Interview with Alastair Redman, Resident of the Island of Islay

Pearl of Tyburn:  We have Alastair Redman, from the Island of Islay, with us now. Hello, Mr. Redman.

Alastair Redman:  Hello!

P.T.:  Could you tell me a bit about yourself and your background?

A.R.:  I am a crofter’s son on the Island of Islay, my mother in a nurse, one of my three brothers is a fisherman, one works for the forestry and the other is a crofter like my father. My girl friend is from the north of England, but was originally born on Shetland. I run a small shop and post office in Portnahaven on Islay.  

P.T.:  How did you get involved with Unionism, and why?

A.R.:  I am proud to be both Scottish and British, and I don't want to have to choose between the two.   

P.T.:  What does your British identity mean to you, and what do you think it means to the world?

A.R.:  It means that I am part of country that is a force for good in the world, loved by our allies, feared by our enemies, and respected by all.     

P.T.:  What would you say to an undecided Scottish voter to keep in mind tomorrow?

A.R.:  Being a unionist makes you no less or more patriotic than a yes voter. Too often the Yes side will claim that we are doing Scotland down by saying no to separation, that to vote no is unpatriotic well they are wrong no one person or political movement has a monopoly on what it is to be patriotic.  

P.T.:  What are some of your personal interests/hobbies/goals in life?

A.R.:  I love books, TV, video games, some sports and politics. As for my goals we will see how this referendum goes first. 

P.T.:  Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, Mr. Redman.

A.R.:  No trouble.

Interview with “Wyndysascha”, Legal Student from London

Pearl of Tyburn:  I’ll now be speaking with “Wyndysascha”, a resident of the great city of London, England, capital of the United Kingdom. It’s nice to have you on board!

Wyndysascha:  Thank you!

P.T.:  Can you give a little summary about yourself and your background?

W.S.:  I'm British, of English and Scottish ancestry. I was born in England, baptized into the Church of Scotland, and moved to Scotland at a young age. I now live in London, UK, where I attended university for a bachelor’s degree in history, and am now studying for a second degree in law. Although I haven't always lived in London, I do consider myself a Londoner (and I find it difficult now to imagine living anywhere else - a typical Londoner's conceit!). I am also a recent convert to the Catholic Faith.

P.T.:  Could you please tell me what your British heritage means to you?   

W.S.:  I've always seen my heritage as one of a thoughtful, measured, civilized, yet firm approach to tolerance, fairness, liberty, and the rule of law. We don't submit to tyrants; but we also don't have blood-in-the-streets revolutions either (although we do occasionally riot and decapitate our king!). Nowadays, though, we seem not only to fail to live up to our own image of ourselves, but we don't even know what that image is.

P.T.:  Why do you think “Britain” is such a good thing?

W.S.:  The reason why "Britain" is such a good thing is because, no matter what the cause of its inception, the history of conflict between the nations of The British Isles produced an authentically "British" idea of liberty. No matter how hypocritical we are in applying it, that is what the Union stands for, and why it should continue - above and beyond all other considerations, the Union represents how different nations can co-exist in one state and remain at liberty.

P.T.:  What do you think of the assertation that nations should, as a matter of necessity, have their own states?

W.S.:  The nations of Britain don't necessarily need their own states; they just have to love our liberty enough that they force the politicians of the Union to work towards it. Things like the European Union are bureaucratic exercises, and simply can't evoke that feeling of loyalty. The United Kingdom, as with the United States, represents an idea, and an ideal, of how people should live and what we should be willing to fight to preserve. That we've got to where we are now is a failure to hold faith to liberty.

P.T.:  Could you clarify what you mean when you say “liberty”, as opposed to “freedom”?

W.S.:  I say Liberty, and not Freedom, for a reason: "Liberty", understood as a British concept, is the God-given right to quiet enjoyment of one's private and family life and the state protecting us as we need it to; "Freedom" always seemed to me to be the running-around shouting, do-whatever-you-want thing.  It implies a positive effort of will, not simply a tendency to mobbishness and licence.

P.T.:  What do you think the active moral responsibility of the Union is?

W.S.:  The Union has an active moral responsibility to remind the nations of why the Union is a Good Thing and what it stands for. It shouldn't be forgotten that the Union was created in a shady politician's deal that the people, at the time, were overwhelmingly opposed to. But that didn't stop us coming to realize what the true character of the Union should be: a coming-together of equals established so that subjects could live their lives peaceably, free from undue interference.

