How loyal are loyalists?

Like, I suspect, 99% of others who live on the largest of the British Islands, I don't understand the politics of Northern Ireland.

I can sort of understand the nationalist position. They want Ireland to be independent in the same way as the English Democrats, Mebyon Kernow, Plaid Cymru and the SNP want their parts of these islands to be independent or less dependent on each other.

There are those who propose and oppose nationalism in England, Scotland Cornwall and Wales but we tend to accept each other's views as legitimate ones to hold even in our most vehement of arguments. The vast majority of people in mainland Britain probably couldn't give a toss about the Independence / Union argument.

I don't know if my local county hall flies the Union Flag permanently, or if it flies it only on flag days or if it doesn't fly it at all, whatever it isn't a big deal to me and it won't be a big deal to most of us who live on the larger island. Even if it was a big deal we might send letters to the editor of the local rag, complain to our MP, we may even raise a petition. We wouldn't riot!

If anybody started a riot in Llandudno because the Union Flag was absent from the Town Hall the local Lore and Order Tory Brits would be the first to condemn the rioters and would insist that they were dealt with by the utmost severity of the law.

That is basically why I don't understand the politics of the north of Ireland, the loyalists don't seem very loyal to what the local Brits tell me are British values. And the local Brits tend to see the likes of Ian Paisley and his loyalist ilk as "Irish Scum" rather than a True Brits.

How can you be "loyalist" to Britain if the rest of Britain abhors and rejects your interpretation of loyalty?

Three Wrongs Don't Make a Right!

Whataboutery is a word coined by Cardinal Cahal Daly to describe what he thought was the commonest form of moral evasion in Ireland today.

Whataboutaery is a way of justifying one atrocity by comparing it to another worse atrocity (in the perception of the claimant), committed by the other side.

You ate my favourite biscuit,

So! What about you pinching my cream cake last week?

How dare you mention that! What about you using MY last teabag the week before

etc, etc.

Typically the publication of the Saville Enquiry Today has produced swathes of whataboutary reactions; this one by General Sir Michael Rose in the Mail is just one sordid example. This one from Lord Tebbit is another. The comments that follow the articles are an even worse example of whataboutary, with those who welcome the enquiry's report branded as traitors to Britain and apologists for the IRA and those who oppose it are branded as supporters of state sponsored terrorism by the loyalist paramilitaries and the British Government!

I think that PM David Cameron has been bold and brave in accepting the enquiry's conclusion and apologising on behalf of the British Government for what was an unjustified and unjustifiable action.

What both wings of the IRA and what the INLA did during the troubles was also unjustified and unjustifiable.

What the UVF and other loyalist paramilitary groups did during the troubles was unjustified and unjustifiable.

Whatabout some of those organizations' leaders and supporters following Cameron's lead in accepting that what they did was unjustified and unjustifiable rather than continuing with the moral evasion of whataboutism as their reaction to the enquiry?

Accepting that there was wrong on all three sides is the only way of bringing peace and reconciliation to the north of Ireland. Cameron has given a lead for the British Government's side, have the other two sides got the whatabout it takes to follow that lead?


Others on this subject:
Blog Menai; Iain Dale; Matt Wardman; RandomPottins; Ceder Lounge and many others

NI Conundrum

I have never quite understood the politics of the north of Ireland.

I am an unashamed Protestant in my religious beliefs. I can understand the "Home Rule is Rome Rule" worries of Unionists. There is no way that I could live in the Irish Republic where all democratic decisions appear to be subject to the Pope's veto.

On the other hand I am also a (Welsh) nationalist and I have 100% sympathy with Irish nationalists who campaign for Irish Independence in the same way that I campaign for Welsh Independence.

As a protestant nationalist I don't know who the good guys are in NI politics, so I tend to ignore the thorny subject.

However there is one issue that has been raised on the Pint of Unionist Lite blog that has left me gobsmacked.

I had always respected the integrity of Sinn Fein MP's for refusing to take their seats in the British parliament. It is not a position that I agree with, but one which I can respect.

But I am told in the comments section of the Pint that despite the fact that SF MP's don't attend Westminster, they still claim the London home allowance!

You can call me stupid, but I don't understand the principal of refusing to sit in a British Parliament, whilst taking money for sleeping in a British parliamentary expenses bed!

To add to the fun, in her review of the way that parliamentary expenses are paid, Harriet Harman is considering having different rules for Northern Irish MP who don't attend the House of Commons!

Whilst the MPs for Land's End and John o'Groats will have to justify expenses for living in London, and will lose out if their far flung constituency duties mean that their actual attendances in London are limited, SF MP's will get a non attendance allowance.

Despite the sympathy I have with the Irish national cause I have to say that this is wrong, very wrong!

Salmond, Paisley, Adams - but not Jones

One of the problems about devolution, raised across the political spectrum, is that many in the centre have treated Devolution as an event. It concerned Whitehall in 1979 when it was happening, but now it is long forgotten. Ministers and their mandarins make decisions without any consideration given to the existence of the devolved bodies.

The media is much the same. When health, education or cultural announcements are made by the ministers responsible for these issues in England they are reported as "British news", without the qualifier that they are purely English announcements. The Welsh media fairs no better than the London media in this respect. Sunday's Waterfront, for example, included a discussion about re-introducing museum charges, despite the fact that this is a devolved matter and not a matter of debate in Wales.

One of the reasons for this has been that the functions of the Northern Ireland Assembly have been has been administered by a Labour minister and the Scottish and Welsh First Ministers have been Labour representatives. Agreements that have been made have been made through informal party mechanisms, rather than through formal inter governmental mechanisms. When Labour Ministers have made a cock-up in announcing changes in Wales and Scotland before consultation, we have seen the farce of Welsh and Scottish ministers announcing, after the fact, that that is what they would have done anyway, in order to save the face of a party colleague.

With Ian Paisley in charge in Northern Ireland and Alex Salmond in charge in Scotland, this state of affairs cannot continue with respect to those two countries. To this end the First Ministers of Scotland and Northern Ireland had an historic meeting yesterday to discuss ways of insuring that their responsibilities are no longer ignored by Westminster and means of joining together to lobby Whitehall on reserved issues.

One of the arguments put forward by the Red-Green supporters in Plaid is that only Labour can deliver a referendum on extra powers for the National Assembly. They see these extra powers as an essential part of improving the devolution settlement and as a major step in the process of nation building. However Scotland has enjoyed many more powers than can be obtained through the Government of Wales Act referendum for eight years, but yet Scotland has been ignored.

Having a non Labour First Minister who can join in a tripartite alliance with his Scottish and Northern Irish counterpart to ensure that the present settlement is given full heed in Westminster might do a lot more for strengthening the settlement and nation building than would gaining extra powers that are ignored.

Allowing Ieuan Wyn Jones to join forces with Salmond, Paisley and Adams could be of far greater constitutional significance for Wales than Jones joining forces with Numpti Morgan and seeing Wales sidelined again by the Labour old pals act.