Lord Megabucks Kilclooney, also known as former Ulster Unionist Party bigwig John Taylor, has jumped once again feet first into the referendum on Scottish independence. Not content with suggesting last year that an independent Scotland should be “partitioned” with the Borders region up to and including parts of the city of Glasgow retained under London rule he has now revised the ideology of “Unionism” in Ireland. Apparently it is no longer concerned with maintaining British colonial rule over the north-east of this island-nation under the aegis of the so-called “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
Oh no, the “Great Britain” part has nothing to do with it. From a letter to the Scotsman newspaper:
“AS AN Ulster Scot I am obviously anxious about the possible outcome of the independence referendum next year.
Should there be a Yes majority for Scottish independence then we in Northern Ireland, being closer in both distance and culture with Scotland, would have to decide whether to remain with England or remain with Scotland.
Well there you go. “Ulster” Unionism. Or as we may more honestly term it, anything but the Taigs. I wouldn’t have one around the place y’know…
taylor seems to live in cloud cuckoo land – imagine not realising that if the scots want independence they want independence from people like him. I havent noticed any scottish campaigner inviting the unionists from ni to join them in their future country!!They’re a lot wiser than that!And have brought in anti-sectarian and marching laws!!
Anyway some more evidence to show how clueless Taylor is.
While i was writing my 2 pieces on loyalist paramillitaries I was found this information about their attitudes to what they had done,
Loyalists believe their campaign of deliberate sectarian murder and their strategic targeting of republicans (with a degree of collusion from the security forces) brought the IRA to the negotiating table.
Astonishingly, that view is given a degree of credibility by the deputy leader of the Unionist Party, John Taylor. “The loyalist paramilitaries achieved something which perhaps the security forces would never have achieved,” he told me. “They were a significant contribution to the IRA finally accepting that they couldn’t win”.
I looked at so many sources I can’t find the link. sorry !
Peter Taylor, the Tablet:
There is, however, a critical and chilling difference between loyalists and republicans although it is of little comfort to grieving families and friends. In most cases, although there are notable exceptions, the IRA did not set out to kill civilians as their prime targets.The sectarian attacks of the loyalist paramilitaries, the UDA/UFF and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), were different. In most cases, their intention was to kill innocent Catholic civilians, as well as targeting the republican enemy, to force the nationalist community to put pressure on the IRA to stop. As one former UDA commander, Jackie McDonald, told me, “It got to the stage where the younger element decided that if they [the IRA] want to kill ours in eights and tens, we kill theirs in tens or twelves”.
Loyalists believe, however erroneously, that it was their campaign of deliberate sectarian murder and their strategic targeting of republicans (with a degree of collusion from the security forces) that in the end brought the IRA to the negotiating table. Astonishingly, that view is given a degree of credibility by the deputy leader of the Unionist Party, John Taylor. “The loyalist paramilitaries achieved something which perhaps the security forces would never have achieved,” he told me. “They were a significant contribution to the IRA finally accepting that they couldn’t win.” Even more remarkably, Taylor admits that some sections of the Protestant community had a sneaking regard for what the loyalist paramilitaries did. It is a chilling and sobering thought.
To the oft posed rhetorical question, why did the British terror factions in Ireland not have a successful political wing like the Irish Republican Army did with Sinn Féin, the answer is that they did.
It was called the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party.
thanks Seamas for doing the heavy lifting!!
Not sure what this has to do with the Irish, Scotland has nothing to do with Ireland, their so called ‘independence’ affair, is for the Scots to decide and only the Scots. I don’t see the offence here at all to suggest what it makes out, it just seems like hot air with a bitter pill swallowed by easily offended yet again.
As he’s obviously claiming to be an Ulsterman, what he is saying is that he feels a connection with Scotland because of it, but what does the title ‘anyone but the Irish’ have to do with it? Of course the Irish should have nothing at all to do with it because it is Scottish and that has nothing to do with Irish. The guy was obviously referring to Ulster’s historic link with Scotland only.