That ethos came from centuries of intra-British wars, turmoil, and upheaval, and our common battles against monstrous tyrants that would make us slaves in our own country. The Union could be the fruit of all that, and prove that the world should draw closer together, find common ground, and agree on virtues to uphold instead of flying apart, with everyone trying to look out for themselves. We could just give-up and call it a few-centuries-old convenience and be done with it, but I think we'd all be the poorer for it.

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on the monarchy?

W.S.:  The same historical connectivity applies to the British Constitutional Monarchy. It's very difficult to defend monarchy as an institution in the modern world (although not the need for a single strong leader of government, such as the US President). But the monarchy, traditionally, has been the source of authority for the law.  In The King's Speech, King George VI says that he's only the King if the people believe he speaks for them.

An overarching theme of British history is the reining-in of the Crown, so it didn't evolve into a Continental-style despotism but one rooted in the "ancient laws" of the people. People had to see the monarchy as a product of our ancient liberties: not as in-your-face as, say, the explicit American declaration that the government is the servant of the people, but rather an organic relationship where We were loyal to the Crown, and the Crown upheld the things that made Us, Us.

P.T.:  How do you think the view of the monarchy has altered in present times?

W.S.:  Now, because they have lost their sense of common nationhood and are ignorant of their history, people don't understand how the monarchy is a source of authority any more. That has a terrible impact on British ideas on Law, and so on the Union itself. Laws in this country derive their authority from the Crown, and because they are promulgated by the Crown-In-Parliament. If you don't think the Crown possesses authority, as the authentic voice of the ancient laws and liberties of the people, why obey the law?  We end up being a nation of laws obeyed purely through fear of compulsion, not one where laws are respected.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on the importance and meaning of history?

W.S.:  I believe that "History" as a cultural enterprise (not merely an academic one) is the set of honest stories about the past that we tell each other to reinforce our sense of self and community. Despite what some in the Eighteenth Century thought, life cannot be a purely rational exercise. That's not how people function. We are under a positive moral duty to make sure that our stories are true and morally good: when we stop concentrating on honest history and stop telling these stories to our children, we eventually lose our cohesiveness.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on the Braveheart craze?

W.S.:  It’s easy to stick people in front of a TV playing Braveheart and then tell them it's the end of the story. But it's not the end. A simple look at British history would show that the heart of the Union is about nations fired by their own sense of liberty and independence being able to come together and work in common cause. I'm not unaware of the irony that the virtues associated with unity and liberty arose out of intra-British conquest, oppression, and struggle but, having fought and hated and brutalized, by the Grace of God we now have a higher standard to hold ourselves to.

P.T.:  What do you think might have made more Scottish people see the Union in a positive light?

W.S.:  Scotland's current generation might be more well-disposed to the Union if they saw how the original unification of Britain, though unpopular, became popular over time because of the mutually-beneficial nature of the arrangement. The Union forestalled Scottish bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme's failure. It brought a greater measure of peace to the Isles by excluding continental interference in Scottish affairs.

The Union allowed Scottish access to English (then British) markets.  In short, the Union allowed Scotland to punch well above its weight on a world stage. Not only this, but Scots have always been more than capable of holding the highest offices of state in a British Union; Scots are not the oppressed minority that Scottish Nationalists would like to portray themselves as, but rather are and always have been active participants in the Union at all levels. 

P.T.:  What do you think of the nationalist presentation that other people view Scots as having been disgraced or suppressed by the Union?

W.S.:  The peddled idea that "other people see Scots as brought low and wallowing in self-pity, and the Scots see themselves in a similar way" is the worst kind of rubbish: Scottish Nationalists get to present Independence as a solution for a perception that barely exists outside nasty right-wing media and pub loud-mouths, or gloss over that it's one implausible approach to dealing with something best dealt with within the Union anyway.  If self-respect and a sense of nationhood are so dreadfully lacking in the Scottish people, why not try to tackle this supposed problem within the Union, the institution that offers greater stability, greater opportunities, greater access to a world stage?!

Furthermore, the Union has never subsumed "Scottish" institutions beneath "British" ones. This flexibility is part of what makes the Union work. Constitutional protection has always been afforded to a separate Kirk, education system, and so on. Legislation, boards of control and state departments have been established in response to Scottish concerns over Scotland's needs. Development of devolved institutions continues today. If one believes that Scotland should become an independent, sovereign nation again then of course it is laudable that the process is peaceful, and through the political process. But that the process exists, has an historical presence, and is a viable route for future change - even if that change is independence itself - is a factual rejection of the idea that "Britain" somehow suppresses Scottish liberty.

