‘Red, white and blue” unionism: An ideological nationalism of its own’ by Mark Pettigrew

 

Mark Pettigrew blogs at http://mark7694.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/irish-unity-northern-unionists-just.html

 screen-shot-2016-12-22-at-07-47-18

Irish unification and Scottish independence both ultimately involve a constitutional exit from the United Kingdom, but the northern context of Irish unity differs markedly from the Scottish question. The debate surrounding the 2014 independence referendum was no romanticised notion of Scotland the brave sending proud Edward’s army homeward tae think again, rather it was a rational scrutiny of Scotland’s constitutional future.
Alex Salmond said to Scots that they would be £1,000 richer in an independent Scotland and Danny Alexander returned  Salmond’s serve with a counter-claim that Scots were £1,400 better off sticking with the UK. These assertions weren’t just made for the craic. They were ultimately tailored to an economistic Scottish electorate. As Professor John Curtice noted, Scottish people were going to “need more than just their sense of identity to decide how they are going to vote”.

In northern Ireland, however, it is that very “sense of identity” which is an ever-present factor in relation to the constitutional question. A 2015 Behaviour & Attitudes cross-border opinion poll characterised this, as 91% of Irish-identifying participants stated their support for Irish unity in the long-term, whilst 94% of British-identifying participants wanted to remain within the union for the foreseeable future.

Sinn Féin recently published a ‘Towards a United Ireland’ discussion paper which included some unionist overtures, but it has predictably fallen on deaf ears. Similarly, a March report carried out by academics at the University of British Columbia claimed the economy of a united Ireland would grow in GDP by £25.4bn in the first 8 years after reunification, but it was equally met with unionist derision.

Critics have called out their proposals for a lack of substance, whilst others point out that Sinn Féin aren’t exactly the most unionist-friendly espousers of the united Ireland agenda. It is a struggle, however, to get all that bothered about the particular minutiae of content or about who could possibly be a better suited messenger for Irish unity, for it is all beside the point – northern unionists just don’t want to know.

Unionist outreach on a united Ireland is stifled by the very nature of northern unionism itself, as it is effectively a form of British nationalism. The binary usage of ‘nationalist’ and ‘unionist’ in northern political discourse inadvertently disguises the fact that northern unionism is an ideological nationalism of its own.Political unionism is not just simply a mere pro-union point of view, it’s a culturally-intertwined political identity.

The combined share of the vote for pan-unionist parties in northern elections from 2011 averages out at 48.7%, whilst 48.4% of northerners identified as British in the 2011 Census. It is reflective of northern unionism’s British-centric outlook that the collective vote for political unionism is practically mirrored by those who claimed a British identity. Interestingly, a larger proportion of northerners identify as British compared to the census figures in Scotland (26.7%), Wales (26.3%) and even England (29.1%). This brings us to the ironic position whereby British sentiment exists to a far greater extent in the north of Ireland than it does in the entirety of Britain.

Simon Kuper has said that “places like Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands have more symbols of Britishness than many areas in the UK, where ostentatiously displaying union jacks might be seen as old-fashioned or embarrassing”. Kuper’s analogy could be applied just as well to the UK itself when you compare northern unionists to inhabitants of the British ‘mainland’.

The 2015 B&A poll drew a telling result, in that 55% of northerners rejected Irish unification even if there was a financial incentive to support it. Notably, of those with a British identity who participated in this particular question, an overwhelming majority of them rejected it (90%). Contrast this to a 2014 Scottish Social Attitudes survey which found that if they were £500 richer, only 37% of Scots sampled would still reject independence. This highlights a key distinction between northern Irish and Scottish unionism.

Whereas George Eaton noted that Scots were motivated more so by “self-interest, not sentimentality”, northern unionists exhibit an innate emotional attachment to Britain alone, and so therefore approach the constitutional question through a prism of identity rather than a monetary lens. After all, they are loyal to the Crown, not the pound.

