The reaction of Mr Bob McCartney, leader of one of the minor factions of unionism, to the welcome agreement between the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists enabling the peace talks to move out of the procedural phase, is symptomatic of the nit-picking fatuity that has copper-fastened division, and violence, on the North. "If this is a success by the Ulster Unionist Party on behalf of the pro-union people of Northern Ireland," he declared, "I pray to God I am. never associated with one of their disasters." Mr McCartney has enough brute cunning not to pull out of the talks in protest, and sufficient care for his chances of re-election to lay down circumstances in which he may take this desperate course. But not enough of either to try a little leadership.
If every inch of the way is to be deemed a success or failure for the unionists - or the nationalists - then the well-paid party representatives at Stormont might as well pull the shutters, go home, and let Mr McCartney's God do his worst. The agreement reached late on Monday night by the UUP and the SDLP is a breakthrough for common sense, and it makes a renewed commitment to the process of dialogue. It has, for the moment at least, removed the obstacles to negotiation. If the talks gain momentum as a result, it will be seen as the first step in the arduous task of giving democratic politics the vital component of credibility.
Many of the professional politicians may be unprepared to recognise this fact, but the most basic function of the talks process, if there is ultimately to be a successful outcome, is to show that politics, as understood in most west European countries, is a viable alternative to violence. The series of bilateral meetings between Mr Trimble, Mr Taylor, Mr Hume and Mr Mallon, with their respective party colleagues, has tacitly acknowledged the deficit.
During the past months of drift and sporadic outrages by the IRA, the vulnerability of elective politics and its unreadiness to dominate events and head off a crisis have been crucially exposed as central to the issues that need to be resolved. That ought to be of profound concern to every elected politician. The evidence shows that this is not the case. Insisting, as Dr Ian Paisley does, that "we (the DUP) will be fighting to get decommissioning properly dealt with - meaning not just that arms must be taken from the equation, but that it should be done in the most confrontational manner - is foolish and self-defeating. Many will be led to reflect that if Dr Paisley himself had been less seduced by arms at an earlier stage in his career, he would be more authoritative on the subject of getting rid of them now.
In welcoming the agreement between the UUP and the SDLP, supported by all parties in the talks with the exception of the DUP and Mr McCartney's UK Unionists, there can be no disregarding the size and complexity of the problems that lie ahead. The threat of a loyalist resumption may have been diverted for the time being, but possibly not definitively. How to secure a permanent IRA ceasefire and the terms on which Sinn Fein can be admitted to the talks are still major problems. The central issues of the three strands of relationships still loom, but no more dauntingly than they did when the political process started. But there have been at least two small steps forward since Monday night. the SDLP and the UUP have shown that pragmatic co operation is possible between parties, and the sky has not fallen. Those, at a gloomy time, are positive gains.