P.T.:  What do you think are the main issues at the heart of the independence debate?

W.S.:  The true issue at stake in the whole Independence debate is this: unless there's some sort of complete, fundamental change in the governance, public morals, and general education of the people of the United Kingdom, then the Union is doomed to fail eventually. The pro-union Better Together campaign is fighting on the technical downsides of Independence. But people want more than that. I'd bet that any number of people voting For independence are sensible, sceptical people who don't believe the Yes Campaign's promises to give them everything they ever wanted without having to pay anything to get it - they're voting for independence because they've been presented with a vision of the world that makes them feel like they're part of a community again.

P.T.:  What do you think is “the best form of government”, if any?

W.S.:  I believe firmly that any state can only derive its authority from the informed consent of the governed.  This, obviously, doesn't necessarily imply either democracy or a republic, still less any inherent value to referenda.  However, I question what authority an independent Scottish state would have coming into existence via a brief moment of mawkish pseudo-patriotism.  There are nations around the world who are brutally oppressed by governments and regimes, who have a legitimate argument to make that they'd be better off with their own governors and states.  No-one oppresses the Scots, nor are the Scots lacking any opportunities within the Union.  Other independence movements elsewhere are similarly shallow. Who oppresses the Québécois, for instance?  What opportunities for localised government and international standing do they lack?  Like the Scots, they live in mature, rights-respecting states with civilized flexibility out of which they've done remarkably well and, when bumpy periods are passed, probably will do in future.

P.T.:  What do you think of the way individual politicians and parties affect the debate?

W.S.:  The manipulations of canny politicians lead people to forget their own interests and (not a popular opinion, perhaps) their just allegiances and duties. Governments you dislike aren't a reason to fracture one's country: they're a reason to stick it out, campaign for your point of view, and take an active role in the process.  I dislike many aspects of Conservative Party policy, their fairly cheap and nasty approach to the poor being foremost.  I'd probably have similar feelings towards any future Labour or Liberal Democrat government.  But pretending that the Scottish nation is so utterly, fundamentally divorced in its opinions from any policy these parties could implement is Fiction, pure and simple. 

 Scottish Nationalists draw the distinction between "Scottish politicians" and "Westminster politicians" to foster the "us-and-them" mentality necessary to break Scots from the Union but that's politics, not some fundamental character of the Scottish nation.  It's rare to find someone who identifies wholly with their elected leaders - we laugh at our MPs' supposed ineptitude regularly, Americans have their "clowns in Congress", and so on - and all the "Westminster politicians" argument does is piggy-back on this sentiment.

P.T.:  How do you think a lack of true patriotism towards Britain has contributed to the Scottish nationalist movement?

W.S.:  Our sense of Britishness has decayed to the point where the Union may be about to split. The past sixty years of British history have been the systematic dismantling of emotional attachment to one's own country. "Patriotism" is, apparently, something for right-wing thugs; the left/centre-left sneer at anyone who thinks that there's such a thing as "British liberty". Say what you want about the nationalists, they’re not stupid: they understand "History" far better than the Better Together campaign appears to (the fact is that they're cynically manipulating that history notwithstanding).  Again: although the Union provides tangible, real-life benefits to its citizens, its raison d'être cannot simply be measured in pounds, shillings, and pence.

I'm not naive. I know that "patriotism" is something that is used by the wicked on the gullible. But it's not a bad thing in and of itself, if it's attached to a good and noble cause. Love can warp easily into a greater, more general evil because it's an emotion, which is why love has to be married to reason and virtue to endure.  Love of one's country can warp easily into terrible things.  This is the line that Scottish Nationalists are skirting.  They're using Scots' love of the Scottish nation to foster division rather than unity, or a unity that is narrow and parochial, and encouraging self-pitying reactive chauvinism rather than genuine national character.  These things are being set against an authentic, British idea of liberty - something that emphasises common ground between different groups - in favour of a weak, ivory-towered concept of national freedom that isn't so much written solidly in history but slides greasily off its pages.

P.T.:  Could you wrap up this interview with a summary of the main problem as it stands now?

W.S.:  The sum of the problem is that we are forgetting our history, our unique sense of liberty, and our belief that our nations have a common centre that organically emanates authority but also derives its authority from us.  It can only end in division, and "suspect government" that has all the trappings of "rights" and "democracy" but enforces a deadening cultural uniformity on us.  Scottish Independence won't see some glorious rebirth of the Scottish Nation: it will say to the world that one of the foremost partners in the great, historical Projects of Union and Liberty has decided that it's just not worth the bother any more.  We don't have long to impart this on the Scottish people, and I'll be praying that it's a vision they can be persuaded to cleave to.

