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.

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 »

I've been thinking about having guest posts for some time now, and then this landed in my lap (or more precisely my inbox). Everything Ulster's first guest post is a radical conspiracy theory about the potential emergence of a new brand of fundamentalism within Unionism, by Matty from Upper Bann.

With the whole 'Da Vinci Code' hype going on, conspiracy theories are ten a penny. However some things are more than mere coincidence and do point to something real however far fetched it may at first glance appear.

I have watched the shifts and turns within politicised, organised unionism for some time now. Unionism has witnessed a titanic struggle over its long term leadership over the past decade. It now seems that Ian Paisley is the unchallenged master of all he surveys. But he is eighty years old. Even he can’t endure forever (can he?). The big question staring everyone in the face is 'what happens next?' All kinds of rumours and speculation abound. Will it be Robinson? – Probably! Will it be Dodds? – possibly! Will it be Allister? – Probably not! Will it be Donaldson? – not the faintest chance!

Read more »