THEMSELVES ALONE

Brian Inglis 'argues that

Northern Ireland should be given a kind of independence

THE 'talks about talks' which the Ulster Unionist leaders have agreed to have with Tom King must be about what options, if any, are acceptable to them without being unacceptable to the Government here. And to judge from An End to Drift, the report of the Unionist 'Task Force' com- piled by Harold McCusker, Peter Robin- son and Frank Miller, there are now only two: either devolution, or an entirely new constitution, providing a measure of inde- pendence.

Integration, apparently, is no longer a starter: 'The Whitehall establishment is strongly opposed.' They might have added that apart from the catastrophic effect any move to integration would have on the Republic and the United States, public opinion here would not tolerate it.

Chacun a son glue' Devolved government, the report claims, 'is therefore our objective'. Doubt- less it is Tom King's objective, too. But if past experience is any guide, the negotia- tions will be doomed to break down because of the divisions which have so long been disguised by the use of the term `Unionism' in two distinct senses.

Unionism has two different and ulti- mately divergent strands, illustrated in the careers of Edward Carson and James Craig. Carson believed passionately in the need to preserve and strengthen the Un- ited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland — all Ireland: he was himself a southerner. Craig believed as passionately in the need to preserve the Ulster Protestant heritage. He was loyal to the Union, and the Crown, only so long as the Union and the Crown remained loyal to Ulster.

Craig was happy to work with Carson and the Tory Unionists so long as they fought with him against Home Rule. But in 1914 he and his followers made no secret the fact that if that battle were lost, secession would be inevitable. Protestant Ulster had booted out King James. It would not hesitate to boot out King George, if he put his name to a Home Rule Act which included Ulster.

When the Free State was set up seven years later, Carson regarded it as a bet- rayal — as did my family and the 'Protes- tant Ascendancy in general. Carson ex- pressed his, and their, feelings about the treachery of Chamberlain, Birkenhead and other 'Unionists' in what must surely have been the most vitriolic speech ever heard in the House of Lords.

Craig, on the other hand, was well satisfied. He shared Carson's contempt for the traitors. But they had given the Six Counties, with their solid Protestant majority, an executive, a legislature and a Judiciary; and Stormont, he realised, could survive only with continued backing from Westminster. Shrewdly, he and his follow- ers continued to describe themselves as Unionists.

So, unwisely, did the British Conserva- tives. Carson taunted them: why did they Continue to call themselves Unionists, un- less it was to remind themselves of their abject treachery? They ignored him; and for a time, during the war, Unionism regained some meaning, out of gratitude to Northern Ireland for its war effort.

Since 1969, the strands of Unionism have been unravelling. In Britain, as the tiny Tory vote against the Hillsborough agreement showed, Unionism is all but defunct. And in Ulster, to continue to regard Paisley as a Unionist in the light of his pronouncements is absurd. Like Craig (though Craig would be appalled at Pais- ley's rancorous bigotry) he is an Ulster Protestant nationalist.

Anything which the Government here proposes on the road to devolution is going to be regarded by the Unionists with suspicion. One of the more pernicious myths that has continued to float around here is that they value the link with England. In so far as it has provided them with protection and subsidies, yes. But as Deryla Murphy pointed out in her thought- ful pamphlet, the first to set out the case for an independent Northern Ireland, they dislike and distrust the English'. And Hillsborough has deepened that dislike and distrust.

When the issue of power-sharing — or whatever it will be called, to avoid the hated name — with the Catholic minority is raised, the Unionist leaders involved in the talks will be looking over their shoul- ders, as their predecessors did, knowing that if they concede what Tom King will want them to concede, they will be repudi- ated.

The signatories to An End to Drift realise this. Devolution is the objective, but 'whilst we hope that this will prove attainable within the context of the United Kingdom', they warn, 'Unionists would be wise and prudent to anticipate that it might not.'

Should it not prove attainable, they continue, the Unionist leadership will be left 'with no alternative but to seek an entirely new base for Northern Ireland outside the present constitutional context'. This possibility has only recently sur- faced as an option for two main reasons: the fear that, cut adrift from Britain, Ulster would fall prey to the Republic; and the realisation that even if the Republic left them alone, the Six Counties would not be a viable economic entity.