P.T.:  As an aside, can you tell me a little about your personal interests?

W.S.:  I maintain an interest in British and American History. My period of study is the Long Eighteenth Century, as affecting Britain and her empire (especially in North America). I've probably sucked up too much Eighteenth-Century pamphleteering, as I'm a big fan of the constitutional forms and theories of the time: whether the constitutional, parliamentary monarchy of Britain; or the federal, checks-and-balances American Republic ('The Federalist Papers' being one of my favourite works).

I also follow politics and consider myself to be a middle-of-the-road centre-right pragmatist with an attachment to ideas of individual liberty. I enjoy playing games, especially strategy ones, and I also love playing 'Minecraft'. I’m in the process of taking up blogging about his new Catholic life, politics, and gaming against the backdrop of ‘Minecraft’ (www.wyndysascha.com), as well as producing videos and vlogs on YouTube. I also try to deepen my newfound Catholic faith whenever I can.

P.T.:  Thank you very much for putting down so many excellent thoughts for this interview. I wish you all the best.

W.S.: Thanks; you too! 

Interview with Damien Davies, Unionist Activist

Pearl of Tyburn:  Tonight we’ll be speaking with Damien Davies, Unionist Activist. Hello, Mr. Davies.

Damien Davies:  Hello.

P.T.:  Could you elaborate about your background and what identities you might see yourself as having, culturally, nationally, religiously, and otherwise?

D.D.:  I am a 31-year-old British Person who happens to live in North West England, Runcorn, 9 miles downstream from Liverpool. Religiously, Church of England, although have Broad Catholic Leanings but to not regularly practice.

I have always regarded myself British first (as it is more inclusive) and English second, although was born in Scotland to Parents of Welsh. I consider England to be one of the Historic Countries in The United Kingdom of Great Britain (a state as it were), but The United Kingdom to be my country. England, Wales and Scotland are all internal regions of the UK, but they make up a whole.

P.T.:  Where in Scotland were you born? Do you feel Celtic at all in your mix of identities, and what do you think about the issue of Celtic language preservation, such as Welsh?

D.D.:  I was born in Edinburgh, raised in England and have Welsh/Irish Decent. I have no affinity for Celtic identity even with my Scottish/Irish and Welsh background, but I do believe that traditional Celtic languages should be preserved as much as possible.

P.T.:  What are your feelings with regard to the Scottish independence referendum?

D.D.:  It is an affront to everything The United Kingdom represents and is absolutely heartbreaking to me.

P.T.:  What do you see the UK as representing, to you and to the world?

D.D.:  I see the collective diversity and comradeship of this Island as our biggest asset and not a weakness that the separatists would have Scotland believe. Look around the world, 50 percent of inventions; the locomotive, the telephone, television, World Wide Web and the automobile, etc. etc. All are British innovation within the Union.

For good or ill, the Greatest Empire the world has seen which turned English into the 2nd or 3rd most spoken language in the world, just logistically for us is splendid. The colours of the Red-white and blue of our flag are in most overseas territories and former colonies.

P.T.:  What would you say about the post-imperial slump that seems to have affected many Brits psychologically?

D.D.:  It has not affected me in the slightest; the United Kingdom does not owe me, a typical working class man in the North of England, anything. Frankly the people it has affected need to get over themselves

P.T.:  Do you think that countries owe their people anything? What do you think the role of patriotism plays, and what do you think people owe their country?

D.D.:  I do feel that the Country or State owes the Taxpayer a lot, good defence, reasonable priced housing to buy and a chance to make a pound, gainful employment as it were. For this, the Country is owed our allegiance in turn. That’s patriotism.

P.T:  What about the supposed historical arguments brought up by separatists?

D.D.:  Historical Battles of the indigenous peoples of Britain is old hat, 400 years old hat. The British built this Union with British hands is a much more immediate reality than fighting for something that you have no personal stake in.

I would not fight for that cause, I would fight for the cause to preserve the Greatest Social, Political and Economic Union the world has ever known. Twice in the last Century our forebears gave their lives for defend our freedoms. That is worth a lot more than the separatists can conceive.

P.T.:  What symbol of Britain stands out most in your mind? What do you think would happen to the Union Jack should Scotland break away?

