Left Foot Forward » Northern Ireland

Sinn Féin plans next moves towards Irish unity

Kevin Meagher — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:00:23 +0000

The leadership of Sinn Féin will meet today to take stock of the party’s historic mission to unify the island of Ireland.

90 years after the partition of the country, following Ireland’s War of Independence and the subsequent treaty with Britain, 100 key party figures will gather at a hotel in Drogheda Co Louth in the Irish Republic to plot their next moves in turning a long-cherished dream into reality.

This gathering of the republican elite follows a series of mass meetings across Ireland – both North and South – in a bid to begin the process of building a consensus around unifying the country. There have also been events in London, the US and Canada involving the Irish Diaspora.

Last month Derry’s Millennium Fort was host to 1000 people at a Uniting Ireland conference which included protestant ministers and even Ulster Unionist Party MLA, Basil McRae.

This kind of involvement – even when restating established political differences – would have been utterly unthinkable just a handful of years ago. Now, Northern Ireland’s fast-evolving political dispensation is making dialogue – if not always agreement – possible.

Such is the change in atmosphere that a joint call was made earlier this week from Northern Ireland’s first minister and Democratic Unionist Party leader Peter Robinson and deputy first minister, Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness, for prayers to be offered-up for the recovery of one-time unionist hardliner, the Rev Ian Paisley – who remains in intensive care following heart problems.

Speaking ahead of today’s meeting, Sinn Féin’s president, Gerry Adams TD, said that Irish unity remained his movement’s “key political objective”.

He added:

“Making progress on this involves building political strength, developing strategies, challenging partitionism, engaging with other political parties and society, reaching out to the diaspora and taking part in a dialogue with our unionist neighbours.”

“The Good Friday Agreement and the all-Ireland political institutions are an important step in this direction, but more effort is needed.”

He argued that the party needed to focus on popularising Irish re-unification while building “structures and policies which transcend the border and engage with unionist opinion” saying that “their identity, self-interest and quality of life will be best served in a new Ireland, a new republic for the 21st century.”

Today’s event follows a call last week from Martin McGuinness for a referendum on Irish unity sometime after 2016.

See also:

• The Week Outside Westminster – UUP down, Leanne Wood up, and Miliband in Scotland – Ed Jacobs, February 4th 2012

• McGuinness in Irish unity poll call – Kevin Meagher, January 31st 2012

• UUP infighting as McNarry says he feels “abused” and has been “kicked in the teeth” – Ed Jacobs, January 31st 2012

• The Week Outside Westminster – Leading questions and questioning leaders – Ed Jacobs, January 28th 2012

• What’s the point of the UUP? – Ed Jacobs, January 19th 2012

The Week Outside Westminster – UUP down, Leanne Wood up, and Miliband in Scotland

Ed Jacobs — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:00:03 +0000

To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

Northern Ireland

In the week that David McNarry declared himself to feel “abused” by the way he was dumped by UUP leader Tom Elliott, the Conservatives announced their plans to enter the world of Northern Irish politics on its own, a development which received a lukewarm reception at best.

In an editorial, the Newsletter argued:

“If the ‘new’ party is to survive then it will need a new and articulate team of spokesmen and candidates: and it really must be very careful not to become a refugee camp for disgruntled and electorally unsuccessful former members of the UUP.

“But the ultimate test will be the next round of elections. For if it doesn’t breach the eight per cent barrier and start winning seats it won’t be given a second chance to get it right.

“The brutal reality is that this really does represent the last - slightly desperate - throw of the dice for ‘Conservatives’ in Northern Ireland.”

Former UUP staffer Michael Shilliday, meanwhile, declared on the Slugger O’Toole blog:

“The Conservative Party has no hope in Northern Ireland without an existing local base, the best fit being the UUP. The UUP is visionless and increasingly rudderless without the Conservative Party (the real one that is, not what passes for it in Northern Ireland). Seems obvious what to do really.”

Amidst the on-going debate over the future of the Union, meanwhile, Sinn Fein deputy first minister Martin McGuinness argued that a referendum on whether the North wanted to join with the Republic could be held by as early as 2016.

Speaking to the Irish Examiner he concluded:

“It just seems to me to be a sensible timing. It would be on the question of whether or not the people of the Six Counties wish to retain the link with what is described as the United Kingdom, or be part of a united Ireland. It could take place anytime between 2016 or 2020-21.

“I don’t see any reason whatsoever why that should not be considered. I think, in all probability, the people who have got the power to put that in place won’t even contemplate it this side of the next Assembly elections, which conceivably could be 2015 or 2016.”

DUP MLA Peter Weir dubbed the remarks “unrealistic”.

Wales

Having received the most number of nominations for her campaign, Plaid Cymru Leadership hopeful Leanne Wood told of her aspirations for independence.

Writing in the Guardian, John Harris explained:

“Leanne Wood is rather different from most of the UK’s politicians.

“Forty years old and a mother of one, she still lives in the same street in the Rhondda Valley where she was born and brought up.

“She thinks the crash of 2008 should have “resulted in the rejection of capitalism and many of its basic economic and political assumptions”, and that the UK’s coalition amounts to a “hyper-competitive, imperial/militaristic, climate-change-ignoring and privatising government”.

“She is also a proud republican, who refuses to attend the kind of official events at which the Queen turns up, and was once thrown out of the Welsh Assembly for referring to the reigning monarch as “Mrs Windsor”. If any of this chimes with your general view of what’s wrong with the world, it’s fair to say that you’d like her.

“If Wood pursued her political career in Westminster, her opinions might ensure she was kept safely on the fringes. But in her home country, she is a high-profile voice - and the current favourite to take over the leadership of Plaid Cymru, the nationalist party who, until 2011, shared power in Wales with Labour.

“With the result due on 15 March, Paddy Power has 4-5 odds on to win; in her Cardiff office, there is a sense of quiet expectancy.

“The prospect of life as party leader is not the only reason for her air of energised enthusiasm.

“Being a senior Plaid Cymru figure, Wood believes in Welsh independence. And with Scotland set to vote on whether to stay part of the UK in 2014 and the future of the union being argued over as never before, Wood and her fellow Welsh nationalists think there is an unprecedented opening for the most fundamental of their beliefs.

