Monday, 22 March 2010

Salmond and Robinson - birds of a feather?

O’Neill has already highlighted the possibility of a ‘Celtic Bloc’ designed to extract nationalist concessions at Westminster, should the general election result in a hung parliament. Several newspapers have reported discussions between the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and, yes, the DUP.

At the SNP’s Spring Conference the party set out its strategy, which is heavily weighted towards the possibility that a hung parliament might occur. Peter Robinson has also set out his stall, in similar fashion, highlighting the opportunity to realise ‘key strategic gains’ in the event of an inconclusive election.

With polls steadying for Conservatives over the weekend a decisive victory is still very much achievable. However, almost all commentators agree, a hung parliament would be the worst possible general election result for the United Kingdom. Three parties committed to the dismantlement of the UK might be expected to aspire to that outcome, but the DUP is purportedly a unionist party!

The seventeen out of eighteen Conservative and Unionist candidates who have been unveiled hope to participate in the British government. They aspire to contribute to the governance of their country. In contrast, the DUP shares a wreckers’ agenda with its nationalist colleagues from across the UK.

The definition of unionism which Robinson prefers has nothing whatsoever to do with genuine commitment to the UK. It is a parish pump opportunism which seeks only to exploit difficulties at Westminster.

The UUP has made its allies the British Conservative party, a piece of Union building which has been attacked with vitriol by Democratic Unionists. Meanwhile the DUP’s bedfellows are Alex Salmond and Ieuan Wyn Jones, politicians devoted to breaking up the UK!


Anonymous said...

Other than your own hatred of the DUP, on what basis do you claim that Robinson is in any way a soul-mate of Salmond? Vilification and misrepresentation seems to have become the hall mark of this blog rather than rational outlining of views.

Chekov said...

On the basis that their common strategy and their shared indifference to the welfare of the United Kingdom. To the extent that it is simply not even a consideration for Robinson. It's not my fault that the DUP fails even to satisfy the most basic criteria of unionism.

Anonymous said...

What common strategy would that be?

Of course your definitation of Unionist is more about putting our sole trust in to the Tory Party: a party wich has shown more that disinterest in the Union in the past.

Chekov said...

A strategy built around a hung parliament. I see Trevor Clarke is at it again in today's Tele. Pray for a hung parliament at which point you'll start your shopping list of demands.

My definition of unionism involves some type of commitment to the entire Union. Ignoring the wider economic situation, ignoring the damage a hung parliament would do at Westminster, does not suggest a party plugged into a wider picture, at any level.

Anonymous said...

No your definition of Unionism has more to do with blindly following the orders of Tory HQ because Dave made one speech in which he said something vaguely positive about keeping NI in the United Kingdom.

The Tories have shown they can't be trusted on the Union but sure lets just hope Dave will make everything hunky-dory and we can trust in him.

And what happens when Dave is out of government (you know he can't live for ever/walk on water regardless of what this blog seems to think)?

The fate of the Union between GB and NI tied to the electoral fortunes of the Tory Party = sensible long term strategy?

Don't think so.

Chekov said...

Er ... wrong. it has to do with finally participating, properly, in national politics. It has to do with thinking nationally, as well as regionally. The DUP hasn't even alluded to the UK's financial crisis yet or what should be done about it. Parish pump or nothing.