the mood of the Nationalist and Roman Catholic community is buoyant while the mood of the Protestant and Unionist community is not so much on the ground but below ground level. This situation is a major obstacle to the development and nurture of good community relations and political stability. Ways and means must be found of raising the morale of the Unionist and Protestant community.
There are major differences in the character of the Unionist and Nationalist communities.
The implications of these differences need to be fully appreciated. The Nationalist and Roman Catholic community in religious terms may be viewed as virtually monolithic (and I accept that some of my Roman Catholic friends would demur at this) and in political terms is represented, to all intents and purposes, by two political parties. By comparison, the Unionist and Protestant community is fragmented. Politically, Unionists are currently represented by seven Unionist parties. While there are three main Protestant denominations ( terminology which causes offense to many of the smaller Protestant denominations ), there are probably in excess of thirty different denominations, admittedly some of them very small. While many, and I share this view, regard this diversity as a source of strength, others regard it as weakness and clearly in some contexts it is. One obvious area is where this weakness is apparent is in terms of community infrastructure. Because of the comparatively monolithic nature of the Nationalist and Roman Catholic community it is much easier to create infrastructure in that community than it is in the fragmented Unionist and Protestant community. In the Roman Catholic community the parish is the natural unit. There is no comparable unit in the Protestant community.

A corollary of this is that even if the same level of funding was poured into Unionist and Protestant communities as into Roman Catholic and Nationalist communities, Nationalist and Roman Catholic communities would fare better out of the arrangement because of the existence of a maximising community benefit. In Unionist and Protestant communities the money would be spent piece meal and not according to any overall or strategic plan. Urgent attention needs to be given to the creation of infrastructure in Unionist and Protestant communities.
Because the two communities are not mirror images of one another some Protestant and Unionist communities frequently encounter an inability on the part of funders to understand even where they are coming from. There is a general failure to comprehend the complexity and diversity of Unionist and Protestant communities.
New approaches have to be devised to assist Unionist and Protestant communities. New mechanisms have to be created to compensate for poor infrastructure. Measures allowing for 'catch up' need to be put in place. There has to be support for those who are already engaged in this work but with inadequate resources.
Dr Reid's pride in being British is to be applauded but there is nothing particularly novel in his views on Britishness. In Cool Britannia the Ulster Society engaged in an exploration of Britishness and British identity. Britishness allows for multiple, overlapping and concentric identities. The United Kingdom is a genuinely plural, multi-national, multi-cultural state capable of accommodating diversity and difference. The British State accommodates two distinct systems of law, three of education, two established churches, different languages and many different traditions.
More than a century ago the liberal Catholic historian Lord Acton justly contended that human welfare was best served in a plural and multi-national state, a view to which the great Canadian statesman Pierre Trudeau passionately subscribed in more recent times. And history and experience suggest that plural societies are invariably more successful societies. They are also much more interesting societies in which to live. Intelligent people recognise the inevitability and the value of diversity. Society, like cloth is more attractive when woven from different strands. Plural societies are happier societies. People should welcome, enjoy and celebrate diversity.
In other publications such as The Twelfth: What it means to me and Remembrance the Society has explored other aspects of cultural identity. With greater resources the Ulster Society could make a greater contribution to these debates.
Dr Reid is right in his belief that 'historical consciousness is an advantage rather than a burden for any politician charged with helping to secure a better future for Northern Ireland'.
But ordinary people have to have their history made available to them too. This too is an important aspect of the Ulster Society's work. In the past the educational system failed people in Unionist and Protestant communities by failing to teach them the history of their communities. In an article entitled 'Why Holocaust Day is important for everyone in Britain today' (The Times, 27 January 2001) Jonathan Sacks, the chief Rabbi, explained the importance of history:
Civilisation lives by memory. What we forget, we can repeat. What we remember we can guard against. Only by handing on to our children what we have learnt, often at great cost, have we the chance of turning history into a narrative of hope instead of an endless cycle of hatred and bloodshed.
An editorial in Scotland on Sunday (5 September 1999) provided the other great argument for the study of history. History matters. It provides a sense of self, continuity with the past that places the present in its proper context and helps to knock the rough edges off the uncertainties of the future. We can only truly appreciate where we are going if we are aware of where we have come from.
Dr Reid's speech is a very welcome contribution to debate. While Dr Reid is to be congratulated for recognising and articulating the serious problems which exist, this can only be a first step. The real challenge ahead, not least for Dr Reid and his colleagues, is to formulate policies and shape initiatives to address these issues.

Back to Contents