“Certainly, if Scotland makes the leap and leaves a rump United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (“Little Britain”, as it has recently become known), Wales’s marginal position will be self-evident: it will have 30 Westminster MPs to England’s 502, and bump against the political and economic dominance of the English south-east as never before.

“With that grim prospect on the horizon, Wood thinks these could be fertile times for her and her party.”

Health secretary Andrew Lansley, meanwhile, was snubbed by the Welsh government over demands that they let him know before the press, about their decision to fund both the removal and replacement of PiP breast implants.

In a letter seen by the BBC, Lansley wrote to Welsh health minister Lesley Griffiths:

“I would… like to take this opportunity to seek your assurance that in the future you will inform my department if the Welsh government decides to take a contradictory approach to a public health issue before we learn of it through the media, which was the case in relation to your comments regarding the replacement of PIP breast implants on the NHS.”

Responding, a spokesperson for the Welsh government declared:

“Andrew Lansley’s letter is arrogant and patronising. Behaving like devolution never happened flies in the face of the respect agenda so often talked about by the prime minister.”

Scotland

Ed Miliband used a speech in Glasgow to argue that social justice was best achieved with Scotland staying in the Union, arguing:

“I say let’s confront the real divide in our society.

“Not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. But between the haves and the have-nots. So I am not here to tell Scots that Scotland cannot survive outside the United Kingdom. But I am here to tell you that we need to make Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a fairer, more just, place to live.

“And we can do this best together.”

Assessing the speech, George Eaton at the New Statesman wrote:

“Buoyed by his victory on Stephen Hester’s bonus (he accused Cameron of failing to act as a “responsible shareholder”), Miliband presented his own brand of social democratic Unionism.

“The crux of his argument was that “the real divide” in Britain is not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom but between “the haves and the have-nots”. The task of creating a “more equal, just and fair society” is one best performed by the nations of the UK working together, he said.

“He spoke of the Scotsman who founded the Labour Party (Keir Hardie), the Englishman who led the “most successful Labour government” in history (Clement Attlee) and the Welshman (Nye Bevan) who founded the NHS.

“In his Hugo Young lecture last week, Alex Salmond argued that an independent Scotland could serve as a “progressive beacon” for the rest of the UK, but Miliband turned this claim on its head.

“Scottish secession, he warned, would trigger a “race to the bottom” on bank regulation, wages and conditions at work. For instance, citing the example of Ireland, Salmond has pledged to slash corporation tax should Scotland win fiscal autonomy.

“Perhaps partly for this reason, Miliband argued for a single-question referendum, excluding the possibility of a “devo max” option.

“There are some in Labour, citing Donald Dewar’s echoing of devolution as “a process, not an event”, who argue that the party should embrace devolution max, which is favoured by a majority of Scots, as a positive alternative to independence.

“The danger in leaving devo max off the ballot paper, they note, is that Scottish voters conclude that the only way to win fiscal autonomy is to vote for full independence. But Miliband, like Cameron, seems wedded to the high-risk option of a one-question referendum.”

As “Fred the Shred” this week lost the “Sir” to become “Mr Goodwin”, Alex Salmond outlined his regrets at previous support for him.

He told the BBC:

“If we all had our time again we’d look at things differently. I think there are very few people who can justifiably say that they anticipated the full extent of the financial collapse – the financial crisis.

“I mean I know some people claim they did but I think if you examine the record you’ll find there’s very few people on the planet – and I am certainly not one of them – who anticipated it.

“So, yeah, of course, if we had the benefit of hindsight we’d do things differently and I am sure that is true of lots and lots of people.”

Also this week:

• Sign up to receive our weekly summary of the news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Week Outside Westminster

• Swinney on Scotland currency – more questions than he answers? – Ed Jacobs

• “She calls her town a ‘s***hole’”: Irish newspaper smears Polish migrants – Alex Hern

• Conservatives in Northern Ireland – what’s the point? – Ed Jacobs

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, CND

• McGuinness in Irish unity poll call – Kevin Meagher

• UUP infighting as McNarry says he feels “abused” and has been “kicked in the teeth” – Ed Jacobs

• Miliband to outline vision of a fairer Union – Ed Jacobs

Conservatives in Northern Ireland – what’s the point?

Ed Jacobs — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:15:52 +0000

Sign up to our weekly “Week Outside Westminster” email service summarising the week’s news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

Since the announcement in 2008 that the UUP and Conservatives would look to form closer links with each other, David Cameron has made it a mission to enter the world of electoral politics in Northern Ireland in a belief that a truly unionist party needed to contest elections in every part of the country.

In 2010, the electoral pact between the parties was a disaster to say the least, leading as it did to the resignation of the UUP’s only MP in Westminster, Lady Sylvia Hermon, in protest.

Indeed, at the time, former UUP deputy leader John Taylor, now Lord Kilclooney, declared, somewhat unflatteringly, the partnerships to be akin to a “mongrel relationship” whilst the then Conservative chair of the Northern Ireland select committee, Patrick (now Lord) Cormack, dubbed it “odd” and “inconsistent”.

Having had advances to re-establish a pact rejected by UUP leader Tom Elliott, the Conservatives have instead decided to go it alone and establish a Conservative party in Northern Ireland completely separately of any other party.

Announcing the plans, the party’s co-chairman Lord Feldman declared:

“For too long politics in Northern Ireland have been built around sectarianism and division. We want to move past the politics of the peace process to a more normal state of affairs where everyone in Northern Ireland has the opportunity to vote for a modern, centre-right, pro-Union party.

“This new political party won’t be encumbered by the conflict and divisions of Northern Ireland’s past. We want to reach out to everybody in Northern Ireland, regardless of their background.”

On the face of it, at a time when the debate over Scottish independence rages on, the idea of bringing Northern Ireland out from the cold and into the mainstream of UK politics might seem appealing to unionists. Dig deeper, however and it’s not hard to realise how difficult a move it could be.

Firstly, how can David Cameron ever now hope to be able to act as an independent arbiter in Northern Ireland politics when he will now have his own electoral chances to consider?

