United Ireland — Money or vision?

The price of Irish unification has now been put at €20 billion over twenty years – the bill to be picked up by the Irish taxpayer. (Although these figures, as estimated by economist John FitzGerald, son of Garret, are disputed by some.)

But as Ireland is reckoned to be one of the richest countries in the world  according to Global Finance Magazine, the exchequer can probably afford it.

Yet surely there are more important aspects of nation-building than money? Did Padraig Pearse count the pennies before 1916?

Vision

The first priority in putting a nation together is vision. You need a vision of what kind of unity you are going to construct. Diversity of traditions needn’t be an obstacle, but this diversity must also allow a cohesive unity.

Switzerland has often been cited as a model for a united Ireland because of the local democracy vested in the cantonal system.

Switzerland is a country with four official languages – German, Italian and French, as well as Romansh, the minority Swiss language –  and two diverse Christian traditions of Catholicism and Calvinism. But it works as a unified nation, not just because of the cantonal structure – but because the Swiss have that sense of who they are as a people, with an identity going back to William Tell.

Building a nation requires more than money – it needs inspiration and coherence too”

Belgium is a state with two languages of French and Flemish (plus a small corner of German-speakers) and theoretically of the same religion, although much of Belgium is now secular. And yet it’s questionable if Belgium is a success as a nation. It remains bitterly divided and the layers of bureaucracy added to alleviate the divisions arguably enforce and add complexities to differences. Belgium is held together by the EU and the monarchy, rather than a unified sense of identity.

Building a nation requires more than money – it needs inspiration and coherence too. Scotland has seen an upsurge in support for Scottish nationalism in recent decades, but the project of Scottish independence is mired in muddle because, apart from hating the English and especially the Tories, they haven’t really developed a coherent vision of what it is to be Scottish. They’ve also tried to be multi-cultural even before they defined what the host culture is.

The first priority in putting a nation together is vision. You need a vision of what kind of unity you are going to construct”

The United States of America was, surely, an inspiring model of a nation that was both unified and diverse. The states made their own laws, but there was federal unity on national and international issues, as well as an agreed understanding of what it was to be an “American”. This has become fractured in recent decades over a range of issues from race to drug use to problems of immigration, but if America can hold on to the vision of what it is to be American, the nation will endure.

Economics are not irrelevant to any project. Prof FitzGerald’s calculations have prompted much discourse, and quite a few reflections on the lines of St Augustine’s aspiration to virtue. (“Oh Lord, make me chaste – but not yet.”) Taoiseach Harris has already voiced his support for a united Ireland, but not yet.

His real job would be to develop the vision which builds a united nation.

Diversity of traditions needn’t be an obstacle, but this diversity must also allow a cohesive unity”

Christianity’s unlikely admirer

Richard Dawkins’, famous atheist, has now declared that he is a “cultural Christian”, after all. This seems to mean that he appreciates the traditions and inheritance of Christianity, even if he is not (yet?) a believer. Well, his démarche, if not quite a Damascene conversion, is a start!

He has for some time expressed admiration for the beautiful language of the Bible and the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and that has been an influence. He also thinks Christianity could be replaced by Islam if Christian traditions are not defended.

Perhaps he will make another TV documentary updating his views. Perhaps he might even apologise for the way he so unkindly described pilgrims at Lourdes in the last one he made – pouring scorn on the faith of people for whom the experience was deeply meaningful.

***

I recently discovered that a cousin of mine, now dead, once ferried Irish babies to America, as part of the practice of American adoptions in the 1950s. She honestly and truly believed she was helping the infants attain a better life. Poignantly, she yearned to adopt a baby herself, since she was childless and loved children, but her husband wouldn’t agree. He was a psychiatrist and entertained fears of undisclosed inherited mental illness, which was a concern at the time.

It’s desperately sad to think of cases where mothers felt forced into parting with their babies for adoption, as in the “Philomena” story. But it’s also desperately sad to think of children growing up in orphanages or industrial schools, with no family to care about them – as in John Cameron’s affecting autobiography “Boy 11963”. Two sides to this passage of our social history.