Everyone's favourite unelected legislator has had an idea.

I can't drive. I've just never bothered to learn. So lets say I get my licence next month and I drive to my girlfriend's parents in south Down. Alastair Ross will be very upset if I leave for Belfast much after 8pm. Who is he to have an opinion on what time I drive home at? What right does the state have to extend the fairly reasonable restrictions on driving to such an extent? He also wants to ban me from driving my girlfriends sister anywhere for the first year. Total ban on alcohol, perhaps, but the reason zero tolerance on this doesn't work, is that small amounts of blood alcohol are (as far as I remember) naturally occurring!

Lisburn man/Larne MLA Alastair Ross really has let it go to his head. If he wants a nanny state, he should go to Scandinavia. When I learn to drive, I can't exceed 45mph for one year. Personally, I think that a year is a bit long, but the principle is fair enough. To extend that any further is frankly absurd. I know why he has suggested this, but using a sledgehammer to crack a nut is no was to frame policy.

Maybe a better idea would be to introduce measures to curb the enthusiasm of unelected 20-something-year-old MLAs. The evidence that it's needed is certainly there.

Carol Black has won the by-election in Dromore. Deserved terrible result for the DUP, good result for TUV.

There should never have been a by election in the first place - the DUP have questions to answer on wasting ratepayers money.

The comments on Slugger are playing this as the end of Paisley's career. The failure to win North Down in 1995 was ultimately the straw that broke Molyneaux's back, could this be Paisley's demise?

UPDATE: Any analysis I have to offer is here.

The suggestion that the group run by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley to look at how best to deal with "the troubles" might recommend the government officially declare that the various murder campaigns constituted a war is a risible attempt to allow the Sinn Fein to justify their crimes.

Yes they were crimes. There was no war. There was a concerted effort by criminal gangs to disrupt law and order and force their will on the population by terrorising them into submission. No amount of retrospective equivocation will ever change that.

It may be well-intentioned but this will not encourage anyone, least of all high-ranking members of Sinn Fein (who have the most to lose) to admit what they have done. All it will end up doing is vindicating their attempts to rewrite history to suit their own narrow sectarian objectives.

"Other mechanisms can be created to encourage paramilitaries to come forward without granting their wish for a rewrite of history."
Stephen Farry MLA, Alliance

The IRA and the alphabet soup of miscellaneous paramilitaries had no recognisable rules of engagement, they did not adhere to the Geneva Conventions, they did not identify themselves as combatants by dressing in military uniforms, instead hiding amongst the law-abiding civilian population, they did not look after prisoners of war (preferring to torture and execute them). Worst of all they targeted civilians (and then lied about it).

Sadly it looks like just another example of the political classes seeking to sacrifice common sense, majority opinion and pure, simple, truth on the altar of political expediency; all in the name of The Process.

Belfast faces a tough but not impossible struggle to get on the new Here and Now monopoly board featuring UK towns and cities.

Monopoly are producing a new "Here and Now UK edition" (as well as a "Here and Now Ireland edition, mentioned on Slugger) and are running an online referendum to determine which towns and cities should feature on the board. Belfast's lagging well behind in the voting stakes (56th at the time of writing, up from 57th yesterday) and the other NI cities are nowhere to be seen.

With only 22 spaces on the board it'll be an uphill struggle; luckily you can vote every day. So go for it - Vote Belfast!

Read more »

It has emerged that MLAs are to get £70k a year on top of their salaries in the form of expenses ("expenses that allow the MLAs to employ people, in some cases close relatives, to help carry out their constituency work"). Just before devolution was restored, Peter Hain increased these allowances by 45% to £70k a year!

Prompted by this I've done a little bit of digging and tried to work out exactly what the farce at Stormont is going to cost us each year. Apart from the extra allowance for committee chairs which I had to estimate, the following figures represent the cost of bribing our politicians to doing their jobs.

Read more »

Smoking ban comes into force today, 30th April 2007... and not a moment too soon.

Today sees the coming into force of the ban on smoking in places of work meaning that smoking will no longer be allowed in bars, clubs and restaurants. I can't wait to be able to enjoy going out for a drink without some self-absorbed dickhead's cigarette smoke wafting into my face or getting my arm burnt in a club by some idiot too drunk to be realise that flailing his arms that way is not dancing by any stretch of the imagination.

In fact, it'll be nice just to not come home stinking of smoke.

Obviously many smokers aren't that fussed. One such person on BBC Newsline said he'd be staying at home more in the winter now smokers are to be shunted outside to smoke. "It's too cold to smoke out here so why should I make myself ill for someone else's health?" Is he serious? Methinks he should take a look at this.

Even more astonishing than that particular smoker's lack of shame was another man claiming there was no evidence that passive smoking is harmful. Even if this was true, it's still bloody stinkin'!

The following post was sent in all the way from Budapest by Paul, the Northern Irish Magyar.