D.D.:  For me, it is the Symbol of Britannia. She is embossed on the Train Bridge in Runcorn so get a daily reminder of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Union Jack will be no more if the separatists get their way.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts about the Saxon vs. Celtic analogies and the way that Ireland and Scotland are often compared?

D.D.:  Ireland is not Great Britain; the Irish Troubles are largely over with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. Bringing that in the debate would just antagonize the whole peace process in Northern Ireland, who resoundingly decided they were British. Let that be an end to that issue. This is about the Constitutional Future of Great Britain, not Scotland as the separatists would like to make out.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on Federalization and the home rule bodies in the UK? Also are you a part of any political party?

D.D.:  I vote, but am not affiliated with any political party. I do not agree with federalization and home rule bodies, but that is neither here nor there because it is here. I can elaborate on that, if you wish.

P.T:  Please do.

D.D:  Federalization works best with Large Areas of expansive land which is sparsely populated relative to size, Great Britain or the UK could fit inside Texas, just one of the 50 States in the USA.

So the conceit with Devolution in the UK is that Scotland and Wales are NOT British but Scottish and Welsh respectively. This is a problem as it teaches Scots and Welsh to regard themselves as something other than British

P.T.:  Under the circumstances of home rule existing in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, do you think England should have a home rule body?

D.D:  In theory that is a sound idea; at the minute the UK pays for English MP's in the UK Parliament and for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland too, but now three of the home nations have two sets of MP's so basically there in a job share with each other but with no reduced hours or wages. So we are all paying more cash for more politicians, which there are too many of already.

P.T.:  What do you think about the SNP argument about Tory Rule that they hope will help advocate independence among mostly anti-Tory Scots?

D.D.:  Scotland is the only Country in the United Kingdom which has ever returned over 50% of votes to the Tories, in addition when the UK General Election rolls around we vote as ONE in the Unified Great Britain, the "us" and "them" mentality is merely a confection drummed up by the SNP, which I deplore. Tories have more MSPs in Holyrood than the SNP have in Westminster also, and yet the SNP have a mandate to Break-up-Britain...

P.T.:  What's your opinion of Alex Salmond?

D.D.:  I cannot repeat it but there is a lot of expletive deleted in there. It is telling that the SNP were against the National Minimum Wage in 1997 and Devolution in 1997 also, against more powers of the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012 and supported the dreaded Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power in the 1970's. She was known as milk snatcher in England too. It seems as if this party’s primary function is to antagonize and provoke.

P.T.:  What do you think of Alistair Darling? What is your opinion on the debates that took place between him and Salmond?

D.D.:  Alistair Darling is a decent chap, but Salmond is an utter disgrace. The debates were okay, but Darling was way too nice.

P.T.:  What do you think is the best way to defeat Salmond?

D.D.:  VOTE NO! Hopefully there will be a vote of no confidence in the leadership of Mr. Salmond.

P.T.:  What methods do you think the Unionist campaign should use to bolster than no vote?

D.D.: I am offended it is actually been raised as a question. That's how much of a no-brainer the United Kingdom is to me. I feel as an Ideal, if the United Kingdom can say that we can achieve so much more together than apart, lots of Countries come and go, new Countries formed and regimes fall, not in Britain?

Because we have a tried, tested, true and stable form of Liberal Democracy, which is something other parts of the world can only dream of. This should be a source of pride that we can engage in this debate without violence and some out the other side stronger for it. And to be fair, if our United Kingdom is everything us Unionists think and believe it is we have nothing to worry about :) Better Together, always were.

P.T.:  What do you think about arguments turning the whole thing on its head, saying "smaller better", "weaker better", etc.?

D.D.:  I would say that collectively the United Kingdom has the 5th Largest Economy in the world and the second largest in the EU, but are the 80th largest Country in terms of Size, why would anybody wish to diminish this? I cannot abide the mentality which would see the separatists metaphorically cut of one of my healthy legs.

P.T.:  How do you feel personally affected by the concept of the British culture being split apart and ultimately dissolved as we know it?

As a British person, Nessie is part of my culture, as is the bagpipe and tartan. The separatists with to take this away from me. Imagine if there was a British Government voted in at the last general election trying to cut away Scotland, what would Scots call the rest of the United Kingdom?

P.T.:  Dirty rats, snakes-in-the-grass, etc.?

D.D.:  My sentiments exactly. My personal view is that the SNP got in on a protest vote against the Tories and Lib Dems climbing in the bed with them.

P.T.:  What's your opinion on the sterling issue?

