|
Part of the Belfast Agreement in 1998 involved recognition
for the Ulster Scots tradition, clearly intended as a counterbalance
to the Irish identity and culture of the minority community.
Part of the plan ten years ago was to have east-west linkage
as well as the more obvious north-south links which nationalists
had lobbied hard to obtain.
Ten years on, both those measures seem to indicate that,
for our community, the Belfast Agreement and all its out workings
have failed to pass muster.
The referendum which followed the Belfast Agreement saw the
majority of people (71.1%) support the Agreement, but only
a small majority of unionists are believed to have done so;
55% of Protestants according to an exit poll cited in David
McKittrick and David McVea's book "Making Sense of the
Troubles" (Belfast, 2000).
There were many aspects of the Agreement which unionists
found difficult to accept.
The Ulster Scots promise was a nugget for us. We, as the
majority in the unionist community, saw the potential for
our culture and heritage to be recognised and developed. It
seemed that there would be balance within the Agreement.
But ten years on, we could be forgiven for asking where the
substance of all this lies.
Firstly, in the context of the Irish Government, there are
impressive plans to develop the Boyne battlesite as a leading
world interpretative centre which will attract hundreds of
thousands of tourists. This has been promoted as the Republic
recognising the unionist and Protestant tradition in Ireland.
However, to be more cynical, it might also have something
to do with the enormous earning potential of the tourist traffic.
Recognition of the Ulster Scots tradition has been somewhat
muted when it has been raised with senior officials from the
Republic. It was suggested by the Orange Order that there
should be limited Ulster Scots signage to highlight the significant
involvement of Ulster Scots in the battle. There is a memorial
to the 1798 Rising near Killala which has text panels in English,
Irish and French to symbolise those who fought on the field
of battle there, for example.
But getting Ulster Scots onto a plaque looks set to be a
battle in itself. The Irish officials seem to have adopted
the position that there are only two languages in the Republic,
English and Irish. It seems a rather strange position given
that the Irish were signatories to the Belfast Agreement.
Secondly, there is the matter of the east-west links which
were flagged up as an achievement of the Agreement. The British
Irish Council, or Council of the Isles, was set up to promote
east-west links. Its stated aim is to "promote the harmonious
and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships
among the peoples of these islands". Sounds great.
But sadly the British Irish Council does not appear to have
been blazing many trails.
The Council meets twice a year and, according to its official
website, is still, almost ten years on, considering whether
to have a permanent standing secretariat. This situation contrasts
with the North/South Ministerial Council Joint Secretariat.
Laudable though any of the initiatives of the Council of
the Isles may have been the key test for your average person
in the street is whether it has produced anything for them.
And clearly the answer at present can be spelt out in less
than three letters.
If the council is not the mechanism to develop east-west
links for ordinary people, then what is the mechanism? Does
it in fact exist?
Or are we really dealing with sleight of hand? Have we a
situation where issues of substance are developed on a north/south
basis, but only lip service is paid (twice a year) to the
east-west axis which is a key element of the identity of the
Ulster Scots people?
One reason could of course be that the 'endgame' does not
require east/west links.
It is up to us, as a community, to see that the situation
is redressed.
If we lack the strategic vision to go forward then we might
do well to remember the Biblical exhortation in Proverbs that
"Where there is no vision, the people perish".
As a people, of course, we have produced Presidents and Premiers.
Our people have been scientists, inventors, educationalists,
writers, thinkers and doers. Yet one cannot help but wonder
where our current vision as a people is. Who holds that vision?
Is it our church leaders? Our political leaders? Our cultural
leaders? Or is it the case that maybe there is no single strategic
vision - in which case we need to sit down together as a matter
of some urgency.
The political world has, of course, seen seismic change in
recent times. For many in the wider unionist community the
new political arrangements have been met at best with cynicism.
Many wonder whether the political representatives of republicanism
are in government to truly work for 'an Ulster of equals'
(to misapply the Sinn Fein slogan).
Republicans and nationalists are fully entitled to promote
their identity and outlook. What concerns many is the view
that they will utilize every opportunity to do so with considerable
strategic ability and we as a community will be left behind.
If we do not have a strategic view of where we want to be
in five or ten or fifty years, then the sad truth is that
we will indeed be left behind. We will be the silent majority.
That is why now is the time to raise the questions that concern
us as a community and demand equal and fair treatment.
Because if we do not, we really will be a silent majority.
Or, to put it another way, we will be the people whose voice
will have been lost.
Dr David Hume
Director of Services
|