I have a confession to make: I believe in the "secular society."

Secularism has become a bit of a dirty word recently in certain circles, so what exactly do I mean by the "secular society"?

Quite simply, in my version of secular society, there would be the closure of all "faith-based" schools, abortion (and beer) on demand, the legalisation of gay marriages, the de-nqabing of Muslim females, the decriminalisation of drugs and brothels, Irish League matches being played on Sunday....and it should go without saying, the complete removal of Christ from Xmas.

*Stunned silence from the collective EU readership*

Before "Enraged of Bushmills" leaves an abusive comment, that last paragraph wasn't exactly(!) what I meant by "secularism" and anyway even if it was, that kind of scenario ain't going to materialise in N.Ireland any time soon.....

In a modern western democracy, everybody has the right to believe anything they choose, no matter how reactionary or ridiculous those beliefs may be. Indeed, tolerance of such beliefs is the cornerstone of civilised society- but that is definitely not the same as saying that those beliefs should form the basis of that particular society. A person's religion (or lack of) should be their own private affair. The state's job is not to "safeguard" such beliefs, but solely to set the widest of legal parameters to govern society. Within those parameters, it is up to each individual's conscience and moral judgement how they conduct themselves.

What would all this mean in Northern Irish context?

Well, in practical terms, here's three examples: giving women the 100% reproductive rights, the removal of state support for "faith-based" education and the full implementation in N. Ireland of all UK legislation in areas such as homosexual rights. So, basically I’m looking to set up a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah, right here, in our wee province? No.

By advocating that it is the woman concerned who alone has the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion, I'm not arguing that termination in every case is the correct
or moral option. I'm also not forbidding our "moral guardians" from presenting their arguments to the individual. I'm simply saying, that, in the end, it is solely up to the woman's individual conscience- but she should have the option, if she so desires, of terminating the pregnancy in her own country. Similarly, I, in no way, would deny parents their democratic right to send their children to a "faith-based" (be it Roman-Catholic, Free-Presbyterian, Islamic, Jewish, Moonie or whatever) school. It should, however, not be the state's responsibility (using my taxes) to subsidise such schools. And if Westminster decides that in the 21st Century, certain rights should be granted to certain groups, then unless we want to live in some kind of fundamentalist, redneck ghetto, those exact same rights should also apply to Northern Irish residents.

But what would be the implications for the Union of such a "secularisation" of N. Ireland?

I believe that in certain "non-national" areas (e.g. abortion), then more radical Unionists should not be afraid to make informal alliances with those we would normally consider our political opponents. I despise much of what Sinn Fein stands for, but in the area of women’s reproductive rights, their views (now) are much closer to my own than the DUP's are. Apart from the fact that you should always follow your heart and not necessarily the rest of the herd in such matters of conscience, more Unionists getting involved in this type of campaign can only help our overall image in the rest of the UK. Also by building up a society model which is closer to what is found on the mainland secular, multicultural Britain than that in the Republic of Ireland, then we are ensuring that an even bigger proportion of our society feels more comfortable within the confines of Northern Ireland.

Even if could, I don't want to ban conservative "religion" from Northern Ireland, I'm simply saying that it must share the open spaces of society with the rest of us. Secularism is the way we can both protect society from religion, but also protect the right of all to practise their chosen religion within that society.

Things get a bit out of hand at the Everything Ulster Christmas party as Mrs Claus over-endulges in the Christmas plonk.

I know posts haven't been the most frequent in the second half of this year thanks to an extremely busy schedule, but I thought I should take a few moments out to wish all those readers who have stuck with me during the slow times a very merry Christmas.

I'll be busy trying not to let the fact that they're giving out knighthoods for services to self-publicity and egomania ruin my holiday season, though I think my suffering might be eased by a shamelessly gratuitous picture and several of my favourite tins.

So to all EU's readers, have a merry Christmas; and try not to overdo it on the festive spirit. That's my job.

EU's third guest post sees Paul of N. Irish Magyar fame once again returning with his thoughts on some of the different nationalisms found on the Celtic fringe of the United Kingdom.

The continuing diversity of the United Kingdom is today threatened by primarily three types of nationalism from within its borders; Irish, Ulster and Scottish. All three have the capability, given the correct circumstances, of destroying the Union.

You may find surprising for me to say, but I suspect that Irish nationalism is the version which poses the least danger. If the last decade or so, since the cessation of the IRA's campaign, have shown anything, it is that Irish nationalism/republicanism have as little idea as political unionism about how to garner electoral support beyond its own narrow voter-base to build a political movement which can genuinely appeal beyond the traditional religious and communal borders. Their present tactics appear to have dual focus, the demoralization of the unionist population and working with the two governments above the heads of the population of Northern Ireland in order to create an "All-Ireland" framework. Both tactics have no chance of achieving a true United Ireland, that of all its people, as opposed to the territory, they also ignore the fact that the real battle is that to be fought for the increasingly apathetic centre, the 35% or so who no, longer vote but who are becoming unionists (with a definite small 'u' ) by economic default in absence of anything more constructive being offered by Irish nationalism. The "Ack sure it’ll all fall into place when we get our Fourth Field back” school of economics is making very little headway in 2006 amongst this cynical hard-bitten sector of the electorate.