As shadow Northern Ireland secretary, Vernon Coaker, has argued:

“The Conservative party in Northern Ireland has been relaunched more times than the Big Society.

Instead of prioritising their party’s self-serving misadventures in Northern Ireland, the prime minister and the Secretary of State should concentrate on meeting their responsibilities to help secure the peace process and build a shared future.”

Secondly, it has to be questioned how timely the move is for the Conservatives to be entering the world of Northern Ireland politics at the exact same time as even Tom Elliott himself has admitted that he is exploring how the DUP and UUP can better co-operate to give unionism in Northern Ireland a stronger voice. What role does the Conservative Party have to play in this?

Indeed, given their accusations that the proposed boundary changes in Northern Ireland, spearheaded by the Conservatives, amount to “gerrymandering”, the DUP will not be in any mood to give Cameron et al an easy ride.

And finally, just how new is the proposal? As former UUP staffer, Michael Shilliday, has observed on the Slugger O’Toole blog:

“Let’s be clear, there is to be no “new party” in Northern Ireland. They are not farming off their existing branch, they are attempting to tart it up a bit. And what are these momentous changes? They MIGHT get a seat on the Conservative party board (hardly a sign of a new party is it?), they MIGHT be allowed to elect a leader, and they will be allowed to have a Chairman (so what has Irwin Armstrong been doing all this time?)

“It all begs the question, what is the point? It sounds a bit like they will attract a few failed UUP candidates, but is that together with some semantic dressing up really going to turn an electorally insignificant and utterly failed group into the vanguard for liberal Unionism?

“The Conservative party has no hope in Northern Ireland without an existing local base, the best fit being the UUP. The UUP is visionless and increasingly rudderless without the Conservative party (the real one that is, not what passes for it in Northern Ireland). Seems obvious what to do really.”

With the UUP having made crystal clear that it cannot foresee a new electoral pact with the Conservatives, Cameron’s foray into the world of Northern Ireland’s politics is the wrong move at the wrong time.

See also:

• Tories and UUP split over merger deal – Ed Jacobs, January 5th 2012

• Has the UUP/Tory link hit the rocks? – Ed Jacobs, February 3rd 2011

• Northern Ireland: The challenges facing Mr Cameron – Ed Jacobs, May 17th 2010

• UUP-Tory alliance a “mongrel relationship” – Ed Jacobs, March 12th 2010

• Cameron accused of “sham marriage” with Ulster Unionists – Ed Jacobs, March 10th 2010

McGuinness in Irish unity poll call

Kevin Meagher — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:05:43 +0000

Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, wants to see a referendum on Irish unity by as early as 2016.

In an interview with the Irish Examiner, the Sinn Fein heavyweight argues that the “sensible timing” of such a vote would be sometime during the next session of Northern Ireland’s Assembly, sometime after 2015.

McGuinness argues that the vote would be on the question of:

“Whether or not the people of the Six Counties wish to retain the link with what is described as the United Kingdom, or be part of a united Ireland.”

He added:

“I don’t see any reason whatsoever why that should not be considered”

McGuinness also believes Sinn Fein’s power-sharing partners, the DUP, will support such a move.

Last November, first minister Peter Robinson, leader of the Democratic Unionists, conceded that he may be the last Protestant first minister, with Northern Ireland’s in-built Protestant, unionist majority steadily whittling away through demographic change.

However he argued that the Irish Republic’s recent economic woes were “not appetising” for nationalist voters:

“I think the more stable our structure, the more peaceful Northern Ireland is, the more it works as part of the UK, then the more people will think, ‘Why on earth would we change?’”

Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, the decision whether to call a referendum on Northern Ireland’s constitutional status rests with the secretary of state.

McGuinness said:

“I think, in all probability, the people who have got the power to put that in place won’t even contemplate it this side of the next Assembly elections, which conceivably could be 2015 or 2016.”

Although 53 per cent of Northern Ireland’s population identified themselves as Protestant in the 2001 census, a recent study showed that when asked to state their religion, 54 per cent of boys and 55 per cent of girls in Northern Ireland described themselves as Catholic. Moreover, 49 per cent of Northern Irish students were Catholics, while only 35 per cent were Protestants.

Although the broad assumption remains that Catholics want a united Ireland, while Protestants prefer to remain part of the UK, McGuinness argues this view is now “too sectarian”.

As the British state already faces the real prospect of Scottish independence in 2014, its oldest and most persistent secessionist issue – Ireland – looks set to come back into focus once more.

See also:

• UUP infighting as McNarry says he feels “abused” and has been “kicked in the teeth” – Ed Jacobs, January 31st 2012

• What’s the point of the UUP? – Ed Jacobs, January 19th 2012

• Preview 2012 – Northern Ireland – Ed Jacobs, December 30th 2011

• Should Northern Ireland football scrap God Save the Queen? – Ed Jacobs, December 13th 2011

• UUP renew calls for opposition at Stormont – Ed Jacobs, October 25th 2011

UUP infighting as McNarry says he feels “abused” and has been “kicked in the teeth”

Ed Jacobs — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:00:11 +0000

UUP MLA David McNarry has declared that he feels “abused” over how he has been treated over revelations about discussions between the UUP and DUP over potential future co-operation, describing his treatment as akin to being “kicked in the teeth”.

On Friday it emerged that the UUP leader, Tom Elliott, had taken the decision to remove him from his position as vice chair of the Assembly’s education committee, while last Monday, McNarry used the Belfast Telegraph to reveal that top level meetings had taken place between the UUP and DUP over forging closer ties to maximise the unionist vote, with suggestions he had minutes of such meetings to prove his case.

Speaking of the decision to effectively sack McNarry from his job on the education committee, Elliott said yesterday:

“There was no issue with him talking to the DUP – I had him as a liaison with the DUP so there was no issue around that – it was because he went beyond his remit.

“Quite clearly once you see someone talk about the possibility on the future of the DUP holding the first minister position and the Ulster Unionist Party holding the junior minister, that’s way beyond the remit.”

The affair prompted Elliott to write to party members to reassure them over the nature of the talks with the DUP, declaring the party’s aim to do no more than to “explore areas of cooperation for the benefit of unionism in general”. McNarry duly resigned the party whip in the Assembly.

