Free Degrees

If you check the papers these days, you’ll notice they’re full of young and not-so-young people wearing dark gowns and funny hats, grinning with delight. Beside them family members, grinning even more widely. Good for them. When I had students, I’d duck attending the graduation ceremonies (the essence of tedium and lies) and emerge to congratulate and meet parents. They deserve their big day, even if it includes silly hats, processions and speeches.

But it’s not the graduation ceremonies that I want to bludgeon today. It’s the free degrees. Normal students have to work for years if they want a degree (I know – I’ve got five and it was hellish hard labour all the way); but if you’re famous, the university will give you one FOR NOTHING.

Take Roy Keane, for example. A fine midfielder, a fierce tackler, a good laugh as a manager. So what does the University of Ulster (or was it Queen’s) do? They make him a Doctor of Law. Eh? Say that again. Roy knows NOTHING about the law of the land but the university says ‘Here, Roy. Take this scroll, it testifies that you know lots and lots about law’. Likewise with politicians and politicians’ wives and  ageing rock stars and TV actors and…On it goes.

Why, if a university thinks someone is a valuable member of the community, don’t they give them a medal or a scroll that says ‘We think you’re doing a great job’. There’d be some logic to that.  But not a scroll that says ‘’You’ve studied for four or five years and are now a learned person in this area’,  when in fact they know damn all about the area and the university knows they know damn all.

One day, I know,  a student will stand up as the latest TV personality approaches to receive their Doctorate in Literature, and will shout “Goddamn it!  I’m  mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more!”  and will rush to the stage and rip the scroll from the honorary ( aka phony) doctor’s hands. Now that’s a graduation ceremony I’d be glad to sit in on.  

You wouldn't do it to a dog, would you?

OK.  Some questions for you, prompted by a TV programme I saw last night (about which more later):

Q1: Is a dog for life or just for Christmas?

Q2:  What would you say about people who get a dog and then neglect it –don’t walk it or make sure it’s properly fed and housed, don’t protect it from abuse, don’t give it affection and reassurance throughout its life?

I’m going to take a chance and say you’d reply ‘For life’ to Q1, and to Q2 you’d say that anyone who gets a dog and doesn’t  stick around to walk it, feed it, house it, protect it from abuse or give it affection throughout its life is a shameful swine and should never have got a dog in the first place.

But what if I’ve got a dog and then there are other pressures in my life? I’ve got a new boss who makes me work late so I’m tired when I get home. Or I’ve got involved with a drama group or a political party, and there’s simply not the time to check the dog has been fed properly and is in his kennel or to pat it and tell it its a great fellah each evening. Am I still expected to do all those things for the dog I got?

Again I’d guess your answer would be “Look, the dog is helpless, it depends on you. Once you take on the commitment of owning it, you are saying ‘I’ll look after this mutt, give it a home, meet its needs no matter what. I can’t see the future but regardless, in getting this dog, I commit to meeting all its needs’”.

OK.  Now back to that programme on TV last night. It was Pat Kenny’s ‘Frontline’ on RTE (and incidentally, Kenny is like a man released from prison, now he’s allowed to deal with serious issues and avoid the Late Late Show froth).  The question under discussion was ‘What constitutes the family in Ireland today?’  There was considerable input from all sorts of advocates, notably gay and lesbian groups. But I want to sidestep any number of  fascinating issues, because viewing the programme pushed one disturbing question to the front of my mind and it simply won’t go away. I wonder if it’s easy for other people to answer, because while I think I have an answer, it’s a very disturbing, against-the-grain one.

 My question is this, then:  If we agree that a dog is for life – getting one means commitment to caring for it all its life, regardless of what else pops up in our own lives – shouldn’t the same apply to every child brought into the world? And doesn’t it apply equally to the man and the woman who originally conceived that child?  We wouldn’t tolerate excuses or reasons of changed circumstances for a dog-owner neglecting his/her mutt – you get it, you look after it.  Yet we find all sorts of reasons for couples splitting up  and walking away (by the man or woman – usually the man)  from the daily attention/care/love required by a child they’ve brought into the world.

Odd, really. We wouldn’t accept reasons of changed circumstances for failing to follow through on commitment to give a dog all that it needs all its life, but we accept as normal the failure to follow through on commitment to give a child all that it needs all its life.

Dogs before children? Sounds daft. 

North-South council meeting today - how EXCITING!

How excited are you - extremely? Moderately? Not at all? Of course it’s hard to say what will come out of the meeting – what specifics, what practical decisions.  Maybe they’ll be decisions that’ll trigger other outcomes that’ll balloon into something truly transforming.  Maybe.  Meanwhile, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that today’s sixth North-South ministerial council meeting in Dublin will be about as  successful as a castrated mouse faced with an elephant in heat.

