National Identity

[hibernicus]

I have been reading a certain amount about republicans in Northern Ireland, and the following idea has occurred to me.
For the mid-century generation (the majority of the original leadership of the Provos, but also non-political working-class Catholics like Giuseppe and Sarah Conlon) Catholicism was deeply bound up with their personal and collective identity and at the core of their moral being. A republican might have disagreements with the clergy and yet be deeply pious, but still saw Catholicism as integral to what they were. This was not true of all republicans - there was a communist/socialist/anti-clerical minority, and there were self-consciously disreputable bohemians like Brendan Behan - indeed the overlap between mid-century bohemian culture and extreme republicanism (because both were at odds with church and state) is underexplored.

The next generation who came of age during the Troubles often expressly rejected the Church much more deeply than their forebears had done, but they often replaced this by veneration for the republican movement (in the case of the inner core who went through the H-Blocks etc this was reinforced by the sort of deep personal bonding, and for the Catholic working-class community as a whole (the middle-class, at least in the city, being included or not depending on whether they had moved to the suburbs/supported the SDLP/had links to the republican movement etc), with an utopian vision of socialist republicanism seen as expression/justification of the community. (This could go with resentment of the older generation's passivity as acceptance of defeat, or with veneration for their sacrifices, sometime both at once. Brendan Hughes expresses tremendous love for his highly-devout father who made tremendous sacrifices to bring up his children after the mother died young. You can see the same veneration in Gerry Conlon's references to his parents, although he rejected their Catholicism.) Part of the emotional driving-force behind dissident republican is a sense that the PSF leadership have turned into a new ruling class who have betrayed the ghetto and left it behind.
The vogue for liberation theology as applied to the republican movement was I think a transitional phenomenon in this - given the tendency for many forms of liberation theology to see the community and the socialist future as the real objects of worship.
I would also think that many middle-class Catholics and certainly many southerners including myself were too quick to distance ourselves from the sufferings of the northern Catholic working-class and that priests like Frs Faul and Murray filled a very important gap in their highlighting of injustices, often at significant risk to themselves. (This is not to say I would agree on everything with Fr Faul, even less with Fr Murray, but we need to come to terms with this.)
These thoughts were suggested by today's news of the death of Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four. Pray for him, the child of so many tears.

[Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha]