Hitting back at the weekend’s development, however, McNarry has argued that Elliott himself was at the very meetings that looked at greater co-operation between the UUP and DUP.

Speaking to the Newsletter, McNarry declared:

“I took notes in my own handwriting, in the one book. They follow consecutive dates and are just reports of what was taking place. When Tom wasn’t at a meeting I reported to him what had happened.”

Addressing the way he had been treated since his revelations in the Belfast Telegraph became public, he continued:

“I felt abused; I felt that somebody had trespassed over me here and I felt that unless Tom is prepared to tell people what has been happening it makes it very difficult for me because I’ve been protecting him.

“The notebook protects my integrity and at the moment my integrity is under the microscope. If it continues to be under the microscope then I will have to consider where I am.

“I had the utmost respect for everybody who was involved in what was going on.”

And turning his attention to Danny Kennedy, the UUP’s sole minister in the Stormont government - who gave very public support for Elliott’s decisions - McNarry concluded:

“Danny Kennedy and I are unionists from the same oak and I appreciate the public position he has taken. But it is not what we have talked about in private.

“I’ve had support from other MLAs by telephone and text message. I’ve gone for honesty and transparency and I’ve been kicked in the teeth.”

Just a few weeks ago, Left Foot Forward asked what the point of the UUP actually was. This week’s developments will serve only to compound the problem, making all the more difficult Tom Elliott’s efforts to carve out a distinctive identity for his party, eclipsed as they remain by the much larger DUP as the principle force of Unionism in Northern Ireland.

See also:

• What’s the point of the UUP? – Ed Jacobs, January 19th 2012

• Preview 2012 – Northern Ireland – Ed Jacobs, December 30th 2011

• Should Northern Ireland football scrap God Save the Queen? – Ed Jacobs, December 13th 2011

• UUP renew calls for opposition at Stormont – Ed Jacobs, October 25th 2011

• Time for normal politics in Northern Ireland? – Ed Jacobs, May 10th 2011

The Week Outside Westminster – Leading questions and questioning leaders

Ed Jacobs — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:00:02 +0000

To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published research (pdf) this week pointing to a growing sense of grievance in England to the devolved nations.

Summing up the results, IPPR director Nick Pearce concluded:

“English identity is on the rise and it is increasingly expressed in terms that are resentful of the devolution settlement… Our mainstream political parties need to embrace Englishness.”

Scotland

Another week and the same issue continued to dominate Scottish politics, as the Alex Salmond independence band wagon continued at speed.

Having used the Hugo Young Lecture on Tuesday to argue that an independent Scotland would provide a “beacon of progressive opinion” for the rest of the UK, Burns Night saw the Scottish government publish its consultation on a referendum.

With polling for the New Statesman pointing to those in favour of independence being just one per cent behind those against, the Herald’s editorial on Thursday concluded:

“This consultation document and its Westminster cousin offer a vital opportunity to test public opinion on this most compelling of matters: the future of the United Kingdom and Scotland’s relationship with its constituent parts.

“It has suited the Westminster government to cast doubt on the credibility of a plebiscite organised by the Scottish government.

“The true test of that credibility, however, now lies with Mr Salmond. Having opened his proposals to public consultation, he and his Government must take on board the comments and criticisms and heed the will of the Scottish people whose interests he holds so dear.

“Scottish Labour’s new leader Johann Lamont made the point yesterday that the first minister does not speak for all the Scottish people. It is a valid point, given that he does not miss an opportunity to assert that the SNP expresses the will of Scots. Yet, until today’s New Statesman survey, the polls had continued to show that a minority favour independence.

“Mr Salmond has had his first big say. The opposition parties at Holyrood must now engage in making a positive case for the Union. There is a will to make sure that the referendum is legal, fair and decisive.

“It can be so as long as many people as possible make their views during the consultation period. The opportunity must be seized so that there is no room for dubiety or dispute when the people of Scotland take part in the most momentous vote in 300 years.”

At the Guardian, meanwhile, the paper’s Whitehall correspondent, Polly Curtis sought to establish how fair the SNP’s proposed question (Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?) was.

She explained:

“The experts I heard from don’t believe that the SNP’s question is the fairest phrasing on the question.

“Asking people to agree with something is more likely to elicit a positive response than asking them to disagree. The emerging “no” campaign would prefer to campaign on a question that asks people whether they would like Scotland to remain in the union – their favoured outcome. For the same reasons, this also wouldn’t be the fairest option.

“The fairest way would be to give the two options – independence or remaining in the union – and let people decide.

“However, John Curtice said that the phrasing of the question in this referendum is unlikely to have a very profound impact. Phrasing is far more important on issues that people don’t understand the ins and outs of, such as the AV referendum. With the Scottish referendum on independence people are likely to be well versed in the debate.”

Elsewhere, independent MSP Margo MacDonland reignited the debate over assisted suicide by reintroducing a bill on Tuesday to allow it in Scotland.

Summing up the difficulties the proposals will cause, the Herald wrote on Wednesday:

“With the exception of abortion, it is hard to think of a more emotive and contentious area of public debate and medical ethics than assisted dying.The rest of life demands of us few more agonising choices than those surrounding birth and death.

“In late 2010 Margo MacDonald’s end of life assistance bill was rejected by 85 votes to 16 at Holyrood. Yet yesterday the Independent MSP was back in the chamber with a new bid to legalise assisted suicide.

“Her return to this issue, so soon after her first bill was so decisively rejected, testifies to her impressive campaigning zeal on this issue, a zeal intensified by her own Parkinson’s diagnosis.

“It is also a reflection of the way the ground is shifting in this debate. With new members making up one-third of the Scottish Parliament and opinion polls suggesting growing support for the right to be helped to die, it would be a mistake to write off her chances of success this time around.”

Wales

First minister Carwyn Jones used a press conference to distance himself from Ed Miliband’s support for a cap on public sector workers pay.

Arguing that such a policy would be fundamentally unfair, he told journalists:

“I think it’s absolutely crucial that people see that those who are paid the most in financial services, those who the public believe were responsible for our current economic difficulties, pay their fair share as well.

