Thoughts on Unionist Identity

Deviating from strictly European topics, this will be a post with a few musings on Unionist identity based on a few things I have read, since Josef has asked me to after my last blog on Northern Ireland.

Given that I still have a lot of reading and work to do on the subject (1880-1925), and the fact that it doesn't really fit on to my course (it was sort of tacked on: we haven't done much on identity or on politics in Ireland pre-1920s) this is very much a work in progress, and if you see were I've gone horribly wrong, don't be afraid to say.

Unionism has changed as a political force and an identity over time:

- 19th Century unionism: the Union was the best way to improve Ireland. The focus was mainly on the material and cultural benefits rather than on a separate identity, though there was an emerging "Ulster" or a Protestant identity, it wasn't as developed as it is today.
- 20th Century: as unionism developed its identity and thought, its argument changed to that of bad London government was preferable to good Dublin government. If government was to be determined by sentiment, then the growing unionist identity wanted to be governed from London.

Unionism was a status quo political position, so before 1885 there was no separate unionist political force at Westminster. However, a number of changes before 1885 created political pressure for unionism to be represented more separately, just as nationalism was in the Irish Parliamentary Party. Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland (1869), the National League, Land League, Ballot Act 1872 (weakened landlords' influence over their tenants' votes). Though it should be noted that economics could play a bigger part than Protestant identity at the time - an agricultural depression led to many Protestants in what is now NI joining the Land League, despite it being seen as a nationalist movement, and despite a campaign of counter-demonstrations by the Orange Order starting in November 1880 (unrest only ended by the Land Act 1880).

A unionist group developed in Westminster when the Irish Tories felt that the Conservative leadership was sacrificing its interests for in its dealings with the Liberals over the Redistribution Bill (which could weaken the Irish Tory and Liberal Unionist position in Ireland through franchise reform and electoral boundary revision). An alliance with local Liberal Unionists, though weak at first, strengthened its position. (Parnell's IPP had grown to the extent it was wiping out the Liberal party in Ireland).

This would be an electoral division between unionism and the rest of the UK, which one strand of unionism wanted to reverse under direct rule (and was unsuccessful).

Though the Home Rule Crises of 1886 and 1893 lead to the formation of several unionist groups, these generally didn't last long or have a big enough following to be rivals to the Orange Order or the Irish Unionist Alliance (unionists in Parliament). Though the Orange Order was far from having universal Protestant membership, it did shape a unionist identity - with Orange songs, festivals, etc. and a story of the Glorious Revolution where Ulster was a launching pad for taking back the rest of Ireland.

Unionist identity was divided, mainly between a landed (more southern) class, who favoured Anglicization yet also had an Irish-British identity (like a Scottish-British identity), and a more Ulster-based identity, which existed in the lower classes in Ulster. The Irish Tory/landed tradition had financial and political resources were allied with the numerically stronger Ulster-based group for much of the period 1880-1910, though there was a tension between the 2 identities.

It's hard to track unionist identity's development, as it mainly reacted to nationalism and worked within the political environment it found itself in (Conservative alliance, pro-Imperialist popular sentiment). Unionism's commitment to the Empire during the first 2 H.R. Crises may not have been the same as the Conservatives. 3 main unionist views of the Empire:

- Ireland's position must be maintained - at the moment it's part of a governing race, and shouldn't be reduced to colonials.
- The Empire provides the best (non-parochial) expression of Irish patriotism.
- The Empire is better than Home Rule, but Independence would be better than home rule also: based on the feeling that a British-backed Parnellite government would leave the minority with less chance to defend its interest than they would have under independence.

[I don't have much more time, so I'll just give a vague overview:]

- Mass democratisation (extension of the franchise) lead to a higher degree of politicisation of the lower classes (and increased the importance of the geographical spread/concentration of each identity, as electoral success depended increasingly on them).
- Removal of the Lord's veto in 1909 made Home Rule more likely, and increased the need for mass mobilisation. The political momentum behind nationalism at this stage and the playing of the Ulster card, led to the assertion of the Ulster unionist identity over the more pan-Ireland unionist identity - and support for partition.
- Partition and the border increased the separation both politically and identity-wise.
- The self-determination question and the concentration of unionists in the north-east meant that the Ulster-based identity laid claim to self-determination, arguing that there is no reason why the island should be a single political unit.


