I was recently required to do an analysis of an academic research paper. A colleague I was working with chose this one, which I hadn't read before. There are some fascinating things in the responses.

Page 6 of the PDF shows the huge swing in support for the agreement before finally resting where it started. I'm a bit dubious about the unexplained sharp rises towards the end of the campaign, but maybe I'm just forgetting something. Page 8 highlights the fact that the republic had a vote one third larger than in the north, but 10 times more spoilt ballots.

On page 11 we get into the really interesting stuff. Only half of Protestant no voters objected to power sharing. Two thirds of them supported the establishment of an assembly. 86% of catholic nationalists supported NI remaining in the UK, and half supported the removal of articles 2 & 3. Over 80 percent of all protestants felt that the IRA should complete its surrender BEFORE SF were allowed in Government.

Page 13 shows that Trimble had at least 50% approval ratings across the board. 50% of no voters trusted him, compared to 27% of yes voters approval for Paisley. Paisley and Adams had the square root of no cross community support.

History has without doubt shown that Trimble was right in the broad picture. But I wouldn't be surprised of even the man himself now recognises that his timing was very slightly, but critically, wrong.

But we all got there in the end.

Colm Bradley has outlined some ways he thinks the GAA can remove the barriers to Unionists joining. Just over a year ago I outlined that the GAA has a de facto ban in Unionists joining. Unfortunately Google hasn't cached it, so some of the substantive points are below the fold. The main contention I have though, is that the GAA is explicitly a political organisation, and should not be treated as a sporting organisation unless and until it sheds the vestiges of a political pressure group.

Read more »

Nearly two years ago I wrote a piece outlining why I believe that the House of Lords is undemocratic and untenable in a modern democracy. I'd be interested to hear what EU's readers think. Rather unfortunately, Charter88's Elect the Lords campaign seems to have stalled last August.

Given Sinn Fein's serious, and not at all opportunistic, commitment to creating "neutral working environments" I'm shocked, nay stunned, to find them taking advantage of International Women's Day to celebrate a convicted bomber, Mairead Farrell. Surely the Equality Commission would have something to say on this, no?

"We have a right to hold the celebration there. I would never, ever say to unionists or loyalists that they should or should not be doing something."
Jennifer McCann MLA, organiser of the event

It's lucky then, Jennifer, that Unionist politicians wouldn't be so sick as to arrange an event dedicated to the Shankill Butchers right under your noses (actually I'd be disgusted if they organised one at all, but that's neither here nor there at the moment). There are plenty of places in west Belfast and South Armagh where I'm sure there would have been less fuss, but this is all about Sinn Fein showing how far they can push their luck in sticking two-fingers up at unionists.

The DUP has, co-incidentally I'm sure, decided to hold an event commemorating the role of the SAS in defending Ulster from Farrell and her semtex-happy buddies. The SAS shot dead Farrell and 2 other IRA members who were on "active service" in Gibraltar, attempting to blow up the band at the weekly Changing of the Guard at the Governor's residence.

Hat-tip Big Ulsterman, who points out that stunts like this appear to be the tit-for-tat in the new dispensation.

If I wanted to be as vindictive as McCann I would suggest a ceremony to honour the Parachute Regiment be held at the Guildhall in Londonderry. Thankfully, I'm not.

Is it any wonder unionists feel like their culture and identity is constantly under attack? It's all very well for people in Northern Ireland who are familiar with the bullshit emanating from the likes of the Andytown News group and the various interest groups to just switch off when the latest MOPE appears in the media, and most will. Unfortunately those without such a familiarity of the situation here actually believe some of it and that can lead to situations where, for example, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam ranks Orangeism up there with Nazism and advocates of apartheid in South Africa.

I've said before, and anyone who knows me would testify, as an atheist I'm no particular fan of the Orange Order and they often do themselves no favours. Sometimes it surprises me how much the bullshit slander (they eat babies and rape women, didn't you know?) against them annoys me, but the fact is that the Orange Order is just a 'legitimate target' for the sectarian bile and hatred the perpetrators clearly feel towards unionists and/or Protestants generally.

Why does all this matter? Because once these hateful liars have successfully demonised unionism and the majority population of Northern Ireland they can use these fictitious and/or exaggerated 'evil acts' to justify the extremely real and extremely vicious murders and bombings carried out by the IRA - by pretending they were fighting a dangerous, bigoted, violent group of oppressors rather than an innocent civilian population.

The Saville Inquiry was established in 1998 to re-examine the events of 30th January 1972, AKA "Bloody Sunday". We knew then that soldiers shot dead 14 people in the Bogside in Londonderry's. 10 years and £181 million later and that's still about all we know and Secretary of State Shaun Woodward said he still doesn't think we're going to see the report any time soon.

From the beginning I've been of the opinion that this enquiry is a waste of money given that people have already made up their minds on what happened. If it's proved that the army were in the wrong, it will be seen in some quarters as a sop to Sinn Fein. If it's proved that the army were in the right, Sinn Fein will argue that there's been a cover up (as was claimed of the original tribunal). Whatever happens, the only people laughing at the end of it all will be the lawyers and anyone seeking to exploit what happened to demonise either the soldiers (and by extension the British government) or the deceased (and by extension, republicans).