I believe John Taylor was showing that the ever-changing boundary posts of British Nationalism and Unionism in Ireland have relatively little to do with any connection with Britain and everything to do with rejecting any lasting connection to the 85% majority of the population of Ireland that they share this island-nation with.
It is colonial supremacism and colonial apartheidism wrapped up in slightly different clothes.
Well you don’t see England constantly demanding and moaning that Scotland should become one with England like you do with the republic trying to demand the 6 counties of Ulster to give up their separate identity and pretend to be Irish (or ‘plastic paddies’ as they often call them), but that’s another issue before you instantly assume I’m taking sides here, my point is the massive irony in these comments, because wanting to be in a political union is very different from wanting to be the same one entity as a foreign entity, these are not the same thing.
Most Scots for example acknowledge they are British, but does that make them the exact same Brits as the others? nope, they don’t want to be part of some made up celtish union, or any other union unless it is British, it’s that or no union at all, because of the very simple fact of the truth is that is what they are, to deny that and pretend otherwise is to turn a blatant blind eye to that very truth. Doesn’t really matter which way you cut it, they all lead to the same resultant conclusion.
I mean, even if they in Ulster started to act more Irish tomorrow, would the Irish go away and not bother Britain and go there own way? Fat chance.
It’s colonial supremacism? What part(s) make it colonial supremacism in particular?
Is it because the Irish get no say on a matter which does not concern the Irish?
1) Scotland as a separate nation ceased to be when the union with England occurred. The Union in the form of the UK takes the form of a “Greater England”. The union between England and Scotland was the annexation and absorption of the latter by the former. That is the official view of the British government and state expressed in 2013. So England did indeed demand that Scotland become one with it for the purposes of international jurisprudence.
2) The Irish province of Ulster has nine counties not six, something many in the British Unionist minority community recognise. This has also been recognised by the British government and not disputed at any time, though “Ulster” is used colloquially when referring to the British Occupied North of Ireland in British culture.
3) A minority of Scots now recognise themselves as British according to the last census (2011), to be precise 26.7%. In contrast 62.4% record their identity as Scottish only.
4) Why would the Irish “bother” Britain if Britain ceased its continued colonial occupation of part of our island-nation?
5) Colonial supremacism is a malignant ideology which derives from the beliefs of some extremists in a minority community who are descended in the main from colonial settlers from Britain and who refuse to accept that they live in a nation other than Britain. A nation foreign to Britain.
6) Anything to do with Ireland concerns the Irish and all of this island-nation’s diverse communities.
Thought everyone would appreciate this reply to Taylor’s letter
“I AM surprised that you published such a ridiculous letter (2 November) from Lord Kilclooney, formerly John Taylor MP, a member of the fractured and failed Ulster political class that had to be bailed out by mainland troops.
He always starts his interference with the words “as an Ulster Scot”. Perhaps his ancestry is Scottish, but he is an Ulster Scot like the Queen is a “Britain German”.
Lord Kilclooney is an Ulster unionist, his loyalty is to the UK and London. He had better be aware that Scotland will stand alone, while Ulster may choose to stay under London rule or go independent. That is not Scotland’s concern. Furthermore, Scotland is not Ulster’s” concern.http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/unionist-folly-1-3172022
The phrase “not in my backyard” springs to mind 😉
It is interesting that parts of the borders where historically described as ‘Ingland in Scoland’ and were thought of as ethnically part of England. This was during the period of time when they called their language Inglis and refered to the native language of most of Scotland as Scots. Now, of course, they call the continuation of ‘Inglis’ Scots and call the original Scots language ‘Gaelic’ or ‘Erse’ which makes it sound foreign rather than being the actual language of the Scots which is what it was seen as historically.
The very point some young Gaelic-speakers in Scotland are making by calling Gaelic “Scottish”.