Opinion polling on the support for Irish unity was recently carried out by Ipsos MORI (26%) and LucidTalk (31%) in September, setting support for the union at 74% and 69% respectively. Pan-unionist parties garnered 48.2% of the vote in the 2016 Assembly election, and so there is obviously more to the pro-union coalition than simply political unionism, namely those who support the union for reasons other than flegs. It is this constituency of people (not politically unionist but constitutionally pro-union) that could possibly be persuaded of an alternative to the constitutional status quo in the form of Irish unification.

But let’s not delude ourselves about northern unionists, by and large they are just not interested. 40% of British-identifying northerners according to the 2015 B&A poll said they wanted a return to direct rule from Westminster, never mind a united Ireland.

Indeed, Nigel Dodds’ embrace of Theresa May’s plan for a “red, white and blue” Brexit is expressive of a wider “red, white and blue” unionism in the north that is ideological opposed to Irish unity per se. In light of these differing contexts, the job ahead for united Irelanders is that bit harder and all the more complex when compared to that of Scottish independence campaigners.

 

 

42 Responses to ‘Red, white and blue” unionism: An ideological nationalism of its own’ by Mark Pettigrew

  1. Am Ghobsmacht December 22, 2016 at 9:35 am #

    I agree with a great deal of the blog but I should like to point out that the report that unionists found distasteful was sponsored by ‘The Knights of the Red Branch’, Irish SF sympathisers from (funnily enough) SF (San Francisco).

    I once saw a hilarious book entitled ‘Economics for Nationalists’ conjured up by some DUP people (or supporters), it was basically a gloat-athon putting up economic arguments for NI remaining in the UK, this paper is basically a more professional mirror image of said book.

    Aside from this there’s things I agree with, for a start I regard ‘mainstream unionism’ to be ‘British nationalism’ and I touch a nerve with unionists when I suggest that being so ‘British’ makes some one less of an ‘Ulsterman’ (you can’t have it both ways).

    In fact, this gives me an idea…

    • Mark Petticrew December 22, 2016 at 1:14 pm #

      I get that the sponsors were Sinn Féin affiliates, and so therefore open to the accusation of bias, with a solution to this particular credibility problem possibly being reports devoid of any political baggage, whatever way that can be achieved. As I’ve said in the blog, however, given the intrinsic nature of northern unionism, I doubt what difference it would make.

      Take DUP MLA Gordon Lyons’ response to that particular report for example. He was quicker to say that “support for the union has never been higher” and that people “see the value of our NHS and being part of one of the world’s largest economies”, rather than deal with the actual content of the report itself. Instead of genuinely engaging in the discussion of a united Ireland’s viability, he was more interested in finding reasons to oppose it.

      On the topic of an Ulster identity, I like the idea of introducing it as an option in the 2021 Census question on national identity.

      • MT December 22, 2016 at 5:20 pm #

        “I get that the sponsors were Sinn Féin affiliates, and so therefore open to the accusation of bias”

        Not to mention the absence of any credibility for an economic study that was not subject to peer review and thus remains unpublished in any reputable journal.

        NB. When I pointed this out on a previous blog, Jude accused me of lying. He subsequently failed to state which peer-reviewed journal published this report yet didn’t have the grace wither to withdraw his accusation against me or to apologise.

  2. Sammy McNally December 22, 2016 at 10:52 am #

    I would largely agree with this analysis – which is in line with the post GFA view (paraphrased as) ‘Unionists have won but are too dull to realise it’.

    This leaves hollowing out the union from the inside – which is – despite their denials – largely the SF agenda and which is facilitated under the GFA.

  3. fiosrach December 22, 2016 at 11:23 am #

    AG, do you have the same credibility Issues with propaganda emanating from the British/Unionist stable? If SF were using IPSOS/MORI WOULD YOU BE HAPPIER?

    • Am Ghobsmacht December 22, 2016 at 12:07 pm #

      Why are you asking ME?
      I highlighted the fact that the paper that was poo-pooed by unionists was sponsored by SF sympathisers, whether I am happy or not with it is irrelevant in the context of the blog.

      For me I’ve been long convinced that NI would be better economically in a UI.