“I don’t believe that this is being done and as a result I think it’s very difficult to say to those who work in the public sector, who didn’t cause the economic difficulties, that we have to bear the brunt of pay cuts when it isn’t happening in those sectors which are more appropriate.”

As the Scottish parliament grappled with the issue of assisted suicide, in Wales leaders of the main Christian denominations made clear their objections to the government’s proposals for a system of presumed consent for organ donation.

Outlining their fears, the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, George Stack, the Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, and The Very Reverend Archimandrite Father Deiniol, of the Wales Eastern Orthodox Mission, argued:

“Pastors, theologians and church leaders of all denominations agree that offering organs for donation is a significant act of charity, and a reflection of God’s freely-given love and care for us, including the gift of life.

“The positive ethos of donation as a free gift is endangered by an ill-judged if well intentioned proposal to move from voluntary donation to presumed consent.

“It is of extreme concern that while responses are being invited on the proposals in the white paper, the central proposal, which is the shift from donation to presumed consent, is presented as a fait accompli.

“There is a real danger that a change in the law would alienate a significant proportion of the public and undermine the positive image of organ donation and the reputation of Wales.”

Responding to the concerns, health minister Lesley Griffiths argued:

“We have made great progress in Wales in increasing the number of actual donors. However, there is still a shortage of organs and this is something the Welsh government wants to change by introducing a new way of making a person’s wishes known.

“International evidence shows organ donation has risen in other countries which have opt-out systems. I believe introducing a soft opt-out system in Wales, together with an ongoing public awareness campaign, will help increase the number of organs available.”

Northern Ireland

After it was claimed that the UUP and DUP had held secret meetings over a possible merger, one DUP strategist and blogger argued for a debate about the potential for such a move.

Writing in the Newsletter, Lee Reynolds, a councillor for north Belfast, concluded:

“Unionism has two electoral challenges - falling turnout and the need to expand its electoral base beyond its traditional community (without alienating the existing base).

“There is the political challenge of making Northern Ireland a beacon of political, social and economic success within the Union and regaining the global presence it once enjoyed. None of these tasks are easy.

“There are also shifts in voter attitude going on among the electorate that unionism needs to be conscious of.

“The present structures, relationships and attitudes among the unionist parties have been shaped by the peace process. Northern Ireland’s politics has begun to move on from the politics of the peace process.

“As we look forward to the centenary of Northern Ireland in 2021, would focusing our efforts on these challenges and changes not produce greater benefits for the Union and unionism than finding arguments for the sake of them?

“Unionist unity could be an opportunity to create something new and better. This is its litmus test. If after a thorough, intense and constructive debate the conclusion is that we can create something better then we should proceed.

“If it doesn’t then we shouldn’t. The debate itself is something no unionist or anyone else in Northern Ireland should be fearful of.”

In a sign of further progress meanwhile, Sinn Fein deputy first minister Martin McGuinness declared that he still hadn’t ruled out the possibility of meeting the Queen.

Reflecting on her visit to Dublin last year, he told BBC Ulster’s “Inside Politics” programme:

“I’ve made it clear that the visit of Queen Elizabeth of Britain to the south, was something that we looked at with considerable interest.

“And I think the fact that she was prepared to recognise the importance of the Irish language; that she was prepared to stand in a very dignified way to honour those patriots who struggled in 1916 to bring about a free and independent 32-county Irish Republic, that made an impact upon me.

“So that’s an issue that I will ponder and I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Also this week:

• Sign up to receive our weekly summary of the news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Week Outside Westminster

• Regressive of the week: Alex Salmond – Shamik Das

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern

• Progressives need a positive vision for Scotland – Ed Jacobs

• Déjà vu as Scottish referendum campaign turns nasty – Mike Morgan-Giles

• Salmond has questions to answer, because the evidence doesn’t support him – William Bain MP

• Hughes makes the case for an English Parliament as Salmond faces fresh scrutiny – Ed Jacobs

The Week Outside Westminster – Answering the West Lothian question

Ed Jacobs — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:00:25 +0000

To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

Cabinet Office minister Mark Harper this week announced the establishment of a commission to address the West Lothian question, opening a can of worms over the future of the UK constitution.

Writing of the announcement, IPPR director Nick Pearce explained:

“English votes on English laws (EVOEL), which would bar Scottish MPs from voting on English matters, sounds like a seductively simple solution to the West Lothian anomaly, but as Gladstone discovered during the Irish home rule debates of the 19th century, it is notoriously difficult to make work in practice.

“In 1964 and February 1974, UK Labour governments were formed despite the Conservatives holding a majority of English seats.

“Under EVOEL such governments would be unable to legislate for English domestic policy.

“It has often been argued that such chaos would create a greater constitutional anomaly than that generated by West Lothian itself.”

Scotland

The ongoing debate over Scottish independence rumbled on as the Sunday Telegraph released polling showing English voters were more supportive than the Scots about the idea of independence; a date was set for a meeting between Alex Salmond and Scottish secretary Michael Moore and the SNP officially rejected suggestions that ex-pat Scots should have a vote in the referendum.

News however that unemployment across Scotland has increased by 19,000 and growth was just half a per cent in the third quarter of 2011 concentrated minds on the substance of the issue, namely the impact independence would have on the Scottish economy.

Looking ahead to the publication next Wednesday of the Scottish government’s consultation document on a referendum, Eddie Barnes, political editor of the Scotsman, argued:

“While the political class in Scotland has spent the last week poring over the minutiae of the referendum and the relative merits of devo-more, devo-plus and devo-max, the reality of the flatlining economy is still the main issue for most voters.

“The SNP knows this well. And it knows it cannot make the case for independence without aligning it alongside peoples’ real lives. So it has made crystal clear, internally and externally, that the economy has to be the central argument. So the GDP figures, out on Mr Salmond’s big day, may serve the SNP’s purpose.

“Against the prospect of a flatlining Britain, the First Minister can be expected to conjure up his usual alluring message of how Scotland can, with independence, go its own way and prosper.

“For the SNP’s opponents, this is a battleground they appear to fancy. The SNP may want to focus on pound-in-your-pocket arguments. Their opponents will respond by warning that if the SNP get their way, that pound could end up being a euro.

