All posts by LORCCAN

Irish Republican & Democratic Socialist. Undergraduate of History, Politics & International Relations. 🇮🇪🇪🇺🏳️‍🌈🇵🇸

Ireland’s Protestant Patriots

Irish people who have followed Protestant churches have contributed massively to the cause of Irish self-determination, a historical fact which is all too often dismissed by many nationalists and republicans. Anglicans, Quakers, Presbyterians and others have played a real, meaningful part, in numerous, sometimes conflicting ways, on the journey to nationhood and sovereignty, North and South. It is vitally important for us to crush the misconception that Protestant equates unionist, for this sectarian, divisive attitude has been purposefully cultivated by the British government in the past to serve their selfish interests. Today, we look back on just some of the countless ways Irish Protestants have helped nationalism, both culturally and politically.

Henry Grattan, a Dublin-born adherent to the Church of Ireland, stood in the Irish House of Commons at the end of the eighteenth century and was leader of the Irish Patriot Party from 1775 to the Act of Union in 1801. The party pushed for legislative independence and the lifting of the archaic and discriminatory Penal Laws which hindered the lives of Ireland’s majority Catholic population. Grattan proved to be instrumental in the legal processes of 1782 which saw the rescindment of the infamous Poyning’s Law (Statute of Drogheda): “An Act that no parliament be holden in this land until the Acts be certified into England.” The inter-period of 1782 to the Act of Union became known as ‘Grattan’s Parliament.’ Though Grattan was neither a republican nor a supporter of complete independence, his input was nonetheless significant.

It was around this time that the Society of United Irishmen, a political organisation, was set up by a group of liberals in the Protestant Ascendancy – the restrictive ruling class over Ireland at the time. The organisation initially sought parliamentary reform, but later steered its focus on a more ‘radical’ aim – a democratic, egalitarian Irish republic separate from Britain and its governance. The concessions made by King Louis XVI to the revolutionaries in France, coupled with the remarkable success of the American Revolution, the United Irishmen were inspired to pursue a similar endeavour in Ireland. The organisation strove to see religious and denominational tolerance, reinforced by their staunch support for Catholic emancipation. Although it was set up entirely by Protestants in Belfast, the Society quickly spread across different communities across Ireland and a strong secondary branch was birthed in Dublin. An alliance with the so-called ‘Defenders,’ an agrarian Catholic resistance movement, increased Catholic support. Of the most prominent members of the United Irishmen, Theobald Wolfe Tone and Thomas Russell were Anglican, while Henry Joy McCracken, Samuel Neilson, William Sinclair, William Drennan, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and James Napper Tandy were Presbyterian.

In 1796, the Society were aided by a fleet of 15,000 French soldiers under the command of General Louis Lazare Hoche; however, a sea storm prevented the effective landing of the troops and they were forced to return to Brittany. Two years later, on 24 May, the rebellion was launched in the region in and around Dublin, but due to last-minute intel delivered to the British by informants, the insurrection was not off to a flying start. The rebellion spread to Co. Antrim under McCracken, and the county was almost entirely rebel-held for a brief duration of time. The United Irishmen were most successful in Co. Wexford, but after the defeat at Vinegar Hill on 21 June, the situation dramatically deteriorated for the republicans. On 22 August, another French fleet arrived – this time consisting of 1,000 soldiers under the command of General Jean-Joseph Amable Humbert – large swathes of Connacht were briefly taken over by the rebels, but were defeated. Two months later, 3,000 French soldiers, alongside Wolfe Tone, attempted to land near Lough Swilly, Co. Donegal but were met by a much larger British Royal Navy squadron and fought for three hours in an event known as the Battle of Tory Island. The French/Irish were defeated and Wolfe Tone was captured. He requested death by firing squad but was denied, so committed suicide by slitting his throat. The United Irishmen gradually disbanded after this and the Act of Union was enacted as a result in 1801, which saw Ireland unified with Britain.

In the eighteenth century, following the Act of Union and dissolution of the Irish parliament, the Protestant Ascendancy experienced an identity crisis and many of whom left Ireland for London. Public opinion shifted after a massacre occurred at Scullabogue, Co. Wexford during the 1798 Rebellion. The atrocity was carried out by Defenders against 100-200 (mostly Protestant) unarmed men, women and children who were perceived as loyal to the crown. The event has rightly gone down in history as a shameful, disheartening one, but the way in which the British government used the massacre to reconvert republican Protestants was a major point in Ireland’s story. Those Protestant Irishmen and Irishwomen of Ulster who rebelled lost the desire to secede, primarily due to sentiments of bitterness and resentment towards Catholics. Many Catholics, on the other hand, harboured parallel feelings towards Protestants. The failed 1803 Rebellion in Dublin was led by a Protestant nationalist named Robert Emmet, who was executed after his capture by British forces.

In the nineteenth century, Anglican Isaac Butt from Co. Donegal founded the Irish Parliamentary Party and campaigned for the reintroduction of an Irish parliament. The party was launched as a moderate one, and towards the end of his political career, Butt was opposed to fellow Protestant and party member Charles Stewart Parnell’s advocacy of obstructionism in the House of Commons. Parnell, his indirect successor, also acted as President of the Irish Land League, which called for an end to landlordism and discrimination of tenants. Parnell’s fortitude and defiance, on top of his alleged impressive oratory skills, provided him with the necessary characteristics to stand up for Ireland’s rights.

Culturally, the contributions of Irish Protestants in the literary revival was profound, the participation of W.B. Yeats from Co. Sligo and Lady Gregory from Co. Galway has undoubtedly changed Irish culture forever. Whereas Protestant nationalist Douglas Hyde from Co. Roscommon, who was fluent in Irish and was affectionately known as ‘An Craobhín Aoibhinn,’ stood at the forefront of the Gaelic revival and was the first leader of the Gaelic League. Hyde was also, notably, the first President of Ireland from 1938-1945. Hyde acts as a perfect example of how Irish is not just a language for Catholics, as is absurdly stated by many unionists today. Protecting and embracing the language is not misusing it as a political weapon, opponents are simply making excuses, and rather ludicrous excuses at that. The feminist activism of Protestant-born suffragette Maud Gonne-MacBride and the integral, indispensable involvement of Countess Constance Georgine Markievicz in the 1916 Easter Rising are also certainly noteworthy.

