Two interesting newspaper articles this morning this morning, one in The Guardian about a very brainy Scotsman-turned-Englishman and one in The Irish Times by a very brainy Irishman.
The brains-to-burn Scotsman-turned- Englishman is Michael Gove and is headed “Gove rules out ‘foolish’ Scottish independence vote before election”. Not too surprising, since Gove’s job is to push back against Scottish independence. He claims Boris Johnson will be working so hard during this parliamentary term to counter the economic havoc of Covid-19 (quiet at the back there, please), it won’t be possible to have a Scottish independence referendum until May 2024. When he was asked if there were any circumstances in which Scotland would be allowed an independence referendum, Gove said “I don’t think so.” He went on:
“It seems to me to be at best reckless, at worst folly, to try to move the conversation on to constitutional division when people expect us to be working together in order to deal with these challenges.”
Odd that a man of Gove’s intelligence doesn’t grasp that one could stand at a urinal while whistling at the same time.
The Irishman writing in The Irish Times is Michael McDowell. His article is headed ‘No serious unionist politician would discuss a united Ireland.’ The by-line adds that a border poll would be 60:40 or even higher, of those who don’t want Irish reunification. McDowell judges that “vacuous and ill-thought-out rhetoric about a united Ireland is more or less useless in present circumstances.” He acknowledges the changing demographics in the North. “But a sectarian head count in the North does not predict how a majority of voting age there would vote in an early referendum on Irish unity.”
He also sees little prospect of unionist engagement in discussion: “Why would any unionist politician become involved in such a process? If one opposes a united Ireland it would be political suicide to engage in a dialogue concerning its architecture.”
Michael McD’s answer to this conundrum? “If the British identity of a large number of northern citizens is to be preserved in any way, a confederal model seems more apt to achieve that end.” He thinks this might be possible in the future, if and when unionists see the advantages of being in the EU along with the South. He urges that this confederal model be “put out there and discussed”.
Michael McD makes an odd mistake for a brainy man: he believes that his confederal model of a future Ireland should be discussed, but no other. If he believes unionist politicians are prepared to discuss that model, why would they not be prepared also to discuss other models, even if they come from tinier minds than that of Michael? And of course in coming to a judgement on anything, a half-wit would know you weigh up the pros and cons. There is no logical reason on earth why unionist politicians shouldn’t advance their argument for staying in the UK while listening to nationalist politicians advancing their vision of a re-united Ireland.
Odd that a man of McDowell’s intelligence doesn’t grasp that one could walk while chewing gum at the same time.
Comments are closed.