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

The Assembly has rejected any suggestion that the IRA's sectarian murder campaign was a war. A good thing, and fairly unsurprising.

I've always liked Danny Kennedy, but his performance since devolution has impressed me, and he is clearly im proving as time goes on. I enjoyed this contribution during the debate:

Mr McCartney: The Member made an intervention and stated that Ireland was only ever united under the British Crown. Is that an acceptance that uniting Ireland is a worthy cause?

Mr Kennedy: Yes — under the British Crown. If the Republic wants to rejoin the British Commonwealth and renegotiate the terms and conditions for the union, I would withhold any objection.

Here here. Unionism should never be afraid to espouse Irish unity, it should probably be Unionism's objective - under the Crown within the devolutionary settlement for the Union. In today's world, Unionists have none of the reasons to fear Irish Home Rule that existed 100 years ago, and we should declare our willingness to enter an all Ireland legislature in Dublin, so long as all of Ireland sends its representatives to the national Parliament in London.

I've stated before on this blog that I don't like the legacy of James Craig. I think that he partly caused the insular, anti-Irish Unionism that is everything Carson stood against. Unionism should roll back the fear of it's Irish identity, and not allow the IRA's attempts to rob us of our British identity, to rob us of our Irish identity.

Well said Danny Kennedy.

The Patten Commission was not a pleasant experience for Unionists. The abandonment of the historic name and symbols of the RUC GC was needless, insensitive, and damaging to Unionist confidence in the political process of the time. While this was not the only negative experience to come out of Patten, what we can say is a great many of the recommendations (PDF) in the report were good ones that have improved the already high standard of policing in Northern Ireland. One of these proposals, detailed at pages 62 and 63 of the Patten report, was the civilianisation of many tasks that were being undertaken by fully trained Police Officers. Police Officers are expensive to train and retain, this training is extensive and produces an excellent public servant for the betterment of the community. It is therefore demeaning to the officers, as well as a massive waste of public resources to have uniformed police officers manning reception desks of stations, and other such basic administrative tasks.

Despite the poor way in which the report was handled, the handful of appalling recommendations which were insensitively implemented, and the bad taste left by it in Northern Ireland, it has had a positive net effect on day to day policing. Therefore it is of note that the former Chief Constable of the RUC GC, who himself was "hurt" by the Patten report, has used his experience to implement Patten best practise across forces in England and Wales. The DPPs, the Ombudsman’s Office (which I think may have predated Patten slightly, but the point nevertheless stands), as well as civilianisation of administrative functions are positive developments in the policing of Northern Ireland, and the rest of the country can learn from our positive, if in places painful, example.

After a period away from regular blogging of the style I don't like putting on Slugger, I'm glad to now be contributing to Everything Ulster. I'm looking forward to getting back into the habit of regular blogging.

When I met up with Beano, we were chatting about a few things, and the conversation came around to the common habit of utterly misrepresented Sir James Craig on one specific matter. I have to say I'm not his biggest fan, indeed I think that he caused a lot of the problems Unionism was subsequently to have, but his decision in 1922 to abolish PR for Stormont Elections from the 1929 election was not one that was intended to screw the nationalists as it is commonly believed, and commonly reported. (Graham Walker's history of the UUP gives a little detail on pages 56, 57 and 71). Indeed this details that the combined Nationalist seat tally dropped by a total of one seat, a situation that largely prevailed in subsequent years. As Nick Whyte details here, the loss of a seat to Nationalism wasn't expected, and was a miscalculation on the part of the draftsmen rather than malicious intent. Local Government is another matter, which I may well return to later in the week, but at Stormont, there was no gerrymandering, and no attempt to reduce the size of the Nationalist caucus.

The simple fact is, the only reason there wasn’t an effective opposition at Stormont, was the Nationalists refused to provide one.

I, like many others, see a lot of the problems in Northern Ireland today stemming from the segregation of society at various levels; none so damaging as at school level. As far back as 1968 Prime Minister Terrence O'Neill recognised that 'a major cause of division (in Northern Ireland) arises from segregation of education'.

But what if we had a chance to prevent this? What if there was no need for a 'Council for Integrated Education' because, shock horror, people actually went to school with those from other religions. What if religion was taught by churches instead of schools? I'm not a big fan of the way the French run their country, but the secular nature of their education system is one thing I admire.

What if, in the early years of Northern Ireland's existence, someone had the foresight to realise that dividing our children and segregating them from each other was going to cause trouble down the line and breed fear and intolerance?

Actually, someone did. Northern Ireland's first Education Minister, Lord Londonderry, proposed to enact a law that would:

• Have schools teach morals instead of religion. Religious instruction would no longer be part of any required curriculum (except where it was relevant under the wider scope of moral education) and would be banned in primary schools and schools run by local education authorities.
• Disallow the religion of an applicant for a teaching post being taken into consideration during the appointment process.
• Put schools under the control of local communities (something that had been supported by Protestants before partition but opposed by the Catholic church who had de facto control over Ireland's "national schools")

Baring in mind this was happening in the 1920s, it all sounds very forward-thinking. Unfortunately, not for the first time, Catholic and Protestant religious leaders found a way to work together (well, work separately against a common 'enemy' anyway) to destroy this idea.

Read more »