D.D.:  Pound Sterling was the English Currency before the Acts of Union; the exchange of the Pound Scots to Sterling was 12 Pound Scots to 1 Pound Sterling, so no wonder the separatists want to keep it, but it would need to be the English currency as not to get all playground but it was England's first. I would not support an official currency union, have already written to my MP about that.

P.T.:  Again regarding Ireland, how would you respond to the nationalist assertation, "Well, lots of young nations struggled at first, like ROI, but got back on their feet...etc. etc."?

 D.D.:  Ireland is in the EUROZONE, how is that going again?

P.T.:  What are some of your personal interests/hobbies and what do you see for your future, of yourself and the UK?

D.D.:  I enjoy creative writing and write a lot of plays and screenplays in my spare time. I also enjoy photography, do a lot of hunting and angling, and am into movies in a big way.

Basically United Kingdom has been here for over 300 years and based on the success story of our Union I want the next 3,000 years, just sad that I will not be here to see it...our decedents will make us all proud to secure our Union and retain our Britishness.

P.T.:  Thanks, Mr. Davies. Thanks for everything.

D.D.:  No problem.

  

Interview with Paul Watterson, Media Deputy for "Open Unionism"

Pearl of Tyburn:  Now we have with us Mr. Paul Watterson, media deputy of "Open Unionism", coming to us from Eastern Europe. Welcome, Mr. Watterson.

Paul Watterson:  Hello, Pearl.

P.T.:  Please tell me a little bit about your background and upbringing.

P.W.:  I was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, to an apolitical family. I have lived and studied in the North of England and London, and am presently working as an English teacher on mainland Europe.

P.T.:  You say your family was “apolitical”. Does this mean that you saw yourselves as outside the sectarian stereotypes of Catholic/Protestant, Loyalist/Republican, and “Gaelic”/Ulster Settlers?

P.W.:  My father came from a strongly working/class background and he remains pretty left-wing and certainly non-sectarian in his outlook. Actually, my brother and sisters would today also probably identify more as socialists than Unionists. My father came from a loyalist generation (pre-Troubles) that was also comfortable in describing themselves as Irish first and foremost- his church (in east Belfast) in the 60’s would organize trips to Dublin and Galway.

So, he and I certainly don't regard ourselves as "settlers"; our family has been on the island of Ireland for near enough 400 years now and I think that probably qualifies us as being as much Irish as Gerry Adams may or may not be!

P.T.:  What was it like being raised in an apolitical, “Irish” household during The Troubles? Did it have any lasting effect on you or on those around you?

P.W.:  I personally was "lucky", I guess, in that I wasn't directly affected by The Troubles as such; our school bus would regularly be attacked as it went through a "Catholic" area, but I don't put that down to political violence. It was more like plain sectarian vandalism.

 My father lost two colleagues, both of whom were shot by Republicans, and his family on the maternal side was an isolated Protestant one living in a republican part of South Derry. They literally slept with their guns under the bed, so sure were they that ethic cleansing was on the local IRA's agenda.

But really in comparison to others, we were relatively lucky. You kept your political views to yourself in those times, and as a result, my father's more "laissez faire" approach to his identity never caused him many problems. It's interesting that the vast majority of families in the UK were not affected directly by The Troubles, but the psychological effect and its continuing influence on our politics can't be underestimated.

P.T.:  Aside from statistics, it sounds as if you and your family were quite blessed to remain safe during a dangerous time. Online Unionism is certain all the better for it with regards to your work on “A Pint of Unionist Lite” and “Open Unionism.” I personally would never have gotten involved in all this if not for you.

What first encouraged you to become active politically?

P.W.:  The main thing which persuaded me to take up politics actively was the possibility that NI politics would become more UK based with the entry of the Conservative Party into the equation as a coalition with the UUP.

P.T.:  Are there any political parties in particular that you belonged to and/or associated yourself with?

P.W.:  I have been a member of one party for only a short-time, and that was the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). At that point, the UUP was working very closely with the Conservative Party in an attempt to develop a form of all-UK Unionism. However, that concept was never really bought into being by the majority of the UUP, and when the more "traditionalist" wing of the party started to predominate again, I left.

P.T.:  Could you explain the different "mission statements" of the Conservative Party and the Ulster Unionist Party and what brought about the possibility of a coalition between them?

P.W.:  The UUP traditionally has been a socially and economically conservative party. But the Conservative Party link-up was supposedly built upon a modern, UK-wide, non-sectarian form of Unionism. It didn't work, as there were too many within the UUP who weren't prepared to take a risk.