When thinking of working class Catholics in the North and also in the border counties, I get a real feeling of “There but for the Grace of God go I”. I know there are worse cases across the world than Northern and Border nationalists, but this is a case of flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone. I am not sure how many people saw the Radharc documentary on the work of Mgr Faul and Mgr Murray which was made in the mid 1970s, but only screened in the early 1990s, but I remember Mgr Faul talked about an Irish bishop who cried about El Salvador and couldn’t name the town in Northern Ireland. It was obvious that Éamonn Casey was the bishop referred to here, but what was said about him could have been said about a great many priests and religious in Ireland. I recall knowing a novice of missionary order of nuns at this time who told me on a Monday morning that she spent her Saturday at an anti-apartheid rally in Dublin’s city centre and then she moved out to the US embassy in Ballsbridge to protest against US policy in Central America. I very mischievously asked her why she didn’t walk down to the British embassy to join in the Bloody Sunday commemoration that was going on the same day. Failing to realise that my tongue was in my cheek (I wasn’t there myself), she got indignant and said she couldn’t participate in an IRA rally, I thought “the faraway guerrillas have more just causes”; or as I heard later – if you agree with them, they’re freedom fighters; if you disagree, they’re terrorists; if you’re not sure, they’re guerrillas. In regard to RTÉ’s attempt at even-handedness, a friend of mine used to comment on loyalist atrocities with the spiel “…but it’s alright, they were only paramilitaries. It’s a good job, they weren’t terrorists.”
At this time, I met a man, now deceased, who had been a big noise in the Provisional movement in the early 1970s (I’ve let Hibernicus know who I mean); he was of the opinion that the troubles needn’t have began. He suggested that a more robust consensus been the government in Dublin; the Catholic Church; cultural groups such as the GAA and other organisations and the nationalist leadership in the North, could have been effective at a time when the Nationalist community was most in need. The political leadership in the south, provided by Fianna Fáil in the 1960s was asleep at the time: one doesn’t have to agree with the position allegedly taken by Haughey and Blaney to see that the FF doves around Jack Lynch were caught napping in 1970. The fact that two clueless Mayo priests were appointed as bishops to the most important sees in the north (William Philbin in Down & Connor and John D’Alton in Armagh) shows a disconnect in the Church. The fact the Nationalist Party collapsed, superseded by the SDLP, which later gave way to Sinn Féin, speaks for itself.
I referred to Bloody Sunday; Hibernicus to the late Gerry Conlon. Those who took up these causes were often seen as fellow travellers of the Provisional IRA, though I tried to point out again and again that the Provisionals were having it both ways in reference to both the blunders of the security forces in the North and the miscarriages of justice in Britain: it gave them a huge propaganda victory while costing them nothing (the contrary; while the Birmingham 6/Guilford 4/Maguire 7/Judith Ward were under arrest/imprisoned, an Provo active service unit had gotten away with murder (literally) and meanwhile, many drawn into the miscarriage of justice area ended up politicised in a republican direction. Meanwhile, there was a feeling the Church didn’t want to know about this. Northern clerical students were solidly SDLP and I knew cases of Donegal students with Independent FF sympathies who got into trouble (I am not suggesting that clerical students or priests have strong political opinions and certainly not party advocacy, but it is important they be politically aware. The principal problem I have is that rather than encourage a healthy, well-informed distance from the political fray, the process was to bury one’s head in the sand, though an active engagement at this stage in the 1980s could have averted a lot of trouble both then and now. As it happens, the approach was very much like what SF supporters accused the SDLP of by suggesting the acronym stands for “Stoop Down Low Party”).
The problem I am referring to is both political and pastoral. It is also very difficult. Someone like Cardinal Ó Fiaich tried to engage with the type of youth who got sucked into the Provisional movement; he was labelled as a sympathiser. As Bishop of Down & Connor, Bishop Daly was forthright in his condemnation of the Provoes, but as Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Daly was a lot more nuanced. It is hard to see which is best, but the condemnation embittered many of the younger people involved in the struggle. When Cardinal Ó Fiaich reflected on the death of the hunger striker Raymond McCreesh (third of the 10 to die), he pointed out that someone as bright and highly motivated would not have taken this road had the political situation he found himself in not been abnormal. McCreesh’es brother was – is – a priest of the Armagh Archdiocese.
For all that I have little sympathy for the many clergy who have gone out of an ultra-republican limb. I am thinking of the Pallotine, Fr Patrick Ryan (I think he might have had a breakdown in the early 1970s; he was allegedly a P-IRA purchaser on the continent for many years); Fr Joe McVeigh; Fr Des Wilson; Fr Piaras Ó Dúill OFM Cap. I’m sure there are more. Monsignori Faul and Murray are milder by comparison.
For those of us south of the border, this is a problem we need to examine more closely. If one were to look at the Irish News from time to time, one is alerted to the fact a lot is still happening that one misses here, and the News tells it without the jaundice one reads in the Phoenix. Hibenicus has an understanding of the Unionist position I don’t – this is also important. But another thing strikes me, I read an article by Deputy Lucinda Creighton (like Cardinal D’Alton, a native of Claremorris) in this week’s Irish Catholic. Ms Creighton says all smaller parties in the history of Dáil Éireann except Provisional Sinn Féin has made a positive contribution. I just have to raise the issue of Official Sinn Féin/the Workers’ Party/Democratic Left, which at one and the same time maintained a military counterpart (Official IRA/Group B) while hypocritically condemning the Provoes (joining in initiatives like the Peace Train and Families Against Intimidation and Terror); cheerleading regimes in Eastern Europe and elsewhere with horrendous human rights issues; and using influence within the media and academia (even in the Church if you see my story about the novice above) to further their own agenda. To me, though the body count was not as high, the duplicity of the agenda and what was being promoted was far, far worse. Of course, some of these people have served in governments on this side of the border.