Ironically, Ulster nationalism in its most basic (and crudest) mono-ethnic/religious form poses a much greater threat to Northern Ireland’s place within and the wider concept of the Union. It refuses to countenance any deviance form the "No Surrender", "No Pope Here" brand of Pseudo-Unionism until very recently exemplified perfectly by the DUP's head honcho. This threat, and the necessity of Unionism embracing diversity, we'll deal with in a subsequent post.

The third and most immediate threat to the unity of the UK is that presented by Scottish nationalism.

Next May will see the elections to the Scottish parliament. If present opinion polls are to be believed then, not only will the SNP be forming a government (probably in coalition with the political prostitutes of the Liberal Democrats) but also a majority of Scots favour the complete independence option.

So will next year (the 300th anniversary of The Act of Union as it just so happens) see the beginning of the end of our nation?

I think not and I also believe it’s also in the interests of unionists throughout the UK that the SNP do win next year and that the referendum on Scottish Independence is called for as soon as possible.

The large reason for the growth in support for the SNP is because of disillusionment with the effects of devolution and also the unpopularity of the present Labour Executive. But their (the SNP's) policies have, as a consequence, slipped from public consciousness and if and when they do get power, the "one-trick pony" nature of the party will be revealed and as a result, I'm convinced that both the SNP and their fundamental raison d’etre will face closer scrutiny. In other words, give the SNP short-term power and let's see what happens to the public's support for Scottish independence...

If the referendum does happen, then the economic consequences of leaving the UK, for example, will come to the forefront of the debate. Could an independent Scotland survive on its own? Yes, but minus the annual £20 billion from the central Exchequer, not in the manner to which its citizens have become accustomed. Of course, there is always the hope, as an independent country, of attracting increased EU funding, but with most of eastern European and two of the Balkan countries also competing for this money, it's not a very realistic one.
And would multinationals be more or less likely to set up in a country which has cut itself adrift from the 5th biggest economy and third biggest financial centre in the world?
An independent Scotland, I'd guess, would fit in somewhere below Greece and a little above Slovakia in the EU Economic table, would that be good enough for the "average" Scot?
How much is the "average" Scot prepared to sacrifice financially for independence?

I believe that such a referendum would also galvanise the Labour Party in Britain as a whole; strange as it may seem for Northern Irish readers, for purely party political reasons it makes sense for Labour to become more pro-active in supporting the Union and ensuring Scotland remains a part of the UK. Labour in Scotland struggled in the last General Election, winning only 41 instead of the usual 50-55 seats. But with Labour under new management and the Conservative Party, at last, starting to wake up and giving an appearance of being capable of winning again at the ballot box, then those Scottish seats could well be the deciding factor whether Labour stays in power at Westminster or not. Additionally, for the Labour Party in Scotland, fighting to ensure a Labour Scottish PM at Number 10 must be a very tempting one. Also, once Scotland had left the UK, the temptation for the Tories to play the English nationalist card would only become stronger, leading to… who know what? The prospect of employment controls on Scots working in England and much stronger economic competition between the two new "states"? There would be only one winner in such a competition.

So, for the three reasons outlined above, I believe that a SNP victory and the subsequent debate on independence prior to any referendum would give the Scottish people the chance to assess the benefits and costs they receive and incur from being part of the UK and more specifically, what they would have to sacrifice in event of full independence. After this assessment, I'm confident that a majority of at least 15% will be in favour of remaining a part of a multicultural and diverse UK. And this surely would be the final nail in the coffin for the Scottish separatist movement...

The Scottish people have always boxed above their weight within the United Kingdom, it's in both Scotland's and the nation's long-term interest that this situation continues.

I personally found the omission of English nationalism, in my view one of the fastest growing threats to the Union, interesting. Whether it's based on the apparent growing resentment among many English folk about subsidising the often soviet-like Celtic periphery, and the apparent disparity brought to the fore by devolution to Scotland and Wales (and maybe us too), or based on a backlash against the perception of modern Britishness as inherently multicultural (and therefore not definitive enough for some), English nationalism seems to be on the rise and, given that England forms the largest part of this Union, could pose the biggest threat of all IMHO.

I realise posts have been few and far between here recently. That's partly because I haven't read anything that interested me lately, except for a book on the story of eBay (The Perfect Store: Inside EBay), but mostly because I've been back at uni and facing all sorts of pressures on my time (already!!). Nevertheless, Paul (formerly of NI Magyar fame, but still rambling away in Hungary) has kindly sent me a report from Saturday's match in Denmark.

Read more »