The ‘divide and conquer’ tactics of the British Empire, no different to what was observed on the Indian subcontinent between Hindus and Muslims, cast a diverging rift between the Christian denominations on this island. It is particularly interesting that most Protestants in the North, if not all, can trace some familial connection or another to rebels and activists who fought for Irish nationhood in the 1798 Rebellion. The rift still exists today, but there is hope that reconciliation and mutual understanding will heal the wounds felt on both sides. We, as Irishmen and Irishwomen, regardless of our faith, have plenty to thank the aforementioned Protestant patriots for. Sectarianism is the detriment to Irish unity and should never be utilised by any sane individual, now is the time to eradicate hate – we are all Irish. Make no mistake, Protestants can very well be nationalists, and influential ones at that.

Ireland Is Yours. Ireland Is Mine. Ireland Is Ours.

On 3 May 1921, the island of Ireland was partitioned into two respective jurisdictions, pursuant of the Government of Ireland Act passed the previous year. Six counties were separated from the remaining twenty-six, a minority was divided from a majority. The fact remains, the breaking up of such a small island, geographically and population-wise, was hardly an act of political or economic genius. However, regardless of whether one thinks partition should have been devised and implemented in the past or not, it is completely reasonable and rational to think partition, in this day and age, should not continue. With two separate tax regimes, two separate legal systems, and two separate and competing economic development programmes, accompanied with trade barriers, partition is inhibiting the growth of our island. A Harvard Club study estimates a united Ireland would see a boost of €36.2 billion in GDP in the first eight years alone. Whereas another independent, unbiased study from the University of British Columbia predicts a GDP boost of up to 1.2% (Irish Times, 2015.) Reunification makes legitimate, sound sense; conversely, partition is largely impractical.

To proclaim the many flaws of the North, whilst maintaining the flawlessness of the South, frankly would be wrong and definitely inaccurate. Unity of our island cannot and will not take place overnight, the process will not be a smooth road with an absence of any potholes. However, that is part of the challenge ahead; a challenge that can be an exciting, invigorating one if we open our hearts and minds to those of differing views. A new, transformed Ireland for everyone is precisely what we, at Sinn Féin, are striving for – things cannot merely stay the same. This process will plainly not succeed if it sees the absorption of the North into a stubborn, blinkered Republic, unable to acknowledge and respect the existence of a unionist population. Those of us here in the twenty-six counties must educate our family members, friends, neighbours and acquaintances alike, a united Ireland is for each and every one of us who call this island our home. That includes those of us of different denominations, religions, skin colours, cultural traditions, health conditions, ages, gender identities or sexual orientations. Ireland is yours. Ireland is mine. Ireland is ours.

The foundations upon which partition was built nearly one hundred years ago, concepts of sectarianism, tribalism and conflicting convictions, should no longer reflect the modern day. Less and less young people in Ireland attend Mass or any other form of Christian service, thus, denominational differences are becoming less and less relevant. Just as nationalism should not equate Catholicism, unionism most certainly should not equate Protestantism. As progressives, we believe in reform and positive advancements in our society; to say Sinn Féin is a party just for Catholic traditionalists is simply not accurate or fair. We stand by inclusivity; divisiveness is not on our agenda and it never will be. A significant proportion of the population in the North are of a distinct denominational and ethnic background; in a united Ireland, the protection of such people must be a high priority. Such people are just as Irish as anyone else and their central place in a new Ireland must be echoed in a nationwide debate on unity. As a component of this, Sinn Féin advocate the passing of a Bill of Rights for all citizens and a new national constitution which will reflect the egalitarian nature of our new, united Republic.

Irish unity is already taking place behind the curtains, slowly but surely. Two years ago, former First Minister Peter Robinson, with the support of his DUP colleagues, made calls to the British government to instate a corporate tax rate of 12.5% in the North (Belfast Telegraph, 2015.) Such a form of fiscal harmonisation with the remainder of Ireland is effectively, in the economic sense, a form of Irish unity. How is it that individuals who have resisted so fervently to the cause of reunification for a century now suddenly support such a move? The answer is surprisingly simplistic. Economically, the six counties are a severe drain on the average UK taxpayer and the deep cracks are steadily beginning to show. With the cost of sustaining the North at a current cost of £20 billion per annum, but with contributions of only £9 billion in taxes each year, the situation is unsustainable (Belfast Telegraph, 2012.) Unionist politicians who possess any kind of competence in financial affairs know that the only solution to this worsening situation is harmonising the North’s economy with the South. However, for the six counties to continue to be propped up, this must come in more than just the form of corporate tax – especially now Brexit is processing in the works. Even if President Donald Trump lowers corporate tax to 15% in the US, it is undeniable that the twenty-six counties is significantly more attractive to the investment of MNCs (as an English-speaking European foothold) than a region with a rate of 24%. Though the UK is not technically a net recipient of EU funding, the North received a multitude of benefits from its membership of the latter. In a time-frame of seven years, the EU funded €3.5 billion to the North – in agricultural projects, a clean urban transport scheme and a reconciliation programme with the border counties in the South (Newsletter, 2016.) In addition to this, farmers and rural communities in the North will suffer as CAP accounts for an estimated 80% of agricultural incomes.

All of the aforementioned benefits are now no longer on the table, which will undoubtedly strike profound damage on the already fragile economic climate in the six counties. Perhaps what is most unsettling about this is the fact the people of the North democratically voted against the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (56%), even though their former First Minister Arlene Foster insisted it was in the North’s best interests (Irish News, 2016.) For the sake of exploring all factors which could potentially realise, the prospect of a so-called ‘hard-border’ ought not to be dismissed. If a ‘hard border’ is established along the boundaries of the two political jurisdictions on our island, then all-Ireland relations could, unfortunately, take a turn for the worst. Although all sides of the divide, including Prime Minister Theresa May and President of the European Council Donald Tusk, do not wish to see this, only time can possibly determine this – with negotiations between the EU and UK rapidly deteriorating. Many Irishmen and Irishwomen, North and South, cross the border each and every day to reach their place of employment, to purchase goods and indeed, for social purposes. A ‘hard border’ does not benefit anyone, it would be economically disastrous. Brexit is tremendously punitive in itself, there is no joy in any such knock on effects. An alternative for the people of the North, to vote in a plebiscite on the question of Irish unity, would be a respectful, credible move for the governments of the UK and the twenty-six counties. Arlene Foster, who no longer wields any political power in the North, has stated that a border poll would be ‘destablising’ for the North in such turbulent times (RTÉ, 2017.) If this is the case, then how can Theresa May and the establishment Tories at Westminster justify calling a general election?