  4. fiosrach December 22, 2016 at 12:15 pm #

    Well, that’s that cleared up.

    • paddykool December 22, 2016 at 12:26 pm #

      That’s right , fiosrach …Am Ghob has always looked at the whole picture with a very clear eye….Happy seasonal greetings ,you guys by the way….and all the other pilgrims who have looked in this year. May your turkey not burn….

  5. fiosrach December 22, 2016 at 1:20 pm #

    Are you inferring, Harry, that I may have a slight bias? Nollaig Shona duitse agus do na beacha go léir.

    • paddykool December 22, 2016 at 1:50 pm #

      Not in the slightest, fiosrach..ha ha ..

  6. giordanobruno December 22, 2016 at 2:33 pm #

    Interesting stuff
    I agree it is the sense of identity that is the predominant factor in regard to the constitutional issue.
    The economic case will not sway many unionists for exactly the same reasons that an economic case would not sway many nationalists.
    Despite the accusation that unionists are more loyal to the half crown than the crown I doubt if that will prove to be the case
    Where it may make a difference is in the younger generation who are not identifying themselves in these narrow terms and may not even be active voters.
    So it is still worth making the economic case but maybe target the right audience,and avoid the silly mistake of the Canadian study which ended up looking like the shinners were trying to hide their connection to it.
    Embarrassing. Knights of the Red Branch? More like Knights of the Red Face.

  7. Ryan December 22, 2016 at 3:13 pm #

    Nothing new.

    I’ve stated before that political Unionism here in the North is entwined with Protestant fundamentalism, along with anti-Catholicism. We usually just say “Sectarian”. The DUP itself was founded as the “Protestant Unionist Party” by a firebrand preacher. Amongst its policies was the continued special treatment of Protestants, especially in allocation of jobs and housing. A lot of Unionism would describe themselves as “Protestant” first before they would say Unionist or Loyalist. One of the first Catholics to ever join the UUP left quickly afterwards because of the Anti-Catholicism he witnessed. Very few (if any) Catholics are in the DUP/UUP today.

    Have things changed? I don’t think so, I think the DUP/UUP do a good job of covering up their anti-Catholicism these days but for all the wrong reasons. The main one being the inevitably of a Catholic majority in the future. Indeed both parties delude themselves into thinking they have Catholic voters…..but most recently we seen DUP councillors breaking ranks and attacking the Popes visit to the North. Senior Unionist politicians choose their words very carefully when saying they supported the Popes visit. Do they have any choice?….they’re doing what they’re doing because they MUST, not because they want to…

    When it comes to a United Ireland, we often hear that Nationalists must do a lot of convincing. That’s not totally true. The North’s connection to Britain wont survive if a million Nationalists are constantly voting Nationalist. So Unionism has its own share of convincing to do, something its failing at. The GFA was nothing more than a 20 year peace period, it wont last forever. Its my opinion, with a lot of evidence to back it up, that the Northern State is a failure, it wont last. We even have Taoiseach Enda Kenny (a Fine Gael Taoiseach btw) saying he doesn’t want to wait 20 years for the North to get into the EU. A clear reference to a United Ireland. Micheal Martin, the Leader of Fianna Fail, is planning to contest elections in the North by 2019. All this is backed up by the fact that political Unionism is becoming a minority. Brian Feeney in this weeks Irish News even speculated that Arlene Foster could be the LAST Unionist First Minister…..something I don’t agree with Feeney on but I think she will be one of the last, certainly…..

    So, is it really necessary for Nationalists to convince Unionists of anything?….I can see merit in trying to promote Irish Unity to “small u unionists” but I think it’ll be pointless trying to convert Jim Allister type Unionists to the idea of Irish Unity, they’re too stuck in their ways, just as many Republicans are….

  8. Am Ghobsmacht December 22, 2016 at 4:53 pm #

    “So, is it really necessary for Nationalists to convince Unionists of anything?….I can see merit in trying to promote Irish Unity to “small u unionists” but I think it’ll be pointless trying to convert Jim Allister type Unionists to the idea of Irish Unity, they’re too stuck in their ways, just as many Republicans are….”