“The thorny issues of an independent Scotland’s currency and the economic handcuffs the country would still have to wear, independence or not, offer them rich pickings.

“But SNP figures claim to be entirely untroubled. People, they say, just see these attacks as the usual noise that goes with the territory whenever the words “Scotland” and “independence” are raised.

““If anything the negative attacks serve to undermine voters’ trust in those making them,” claims one senior SNP adviser.

That all has a ring of truth. In former times, it was fear of the cost of independence which proved the SNP’s Achilles heel. But, as Britain continues its long march into austerity, it is clear that the old assumptions - like so many others than existed pre-crunch - may no longer apply.”

Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, meanwhile, formally launched the government’s plans for a single police and fire services across Scotland, declaring:

“The stark reality is that budget cuts from Westminster will devastate our excellent frontline services if we don’t act now. This government will not be complacent, we will not compromise on public safety and we will make sure that every community is served and served well.”

A spokesperson for UNISON however had a warning over potential job losses, telling the Daily Record:

“We have either already lost or are about to lose 450 civilian staff, so perhaps the same number again will be under threat as a result of efficiencies. But that’s a guess. No one has a clue because we don’t know yet how the new single force will operate.”

Northern Ireland

First minister and DUP leader, Peter Robinson, used an interview with UTV on the threat posed to the Union by the SNP to advance a case for the DUP and UPP to merge.

Calling for the two parties to “uphold the integrity of the United Kingdom” he continued:

“We are in a year when we are looking back to the centenary of the signing of the covenant and the cohesiveness that there was within the unionist community at that time.

“I would like to see that coming about again. I think you probably will have noted that over the last number of months, some of the heat that there has been in the exchanges between the DUP and the Ulster Unionists has now been removed and there is a much improved relationship. I hope we can build on that.”

Finance minister Sammy Wilson, meanwhile, used an interview with BBC Radio Ulster to tell unions warning about future public sector job losses to “shut up”. He did so as figures from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions pointed to Northern Ireland losing more public sector workers, 26,000, than anywhere else the UK by 2017.

Responding to the figures shadow Northern Ireland secretary Vernon Coaker argued:

“I am very concerned by the findings of this report which predicts that Northern Ireland will have the highest number of public sector job losses of any UK region.

“The Tory-led government’s spending cuts and tax rises go too far and too fast. The impact of their disastrous economic policies – which handed Northern Ireland a cut of £4 billion to its budget - has choked off the economic recovery and put more people out of work, meaning the government is set to borrow £158 billion more than planned.”

Wales

Former Welsh secretary Paul Murphy used on-going rumblings about the future of the union to argue in favour of regional devolution for England.

Speaking to Radio Wales’s “Sunday Supplement” about the UK Parliament he concluded:

“In effect it is an English parliament in the sense that they’ve got in England far more members of parliament than Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales put together. That’s why we were arguing very strongly about the number of Welsh members of parliament, to keep our voice up.

“Despite that, there are ways and means, it seems to me, we need to examine how the English regions might react to further development. Although it didn’t work before when we had a referendum in the north east of England, I’m not quite so sure these days that English devolution within in the regions is off the map.

“People should consider now having regional government in England as a means by which we progress constitutionally.”

Plaid Cymru meanwhile published a review of its operations which recommended that the party should provide greater clarity about its objectives in relation to independence and should consider changing its name to the Welsh National Party. Writing on the suggestion of a name change, branding expert Sara Robinson of Cake Communications in Cardiff wrote for BBC News:

“If it goes ahead it will be a radical departure for the party. There is a misconception that Plaid Cymru is the party for Welsh speakers, but they have come a long way in the last 20 years.

“They have many non-Welsh speaking members, as well as AMs and councillors, who represent areas which are not traditionally Welsh speaking. But if you didn’t know that, then you would be forgiven for assuming it’s a party for Welsh speakers because a Welsh language brand gives that impression.

“In that sense, their brand isn’t truly reflecting the party as it is today and isn’t working hard enough for them as it doesn’t have the wide appeal the party needs.

“I am sure there will be a lot of debate around the right and wrongs of dropping the Welsh language element [in English] of their brand.

“But just as any business would take a long, hard look at how it markets itself after a period of poor results, I think it’s only logical that the party undergoes a period of reassessment after disappointing recent elections.”

See also:

• Sign up to receive our weekly summary of the news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Week Outside Westminster

• What’s the point of the UUP? – Ed Jacobs, January 19th 2012

• Khan attacks “partisan tinkering” of the constitution – Ed Jacobs, January 17th 2012

• Win or lose, Scottish independence referendum heralds a revolution in UK politics – Ed Jacobs, January 16th 2012

• The Week Outside Westminster – Sending Osborne to save the Union – Ed Jacobs, January 14th 2012

What’s the point of the UUP?

Ed Jacobs — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:03:41 +0000

Just weeks after Ulster Unionist leader, Tom Elliott rejected calls from the Conservatives for his party to merge with theirs and he has once again been forced to take to the press to stave off another challenge posed to the viability of an independent UUP.

Speaking during an interview with UTV earlier in the week, first minister and DUP leader, Peter Robinson laid down the challenge to the UUP, arguing:

“We are in a year when we are looking back to the centenary of the signing of the covenant and the cohesiveness that there was within the unionist community at that time.

“I would like to see that coming about again. I think you probably will have noted that over the last number of months, some of the heat that there has been in the exchanges between the DUP and the Ulster Unionists has now been removed and there is a much improved relationship. I hope we can build on that.”

Pressed about whether that meant a single unionist party in Northern Ireland, Robinson replied:

“I have no difficulty in saying that of course I would like to see that, but very often if you start putting that out you start causing problems for other people.

“Let’s just improve the relationship we have, build on that relationship and who knows where it might lead.“

Responding however, UUP Leader, Tom Elliott, whilst making clear is desire for greater co-operation between unionist parties has made clear his rejection of a full scale merger, concluding:

“I have always questioned whether or not a single party would deliver the required electoral success for unionism.

“For example, the choice provided by the existence of the UUP, DUP and TUV may actually encourage more unionist voters to go to the polls.