Proposals for a border poll are not radical in nature and cannot be fought off indefinitely. The time to discuss Irish unity is now, not tomorrow or the following day– in spite of what some other, self-proclaimed republicans may say… The people should be given a choice following an informed, reasoned and respectful debate on unity. This is the time for all parties and the Irish government to talk, plan and build for unity. Particularly now given the all-clear from the EU that the North could automatically rejoin the organisation by unifying with the twenty-six counties. Change, much like a stream, can only be halted temporarily before the current overpowers you and takes you along with it.


Unification of Ireland reports by Harvard Club and University of British Columbia:

Peter Robinson and DUP support fiscal harmonisation with the Republic:

Tax consultant warns of the North’s impending economic ‘meltdown’:

How the North benefitted from EU funding:

Former First Minister Arlene Foster throws support behind Brexit:

Former First Minister calls the prospect of a border poll ‘destabilising’:

Rethinking Our Values as a State

Our country, the Republic of Ireland, has traditionally been a country heavily dominated and controlled by the Holy See and its religious values of Roman Catholicism. However, things are now changing profoundly. The rise of secularism in Ireland is an interesting phenomenon to observe, particularly the high velocity at which change is coming. My generation, sometimes referred to as ‘millennials’, are comparatively much more progressive than the preceding so-called ‘baby-boomers.’ Irish society is beginning to take a step back and question the authority of the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil parties and the alternating grip they have had on our country since its establishment. Left-wing politics is becoming more popular among younger people, we see this with the rising membership of Sinn Féin and the dramatic support of Bernie Sanders among youth platforms in the U.S. (, 2016.) The Roman Catholic Church no longer wields immense influence in state affairs and just over a third of Irish Catholics attend Mass on a regular basis (, 2012.) Of course, the state can employ cultural and religious values in its education system, but the real question is whether they should – especially while such marked societal changes are taking place.

The ever-changing political landscape has, throughout history, presented innumerable social problems for governments to attempt to alleviate and for the general public to attempt to understand and avoid. Arguably, the largest issue facing Ireland in the twenty-first century, like virtually all other member states of the European Union, is that of the European migrant crisis and the xenophobia surrounding it. This said crisis is multifaceted, the deep-rooted origins of it are indeed complex with certain aspects only loosely interconnected. The vast majority of migrants arriving to our continent are genuine people escaping the horrors of poverty and conflict, who also happen to be mostly Muslim, from nations such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Eritrea. However, the rise of terrorism committed by a narrow minority of Islamic jihadists, albeit a spider’s web of different organisations, has instilled fear and irrationality in a sizable percentage of the Irish population. This fear of not only jihadists, but Muslim people in general, is being perpetuated ever still by far-right politicians, some of whom I will discuss in more detail later on, and their associated media. These individuals firmly point the finger of blame at the likes of the Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Daesh for what they view as unprovoked acts of ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ against western civilisation. While others accuse the Bush administration and the other coalition forces, for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, especially citing the disruption of the Middle East following the violent and perhaps poorly planned ousting of Saddam Hussein’s government. It is thought by some that Hussein, while a brutal authoritarian and undeniable violator of his citizen’s basic human rights, upheld law and order in Iraq and the greater region. Regardless of its origins, the problem is most certainly an increasingly divisive one and one thing must be made clear, the entire Muslim faith cannot be held accountable for the atrocities of an extremist few. It is important, we, as Irish people, separate religion from morality, as they are not synonymous words. It is irrelevant whether or not we are religious, it is, however, important that we have a set of moral values. Daesh, also commonly referred to as the Islamic State, has wreaked havoc across the Arab world and cities closer to home in recent times, such as Paris, Brussels and Nice. Countless innocent lives have been needlessly lost and there is much reason to be infuriated by that fact, though there is evidence to support claims that most victims of jihadist attacks are actually Muslim (, 2011.) Therefore, there exists no justification whatsoever for xenophobic attitudes towards Muslim refugees seeking sanctuary in our open-minded country. In my humble view, we must welcome these persecuted people with open arms and treat the war on terrorism as a separate issue to tackle.

Islam is an Abrahamic religion with a traceable common origin with Christianity, lest we forget the fact the religious heritage celebrated by the indigenous population of this island for sixteen centuries started in the Middle East. Thus, Islam should not be regarded as an alien religious movement, it ought to be respected and tolerated if not embraced. Islam is not a terrorist faith, it does not explicitly preach in its holy doctrine, the Qu’ran, the perpetrating of paramilitary combat against non-believers. Seemingly, some people forget that Muslims are fellow human beings with, on the overwhelming most part, respective consciences and compassion in their hearts. In this regard, they are not unlike people of different faiths or people without faith at all. Most Muslims wish to carry on with their everyday lives in peace, without any unnecessary hindrance or petty obstruction from misinformed bigots who oftentimes act as deplorably as the Islamic terrorists they supposedly oppose. Our society is becoming more and more liberal as time progresses, though there is a frightening chance many Irishmen and Irishwomen could swallow the toxic lies spouted by former far-right fringe groups now comfortably in the mainstream. Our closest neighbour, the United Kingdom, boasts xenophobic political leaders such as Nigel Farage of UKIP, and the current Prime Minister Theresa May, who has ambitions of dramatically decreasing Britain’s intake of refugees per annum. It comes as no surprise then that xenophobic and racist attacks are on the rise in the U.K. following their vote to withdraw from the E.U. With the widespread usage of social media and accessibility of diverse news networks, Irish people are no longer sheltered from the prevalence of Islamophobic smearing across the western world. The appalling, racist rhetoric of the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is unfortunately appealing to far too many ‘ordinary’ people. The equally troubling Marine Le Pen of the National Front in France is also receiving a worrying degree of support from her countrypeople, with her party now the third-largest three months ahead of the general election. Trump proposed the blocking of all non-American Muslims from entering the U.S. (Jeremy Diamond, CNN, 2015), while Le Pen has made a startling comparison between Muslims and Nazi occupiers (, 2015.) Trump has since slightly backtracked from his promise and now Muslims from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen are being refused at entry. Nobody from the aforementioned seven states has ever committed a fatal attack in the United States (, 2017) – it seems oil is much more important to Trump than supposed ‘safety measures.’ Our society must shake off this bitterness and not allow it to poison our nation’s morals. We must not discriminate against an entire religion, as such discrimination, like all forms of discrimination, is without merit or logic.