    I think you just answered your own question there Ryan; if you can persuade 10% of ‘unionists’ then presumably you will have persuaded 90%+ of nationalists and then you’ll have a united Ireland.

  9. jessica December 22, 2016 at 6:45 pm #

    Could I just point out, the report didn’t claim the economy of a united Ireland would grow in GDP by £25.4bn.

    It identified £25.4bn savings from the merging of two administrations into a single united Ireland administration over 8 years.

    It based these on current detailed accounting data and as it was projecting forward, based its figures on no extreme changes in circumstance such as another global crisis, and that Keynesian economics would be recommended over this period i.e. sensible economic governance and no cash for ash type schemes.

    The reality is that through unification, and by investing in our own economy just as Iceland did, I believe GDP could grow by many times this figure annually quite easily.

    • Mark Petticrew December 23, 2016 at 5:01 am #

      I was led to believe that was the case from the article below, and so the Belfast Telegraph would appear to have misinformed me. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dup-slams-report-claiming-northern-ireland-would-be-better-off-in-united-ireland-34560557.html

      • jessica December 23, 2016 at 8:53 am #

        Sloppy journalism and inaccurate yes Mark

        The report was focussed solely on the savings from turning two administrations into one

        The increase in GDP could be substantially greater, many times this annually but it would really depend on the type of governance given. I would borrow significantly and invest in construction initially, growing tourism and reinforcing new and innovative services to sell on to the world, in particular in renewables and green technology. Savings and growth potential are two different things.

        The south have already harmed the borrowing potential to achieve the economic growth I would like to see which is why I am so pissed off with them.

        It wont be achieved by giving billions away to Apple that’s for sure.

        The biggest difference between Scotland and Ireland is Scottish independence is partitioning their island into two administrations and two economic areas which are more costly, whereas Irish unification is removing waste and helping businesses by removing borders and trade limitations.

        Both are doable but it doesn’t help if you have a money at the wheel

        • jessica December 23, 2016 at 8:53 am #

          monkey at the wheel

        • MT December 23, 2016 at 8:58 am #

          “The biggest difference between Scotland and Ireland is Scottish independence is partitioning their island into two administrations and two economic areas which are more costly, whereas Irish unification is removing waste and helping businesses by removing borders and trade limitations.”

          A ‘united Ireland’ doesn’t remove a border but rather it moves a border. It would create a border between NI and GB.

          • jessica December 23, 2016 at 9:07 am #

            The Irish sea is the biggest border between NI and GB, businesses that can bridge that border will not be adversely effected by unification which can be proven as the greater level of east west trade is between the south and GB.

            Removing the land border will help more small businesses to grow and give a real boost to the economy. It would be like removing a ball and chain.

          • MT December 23, 2016 at 9:31 am #

            “The Irish sea is the biggest border between NI and GB, businesses that can bridge that border will not be adversely effected by unification which can be proven as the greater level of east west trade is between the south and GB.”

            By the same logic businesses can bridge the border between NI and ROI and not be affected by the status quo.

            “Removing the land border will help more small businesses to grow and give a real boost to the economy. It would be like removing a ball and chain.”

            We trade more with GB than ROI so ‘Irish unity’ would damage more businesses than it would help.

          • jessica December 23, 2016 at 10:05 am #

            “By the same logic businesses can bridge the border between NI and ROI and not be affected by the status quo. ”

            That is not the reality now MT.
            We can see even with currency fluctuations how the situation changes considerably.
            It is the same businesses who can trade east west who are best able to deal with the north south issues.
            I am saying it is the smaller businesses who are the greatest in number who will benefit the most.
            They do not trade east west or north south in most cases, but would find it much easier to expand with the removal of the border.

            “We trade more with GB than ROI so ‘Irish unity’ would damage more businesses than it would help.”

            So there are more businesses able to trade across the water than there are on land.
            You don’t need an economic report to know that is not true.
            Small businesses will be significantly boosted by unification.

