Sir, – Darach MacDonald (June 12th) makes a spirited defence of the dictionary definition of “unionism”, and rightly points out that purity of blood is a fiction in the modern world. But culture is not transmitted through the genes, and anyone observing an Orange parade should be left in no doubt of the existence of “unionist” culture.
The constitutional question is far from the “single common identifying policy” that unites unionist political parties. Support for monarchism, the Orange Order and Scottish cultural heritage, together with disdain for the Irish language, Gaelic sports and (historically) the Catholic Church have long been commonly held positions. None of these follow automatically from the dictionary definition, so the dictionary definition must be incomplete.
It is unfortunate that a political term has come to have a non-political meaning. But whatever name we decide to use, most people understand it to mean more than just a single policy position. It also identifies a distinct, shared worldview that can be difficult to fully appreciate from the outside, leading to a gulf in understanding that perpetuates conflict.
It has never been just about the Border. – Yours, etc,
ANDREW GALLAGHER,
Trimbleston,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Dick Keane (June 9th) suggests that the Belfast Agreement should be rewritten so that “a united Ireland is off the agenda until a majority of unionists request it” rather than “an overall simple majority” of the Northern Ireland electorate.
The existing arrangement has already been approved by referendum on both sides of the Border, including, in Northern Ireland, a clear majority of the unionist electorate. In other words, a majority of the unionist electorate has already agreed that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland should be determined by “an overall simple majority” of the Northern Ireland electorate. Indeed, this was their long-standing demand.
Northern Ireland is a financial liability to Britain, which would be better off without it. Its retention in the UK is normally justified by British politicians to the British people on the grounds that this is what “an overall simple majority” of the Northern Ireland electorate wants. Does Mr Keane seriously think that the British people would want to pay for the privilege of hanging on to Northern Ireland against the wishes of “an overall majority” of its electorate?
That said, the holding of a referendum now would be completely pointless. What is the point of asking a question to which everyone already knows the answer? – Yours, etc,
ED KELLY,
Keswick Road,
St Helens,
Merseyside,
England.