Our Republic has come a tremendous way from the darker days of the past when the population were, en masse, acting as puppets of the papacy, an organisation now so out of touch with the modern world it is truly ludicrous. The former reality of Roman Catholic dominance in state affairs and everyday life is now distant in most people’s memory. Together, we, as a nation, have expanded equality to sexual minorities and have granted those of the LGBT community who wish to marry and adopt the right to do so. The decriminalisation of homosexual activity came just twenty-two years prior to the momentous referendum result that ruled a strong majority in favour of equal marriage. Since then, Irish people have reopened debate on the hot topic of abortion rights and other social issues, such as the legalisation and regulation of prostitution. The liberalisation of our country, to me, can only be a positive advance to society and we have only just begun this journey. As it stands now, a prehuman zygote has more rights than that of a living, breathing refugee with feelings and emotions. Ireland must take in a considerable amount of additional refugees, the current proposals of granting asylum to 4,000 refugees is not satisfactory from my viewpoint. The Irish government should commence special employment programmes, setting up lines of work for able-bodied refugees and in turn, bolstering the economy while indirectly aiding their positions in our society. While most Irish people, 68% according to one poll (, 2016), are happy to reside in the vicinity of refugees, just under half believe that 4,000 new arrivals will steadily increase crime in our small nation. This attitude is, regrettably, not a rare one, and we have the media’s scaremongering after terrorist attacks to thank for that. But make no mistake, the refugees coming from nations in the Middle East and North Africa were born and raised under differing degrees of sharia law. A law regarded as conservative, restrictive and intensely severe to Irish people who often take for granted the wide range of liberties we are allowed to enjoy. Though refugees are escaping such oppressive regimes, with them they bring values that do not always correspond with our society. Multiculturalism can, undoubtedly, be a nation’s greatest treasure, but for our country to be successful, all peoples under our flag must respect one and another for their differences. For our differences can make us stronger and the envy of other nations, such as the U.K., who will face major problems if they continue down this path of detrimental discord. It is crucial that the refugees understand the way in which our liberal political system works, and I wholeheartedly believe that, if they truly wish to remain, they will do so.

It is often appropriate to look back into the past to see where we are at present, or where we are headed in the future. Ireland, as an island, has experienced unbelievable conflict in the past century, a lot of which was on ethnosectarian grounds. Many church-related scandals have taken place also, such as the Magdalene laundries, the clerical abuses and the marginalisation of LGBT people. Moderate anticlericalism and secularism should be the official policy of government and no religious institution have a special status. The Irish government must remain distant from issues of religion, allowing all of its citizens to practise their own faiths. The public, state-funded educational establishments must not have one religion or denomination on its curriculum, no child must feel that they should be participating in it against their own will. There is a difference between moral values and religious values, one can know the difference between right and wrong, yet not adhere to any religious movement. The government’s utmost duty should be to promote and encourage morality in everyday life and obedience in the justice system, however, not in the form of Catholic, or indeed Islamic, propaganda. The true meaning of a democratic, egalitarian nation is one that allows the freedom of expression to all of its citizens. Many Irish people have been trained by the former governments of the twentieth century to follow Roman Catholic doctrine word for word, though this cannot be acceptable in this day and age. It is commonplace for priests to have a central place on state-funded school’s board of managements, while many teachers, particularly in rural areas, ingrain principles of Catholicism into their students. The state should advocate morality, while simultaneously encouraging equality in the field of religious beliefs or lack thereof. It is also pivotal for the state to discourage and shun those who carry out xenophobic acts, thus delivering continuity in the ultimate goal of an egalitarian society.

In conclusion, the society in which we live is changing, this cannot be argued nor can it be denied, however we ought to preserve the positive aspects at the foundation of our state. We should offer sanctuary to those fleeing from their homelands smothered in turmoil, and I am of the conviction that 4,000 refugees is not enough. Our nation is rearranging its structural perimeters and reevaluating the way governance is conducted. We are progressing, moving forward, and we must continue to move in this direction. Ireland has the potential to be a pillar of equality and an asylum for the persecuted, irrespective of their religion. It is to be expected in our liberal first world society that all people, newcomers or not, respect one and another. It acts as a necessary requirement for us to be a nation with values of tolerance and absence of prejudice. That is the kind of Ireland we should be, that is the kind of Ireland we have to be.

Self-Determination Is a Human Right: Scotland

The right to determine and control your own destiny is a human right. The very same statement also applies to the pursuit of sovereignty in Scotland by a considerable percentage of the population, including the majorly elected Scottish devolved government. How is it that one can assert the contrary with even a trace of self-assurance? The push factors for independence in Scotland are overwhelming, and it goes far beyond the traditional arguments of cultural nationalism.

I believe that the results of the 2014 independence referendum, which put the pro-independence campaign at a mere 44.3%, were due to the hollow promises made by the leaders of the three largest British political parties at that time. The three men in question, then Prime Minister and Tory leader, David Cameron, Leader of the Labour Party and the Opposition, Ed Miliband, and Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, all made a pledge to effect devo-max for Scotland. The situation since the independence referendum has changed greatly, but unfortunately, change has only come about in a negative light. All three of the aforementioned leaders are out of the equation, and so far, full fiscal autonomy for Scotland has not been successfully delivered.

