This piece by, let’s call him “Shankhill Sammy” because he was born on the Shankhill Road, takes issue with the assertion that loyalists in the north of Ireland are a nationality.
Writing on Socialist Unity Andy Newman rehashes an old idea about Ireland, an old idea that always proves to have reactionary conclusions – that the Protestants of the north of Ireland are a nation. The problem is that even this people themselves can never agree on what this nationality is, and Andy doesn’t enlighten us either – a love that not only does not speak its name but doesn’t know it either.
Unable to come to a conclusion on just what their nation is many candidates have been offered but many self-definitions are clearly not definitions of nationhood and some have unwelcome implications such as inevitable minority status in a unified Irish State. These include the loyal Irish, Ulster unionist (but not so as to include all of Ulster), Northern Irish (but that then surely implies inclusion of the Falls Road in Belfast and Crossmaglen?), British-Irish (a term used on some sections of the British left but yet to find an echo where it should belong) or a particularly dopey one – Ulster-Scots (speakers of bad English which unfortunately excludes Protestants with English or Welsh ancestry).
Unfortunately the Socialist Unity appears to rule out the two most popular candidates of the people concerned, which doesn’t exactly show consistent application of the concept of self-determination to this new-found nationality. ‘British’ appears to be explicitly ruled out. Thus we get the excruciatingly stupid question of ‘whether Unionism requires active support from Britain?’ Over 30,000 British troops in 1972 (compare that number to Iraq or Afghanistan) and a large infusion of money give two clues as to the answer. Unfortunately of course, calling oneself British when most who are rather see you as Irish is not a promising definition and especially if it is a specific type of Britishness, which must be at issue – again undefined.
The other alternative is not to define this nationality as Unionist, since this is a purely political movement which is justified by something supposedly deeper, but to define this nation in the only terms in which the division of the Irish population has been effected – in purely sectarian terms.
This is what makes assertion of a separate Protestant nationality so reactionary, political rights are defined and defended in sectarian terms. No wonder Andy asserts that he is ‘ not offering any conclusions here’ although he has just offered up one almighty reactionary one; ‘I have neither the knowledge nor a crystal ball’ he says. At last we agree – and on two things as well!
Andy states that ‘it is hard to see an obvious mechanism in the Irish context where that common class interest can unite the nationalist and unionist working classes in a common political approach to resolving the question of Irish partition.’ The missing mechanism of course is the socialist unity of the Irish working class. How come he missed it?
This unity inevitably involves opposition to all forms of sectarianism and support for democratic demands such as an end of partition. And here we come back to the much maligned Lenin who understood that the national question was all about democracy. Giving the Irish Protestants something they don’t even want – independent nationhood – is undemocratic and reactionary. These are the conclusions Andy doesn’t realise he has come to.
Liam redux 
Leave a reply to Phil Cancel reply