[maolsheachlann]

This thread has led me to read up on the Troubles for the past few days. I am from a very republican (though certainly not Provo) background going back several generations, which led me to react against Irish nationalism for certain stretches of my teens and twenties. I now consider myself an Irish cultural and social nationalist. I used to say that I wasn't interested in political nationalism, although I've come to believe that the very apparatus of political independence-- parliaments, elections a judicial system, a national broadcaster, the education system etc.-- has a shaping influence on culture and society so it can't be dismissed so easily.

I'm trying to look past my visceral hatred of the IRA and Sinn Féin, but it's difficult. For instance, when Alasdair complains about Cardinal Ó Fiaich being portrayed as a sympathizer, it's difficult to feel that this is unfair when I come across this quotation from the Wikipedia page about the dirty protest in H-Block:

From talking to them [he wrote] it is evident that they intend to continue their protest indefinitely and it seems they prefer to face death rather than to submit to being classed as criminals. Anyone with the least knowledge of Irish history knows how deeply this attitude is in our country's past. In isolation and perpetual boredom they maintain their sanity by studying Irish. It was an indication of the triumph of the human spirit over adverse material conditions to notice Irish words, phrases and songs being shouted from cell to cell and then written on each cell wall with the remnants of toothpaste tubes

If that is an accurate quotation, then surely 'the triumph of the human spirit over adverse material conditions" is not how a Christian prelate should talk about unrepentant members of a terrorist organization. I understand that Cardinal Ó Fiaich encouraged the peace initiatives of Fr. Alec Reid and he is certainly to be praised for that. I simply think this kind of language reflects an ambiguity about the IRA in Ireland that was very noticeable during the Troubles. Outrages were condemned but there was still a kind of perpetual fudging about the fact that they were a murderous organization. To condemn them for what they were is in no way to dismiss the brutality and persecution that drew so many nationalists into their ranks. In fact-- and I say this cautiously, remembering our Lord's warning about every idle word-- I'm not even sure that the IRA did not have a legitimate role as a defence force against loyalist rioters at the outbreak of the Troubles, since the authorities that should have defended them were clearly not doing so.

Surely it was the IRA themselves, and their many grassroots supporters (because their campaign would have been unsustainable without them), who alienated nationalist opinion (including that of clerics and religious) in the South? There seems to have been enormous sympathy and support for the nationalists at the beginning of the Troubles, as seen in the famous burning down of the British embassy in Dublin. Ironically, I think that the experience of the Troubles made Northern Ireland seem more like a foreign country than ever to ordinary people in the Republic.

Apologies if I speak out of ignorance here. Of course I believe we should pray for all those who died and were affected by the violence, including those who perpetrated it, and I regularly do.

[tobias]

I would tend to agree with the Cardinal. The 'dirty protests' and the hunger strikes required immense courage and determination and was a very powerful weapon of peaceful protest. The problem with the IRA was that they allied that with murderous activities. If the peaceful protest was continued in the communities rather than being drawn into armed conflict with loyalists and the authorities I think much more would have been achieved in the long run. The police force at the time had much more difficulty dealing with the peace marches of the Civil Rights movement and responded with violence which showed them up for what they were which was a bullying and corrupt outfit. Unfortunatly when the guns appeared they became the victim which suited them grand.
In another era Ghandi showed what a powerful weapon peaceful protest and the hunger strike is, but he carried it through from prison to the street.
The men that engaged in these protests did display the triumph of the human spirit over adversity but their associates did not display the same strength or courage on the streets. The easy option is to plant a bomb or gun down unarmed civilians.

[maolsheachlann]

I'm not sure you can distinguish between the hunger strikers and their 'associates' outside. As far as I am aware they were all members of either the IRA or the INLA and surely share in the guilt for those organisation's outrages. I don't deny their courage one bit.