Now, however, the Scottish people are faced with another difficult obstacle, by being dragged out of the European Union against their democratic wishes. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon proved to be the only leading figure in British politics to have a sense of direction in the aftermath of the rather traumatic E.U. referendum. Arguably, since then, Sturgeon has remained the sole bearer of logic. It is of the utmost importance to protect Scotland’s place in the E.U., and I applaud the First Minister for acting out her duty by defending her people’s decision and declaring the necessity of a second independence referendum. This contrasts rather interestingly with Northern Ireland’s Arlene Foster, who has shown time and time again that she resolutely stands by the right-wing traditionalist minority – perhaps not the most attractive or ideal feature in a leader. What Foster does not seem to realise is, power always belongs with the people.

In the space of a week of Brexit being declared, Sturgeon met with senior officials of the E.U. to discuss Scotland’s future in the organisation, including the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. Quite rightly, the First Minister was met principally with sympathy and understanding, with the exception of Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, who fears secessionist movements in his own country. Until independence can be achieved with the consent of a majority of Scottish voters, further negotiations cannot take place. However, numerous experts have come out and supported the claim that Scotland can legally be admitted to the E.U. as a ‘successor state’ of the U.K., with or without the approval of Spain. In addition to this, a recent poll conducted across six E.U. countries and Norway has affirmed that a strong majority support the membership of an independent Scotland in the E.U., including 71% of German respondents. Though nothing is yet clear, what is certain is the U.K. will soon no longer be a member state of the E.U., thus Scotland will no longer be part of this organisation either. However, an independent Scotland would definitely have E.U. membership on its agenda – in my opinion, that is a much better deal.

The ‘Better Together’ campaign led by the notorious former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, was a movement unsurprisingly driven by fear and lies. Modelled heavily on the ‘Non, Merci’ campaign which succeeded in preventing Quebec from parting ways with Canada in the 1995 referendum, it obsessed over the issue of an independent Scotland’s potential currency. The Westminster government, in a manner which I can only describe as unnecessarily disrespectful, made it clear that they would refuse to allow an independent Scotland to use the British Pound. The more appropriately named ‘Bitter Together’ campaign used the fear of the Scottish people in their advantage, and scaremongered their way to a tight victory. Opinion polls in the days approaching the referendum indicated that there was indeed significant uncertainty, with unreliably changeable outcomes and an enormous undecided percentage. In a YouGov poll carried out for the Sunday Times, just over a week before the referendum, the pro-independence side was winning by a margin of 51-49%. However, the Scottish people were fed vicious lies, and unfortunately, they made their decision based on fear, and not on hope. Though as former First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond stated, the “dream shall never die.”

Although I feel Scots is a component of my overall cultural identity, as my maternal grandmother came from the district of Maryhill in Glasgow, my support for Scottish independence has nothing to do with my ethnic heritage. I see the many benefits that can come into fruition with independence, particularly the possibility for the Scottish people to determine their own future without any obstruction from an out of touch government 525 kilometres away. Who better to govern Scotland than the people who live in Scotland? The common argument spouted by unionists is that Scotland would become ‘Skintland,’ as was coined in an article by The Economist, however, that is simply not true. As was publicised by the ‘Yes Scotland’ campaign in the run-up to the referendum, the Financial Times estimated that an independent Scotland would be wealthier than any other country in the U.K., and in the world’s top 20 wealthiest nations. The truth of the matter is, the people of the other U.K. countries, especially those of England and Wales, think very differently to the people of Scotland. One must simply glance at the political map of the general election results last year to see it is so.

The potential for Scotland is truly profound, and the central government in London know this. The democratic wishes of the Scottish people are not of Westminster’s concern, this is evident with the presence of weapons of mass destruction on the River Clyde, despite the majority of Scots being staunchly opposed to it. It is clear to see that Nicola Sturgeon and her 54 SNP MPs put their country first with every decision they make, even in these times of great turbulence. With just hours after Theresa May having been inaugurated as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I am of the firm belief that Nicola Sturgeon, in all her reason and political prowess, can push for a better deal for Scotland – a second independence referendum.

Auf Wiedersehen, Großbritannien!

It is a struggle to find the appropriate words to describe how I am feeling about yesterday’s unwelcome news – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will part ways with the European Union. The result of the historic referendum, genuinely, came as a great shock to me. A part of me always assumed that the Vote Remain campaign would gain victory across the U.K., as the alternative seemed deeply divisive and undesirable. However, one must now come to terms with the judgement of the majority of the British population, no matter how wrong it is reckoned to be.

Although the success of Vote Leave, which won by 51.9%, is a life-changing result of significant global importance, this is only the beginning of the end. An official notification on behalf of the British government must first be delivered to the E.U., and subsequent negotiations must take place before a ‘Brexit’ can be realised. The process will carry on for a period of two years, as the U.K. attempts to reorganise its trade agreements with nations remaining in the E.U. In the aftermath of the vote’s declaration, the markets’ volatility was manifested, and this was indeed predicted – but not by the triumphant Vote Leave campaign. The lies spouted by the ‘Brexiters’ were shameful and completely unprincipled; particularly the pledge made by Boris Johnson that £350 million would be invested in the National Health Service per week if the British people voted to leave. Just an hour after the results became known, Nigel Farage called that very pledge a “mistake.” Another lie transpired shortly afterwards when Conservative Party MEP Daniel Hannan stated that leaving the E.U. would reduce immigration to the U.K.

The FTSE 100 observed losses of £120 billion in its worst day since the financial crisis, this, of course, will negatively affect ordinary, hardworking people’s pensions. For ordinary British people, the prospect of purchasing a property and the level of income they receive will all change, negatively, of course. The situation can only expect to furthermore deteriorate financially, and the U.K. will not be the only nation to suffer. The fifth-largest economy on the planet became the sixth largest almost overnight, having been overtaken by France. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that this is short term pain for long term gain. How can this possibly be a good thing?