          • MT December 23, 2016 at 4:31 pm #

            “That is not the reality now MT.
            We can see even with currency fluctuations how the situation changes considerably.
            It is the same businesses who can trade east west who are best able to deal with the north south issues.”

            In a ‘united Ireland’ there would be currency fluctuations east-West and given that most of our trade is East-West that would be more disruptive to business than the status quo.

            “I am saying it is the smaller businesses who are the greatest in number who will benefit the most.
            They do not trade east west or north south in most cases, but would find it much easier to expand with the removal of the border.”

            Small businesses by definition usually only trade locally so a ‘united Ireland’ wouldn’t male much difference. For bigger businesses trading east-West it would be detrimental.

            “We trade more with GB than ROI so ‘Irish unity’ would damage more businesses than it would help.”

            “So there are more businesses able to trade across the water than there are on land.
            You don’t need an economic report to know that is not true.
            Small businesses will be significantly boosted by unification.”

            See above. They wouldn’t be significantly boosted. Some would benefit, others wouldn’t. But for business generally it would be detrimental given most of our trade is with GB.

          • jessica December 23, 2016 at 6:19 pm #

            The point I was making MT was that there is a significant amount of public money goes out to tender and small/medium businesses are often disadvantaged over larger companies who have often office locations and bank accounts in both jurisdictions, employee people in both jurisdictions etc….

            A lot of effort has been made to standardise the process for this reason, but the largest budget on these by far is from Dublin and it is northern businesses who would have most to gain from reducing these obstacles. The same would apply to other businesses who may only trade locally now, but may be more confident and successful expanding further afield so suggesting businesses in the north would have most to gain I would agree with.

            By directing the tax from these businesses back into Dublin, it would also allow better support in trading north by those in the south who are more prudent and like to keep the money in their own jurisdiction which is also understandable.

            As I say, there is no point in us throwing our opinions back and forth. It would be best to go to the horses mouth and hear direct from businesses what would help them to grow and only when we have this information can we make an informed choice.

      • MT December 23, 2016 at 8:55 am #

        “I was led to believe that was the case from the article below, and so the Belfast Telegraph would appear to have misinformed me. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dup-slams-report-claiming-northern-ireland-would-be-better-off-in-united-ireland-34560557.html

        I think the Friends of SF report did assume significant economic growth and that the Belfast Telegraph report is more accurate than Jessica.

        • jessica December 23, 2016 at 9:14 am #

          “I think the Friends of SF report did assume significant economic growth and that the Belfast Telegraph report is more accurate than Jessica.”

          The one I read didn’t, these were actual savings from administration costs only.

          I don’t recall it covering any growth initiatives, how could it?

          The only assumptions were global market stability that would no render the data used invalid, which it hasn’t to date. And sensible economic policy which the same cannot be said on either side of the border.

          If you can point out one growth initiative in the report I will take it back.

          While savings will favour GDP I would not consider them increased income.

          As I said, 24bn over 8 years is peanuts to Irelands potential increase in GDP if we get our shit together.

          This value it savings only

          • MT December 23, 2016 at 9:35 am #

            The one I read didn’t, these were actual savings from administration costs only.

            I don’t recall it covering any growth initiatives, how could it?

            The only assumptions were global market stability that would no render the data used invalid, which it hasn’t to date. And sensible economic policy which the same cannot be said on either side of the border. “If you can point out one growth initiative in the report I will take it back. While savings will favour GDP I would not consider them increased income. As I said, 24bn over 8 years is peanuts to Irelands potential increase in GDP if we get our shit together. This value it savings only”

            I just quoted the report’s conclusion: ‘Political and
            economic unification of the North and South would likely result in a sizable boost in economic
            output and incomes in the North and a smaller boost in the ROI.’ It pins this on two sets of big assumptions:

            1. In the short run, unification would result in the North’s adoption of the euro. At current
            exchange rates, this would effectively devalue the currency for the North, causing a shift
            in international terms of trade that would favor Northern Ireland relative to the U.K. and
            relative to other countries in the Eurozone. The consequent increase in exports is
            projected to initially increase per-capita gross domestic product in the North by 5
            percent, and then fade back to the long-run growth path within seven years.