“Certainly an agreed pro-union Westminster candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone in 2010 did not maximise unionist voter turnout and actually polled fewer votes than the Ulster Unionist and the DUP got between them at both the 2011 local government and Assembly elections.“

The latest attempt at a full scale merger will heighten still further how the UUP can, on its own, break through once again and become a major player at Stormont, in an Assembly in which they had, under David Trimble, been the largest single party.

Whilst Elliott is showing some grit in bating off attempts at a merger both from David Cameorn and Peter Robinson, it does beg the question: What is the point in an independent UUP and what does it give to Northern Ireland that the DUP doesn’t?

See also:

• Tories and UUP split over merger deal – Ed Jacobs, January 5th 2012

• How does Northern Ireland achieve reconciliation in 2012? – Ed Jacobs, January 3rd 2012

• Preview 2012 – Northern Ireland – Ed Jacobs, December 30th 2011

• UUP-Tory alliance a “mongrel relationship” – Ed Jacobs, March 12th 2010

• Latest from Northern Ireland – Ed Jacobs, November 23rd 2009

Win or lose, Scottish independence referendum heralds a revolution in UK politics

Ed Jacobs — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:00:56 +0000

As the debate over the future make-up of the United Kingdom rumbles on, with Alex Salmond using an interview on the BBC’s “Sunday Politics Scotland” programme to call for a meeting between him and the prime minister, one former Labour cabinet minister has called for the debate to include a re-examination of the prospects for regional devolution in England.

With the Boundary Commission for Wales last week announcing its plans to cut by a quarter the number of parliamentary constituencies in Wales, the Labour MP and former Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland, Paul Murphy, has called for measures to prevent the dominance of England within the union.

Speaking to BBC Radio Wales’s “Sunday Supplement” programme, Murphy argued:

“In effect it is an English parliament in the sense that they’ve got in England far more members of parliament than Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales put together.

“That’s why we were arguing very strongly about the number of Welsh members of parliament, to keep our voice up.”

Though admitting that Labour’s in 2004 to establish an assembly in the north east of England had failed, Murphy argued the climate was such that English regions might be prepared to re-assess the case for regional devolution, concluding:

“Although it didn’t work before when we had a referendum in the north east of England, I’m not quite so sure these days that English devolution within the regions is off the map.

“People should consider now having regional government in England as a means by which we progress constitutionally.”

Murphy’s comments come as the latest in a string of developments which are beginning to focus on what the consequences of an independent Scotland might be.

Speaking at Friday’s British-Irish Council meeting in Dublin, Welsh first minister, Carwyn Jones, whilst expressing his hope Scotland would remain in the Union, argued changes would be needed if Scotland was to go it alone.

Speaking to journalists he argued:

“You can’t just take Scotland out and expect the UK to continue as before. You would have for example, a Parliament in London with about 550 MPs, 510 of whom would be from England. Well that’s no good to us at all.

“There would need to be a fundamental rethink of the nature of the relationship between the three nations left within the UK in order to make sure that, what was then the UK, was a stable body where people felt that they had full representation.”

Expanding on his thoughts, speaking to the Guardian’s chief political correspondent, Nick Watt, Jones suggested a reformed House of Lords could be used as an opportunity to prevent English dominance, explaining:

“Why not have an upper house with equal representation from England, Wales and Northern Ireland - same as the Senate. It would be more of a federal structure.

“It is up to the people of Scotland what they do but it is certainly not the case that somehow things would carry on as normal.”

For David Williamson, political editor at the Western Mail, the developments are a growing sign of the Celtic nations asserting themselves within the union.

In the wake of Carwyn Jones’s comments to the Guardian, he wrote:

This came days after Mr Jones made it clear that he would speak up for Wales on international issues.

Speaking in the Senedd, he said:

“[Where] Wales’s interests are under threat, where we need a strong voice in Europe, and where it is important that Wales has a stage in the world, I will continue to put Waless view forward and to stand up for Wales, even though there are those who claim that the people of Wales have no right to a say through their elected Government; I reject that claim out of hand.”

When Alun Michael entered the old Assembly debating chamber for the first time as Labour First Secretary in 1999, did anyone imagine that in 2012 a Labour first ninister would argue that he spoke for the people of Wales on the world stage and that the institution he led was their elected government? Who would have thought there would not be a Labour first minister in Scotland?

“Regardless of whether the SNP wins or loses the referendum, a revolution has already taken place in UK politics.

“Historians may look at this extraordinary evolution as a result of a growing sense of Welsh and Scottish nationhood, hastened by anger at the Westminster expenses scandal, the bloodshed in Iraq and the bail-out of bonus-rich bankers.

“But they will also talk about the Salmond effect. Judging by the plutonium-grade energy of this political maestro, whom the Economist recently compared to a teddy bear driving a bulldozer, we have yet to feel the full force of his ambition, plans and will.”

See also:

• Plaid Cymru claim independent Wales could be 39% richer – Ed Jacobs, August 2nd 2011

• “Perverse” cuts to regional funding will set back growth – Kevin Meagher, February 2nd 2011

• Cable’s folly conceals 80 per cent funding cut to regions – Kevin Meagher, October 28th 2010

• The growing divide between north and south – Kevin Meagher, August 16th 2010

• Commission calls for greater financial freedom for Wales – Ed Jacobs, July 7th 2010

The Week Outside Westminster – Sending Osborne to save the Union

Ed Jacobs — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:00:43 +0000

To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

Scotland

There was only one story in town across Scotland this week.

Having used his New Year interview on the Andrew Marr Programme to call for a referendum on Scottish independence sooner rather than later, David Cameron fired the starting gun on what will become an increasingly bitter campaign with Alex Salmond.

Following Scottish secretary, Michael Moore outlining plans to provide Holyrood with the powers needed to provide for a legally binding referendum, provided it was on a straight yes/no question, Alex Salmond trumped Westminster again by announcing a vote would take place in Autumn 2014, although he was at pains to argue that it had absolutely nothing at all to do with the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.

The week’s madness peaked on Wednesday with a rare display of unity at PMQs over the subject as Dave C agreed with Ed M and Ed agreed with Dave.

In his sketch for the Guardian on Wednesday, Simon Hoggart wrote of the week’s events:

The first Prime Minister’s Questions of 2012, and the main topic was Scottish independence. We will hear of little else for the next few years. Already the debate has achieved a mad, surreal air.