There’ll be twenty-six representatives from north and south, including Brian Cowen, Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness, and the economy will top the agenda. “We must work together energetically in whatever ways we can for mutual benefit”  Mr Cowen is reported as saying. “The ongoing work of the North South Ministerial Council can play an increasingly important part in our strategy for economic recovery and can realize benefits for all of the people, north and south”.

Do you tell me that, Brian. And when you say “our strategy for economic recovery”, are you talking about the south’s strategy or the north and the south’s strategy? And  would there be any chance you could explain just what is the south’s strategy, and how working with the north will benefit both sides? …The what?  The penalty points system?....I see. You’re going to see if working together, politicians from the north and south can find a better way to prosecute northern drivers caught speeding in the south.

Mmm.  You know, sometimes you have to take a big bite of the truth, however nasty the taste. The North-South councils, we were led to believe, would be the engine which would bring about greater and more effective cross-border development of Ireland as a unit. They’d start with small matters, OK, but these would gradually increase in number and size until we’d all see the benefits of acting in a united fashion. That was twelve years ago, when the Good Friday Agreement was signed. And here we are, or rather there they are, looking at prosecuting northern drivers who speed south of the border. Does that look like an issue that’s important in moving towards to national unity?

If we insist on travelling up cul-de-sacs or along roads that have misleading sign-posts, we shouldn’t be surprised if we don’t get any nearer our destination. And if we refuse to admit when a road is a cul-de-sac or a wrong one, we’re fools. 

Orange marches, pigswill and Fionnuala

I don’t always agree with Fionnuala O’Connor but on ‘Inside Politics’ today on BBC Radio Ulster, she made a point that should be made more loudly and more often.  The reason it isn’t is because the BBC doesn’t much like this kind of point.  The ideal commentator on our airwaves (and that means  BBC Radio Ulster – there is no other radio outlet for political discussion) is someone who (i) assumes there are two (and only two) sides to political difference here; and (ii) is so even-handed, it’s barely possible to tell which foot they kick with.  The BBC calls it balance; the rest of us call it bland.

So anyway,  Fionnuala stepped briefly outside that pretty pretence today, with her comment.  She was talking about Orange Order marches and she noted that unionists often drew parallels between their culture (Orange marches) and nationalist culture (GAA games), arguing that the latter is subject to controls that the former aren’t.  Fionnuala noted that the parallel is a false one, for the very good reason that GAA games don’t get played along the road.  

That’s the key point. All this  you-attack-our-Orange-Hall-your-GAA-club-gets-burnt-down  talk is pure pig-swill.  Yes, the GAA play Amhrán na bhFian before games and fly the tricolour  - but they do it inside GAA grounds. Any marching is confined to a circuit of the pitch before throw-in.  The Orange Order insists on getting onto  the roads and streets that are supposed to be shared spaces and marching,  forcing everyone to make way until they’re done.  You’re in a hurry somewhere? Tough – just wait until we’ve finished marching, and  notice we’ve police here to see you do.  In addition,  the Order likes to seek out roads where they’re far from welcome, like the Ormeau Road or the Garvaghy Road. GAA games are confined to nationalist areas.

Can you begin to see that there’s maybe a teensy bit of difference between the ‘two sides’ in this case?  Good. Well done, Fionnuala.

Make nice?

I read a comment on a discussion board yesterday which suggested that the proposed visit of QE2 to these shores would help to pave the way towards British withdrawal from Ireland. Either the ways of international diplomacy are so Byzantine that I can’t begin to grasp them or this commentator is talking through his armpit.  The planned visit would do the opposite: cement British rule in the north of Ireland, by showing that the south of Ireland accepts without demur such an arrangement.

Some say that nationalists are doing their own cause damage by opposing such visits as this. They believe that what nationalists and republicans must do is avoid antagonizing unionism, engage with it, explain to unionists what a united Ireland would look like and actively persuade them as to its advantages.


Nice idea but I don’t see it working. There are, however, a number of ways in which unionists might become convinced that their future lies in a united Ireland.

One is if British withdrawal were to take place, or plans announced that such a thing would happen on a specific date. Dr Johnson believed that the prospect of being hanged focuses the mind wonderfully. Likewise,  were Britain to quit Ireland,  the mind of unionism would be focused  so sharply, it’d almost certainly find ways to live with and within a united Ireland. Opting in becomes easier when there’s nowhere to opt out to.