P.T.:  Am I right in supposing you would identify yourself as leaning more towards the left of the Unionist spectrum?

P.T.:  In social matters (abortion, LGBT rights, relationship between church and state, etc.), I would regard myself as a secular (or atheist?) libertarian. In economic matters, I lean towards socialism, or at least the European version of social democracy.

Within the political establishment of Northern Irish Unionism, that would be very much a minority viewpoint. One of the reasons that there has been quite a bit of conflict in working-class Protestant/Loyalist areas recently is that there isn't really any political representation for these disadvantaged communities.

P.T.:  I am unfamiliar with the term “atheist” being applied to a worldview encompassing the social issues you have mentioned, since I would think atheists might take any number of stances about abortion, homosexual “marriage”, etc. Could you please explain?

P.W.:  Atheists do, of course, have a wide range of views on social topics, but by and large in NI, the various churches and their political advocates "guide" or dominate the debate in this regard, and non-church people, almost by default, take a more liberal attitude on abortion, same sex marriage, etc.

P.T.:  How did you first come to identify yourself as a Unionist, and what inspired you to take up blogging?

P.W.:  Having lived, worked, and studied in various parts of the United Kingdom, the awareness of my Britishness developed. I guess my Unionism is more of a pragmatic or logical belief rather than an emotional one. I quite liked the fact that Carlisle or London or Glasgow is much my nation as Belfast.

Blogging offered a good opportunity to get things off my chest, and its explosion as a medium of expression coincided with my having quite a lot of free time on my hands to do proper research/analysis before posting.

P.T.:  You say that your affinity with Unionism is more-or-less based on pragmatism. However, quite a few of your articles, particularly your famous "Liberty and Union" adaptation, reveal a very emotionally connective element. Do you believe that there is a certain balance between the head and heart in Unionism that should be met?

P.W.:  Most people feel an emotional connection with their nation. That's patriotism, and as distinct from nationalism, perfectly morally acceptable. I am no different. However I don't see any inherent superiority in, for example, British literature or music as opposed to that which is enjoyed in Germany, South Africa, or Brazil.

Unionism needs the continuance of the Union that will not result from purely an emotional argument. Our opponents (certainly in Northern Ireland and to a lesser extent in Scotland) rely almost completely on an emotional, "heart" argument at their foundation. But a large minority, or even a small majority, in both countries is not attached one way or the other regarding the constitutional future of their nation. They need a more objective argument to vote for the continuance of the Union.

P.T.:  I agree for the most part about the danger of emotional extremism, especially considering the damage done by mindless Nationalism that views other cultures as somehow inferior. It seems that Alex Salmond has played that card any number of times in hopes of making the Scots preen their feathers and look down on their southern neighbors. What do you think is a good way to combat this divisive and glaringly inaccurate attitude?

P.W.:  The best method would be objective arguments. It is impossible to beat nationalism using a political theory which is based on emotional subjectivity. We should keep asking questions rather than letting them push meaningless platitudes devoid of proof.

P.T.:  What are your hopes for Northern Ireland, as well as Ireland as a whole? Do you think the division of the island can be maintained, or is it likely that it will eventually reunite and sway one way or the other?

P.W.:  The best thing which I can hope for N. Ireland is stability and a political system which is no longer based on ethno-sectarian lines. The Republic and The North are much closer than they ever were because the Republic and the UK as a whole are closer than they ever were. The future will see those ties strengthen even further, which is good news for Northern Ireland from all points of view.

P.T.:  What do you think would be a potentially stable political system for Northern Ireland?

P.W.:  I think a governing system which is integrated more with the rest of UK would help in that it would take out the cultural and social decisions which the politicians in NI are not presently capable of dealing with.

P.T.:  Do you think Northern Ireland will ever get her own flag or home anthem? If so, what type of flag and what anthem would you favor?

P.W.:  I can see NI getting its own flag and anthem. There is quite a strong pressure from a number of NI football supporters for that to happen. Whether or not it would be acceptable to a wider audience in Northern Ireland or even a majority, I don't know. As for my personal preference, I would take the Cross of St. Patrick for the flag. Don't mind about the anthem, as long as it isn't Danny Boy!

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on parading and Orange Order functions in general?

P.W.:  The Orange Order and parading makes little to no impact on myself and my family. To a large extent the whole question has nothing to do with the Union, but is more of a social/cultural question. I do suspect that if nationalists “win” against the Orange Order, then they will move onto other British/Unionist/Protestant targets. Republicans in South Derry have in previous years complained about an annual church Boys' Brigade march.