[tobias]

Indeed, I agree. The point I was trying to make was if only that same strength and determination and methods were employed by the leadership outside the prisons, their objectives could have been achieved without the subsequent dreadful bloodshed.
The ambush at Burntollet Bridge and the Civil Rights march in Derry showed how peaceful protest showed the world the violence and brutality that existed towards the Catholic and Nationalist communities in the North in a far more effective way.

[maolsheachlann]

I get you now. Quite true.

[annie]

There had been many people killed during the 50s as part of the anti-border campaign. The IRA were persuaded to go on ceasefire in the early 6Os and give up their guns. The result when people were being burnt out of their houses and slaughtered in the streets by the B Specials and others there wasn't a gun to be found on the Nationalist side to defend the people. The SDLP had been founded to represent the people as Gerry Fitt's party weren't meeting expectations. The people were streaming over the border as refugees in fear for their lives like Syrians are now. Paddy Devlin and others of the SDLP came to Dublin and the Dail looking for handguns to protect themselves from the mobs. We have no idea what the people of the North suffered under Stormont rule. After Jack Lynch reneaged on his promise to the people to "not stand idly by" they had no option but to arm themselves.

[assisi]

I recently read an essay by John Hume saying that we are living in a post-national world and the nation state, like the city states before it, belongs to an evolutionary stage in history. He was extolling the existence of the European Union as a unifying structure after the slaughter of 2 world wars involving battling nation states. I assume the essay was written sometime in the 90s and I’m not sure if John Hume’s vision of the EU would extend to the much more controlling EU version we now have.
In the midst of the essay he says that, within the EU, the Germans are still German and the French still French. It take it that he still sees nationality as good but that higher levels of cooperation and structure, like the EU, are needed to mitigate the excesses of the nation state and foster cooperation.

An interesting reference to nation comes up in Scott Hahn's ‘A Father who keeps his promises’ where he highlights the significance of God’s covenants as progressively being made with bigger and bigger entities -Adam/Eve (Couple), Noah (family), Abraham (tribe),Moses (Nation), David (kingdom), Jesus (Universal). An interesting concept of all these entities, including the nation, being considered valid for covenant and yet contained, eventually, within the universal.

I would consider myself an Irish nationalist in the sense that I am proud of the traditions and physical beauty of Ireland – our Irish traditional music, the Irish ballad, the Irish short story, our Gaelic language, our sports teams and athletes……and I do think that a sense of wanting to belong to a nation or a distinct group is inherent in most people.

However as a Northerner looking at the South I can see my nationalism unfortunately trickling away surprisingly quickly. There appears to be a self loathing toward past Irish culture in the Irish media, government and in some sections of the population. The hostility towards Catholicism is well documented here. But something similar occurred in the 1990s towards Irish nationalism. I used to read one or two of the southern papers and journalists like Eamon Dunphy, Ruth Dudley Edwards, Eilis O’Hanlon? and Eoghan Harris were highly critical of northern nationalists during the early days of the peace process – a sea change seem to have occurred.

Ultimately an Ireland turning against itself is an Ireland, I think, in deep trouble. If you don’t like yourself, then don’t expect others to value you. The sad thing is, unlike England , France, Spain and Germany, Ireland doesn’t have a cruel colonial past that these countries have. The country has a lot going for it but seems intent in bending over backwards to denigrate its past for a soulless secular future. Madness.

[maolsheachlann]

Nationalism of every kind seems like a non-issue in the Republic of Ireland these days. It's something that hardly anybody gets excited about. To such an extent that the soulless secular future to which Assisi rightly refers is not even (I would claim) consciously chosen in preference to, or in reaction against, any kind of nationalism. Insofar as it's a reaction at all it's more of a reaction to Catholicism and the spectre of De Valera.

[maolsheachlann]

This thread has been fuelling my thoughts for the last week or so. I found myself reading a good bit of Ed Moloney's book The IRA: A Secret History and watching a documentary about the hunger strikes. And, of course, I found myself remembering my own perspective on the Troubles-- and even though I was born in 1977, and have never been in Northern Ireland, it was of course very much 'in the air' at the time. As well as this, I grew up in Ballymun, which was full of republican and socialist radicalism.