A second is if the prospect of being part of a united Ireland were to become more attractive – markedly more attractive – than remaining within the UK. At present the British (and particularly the English) attitude to unionists is that of a pretty girl stuck with the attentions of  a suitor who has personal hygiene issues and a hair lip:  she doesn’t want to tell the suitor to clear off but finds his presence inconvenient and irritating.  That kind of response for long enough can tend to dent the enthusiasm of the most ardent swain. Eventually unionism  might discover the emotional and financial cost of remaining in the UK is more than it can bear.

A third is if unionism decided that influencing its own future was more important than traditional ties. As things stand, the impact of MPs from the north in Westminster is miniscule to non-existent. The emptiness of the debating chamber when matters Northern Irish are discussed shows that. Within the UK, unionism is less than 2%; within a united Ireland it would be nearer to 20%.  That, combined with other chafing features of continued union with Britain, might some day strike unionists as a poor bargain.

Until that day, we’re told that a referendum on continued existence within the UK is available to those in the north every seven years.  So when are we going to get one?  If nothing else it’d clarify whether all Protestants are devoted to the UK and whether the sizeable number of Catholic unionists claimed by such as Ian Paisley Sr  actually exist. 

Meanwhile, should nationalists and republicans be nice to unionists? Of course they should, but not because they want to seduce them into a united Ireland. They should treat them with respect and warmth because they're our fellow-countrymen and women.

Big Ian vs the Whore of Babylon (again)

I’ve just come off the Stephen Nolan Show on BBC Radio Ulster, where Gregory Campbell and myself were commenting on Ian Paisley Senior’s latest pronouncements.  In an interview with the BBC World Service, the former DUP leader says he stands by his belief that the Pope is the Anti-Christ and he is convinced unionists will never allow Martin McGuinness to become First Minister.  Gregory, asked about the views of his former party leader,  ducked and dived on both questions. At first he claimed he hadn’t been asked if he agreed with Ian Paisley on the Anti-Christ thing, and then when reminded by myself and Nolan that he had, he said Anti- meant ‘In the place of’.  What about the dictionary definition wich describes the Anti-Christ as the one opposed to Christ and dedicated to spreading evil throughout the world? Nah.  I suggested that if Paisley sees the Pope as the Anti-Christ because he claims to forgive sins, the same claim is made by every Catholic priest in the world. Are they all Anti-Christs? Gregory ducked that one too. Very wise. Might have sounded a bit anti-Catholic.

As to the idea of Martin McGuinness being First Minister, Gregory like his leader insists it won’t happen. He could be right: it depends on whether the DUP and the UUP detest each other more than they do republicans. But the key question is, do the DUP  and Gregory accept the Good Friday Agreement? Because according to the GFA, if Sinn  Fein are the largest party, McGuinness is entitled to be First Minister. You’ve probably noticed the direction in which this train of logic is chuff-chuffing:   democracy is OK, as long as it delivers the results we want. If it doesn’t, it’s a non-starter, a not-to-be-tolerated, a a  well you know a sort of a political Anti-Christ. And as decent Christian people we just couldn’t stand for that. 

It takes two

When the Good Friday Agreement was signed, some unionists (aka the DUP) were deeply sceptical about it, seeing it as a vehicle for Irish reunification. Should they have been worried?  Not so far. Yes, there are cross-border bodies,  but most of us don’t know what they are, how often they meet, what they do when they do meet.  Then there’s that  referendum which was to be held every seven years, so we could vote on whether we wanted to stay as part of the UK. We’re twelve years since the Good Friday agreement and there are still no signs of any such referendum. “But sure it’d be divisive!” is the whine you get when it’s even mentioned. Like, we’re not divided now?

But the single biggest obstacle to reunification is the population of the south. I was talking recently to a man reared in West Cork but living in the north for the past thirty years and more. His diagnosis of his fellow-countymen: far from being Cork rebels, they see the north as a place apart and they’ve swallowed the British line,  energetically promoted throughout the Troubles, that one side up here is as  bad as the other. If the north is depending on those in the south to work for Irish reunification, they’ll be waiting.

Except. Except that I remember the early years of the 1960s.  I lived in Dublin then and the Wee North was seen as a weird place full of hard-faced people who talked funny.  And then, from about 1962 onwards, a series of books and TV programmes came out, remembering the events of fifty years earlier – the run-up to 1916. Five years later all hell broke loose and people who’d dismissed Irish nationalism as old-fashioned rubbish were transformed.  That was the fiftieth anniversary We’re now just six years away from the centenary of 1916. Don’t bet against a similar transformation taking place. Except, of course,  the south’s political parties manage to manipulate the legacy of 1916 and using double-talk and double-think, douse its flame.