It's not a great post - didn't have much time to write it - and you'll [Josef] probably be more interested in more modern unionist identity (isn't UK nationalism a hard enough topic?). It's a very large and complex topic, so I clearly haven't done it justice, but hopefully that helped.

(The main book I've used is Alvin Jackson's The Ulster Party, but I'd also recommend the writings of Paul Bew and Patrick Buckland).

Hearts and Minds and Europe

There was a Euro-centred edition of Hearts and Minds on BBC 1 on Thursday (if you're in the UK you can watch it on BBC iPlayer while it's still up). Hearts and Minds is a political programme for BBC NI, and they will be interviewing the candidates for the European elections here over the next few weeks. It's on in NI at 11:45 pm on Thursdays, but you can watch it on iPlayer later (you can catch it in the Republic if you've got a good enough signal).

There were no Euro-candidates on this week; instead there was a panel of political commentators discussing the European elections in Northern Ireland. (See my general overview here). Again, the elections are not going to be very European, with the DUP turning the campaign into a "stop Sinn Féin topping the poll!" crusade (not that it matters where you come in the poll, as long as you get enough votes for a seat) and hoping to unseat their former party member and current MEP Jim Allister. Sinn Féin, on the other hand aims to up its vote (probably at the expense of the pro-Europe and PES-aligned SDLP).

And interesting detail that I missed in my last post was the question of intra-unionist transfers. I had focused on how the UUP's stance on Europe and alliance with the Tories could affect the number of transfers there may be between them and the nationalist SDLP. But the Jim Allister factor could again upset calculations here since he could attract transfers from the DUP which would have gone to the UUP's Jim Nicolson. Could the SDLP candidate slip in if the unionist vote is split? Could the race for 3rd place be more exciting than I'd previously thought?

Then there was a segment on the elections in Dublin, which is loosing a seat this election (going from four to three, as Ireland's share of seats drops from 13 to 12). Since Sinn Féin's Mary Lou McDonald just got came in 4th last time, she has to fight particularly hard to keep her seat, hoping that the government's unpopularity and the successful No campaign in the last referendum will be a boost to her. (McDonald ran in Dublin for a Dáil [national parliament] seat in the last general election but lost). De Rossa, the current Labour MEP for Dublin is set to win another term, and said that he's not hearing anyone on the doorsteps saying that the No last year was the right choice. Whether or not it actually came up that much seeing that the economy is the big issue is another story.

Particularly interesting was the final section, where Robert Ramsay - a former civil servant who knew Faulkner (last PM of NI before direct rule was imposed) and several other leading unionists - was calling for unionists to redefine themselves as a minority within Europe. At least, it's particularly interesting for me, since I have to do a presentation on Unionist identity and the legitimacy of NI (1880-1925) on Wednesday. He basically called on unionists to define themselves as an ethnic minority based on an Ulster-Scots heritage, pointing out that mainland Britain doesn't associate NI with itself in its national mental map, and that unionists will have to ensure their status, identity and interests can be defended in Europe in a way that is acceptable internationally in the 21st century. Redefined ethnically, because unionists are perceived in religious terms or other terms that wouldn't be widely acceptable or as defensible in today's world as a legitimate group identity.

He also said that British reluctance to embrace unionists and the Republic's open arms may mean that unionists will have to accept a position as a minority in Ireland in the future, so they should strengthen their position by joining a family of European minorities. (Although the Republic doesn't really want NI until it can afford it, the rhetoric of nationalism and unity may lead to reunification anyway if the majority of NI give their consent - perhaps much like the EU's rhetoric on enlargement?). Ramsay said that the Republic had seen reforms that would make it more acceptable to unionists, though it's still a way away from being a "happy house" for unionists.

I doubt that this view will gain much ground within unionism any time soon, but Ramsay's ideas are remarkably in line with those of former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald (Fine Gael), a Europhile who felt that Irish reunification would be a lot easier and acceptable for unionists within a European context - it may be impossible to accept the authority of Dublin, but to accept the authority of both Dublin and Brussels, in a community of nations that includes Britain may be possible. So it's fascinating to see largely similar ideas being articulated by someone from a more unionist sympathetic point of view. He's published a book on the subject, "Ringside Seats", which could be interesting, if you like the subject of complex identities.


[As a side note, the next few weeks will be busy for me, so my stalled series on Sovereignty, Democracy and Legitimacy isn't likely to have much added to it anytime soon. But I am still thinking about it, and hope that I get back to it eventually.]