I think the Troubles, and the republican movement, indirectly had an enormous effect on me. It was the idealism and the idea of 'The Cause' that entered my imagination. Against the background of the national question, and also of the Celtic Revival and everything that went with it, I just took it as read, as natural, that adults were motivated by burning political and social and cultural causes. I thought that was the horizon against which individual and family life happened. It wasn't just the idealism. It was the anticipation of something utterly transformative. "Tiocfaidh ar La" (sic, I'm sure) didn't seem to me to refer simply to a different constitutional arrangement, but a kind of Millennium where things would be completely different. I suppose going to an Irish language school also influenced this. It wasn't so much utopianism. It was more a kind of revivalism, with all the 'born again' fervour that is associatd with that phrase. Whenever I think of Ireland in the forties, fities, sixties, seventies, it all seems steeped in a kind of heady atmosphere of idealism and radicalism and revivalism and revolution and counter-revolution and Irish mythology and goodness knows what else. Everybody, in my mind, was either a Republican or a Trotskyist or a modernist poet or a hippy or a bohemian or something. And Catholicism was part of the cocktail, too. Everyone was looking to their Millennium of choice. I don't know if this is just an accident of my background or whether it's a quirk of my own memory or what. Does anyone else share this perception or this experience?

When I grew up, and realized that most people were not especially animated by any cause-- that they just wanted to go about their own lives-- I was shocked to my core and found it unutterably squalid.

[hibernicus]

The Scottish blogger Lazarus, who has been quite critical of the SNP, discusses why many/most English trads seem unwilling to take Catholic support for it seriously. Does this remind you of English Catholic/trad attitudes to another part of the Celtic fringe? (One aspect of this is the large-scale demise of the old-style socially conservative working-class, and very often Irish, English Catholicism of the northern industrial cities, which provided a counterbalance within the English Catholic church - and within the first generation of English trads - to the fogeyism of the south and southeast. I think we are seeing something similar in Ireland):
cumlazaro.blogspot.ie/2014/12/is-catholic-church-in-scotland-too.html
EXTRACT
The sort of people who tend to dominate the Catholic commentariate (at least the ones I read) are from (let's say) a rather conservative, traditionalist background. Put that together with a Golden Triangle (Oxford-Cambridge-London) background, and it's extremely difficult to sympathise with whingeing jocks voting for a bunch of popularist leftists. On the other hand, both localism and nationalism are popular themes among this set (in many ways, my set), and certainly that discontent with the political process represented by UKIP has received a favourable hearing. So from that point of view, I am a bit surprised at the lack of sympathy for or at least understanding of an independence movement that in many ways is just another example of a popular response to well known problems in modern Western Europe.

There's probably no one answer as to why the modern West and particularly its political process is in trouble. In part, it's probably the tension inherent in a system that is built on two incompatible narratives: on the one hand, equality and subjectivism; on the other hand, a cult of meritocracy and technical expertise. And if you add to that the end of the economic good times, a culture prizing licence and leisure over self discipline and work, and the deliberate alienation of people from their human nature in favour of technological fantasies of self-creation and infinite possibility, you have in essence the creation of a free floating neurosis, a feeling that the times are out of joint, and the desperate seeking for release through something...
to that extent, I agree with these commentators who seem to regard the movement for Scottish Independence as some sort of mental illness, to be treated rather than encountered as a natural part of the political landscape. Except....

And the 'except' is that the SNP are viable in a way that Russell Brand and even UKIP just are not. As the above map shows, it is likely that, after the next general election, the SNP will dominate Scottish seats in Westminster in a similar way to their domination of Holyrood. Moreover, Scots have got used to competent Holyrood administrations run by the SNP: if Salmond is some sort of wild eyed Braveheart fantasist, he is a wild eyed Braveheart fantasist who can run the country and win elections. (And no one has suggested that Nicola Sturgeon -like her or loathe her- is anything if not effective.)