For example, someone in No 10 must have thought to themselves: “What the Scots really hate are posh, arrogant, public school-educated Englishmen who know what’s best for everyone else. So let’s put George Osborne in charge of the campaign to keep Scotland in the UK!”

Perhaps it’s a double bluff. As the SNP MP Angus Robertson pointed out on Tuesday: “The Conservative party has fewer MPs in Scotland than there are giant pandas in Edinburgh Zoo.” If Scotland does break away, it could guarantee Tory governments at Westminster for the foreseeable future.

So perhaps David Cameron is secretly in favour of breaking up the UK, and knows that the more he (and George Osborne) bang on about the need to keep the nation together, the more likely Scots will vote for separation. He stresses how much we all have in common, including “shared economic interests”.

I wonder if that includes the £65bn shovelled across as a bailout for the great Scottish banks, RBS and HBOS, more than £3,500 per English household?

“Meanwhile, the SNP position is even more confusing. As elucidated by Mr Robertson yesterday, the party won a large majority in the last Scottish election with a promise to hold a referendum. But because they have such a big majority, they have the right to hold the referendum whenever they please, ie when they think they are most likely to win it.

The SNP’s rousing battle-cry is: “Scotland demands the right to choose freedom! But not quite yet.”

While the BBC’s Scottish Political Editor, Brian Taylor, concluded:

“The contest for the future of the Union has yet to take place. But it is taking shape.”

Wales

Officially, shadow Welsh secretary, Peter Hain declared the proposals for new parliamentary constituencies in Wales, which will see the number of MPs cut from 40 to 30, were “diabolical”.

Unofficially however, Labour will have been relieved that it is the Tories and Lib Dems that look set to be the biggest losers from the review.

Giving his assessment of the proposals, BBC Wales’ parliamentary correspondent David Cornock said of Labour’s position:

“Labour have used the G-word – gerrymander – but are privately relieved that their high-profile MPs should be able to avoid fighting each other in brutal selection contests for new seats. Where Labour-held seats disappear, natural retirements or the House of Lords may offer a way out.”

Of the other parties he continued:

“Plaid Cymru have highlighted some of the arguments put forward when the cut was initially suggested – that villages in the same community are being split and other communities are being joined despite being separated by mountains.

“The Liberal Democrats face uncertain futures in their heartlands, but life is more complicated for their Conservative coalition partners, the architects of the cut in MPs.

“The Wales Office minister David Jones – the only Welsh Tory currently a departmental minister – will see his Clwyd West seat dismembered.

“There is a potential battle in Pembrokeshire between the government whip Stephen Crabb and Simon Hart.

“Glyn Davies, parliamentary private secretary to the secretary of state for Wales, whose Montgomeryshire seat is carved up, said he was “hugely disappointed by the changes”.”

Not to be outdone meanwhile by their nationalist brothers and sisters in Scotland, Simon Thomasm one of the candidates vying to take the leader’s post in Plaid Cymru, concluded the break-up of the United Kingdom was “inevitable”.

Outlining his thinking, the AM and former MP argued:

“Everyone in Wales tends to look at the SNP and think ’they are doing wonderfully’, but the SNP had to go about winning two general elections in Scotland first – and we have never won a general election yet.

“Unless we are serious about independence and serious about taking Wales forward, we have to set our aims on winning power and winning elections in Wales.

“Independence for me would mean the break-up of the UK as we know it. That may sound like the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard, but the UK as we know it today is only 90 years old. People tend to think that we’ve got some kind of long-lasting medieval kingdom here, it’s only been going around for less than a century.

“I don’t think it will last another century and there will be huge changes in the United Kingdom. Scotland may be the most obvious reason there, but Northern Ireland has an interesting future ahead of it – as does Wales.

“I don’t think we exist to dream of an independent Wales, we exist to make independence a reality.”

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Paterson, outlined plans to convene meetings to enable Northern Ireland’s politicians themselves to address the vexed issue of reconciliation.

Welcoming the move, an editorial for the Belfast Telegraph concluded:

“One of the most vexed issues in Northern Ireland is how to deal with remembering the past. This is partly because of the horrific experiences of people on all sides, and also the difficulty of reconciling each memory of that past.

“The pitfalls in handling this sensitive issue were well-illustrated by the Eames-Bradley report of several years ago. After long consultations it produced some useful ideas, but it never recovered from the recommendation of a £12,000 ‘recognition payment’ for the families of all victims.

“The search for a solution continues, and it is therefore a welcome sign that secretary of state Owen Paterson is attempting to chart a way forward with a series of separate meetings with the Stormont parties.

“One of the problems, however, is that so far there is no consensus, so finding a way forward will not be easy. The secretary of state is giving a lead by holding the meetings, but he is right to point out that it is not up to the Government to impose a solution.

“This is a matter for the Northern Ireland people themselves, and for the politicians who represent them. This will require a large element of give and take, and all sides will be required to show particular awareness of the particular sensitivities involved.”

As talks meanwhile continued over future appointments to the post of Justice Minister, both Sinn Fein and the DUP proposed the axing of the Alliance led Department for Employment and Learning in an attempt to trim the size of the Stormont government.

Threatening to resign as justice minister over the issue, Alliance leader, David Ford was unsurprisingly unconvinced by the suggestion, saying of the proposal:

“If they can change the system - not in any rational coherent way - but simply to spite us, then is there any reason why we shouldn’t assume that they will take justice off us, as soon as it suits them.

“This is a political carve-up, it is nothing to do with good government.”

See also:

• Sign up to receive our weekly summary of the news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Week Outside Westminster

• Devo-max isn’t a solution, it’s a whole new can of worms – Matt Gwilliam, January 11th 2012

• Salmond trumps Westminster (again) – Ed Jacobs, January 11th 2012

• Cameron got it wrong on Scotland, and he probably knows it – Ed Jacobs, January 10th 2012

• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable – Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012

• Scottish Labour leader: “I want the referendum to be held as quickly as possible” – Johann Lamont MSP, January 9th 2012

• It’s time to get real over threat to the union – Ed Jacobs, January 9th 2012