Already many people who ill-advisedly voted to leave are regretting their decision, I say rightly so. Unfortunately many others are less remorseful, and are chanting such things as “This is our England” and “We have taken our country back.” The most alarming aspect of this referendum was the blatant surge of xenophobia and English nationalism. While I personally am not opposed to nationalist movements, the strong associations of the former with the latter cannot be ignored. The rise in extremist far-right fringe groups, such as the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP), can be attributed to the financial hardships experienced in the U.K. over the past several years. Prime Minister David Cameron never wanted to hold a referendum on the matter of the U.K.’s membership of the E.U., and though it was not legally-binding, the overturning of the popular vote would be considered “political suicide.” Cameron came under intense pressure from the likes of Nigel Farage who represents a part of British society I most certainly do not sympathise with. A part of British society I wish to know no more about. The more the economy deteriorates, the stronger these hate-filled fringe groups will become.

Farage’s infamous and disgusting campaign poster may go down in history for what it was, a replica of Nazi propaganda. Such propaganda is greatly damaging to society, and only heightens the tensions and hatred within it. The senseless murder of Jo Cox, a Labour MP for the constituency of Batley and Spen, and a mother of two, must always be remembered. Jo’s admirable message of compassion and humanity in such dark times must never be forgotten. She was brutally shot and stabbed by yet another terrorist, a 52-year-old named Thomas Mair. A terrorist who reportedly shouted “Death to the traitors, put Britain first.” Such acts of violence and terror towards individuals who are trying their damnedest to make a positive difference are commonplace in this oftentimes cruel world. That is why it was such a tremendously beautiful gesture when Malala Yousafzai, a young woman who came face to face with such unspeakable hate, spoke at a remembrance ceremony for Jo in London.

Jo was proud to be from Yorkshire and campaigned for the rights of innocent Syrian civilians surrounded by an unjustifiable conflict in their homeland. That is why this incident was particularly upsetting, as this remarkable woman fell victim to the rising hatred in her own country – the country she truly loved. We, as fellow human beings, must not allow hatred to overpower us. Whenever and wherever we see xenophobia or any form of racial discrimination, we must act resolutely to stop it. We cannot allow immigrant populations to feel unwanted after the great contributions they have made to British society – they have done, and are still doing, the jobs the indigenous workers choose not to.

Now, the people of the U.K have absolutely no idea what the future has in store for them. Some view the go ahead of ‘Brexit’ as the avoidance of the bureaucracy of Europe, as well as the rebirth of British sovereignty and the taking back of control over the U.K.’s borders. My response to that is the U.K. was not part of the Schengen zone, and while the E.U. undeniably needs immediate reforms, the withdrawal of the U.K. from the organisation was not the solution. It will prove to be a reckless move. A move the U.K. will learn to be sorry about in the future, or so I hope. It is safe to say the very union at the core of the U.K.’s existence is now threatened following the outcome of the E.U. referendum, as Scotland voted 62% to remain in the E.U., and Northern Ireland voted 56% in favour of remaining also.

Within a matter of hours of the result being announced, First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon made her response as blunt and as explicit as possible. The concept of Scotland having a second independence referendum in the next two years is “very likely” and is “very much on the table.” Sturgeon has stood by her people, the people of which she was chosen to represent, and she will put up a fierce fight to ensure their voice is heard loud and clear. A material change in circumstances has occurred, that cannot be argued, and in the event of such a material change, a referendum on independence must be called upon. The Scottish people are being dragged out of the E.U., an organisation from which they benefit considerably as a primarily rural, peripheral region. It is, as Sturgeon has called it, “democratically unacceptable.”

From my viewpoint, I feel very strongly that Northern Ireland should get that same right – the right to have a democratic voice, the right to self-determination, and the right to decide upon a burning question that has irritated the island of Ireland for almost a century. I think it is beyond repulsive that Theresa Villiers thinks she has the God-given right to decide Éireann’s future, the same can be said of Northern Ireland’s First Minister Arlene Foster. Foster’s demeanour is offensive and disrespectful if nothing else. It is as if she is inhabiting a parallel universe, dismissing reality in preference of fantasy. A border poll must be held, otherwise, Northern Ireland will undoubtedly walk backwards into the nightmares of the past.

However, by suggesting that the Troubles may be reborn, I am not being overdramatic or delusional. The Vice President of the U.S. Joe Biden, who is currently researching his ancestry in the Republic, delivered a speech earlier today calling for the continuation of peace in the six counties. He stated that “old habits of mistrust and sectarianism die hard.” Thus, it is indeed on the minds of prominent political figures, instability and ethnosectarian violence could easily fall back into place. That is something I truly do not want to see, for democracy always trumps violence – on both sides. The U.K. government, and the N.I. government, have no other choice but to honour the results of the referendum and observe the clear-cut facts, Scotland and Northern Ireland overwhelmingly voted to remain in the E.U. Villiers has carelessly rebuffed Sinn Féin’s request for a border poll, claiming that ‘Brexit’ will not affect or damage the Good Friday Agreement or the greater peace process. How on earth will tight border controls not damage the fragile North-South relationship? Such an ill-considered statement should not come as a surprise, however, she did support a ‘Brexit’ after all.

The fight to prevent a ‘Brexit’ has been defeated, therefore there is no logical purpose in grouching any further over it. But, certainly, there are fights of merit still to be fought, such as the fight for a second Scottish independence referendum and an Irish border poll. The political climate has changed dramatically in the past two years since Scotland voted on its future, never mind 43 years since the nationalist-boycotted Irish border poll was conducted. Although our political differences definitely outweigh our similarities, I respect Prime Minister David Cameron for being a man of integrity, at least towards the end of his time in office. Cameron persuaded his cabinet to accept the holding of an E.U. referendum, in order to preserve the unity of his party. It can also be said that he put his heart and soul into the campaign, but it just did not pay off. He does not possess the intellectual convictions to be the person who will negotiate with the E.U. now that the U.K. is withdrawing, as he does not believe in doing so. Though it must be said that Cameron will be leaving behind a fractured union of nations, and may be passing on his premiership to Boris Johnson – a chilling thought.