P.T.:  Do you believe it would ever be possible for a political “reunion” to reconnect The British Isles, Ireland included, and do you believe that would theoretically desirable from a unionist perspective? Failing that, do you think The Republic of Ireland might ever rejoin the Commonwealth?

P.W.:  There won't be a political reunion of the British Isles, even though I would agree it would be theoretically desirable for a Unionist. In the end, I am not sure if it really matters if, on a cultural/social and economic level, unity between the ROI and the UK already exists. Would the ROI rejoin the Commonwealth at some point? Can't see it happening in the short term.

P.T.:  Switching gears, what’s your prediction as to the outcome of the Scottish Independence Referendum, and what are the polls showing opinion to be for and against Scottish independence at this point?

P.W.:  With not living in Scotland, hard to say. Currently, the latest opinion polls on the referendum show the "yes" 6 % behind, but increasing.

P.T.:  Do you feel at all apprehensive about this increase for “Yes”, after such a long stretch where the numbers were pretty much stagnant?

P.W.:  I do not feel much apprehension about the “Yes” increase at the moment. Another couple of months of consistently rising figures, of course, would be a different matter.

P.T.:  Should a No vote be turned out, what are some ways in which to make the most of that victory?

P.W.:  Anything below 35% for the Yes campaign, and the concept of separation will be buried for a generation or more. I am not sure we need or should do anything in the event of a "No" vote.

P.T.:  You highlight the 35% mark. What might happen if “Yes” gets more support than that, and gains the vote of just under 50%?

P.W.:  If just under 50% votes for independence, and just over 50% votes against it, quite obviously, we've still won! Nevertheless, we may see the issue resurface regularly, as is the case in Quebec.

P.T.:  Should a Yes vote be turned out and Scotland becomes independent, where do you think Unionist activists will go from there on a broad scale?

P.W.:  If the vote goes that way, Unionists should regroup and do everything possible to help and protect the British people in Scotland. The workings of the Union have always been haphazard and flexible. That's it greatest strength.

P.T.:  What exactly do you mean by protecting the British people in a potentially post-independent Scotland? And what do you think might become of the Union Jack in such a situation?

P.W.:  With regards to protecting the British people in a potentially post-independent Scotland, I mean their cultural and social rights, the right to learn British history, the financial benefits from the UK state (unemployment, pension), etc. And be assured the Union Jack would still be flown unofficially in many places.

P.T.:  Regardless of the outcome, I’m glad to hear that the Unionist camp will continue to support the rights of “British” people and make the best out of whatever situation arises.

While on the subject of referendums, do you think an independence referendum will ever be held in Northern Ireland? If so, what do you think the result would be?

P.W.:  In Northern Ireland, I don’t think there will an "independence" referendum, but perhaps more of a border poll. At the moment, if such a poll were to be taken, the Unionists would win by more than 30% of the vote.

P.T.:  As a native Northern Irishman yourself, can you highlight some of the benefits you believe Northern Ireland has remaining a part of the UK?

P.W.:  The UK has a much larger economy and is a much greater power within the world politically than the Republic. Put bluntly, it is in a much stronger position to support NI than the Northern Irish.

P.T.:  What do you consider your own identity to be: strictly British, or British/Irish, or British/Northern Irish? Do you feel that the “Northern Irish” identity is distinct from the general “Irish” identity, and is it possible for someone to feel comfortable holding all three of these identities at the same time?

P.W.:  I would be a mixture of all three, also with "European" thrown in. It is up to the individual how comfortable they feel holding all three. Again, there isn't a strict definition of Irish or N. Irish, so both can exist as separate or united identities.

P.T.:  What are some of your plans for the future, politically and otherwise? What do you think you will be doing as the referendum heats up?

P.W.:  Unfortunately due to my career responsibilities, I seem to have less and less time to even plan for the future! My personal target is better time management and creating a stronger political presence on our “Open Unionism” Facebook and twitter accounts. As the referendum heats up, I would like us to be pumping out as much material as possible online.

P.T.:  What are some of your other interests, hobbies, and goals in life?

P.W.:  I enjoy running and have already run two marathons and countless half marathons. I would like to break three hours thirty for my next marathon, and one hour thirty for the half. Other than that, I walk my dog, feed my fish, and try to keep healthy and sane!

P.T.:  Well, do extend my best wishes to your canine and aquatic family members! Thank you very much for taking the time out for this interview, Mr. Watterson.

P.W.:  Thanks for showing the interest, and keep up the good work on our own blog, OU, and here on UJC.