            2.  In the long run, unification would involve the adoption of the Irish tax system, greater
            openness in the North to Foreign Direct Investment, and diminished trade barriers
            between Northern Ireland, the ROI, and other countries in the Eurozone. A period of
            economic catch-up is likely to ensue whereby the Northern Irish economy would shift
            structurally from low value-added industries to high value-added industries. Additional
            benefits would derive from lower trade costs across the north-south border. These
            changes are projected to increase GDP per capita in the long run by 4 to 7.5 percent in
            Northern Ireland and by 0.7 to 1.2 percent in the Republic of Ireland.

          • jessica December 23, 2016 at 10:14 am #

            “I just quoted the report’s conclusion: ‘Political and economic unification of the North and South would likely result in a sizable boost in economic output and incomes in the North and a smaller boost in the ROI.'”

            So you are ignoring the savings identified and focussing on the assumptions.
            Brexit has blown point 1 for a start.

            I also disagree with point 2. The Irish tax system is up the left.

            Only the savings should be considered in this report, the rest should be ignored.

            Growth needs to be planned for sensibly, it will involve significant investment which means borrowing and this needs to be based on return of investment, not dished out to pay ridiculous wages or to subsidise corporate slush funds.

            You don’t need a report to know it would be cheaper to administer the two economies if they were merged. The report gives you an idea of what these savings could be.

            In terms of growth expectations, this report says nothing worth reading.

          • MT December 23, 2016 at 4:34 pm #

            “So you are ignoring the savings identified and focussing on the assumptions..”

            I’m not ignoring anything. I’m simply pointing out that the Telegraph was correct to say the report was predicated on predicted growth and you were wrong that it merely identified savings.

            “Brexit has blown point 1 for a start.
            I also disagree with point 2. The Irish tax system is up the left.”

            So you disagree with the report. So do I. It has no credibility.

          • jessica December 23, 2016 at 5:57 pm #

            I think it did what was asked of them and has identified that there would be significant savings from removing duplication within a small land space, using a single currency, tax harmonisation etc… all of which I would agree with.

            Then there are also many aspects I would disagree with but they would be less risky than my preferences.

            What I would like to see is a business forum setup, that allows businesses throughout the island to have the opportunity to put forward their needs and issues etc…. These businesses employee over 90% of the population and contribute over half of the tax revenue raised in each jurisdiction, yet have the least say,

            That has to change and I think that would be a better place to start.

      • MT December 23, 2016 at 9:28 am #

        The non-peer-reviewed report states that ‘Political and economic unification of the North and South would likely result in a sizable boost in economic
        output and incomes in the North and a smaller boost in the ROI ‘ So it does predict growth.

        • jessica December 23, 2016 at 9:49 am #

          I would agree with this, partition has a far greater negative impact on the north but border counties in the south are also impacted, very little further south

          • MT December 23, 2016 at 9:56 am #

            “I would agree with this, partition has a far greater negative impact on the north but border counties in the south are also impacted, very little further south”

            The vast majority neither live nor work along the border. The border has no impact on most people. Most function without even thinking about it or noticing it.

      • Mens sana December 24, 2016 at 12:06 am #

        The Belfast Telegraph misinformed you? Surely not?

  10. jessica December 22, 2016 at 9:31 pm #

    Polls are a load of shit and there is very little in common with the situation in Scotland Mark.

    If Dublin showed a bit of interest, the polls would reverse in the morning.
    The biggest problem we have in the north is we don’t have a country of our own, whether that be among those who look to britain or those who look to Dublin.
    We are castaways, whether it be london looking down their noses at us or Dublin, what’s the difference?
    If there was a few euros in it from an EU peace fund, the south would be all over us, sucking around us to get our votes first.

    Lets imagine the south were stupid enough to artificially raise their GDP by giving Apple a ridiculously low tax deal on capital assets they brought into the country bringing their debt to GDP back into the black quicker than expected and allowing borrowing once again at 3% of GDP.

