Sam McBride: Ulster unionism is at risk of presenting itself as being for sale to the highest bidder

But others – especially some senior DUP members – seem oblivious to the peril, as evidenced by recent events.

The danger is that unionism is increasingly presenting itself as an ideology which at best is disproportionately concerned with money, and at worst is crudely for sale to the highest bidder.

One of DUP founder Ian Paisley’s favourite rhetorical flourishes – that Ulster wasn’t for sale – alluded to a rejection of the idea that his own or his followers’ political principles could ever be altered by cash.

Overwhelmingly when the “sell-out” jibe was hurled at the government or opponents, Paisley was using it metaphorically.

However, in recent years a growing number of unionists – from members of the TUV holding to a form of old Paisleyism to traditional UUP members, liberal unionists outside politics and even some DUP members – have expressed alarm at a sense that unionism is too often seen as synonymous either with financial scandal or a grasping desperation for money.

In part, this involves the number of financial scandals which have in recent years involved unionist politicians. Even the Iris Robinson scandal – which in tabloid telling was a lurid tale of sexual misbehaviour – was at its heart about how a DUP MP obtained tens of thousands of pounds from property developers.

Myriad other controversies – from eye-watering expense claims to luxury foreign holidays paid for by foreign governments – culminated in cash for ash where sums of tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds multiplied to hundreds of millions.

Although many RHI claimants acted in good faith and had no political links, the public inquiry revealed something profound about how Arlene Foster’s then adviser Andrew Crawford saw it as legitimate to squeeze as much money out of London as possible for Northern Ireland – even after he had been warned of RHI abuse.

The image of unionism’s dominant party which emerged was not one of fiscal restraint for the good of the Union, but rather of a grasping attempt to fleece the Treasury on Northern Ireland’s behalf with phrases like “more than our fair share of the UK pot”, “fill our boots” and “free money”.

The latter of those phrases was in fact used by a civil servant rather than a politician, but far from the DUP being a brake on such thinking, there was the sense that extracting the maximum cash from the Treasury was itself a policy goal.

Three years ago when the DUP held more Westminster power than any party in Northern Ireland’s history, they did not set as their red line in negotiations something which would strengthen the Union or otherwise deliver on their core ideological goals.

Rather, after two and a half weeks of haggling with the Tories they sold their votes for more than £1 billion for Northern Ireland, contributing to the perception of unionists as exponents of pork barrel politics.

Of course, often when politicians argue for more money for public services they have a valid case, and it is not only unionist politicians who get caught in financial scandals.

Nor are unionist politicians the only ones asking for more money. Nationalist politicians do likewise, and even beyond the two tribal camps there is a deeply ingrained populism in Northern Ireland which sees most problems as the fault of London not sending a sufficiently large bank transfer.

But nationalists not only do not have any compulsion to worry about how demands for more money will impact on the Union; if such spending puts strain on the Union that is for them a happy outcome.

Two weeks ago, Arlene Foster extended into the constitutional sphere this growing sense of unionism constantly trading for money. In an interview with Sky News, she decried Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal but made clear that she had given up fighting against it and would implement the Irish Sea trade border.

She then went on to suggest that more money from London and support for some Northern Ireland companies could “mitigate” what her party had described as constitutional vandalism in contradiction of the Act of Union 1800.

The first minister referred approvingly to “the shared prosperity fund that has been proposed by the government” and “ways that we can integrate Northern Ireland into other parts of the UK in innovation in cybersecurity and all of the new economies that we’re talking about”.

There was a backlash to Mrs Foster from within the DUP and last week DUP agriculture minister Edwin Poots halted his officials’ work on creating the new Irish Sea border checks – which hitherto he knew had been quietly proceeding.

But Mr Poots’ new confrontational stance was short-lived. Although it survived a furious argument at an Executive meeting last Thursday where the DUP deployed its veto to stop a vote called by Sinn Féin from forcing Mr Poots to reverse his position, the very next day he abandoned his opposition to his civil servants working on the Irish Sea border (albeit allowing the decision to be taken in a highly unusual manner which allowed him to say he had not agreed to the work when he was choosing not to block it).

It is still not clear what caused Mr Poots to perform such a rapid U-turn. Although London pressurised him to allow the border to proceed, it did not have to even formally order him to do so before he allowed that to happen.

Mr Poots’ only public explanation for why he allowed his officials to take part in something his party has decried as the tearing apart of the Union came in an interview with Radio Ulster’s Nicola Weir on Tuesday.

Central to his explanation in that interview was that he had not been prepared to sign off on £40 million of expenditure without knowing more about the nature of the checks – but that now London will pay for the border and so it can go ahead.

It was a curious argument from a party which had never suggested that its opposition to what it has presented as constitutional damage could be set aside if someone else would pay for work required to perform that constitutional damage.

There was a perfectly coherent case to be made for pragmatically backing down and accepting that the best course now is to work quietly to make the best of a deal the DUP as a small regional party had been unable to stop.

Mr Poots could have pointed to the economic threat to NI and the political threat to the DUP if his refusal to allow the necessary border infrastructure to be in place by the end of this year led to chaos at our ports and airports in January.

Although Mr Poots stressed that what he was allowing to proceed was “not good for Northern Ireland”, in the absence of any other apparent concession by the government he appeared to be arguing that because London was now picking up the bill the blow had somehow been softened – another iteration of the argument Mrs Foster had made in her Sky News interview.

There are two central risks here for unionism. In Great Britain, where the growth of English nationalism is increasingly influencing Westminster politics, there is at some point the potential for a ferocious backlash against the vast funds going to Belfast and the constant demands for more.

But perhaps equally problematic for unionist politicians is the distaste which some of their own constituents feel about their behaviour.

If even unionists are in some cases growing alarmed at this, it is hardly attractive to those centrist voters who will ultimately decide Northern Ireland’s future in a border poll.

There are strong arguments for the continuation of the Union, some of which are rarely made by Northern Ireland’s unionist leaders.

But few political ideologies survive unless they can convince the public that they stand for something nobler than filthy lucre.

READ MORE:

After less than a week defying PM, DUP minister U-turns to allow officials to work on Irish Sea border checks

DUP minister Edwin Poots halted work on Irish Sea border posts after party meeting

Sam McBride: The DUP and Brexit – from backing Leave on a whim to Arlene Foster’s ‘blood red line’, and now her surrender

——— ———

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers — and consequently the revenue we receive — we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.

Subscribe to newsletter.co.uk and enjoy unlimited access to the best Northern Ireland and UK news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit https://www.newsletter.co.uk/subscriptions now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Alistair Bushe

Editor