I'm not sure when it happened, but some time since the re-foundation of the Scottish Parliament, my default setting for political interest has drifted from Westminster to Edinburgh. I don't regard either Salmond or Cameron as exactly 'my leader', but the political drama I look to first is that around Holyrood: indeed, it has started to become almost something of an afterthought to wonder what is happening at Westminster. I think it is that which is the biggest challenge to the Union: not so much the transfer of this or that power or even the precise result of this or that vote, but more the reframing of the electorate's interest in Scotland around Edinburgh rather than London. Now make of that what you will. It may be a fault to be regretted, a passing phase to be reversed. But I suspect -I'd in fact put it much more strongly than that- that I'm far from being alone in such a revisioning of the political settlement: in the minds of many Scots, Scotland is already a separate political landscape from that of Westminster and the rest of the UK.

And that is the context within which Archbishop Tartaglia's remarks should be taken. First, I'm not at all sure that, even in themselves they are that dreadful: Salmond has been a major figure in Scottish politics and his (sort of) passing deserves some sort of kind remark. (And Tartaglia's remarks on Sturgeon strike me as anodyne in the extreme.) Secondly, Tartaglia is but one bishop: you'd be hard put to find similar remarks from the much more careful Archbishop Cushley, let alone, say, Bishop Gilbert of Aberdeen. (And is it really a surprise that, within any Bishops' Conference, some will be closer to any particular party than others?) But thirdly, and most importantly, it is entirely reasonable that any bishop tries to find some modus vivendi with the government and leading political figures of the day. Inevitably, that balance is hard to get right: what is 'fawning' to some will appear merely formal politeness to others. That is what Thompson is missing: that Tartaglia is not sucking up to some relatively isolated charismatic popularist like Nigel Farage, but what has become almost the establishment in Scotland. (Would a similar jeremiad have been provoked if, say, a Catholic Bishop had spoken warmly of David Cameron after he resigned?)
END OF EXTRACT

[Young Ireland]

Dec 16, 2014 22:25:13 GMT hibernicus said:

The Scottish blogger Lazarus, who has been quite critical of the SNP, discusses why many/most English trads seem unwilling to take Catholic support for it seriously. Does this remind you of English Catholic/trad attitudes to another part of the Celtic fringe? (One aspect of this is the large-scale demise of the old-style socially conservative working-class, and very often Irish, English Catholicism of the northern industrial cities, which provided a counterbalance within the English Catholic church - and within the first generation of English trads - to the fogeyism of the south and southeast. I think we are seeing something similar in Ireland):
cumlazaro.blogspot.ie/2014/12/is-catholic-church-in-scotland-too.html
EXTRACT
The sort of people who tend to dominate the Catholic commentariate (at least the ones I read) are from (let's say) a rather conservative, traditionalist background. Put that together with a Golden Triangle (Oxford-Cambridge-London) background, and it's extremely difficult to sympathise with whingeing jocks voting for a bunch of popularist leftists. On the other hand, both localism and nationalism are popular themes among this set (in many ways, my set), and certainly that discontent with the political process represented by UKIP has received a favourable hearing. So from that point of view, I am a bit surprised at the lack of sympathy for or at least understanding of an independence movement that in many ways is just another example of a popular response to well known problems in modern Western Europe.

There's probably no one answer as to why the modern West and particularly its political process is in trouble. In part, it's probably the tension inherent in a system that is built on two incompatible narratives: on the one hand, equality and subjectivism; on the other hand, a cult of meritocracy and technical expertise. And if you add to that the end of the economic good times, a culture prizing licence and leisure over self discipline and work, and the deliberate alienation of people from their human nature in favour of technological fantasies of self-creation and infinite possibility, you have in essence the creation of a free floating neurosis, a feeling that the times are out of joint, and the desperate seeking for release through something...
to that extent, I agree with these commentators who seem to regard the movement for Scottish Independence as some sort of mental illness, to be treated rather than encountered as a natural part of the political landscape. Except....

