Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald went on British television yesterday morning to argue the case for a United Ireland, albeit in starkly familiar terms that are unlikely to persuade anyone not already convinced of the case for change:
“Why is the six counties, the north, consistently in economic difficulties? The answer to that question is because it is not economically viable as a territory. It’s six counties of the historic nine county province of Ulster. It’s cut off from its natural political, social and economic hinterland. Since the peace agreement was signed in 1998 the value of the All-Ireland economy has multiplied six fold. The natural economic activity for a small island like Ireland is the entire island. It makes no sense to have partition.”
She is not wrong that the economic case for a United Ireland is persuasive. The problem lies in the idea that voters prioritise economic well-being over national identity.
As I have written before, the simplest way to understand the problem with nationalist messaging around Irish unity is to ask the question in reverse: Imagine that voters in the Republic were offered a guaranteed 5% economic growth per year for the next century in return for abandoning independence and re-joining the United Kingdom as subjects of King Charles, his heirs, and successors according to law. Would you take that deal, dear reader?
Mary Lou did try to address that question, to be fair to her, a little later in the interview:
“I would say to our unionist friends, those for whom the question of identity and being British is at the core of their concerns, you are British in partitioned Ireland, you will be British in a united Ireland. This is not an attempt to, in any way, push back against the identity or the integrity of somebody’s sense of self. This is about building a modern dynamic and peaceful country.”
This may be as far as nationalist voters are willing to go on this matter: You will no longer live in the United Kingdom, but you can still be British. But again, this falls a good bit short of what most people might consider to be British. Again, imagine the question in reverse: The Irish nation has been abolished, 1916 conceded as a bad mistake, and you are now ruled by the House of Commons. But don’t worry, you can still be Irish. There is no threat to your identity.
Does that appeal to you, dear reader?
It may be, of course, that Sinn Fein (and nationalists in general) have broadly given up on the idea of persuasion when it comes to a border poll and are instead counting on a raw numbers game of demographic supremacy: Get the thing over the line with 50% plus one (which would be democratically legitimate) and then worry about placating the defeated side thereafter. But that, it strikes me, is foolish on two grounds.
The first is that on raw demographic numbers, nationalists in NI have nothing like the numbers required to brute force a border poll through. If one was to be won from the present position, it would need the support of at least some previously “soft” unionists who identify some part of themselves as Irish. The sorts of people from Unionist backgrounds who happily cheer on the Irish rugby team, for example.
The second is that in a post-unity scenario, the new state will have to deal with close to a million deeply enraged and alienated people with a distinctly martial history.
This is the problem for nationalists: The easiest way to make people who feel distinctly British comfortable in a United Ireland is to give a United Ireland a distinctly British character. A Canadian option, for example, with the country formally independent but with the King as head of state. But this remains a non-runner for nationalism.
Thus, the unity debate remains in a state of paralysis and reliance on demographic headcount one day carrying the day. But as Matt Treacy of this parish, and others have noted, that prospect is actually likely to become more remote over time as the migrant and external-born population of Northern Ireland grows. Unity would be an enormous political change, and people who are not emotionally invested in enormous political change tend not to vote for it.
For example, in the Scottish referendum of 2015, the Independence vote actually won by a narrow 50.2% to 49.8% margin amongst people born in Scotland. But voters from outside the UK voted against independence by a 56% to 43% margin, and voters born in the rest of the UK voted to stay by 70%. As the Northern Population changes, therefore, we can expect unionism to get an extra buffer.
Which means, really, that persuasion is the only game in town. But persuasion requires compromise. How do you persuade people who feel British that they can remain British in a United Ireland? It will require a lot more than words and assurances. It will require things that nationalists, right now, are not prepared to countenance.