Brexit: An Irish Perspective

The potential exit of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union, more commonly known by the snappy portmanteau ‘Brexit,’ has gotten everyone talking. To me, the concept of the U.K. closing itself off from the remainder of Europe is deeply concerning, both from an economic point of view and a diplomatic one.

President Barack Obama, during his visit to the U.K., has made it abundantly clear that he is staunchly opposed to a British withdrawal from the E.U. Obama sensibly cited the Northern Ireland peace process and how much it has achieved since it was effected in 1999, following the Good Friday Agreement. This lasting peace could not have endured without co-operation on both sides of the border, and now a ‘Brexit’ threatens to undo all of the commendable progress that has been made. I would be more inclined to believe in the words of Barack Obama over the likes of UKIP’s Nigel Farage.

Despite the vast improvements observed in Northern Ireland’s society, once fraught with violent sectarianism, there is still a long way to go. However, no further progress can take place if the British people ill-advisedly vote to leave. ‘Brexit’ would serve only to alienate the Northern Irish nationalists from the Republic, with which they have ethnic, cultural and historical ties. The concept of strict border controls on the N.I.-R.O.I. border will directly affect ten counties and is absolutely appalling. ‘Brexit’ would serve only to afflict trade and business between the U.K. and the Republic. That cannot be emphasised enough. People who possess dual nationality and are employed on the opposite side of the border from where they reside will have immense and unnecessary difficulty in their everyday lives. Border controls along the N.I.-R.O.I. border will be far too reminiscent of the past to be even remotely a good thing.

Perhaps the most insulting and frustrating part of this campaign is the response received from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP.) First Minister Arlene Foster stated back in February that her party would back the ‘Brexiters.’ To me, that is a massive kick in the teeth to the Irish people and the entire peace process. For it undermines the close-knit relationship the 32 counties currently have, and undoubtedly that will come back to haunt her someday. It is also a daily occurrence for people, north and south, to cross the border for recreational purposes without any disturbance. The current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Theresa Villiers is also a Brexiter, which only adds insult to injury.

‘Brexit’ would serve only to stir up trouble in Scotland, with which the U.K. has a fragile relationship. The Scottish National Party (SNP) has 54 out of 59 Scottish seats in the British House of Commons and is experiencing a surge of support among Scots who feel cheated by the DevoMax pledge made by the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and Labour. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has promised a second independence referendum if there is a “material change” in Scotland’s political situation – ‘Brexit’ would deliver a said material change. Much like the people of the Irish Republic, the vast majority of Scottish people are pro-E.U. and are prepared to accept the many benefits that come with membership and participation. If the U.K. leaves the E.U. it is very likely that Scotland will leave the U.K. – an inevitability in a matter of two years according to former First Minister Alex Salmond.

Admittedly, the quickly deteriorating situation in our backyard is alarming, but surely that is more of a reason to remain part of the E.U. Merciless terrorist attacks in prominent European cities and countless floods of refugees pouring into Europe are major problems to us all. Nobody has denied it, nobody is denying it. The E.U. is designed to foster stronger and healthier relations between its member states, while simultaneously upholding peace across the continent. Membership and active involvement in the E.U. are of the U.K.’s highest national interest. We, as European cousins, must work together and tackle whatever adversities we are faced with. Compromise is the key solution, reform in the E.U is much more preferable than the recklessness of a ‘Brexit.’ It cannot be argued, peace is imperative.

Seldom would I express any form of praise towards a Conservative, but the work Prime Minister David Cameron is carrying out to prevent the U.K.’s citizens from voting to leave the E.U. invokes my approval. Whereas the less said about the former Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, the better. The leave campaign is fuelled by xenophobic misinformation and Britain’s delusions of empire. Indeed a British withdrawal will negatively affect the Republic and the mainland member states, however, the U.K. is certainly not the superpower it once was. But let me make this clear, that is not an Anglophobic statement. I harbour no hatred whatsoever towards the U.K. and its people, in fact, the very contrary. Unfortunately one has to clarify such obvious statements in order to avoid a petty onslaught – which is becoming increasingly common among those who support ‘Brexit.’

I was born in northern Wales and have strong familial connections to the U.K., therefore I feel a great sense of warmth towards the nation. I would like to continue to see a robust United Kingdom within the European Union, which is able to have its voice heard and is constructive in its criticisms. The British people have every right to determine their future, as do all communities and peoples – but they must act for the good of all their citizens, in all four constitutional countries of the U.K.

‘Brexit’ would serve only to create trade complications with the United States and the other member states who will remain within the E.U. The Republic of Ireland imported an estimated 43% of goods from the U.K. in 2012, not to mention up to 90% of its petroleum and natural gas is of British origin. But the Republic can turn towards other E.U. states for increasing trade relations, particularly France which is geographically nearby. It wouldn’t be an especially desirable move, but it is feasible.

The U.K. will suffer dramatically if it parts ways with the E.U., and I genuinely do not want to see that happen. I cannot understand why anyone in a sound state of mind would want their nation to suffer. A return to the U.K.’s ‘splendid isolation’ would be economically detrimental. Co-operation in Europe in such dark times is essential.

The Disunited States of America

The rapidly worsening situation in the United States of America is, in my opinion, reflective of the volatile political climate that can be observed in the remainder of the western world. The very concept of a seemingly uneducated real-estate tycoon, Donald Trump, contending against an untrustworthy corporate sycophant, Hillary Clinton, is unnerving to me. All across the remainder of the world, it is fair to say many are looking on with fear and dread, as they await for the results of that fateful November day.

It has become increasingly difficult to treat Donald Trump with even an ounce of gravity. Though, I refuse to cite his involvement in reality television or his connections with Playboy magazine as valid reasons for this; as many of his critics have a tendency to do. Instead, one should simply analyse his grotesquely out of touch policies that could potentially be implemented in the event of him attaining the presidency. The truth of the matter is, Trump is causing a major factional fallout in the GOP at a scale never before observed. Many traditional Republicans who have stood by the party all their adult lives are now turning towards more favourable alternatives, such as the Libertarian Party’s nominee, Gary Johnson. Steadfast Donald Trump supporters are either deeply frightened by the uncertainty of the future, or are distasteful bigots.