    By not taking the tax revenue owed, the money when it leaves once again, which it will, will lower the GDP by the same amount meaning Ireland is in for one hell of a dip in GDP the like of which the world will never have seen before.

    The debt levels will still be high and with such a dip in GDP, Ireland will once again be back in the EU danger zone levels and in need of another bail out.

    By this time the north will have got our deficit down to break even level in an unviable 6 county polity.

    By this stage, unification would be another way of increasing GDP and keeping the south out of the danger zone – though I doubt the north would get the sweetheart deal that Apple got.

    It would mean the north assimilating and absorbing the souths debt which is a phenomenal amount.

    How many people have thought unification this far through I wonder?

    • Mark Petticrew December 23, 2016 at 4:43 am #

      I used the Scottish comparison because they have little in common, not in spite of it, in order to highlight the differing frame of each one’s constitutional debate. A more self-interested Scottish population compared to a largely identity-driven northern population makes the hurdle of unionist sentiment a far bigger one in northern Ireland than it is in Scotland.

      • jessica December 23, 2016 at 9:02 am #

        Britain have already agreed to leave and unionism is already on the decline, they are no longer the problem
        Without unification, the north will gradually become more abhorrent to them than a united Ireland would be.
        Nationalism is far stronger in the north than in the south.

        Difficult to see because I am projecting forward and basing this on events yet to happen but my reasoning is sound.

        The biggest problem is that Dublin failed to embrace unification post GFA and have destroyed the Irish economy through poor management.

        In a short time, they will be desperate for unification to help address the fuck ups they have made.

        If there is convincing to be done, it will be from that quarter.

      • Mens sana December 24, 2016 at 12:10 am #

        I had an English colleague who was quick to notice that some Nationalists had uk passports, at a time when these were cheaper than Irish ones? For the purposes of banter, he wondered if people’s souls were for sale for a fiver.

        • jessica December 24, 2016 at 9:33 am #

          I agree.
          I would never travel on a UK passport and lost 5 days of my holiday one year to make sure my son got an Irish passport renewed rather than get him a british one.

          Any nationalist/republican who has a british passport should be ashamed of themselves. They are nothing but traitors in my eyes and there are plenty in my own family.

          Unfortunately there is a majority here who would sell their souls very cheaply indeed

          • MT December 24, 2016 at 10:18 am #

            “I would never travel on a UK passport”

            Why?

            “and lost 5 days of my holiday one year to make sure my son got an Irish passport renewed rather than get him a british one.”

            That’s ridiculous. After all you’re from.the UK, not Southern Ireland.

            “Any nationalist/republican who has a british passport should be ashamed of themselves. They are nothing but traitors in my eyes and there are plenty in my own family.”

            What a ludicrous, mean, bigoted and petty view.

      • Mens sana December 24, 2016 at 4:12 am #

        The Brexit vote indicates that a good chunk of the NI unionist vote is voting for cash reasons too. I see no reason to believe that Brexit won’t be an economic disaster.
        One way forward might be for Scotland to become part of a different EU state in the way that say the BRD increased in size in 1990. The most obvious such state would be Ireland. This might also help reassure NI unionists as regards their status afterwards. As for a name for the new country, take half of the name of one country and half of the other. ‘Ireland.’

        • jessica December 24, 2016 at 9:26 am #

          There is a huge chunk of both catholic and protestant voters who are not nationalist or unionist and who will always vote for their pocket.
          Nationalist voters have very little to vote for and are the most disillusioned with politics on this island, especially in Dublin.

          The US and EU will be very much turning their attentions to Ireland in 2017 and it may take unification to keep Ireland within the EU at all.
          An alternative option would be re-joining a reformed UK but the status quo has been severely damaged over the Apple tax fiasco.

          I cant see Ireland not having our own EU in out referendum over the next 3 years.

  11. Scott Rutherford December 23, 2016 at 8:37 am #

    Great piece Mark, well thought out and clearly backed up with evidence.