Belatedly, the Ulster Protestants are coming to recognise (though not as yet to admit) that their fear of a Dublin take-over is misplaced. The feeble performance of Sinn Fein in the recent general election has finally disposed of any notion that the electors long for a reunited Ireland. Even if they did, the parlous economic condition of the Republic would preclude any move in that direction in the foreseeable future.

Although Ulster could not become a state on a par with, say, Luxembourg, there are many other possibilities, as the continued existence of statelets like Mona- co demonstrates. Ulster could be given a constitution on a model appropriate to its needs, with a continuance of Britain's financial support.

But Ulster could not be given any such constitution — it will immediately be ob- jected — unless it provides for power- sharing, or the equivalent. Why should such limited independence be any more welcome than devolution?

The answer has been provided in 'Com- mon Sense', a project put forward recently by the Ulster Political Research Group, calling for independence with a written constitution and safeguards to satisfy all minorities that they will be free to 'play a full and productive role in our society'. The significance of the document lies in the names of its signatories, Protestant para- militaries — Andy Tyrie, John McMichael and others. If men hitherto regarded as extremists can contemplate such safe- guards, more middle-of-the-road politi- cians need hardly feel worried about accepting them as the price of independ- ence.

The advantages, after all, would be considerable. Political life could start up again without the irritation of British in- terference — and, perhaps more im- mediately significant, of Irish interference, of the kind which Hillsborough introduced. Provided that the SDLP can be persuaded to go along with the project, so that a majority of both sections of the community can be secured for it, it would hold out much more alluring prospects than devolu- tion.

But would it be practicable? The Ulster Political Research group envisages con- tinuing British support, Ulster becoming independent but remaining within the Un- ited Kingdom. A better idea, if it could be translated into reality, would be inter- dependence, with a consortium of guaran- tors, Britain, the Republic, the EEC and perhaps the United States (especially if it weighed in financially). This would have the advantage of depriving the IRA of its fund-raising lure, the liberation of 'occu- pied Ireland' — and also of its chief recruiting slogan, 'Brits Out'.

There is little likelihood of any serious opposition to interdependence from this side of the Irish Sea, except on the issue of citizenship. Real Unionists, it will be argued, as distinct from the Paisley variety, should not be left in the lurch. Nor need they be. The written constitution, with its Bill of Rights and its arrangements for enforcement, should also include provi- sions for dual citizenship, Ulster and Bri- tain (or Ulster and the Republic). As to all intents dual citizenship exists now between Britain and the Republic, this should pre- sent no difficulty.

The main objections are likely to come from the Republic. On the face of it, an interdependent Northern Ireland is more likely to be a step to reconciliation and, ultimately, reunification than continued British rule. But the present government is unlikely to see it that way.

If the Ulster Unionists opt for independ- ence, they should make a visit to Dublin an early priority, to point out the advantages that its built-in guarantees would bring to the Catholic minority in the North, and also the promise it would give of closer relations between North and South.

Culturally, unity between them has been in general preserved. In sport, your Ulster fan shouts as vigorously for Ireland at Lansdowne Road as any southerner particularly when the enemy is England. Ulster Protestants are thought of as Irish, and think of themselves as Irish, though of a different breed to the Celts. They would have no objection to closer ties, provided that they do not involve political control.

Interdependence, then, with the Repub- lic as one of the team building the ring but not interfering unless the rules are broken, could actually promote the 'union of hearts' which has so often been advocated as the alternative to actual reunification. It is even possible that it will lead to closer ties between the Republic and Britain, of the kind Stan Gebler Davis stood for as a candidate in Cork.

It was a mistake for him to stand as a Unionist. As one of his constituents pointed out, Paisley and others have drag- ged the term in the mud, in the Republic as well as in Britain. But what is certainly true is that the feeling about the English among Southern Catholics, except those few who cling to Sinn Fein, is much more cordial than it is among the Protestants in the North.

Obviously any attempt to work out the details of how interdependence can be achieved will have to wait until the other option, devolution, is exposed as unwork- able. But at least it is now on the agenda; and it will be surprising if it fails before long to attract adherents away from the two tarnished Unionist parties and that gruesome twosome, their hopelessly dis- credited leaders.