His infamously racist rhetoric is so ludicrous it transcends far past laughable, and is furthermore damaging to the current fragility of American interracial relations. Trump’s bigoted views counter the commendable progress made by the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement in recent times, on the front of bringing institutionalised racism to mainstream attention. Apparently, he possesses no respect for the U.S.’s oftentimes forgotten citizens either, the indigenous peoples of the tribal nations. His constant usage of the name ‘Pocahontas’ to disparage supposedly partially Cherokee senator, Elizabeth Warren, is insensitive and completely inexcusable. This petty name-calling recently reached a new level when it was discovered that if one searches online for ‘’ they will be redirected to Warren’s website. Fortunately, Senator Warren is more than equipped to tear down such idiocy and illogic.

On top of everything else, Trump’s disconcerting vow to prohibit the entry of all Muslims into the U.S. – apart from the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan – is beyond preposterous, and will achieve absolutely nothing positive. The same can be said of the wall he intends to have constructed along the U.S.-Mexico border. Many of his supporters cite the Korean Demilitarised Zone for the plausibility of this proposed wall – however, the K.D.Z. is 250 kilometres in length, whereas this wall of hatred would span for more than 3,200 kilometres. Even the motto of Trump’s campaign tickles the epitome of problematic – ‘Make America Great Again!” – as it questionably ignores the dark past the U.S.A. has had. America was never by definition ‘great,’ it was a nation built largely upon a toxic foundation of greed, genocide, slavery, environmental exploitation, and warfare. My views are most certainly not anti-American, the innumerable and impressive achievements of the nation ought to be celebrated. However, I do believe that Trump’s campaign should have its focus more on the future and not on the past.

As I am writing this, the U.S,  and greater global community, mourn the tragic and needless loss of 49 innocents in a wanton killing rampage at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, FL. Perhaps one of the most unsettling parts of this incident, the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, is it has not come as an especial surprise. The terrorist attack in Orlando resembles both the Paris attacks of late last year and the Brussels bombings that occurred last March – both of which claimed a total of 162 innocent lives, and the injury of an additional 708. The incident in Orlando, however, was committed by a lone American national – a reported self-loathing homosexual – with no known links to Daesh. The circumstances in the U.S. are inarguably embroiled in the matter of gun control – in the past 72 hours, there have been 93 gun-related deaths, not including Orlando. The U.S.’s annual firearms-related death rate per 100,000 is 10.54, a startling figure when compared to Germany’s rate of 1.01. The way in which the presidential candidates respond to this major obstacle is absolutely crucial.

In the aftermath of Orlando, Donald Trump almost immediately demonstrated, via his beloved social media, that he has neither tactfulness nor initiative.Rather than offering his condolences to the families that lost their loved ones, and extending a gesture of solidarity – Trump first praised himself for “being right on radical Islamic terrorism.” He then made a personal attack against President Barack Obama for refusing to use the term ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ in his address to the nation. Obama quickly noted Trump’s misbegotten prioritisation. To me, it is clear, there is no room for assault weapons on the streets of a respectable first world country. It should not take a mere matter of thirty minutes to purchase weaponry designed to kill. How many more harrowing, yet avoidable tragedies does it take before the U.S. realises this?

On the face of it, it would appear that the list of Donald Trump’s flaws is endless, and that his opponent would receive a one-way ticket to the White House (at least for the duration of one term), however, that is not necessarily the case. Although recent polls suggest Hillary Clinton will enjoy a victory in the presidential election with a sizeable margin, her track record has come back to haunt her. Clinton undoubtedly possesses an abundance of experience in American governance and politics, but it is difficult to ignore her inconsistent stances – some of which are controversial. Clinton is an awe-inspiring orator and is a symbol of hope to young girls all across the United States that they too can someday contend for the presidency. It is almost unbelievable that, in this day and age, a woman has not yet become president of the U.S. Nevertheless, I refuse to be dragged down by the widespread propaganda that her opponent in the Democratic Party Bernie Sanders is sexist, and that her genitalia will magically compel me to agree with her policies.

I am all for complete gender equality in all aspects of society. Many powerful female politicians inspire me profoundly, including Nicola Sturgeon, Wilma Mankiller, Mary Lou McDonald, and Leanne Wood. Yet, I feel as though Hillary Clinton does not represent me, or people like me. While she delivered an impressive speech about the topical issues of economic inequality and poverty, she donned a Giorgio Armani dress valued at 12,495 USD. At first glance, without any further research, her message appears relatable and supportable – unfortunately, this is not the case. Clinton does not represent the working class, she represents the corporations and the elite. For every single speaking engagement she delivers, Hillary receives an estimated 200,000 USD. Yet she had the audacity to state herself and her family were financially unstable when they left the White House.

Hillary is no stranger to “misspeaking,” a particularly worrying fact for an individual who was responsible for the foreign policy of the U.S. from 2008-2013. Clinton claims she was “instrumental” in the Northern Ireland peace process and the subsequent Good Friday Agreement. However, prominent Unionist negotiator Peter King openly questioned this self-applause, adding she had virtually no role to play in the talks and was absent from all key decision-making. Another notable lie that Clinton uttered, concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, was when she stated she had to run for cover when she came under gunfire in Sarajevo. When in reality she was videoed laughing and smiling – generally having the time of her life – alongside her daughter Chelsea in a five-star hotel. She never even came close to the conflict, but she simply put it down to her famed “misspeaking.”

The greatest problem I have towards Hillary Clinton, however, is her campaign’s fishing for votes from the LGBT community. Her inconsistency reeks and to me, it is overbearing. In a 2007 interview with Ellen DeGeneres, Clinton made it clear that she did not support equal marriage, and over the past few years, she has accepted financial donations to the Clinton Foundation from countries that openly execute LGBT people. The fact Bernie Sanders has campaigned for equal marriage since the 1980’s, a time when it was not fashionable to do so, is indeed noteworthy. Hillary Clinton is an opportunist, in my opinion, and is not the right answer for the U.S.’s long collection of domestic problems. How can the ‘lesser of two evils’ be a legitimate option in such an important presidential race? As it is still evil.