And the 'except' is that the SNP are viable in a way that Russell Brand and even UKIP just are not. As the above map shows, it is likely that, after the next general election, the SNP will dominate Scottish seats in Westminster in a similar way to their domination of Holyrood. Moreover, Scots have got used to competent Holyrood administrations run by the SNP: if Salmond is some sort of wild eyed Braveheart fantasist, he is a wild eyed Braveheart fantasist who can run the country and win elections. (And no one has suggested that Nicola Sturgeon -like her or loathe her- is anything if not effective.)

I'm not sure when it happened, but some time since the re-foundation of the Scottish Parliament, my default setting for political interest has drifted from Westminster to Edinburgh. I don't regard either Salmond or Cameron as exactly 'my leader', but the political drama I look to first is that around Holyrood: indeed, it has started to become almost something of an afterthought to wonder what is happening at Westminster. I think it is that which is the biggest challenge to the Union: not so much the transfer of this or that power or even the precise result of this or that vote, but more the reframing of the electorate's interest in Scotland around Edinburgh rather than London. Now make of that what you will. It may be a fault to be regretted, a passing phase to be reversed. But I suspect -I'd in fact put it much more strongly than that- that I'm far from being alone in such a revisioning of the political settlement: in the minds of many Scots, Scotland is already a separate political landscape from that of Westminster and the rest of the UK.

And that is the context within which Archbishop Tartaglia's remarks should be taken. First, I'm not at all sure that, even in themselves they are that dreadful: Salmond has been a major figure in Scottish politics and his (sort of) passing deserves some sort of kind remark. (And Tartaglia's remarks on Sturgeon strike me as anodyne in the extreme.) Secondly, Tartaglia is but one bishop: you'd be hard put to find similar remarks from the much more careful Archbishop Cushley, let alone, say, Bishop Gilbert of Aberdeen. (And is it really a surprise that, within any Bishops' Conference, some will be closer to any particular party than others?) But thirdly, and most importantly, it is entirely reasonable that any bishop tries to find some modus vivendi with the government and leading political figures of the day. Inevitably, that balance is hard to get right: what is 'fawning' to some will appear merely formal politeness to others. That is what Thompson is missing: that Tartaglia is not sucking up to some relatively isolated charismatic popularist like Nigel Farage, but what has become almost the establishment in Scotland. (Would a similar jeremiad have been provoked if, say, a Catholic Bishop had spoken warmly of David Cameron after he resigned?)
END OF EXTRACT

Lazarus is spot-on, however I'm not sure that UKIP are unviable (of course, Lazarus may be talking in a Scottish context, were UKIP have historically been weak). In fact, there is a possibility that the Tories and UKIP could be the next government (I'm not sure if this would be a good thing or not, but this is going by opinion polls, though first-past-the-post needs to be taken into account as well). Nevertheless, I think that UKIP will make large gains in the next election.

Regards a shift from the working to the middle class, I'm not so sure about that one. It is probably true for those trads in communion with Rome, but I thought the Lefebvrists drew their supports from a broader base (I'm not sure how broad, and of course I could be wrong).

[hibernicus]

I've heard from a reliable source that in some parts of Belfast the DUP has been sending leaflets to Catholic voters emphasising their opposition to abortion and gay "marriage" and their support for Catholic grammar schools. This is the first time I've heard of concrete evidence of the DUP appealing to Catholic voters on the basis of social conservatism (and I might add that there is at least a smidgeon of cynicism involved; the DUP have supported the continuance of selective education - and hence grammar schools, Catholic and otherwise - but PEter Robinson has called for the abolition of denominational education on more than one occasion). My source didn't know whether these leaflets were targeted specifically at Catholic voters, but this seems likely. (The DUP might hope to appeal to some moderate unionist voters by making pro-Catholic noises, but the sort of voters who might be influenced by this are less likely to be social conservatives.)

[Ranger]

This doesn't surprise me. I've heard of devout Catholics voting for them before. The Irish Times had a supplement a year or two ago about Catholics who voted Unionist as well, although for different reasons (if I recall correctly, they thought the Union was economically beneficial and disliked SF/SDLP more than the Unionists). If I lived in the North myself I might view them as being the least of many evils, although I'm not very well acquainted with Northern politics in general.