Latest news with #BoundaryCommission
The Herald Scotland
7 days ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Now will the small minds of the SNP twig what voters care about?
Gus Connelly, Calderbank. Time to trim constituency Yet another bright light in Holyrood is dimmed, as Deputy First Minister [[Kate Forbes]] announces her intention to stand down from politics in 2026. Ms Forbes certainly lit up the Chamber back in 2020 as the first female to deliver a Scottish Budget (incidentally at short notice) and she brought great ability and commitment to her new-found position. To be an MSP in such a rural and geographically taxing constituency as Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch would be difficult for anyone, but for a mum with a young child it presents a scenario which raises questions. Should the Boundary Commission be considering geographically halving the constituency to make it manageable? Should Parliament be looking for options for such a widely-spread constituency? The make-up of constituencies should be manageable in the interest of constituents and their representatives. Catriona C Clark, Falkirk. Read more letters How much did Sturgeon cost us? In her paean of praise for Nicola Sturgeon's 'many achievements', Ruth Marr (Letters, August 2) draws a veil over the costs to the public purse of these policies. With regard to the SNP's abolition of prescription charges, perhaps one example will suffice to illustrate the financial impact of this policy. The cost to NHS Scotland in 2023-24 for paracetamol prescriptions alone was £14 million. Adding pharmacy dispensing charges of £7m brings the total cost to £21m. A Google search reveals that a pack of paracetamol can be bought for around 90p in any supermarket. Alan Ramage, Edinburgh. • It is notable that the list of "achievements" by Nicola Sturgeon given by Ruth Marr all involve her spending other people's money. I wonder if Ms Marr can come up with an example of Ms Sturgeon making a positive contribution to achieving economic growth in Scotland. She certainly made many negative contributions like destroying the ferry service to Arran and allowing her erstwhile allies in the Green Party to introduce measures like National Planning Framework 4 that are strangling economic development all over Scotland. I also wonder if Ms Marr is aware that her hero's actions in relation to the ferries, including having the Glen Sannox launched on her direct orders six months before the ship was ready so that she could upstage the Conservative Defence Secretary when he was announcing new jobs, and her contribution to the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery by further high-handed actions, have resulted in the new "greener" ferries actually being responsible for more emissions of carbon dioxide than their conventionally powered predecessors. This is because the diesel fuel that the conventional ferries use can be brought to Ardrossan by electrically powered railway trains but the Liquefied Natural Gas needed to make the new ferries "greener" has to be transported from Essex on diesel-powered lorries. You couldn't make it up. Peter Wylie, Paisley. Indy target should be two-thirds As GR Weir (Letters, August 2) has not answered my simple question as to how he would define his 'stable majority" for independence, allow me to propose two-thirds for consideration. In my view, irrespective of how, when and by whom the decision to hold another inevitably divisive referendum on independence is taken, the stable polling majority sufficient to justify it must be understood in advance, and to achieve independence the actual voting result must at least confirm that polling majority. That result can then be taken as the settled will of the people at that time. The same requirements would apply to any subsequent calls for a rejoin referendum. As Mr Weir will know, to change the constitution of the [[SNP]], the principal advocate of independence, requires at least a two-thirds majority (Article 27), so nationalists should have no difficulty in supporting my proposal. Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop. Why can't they admit mistakes? Kevin McKenna's interview with Jackie Baillie on Saturday (''I hated how Sandie Peggie's daughter was used', says Scottish Labour deputy leader', The Herald, August 2) highlights an uncomfortable but increasingly familiar feature of our politics: an unwillingness to accept responsibility for past decisions. In December 2022 Scottish Labour gave full support to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The party whipped its MSPs to vote in favour and, with their backing, the legislation was passed by the Scottish Parliament. Since then, the well-publicised cases of Isla Bryson and Sandie Peggie have shown that public concern is widespread – particularly about allowing individuals to legally change their gender through self-identification, thereby acquiring all the rights of their preferred gender. Labour now appears to be pivoting in response to that unease. Jackie Baillie attempts to distance the party from the fallout by suggesting Labour's support of the bill was dependent on key amendments and a future consultation with the UK Government. This rings hollow. If those amendments were so crucial, why did the party not withdraw its support when they were not accepted? And what purpose does consultation serve after a bill has been passed? This kind of political hedging only deepens public distrust in the integrity of politicians. Would it not be more honest and more effective to simply say "Sorry. We got this wrong"? George Rennie, Inverness. How will Nicola Sturgeon be remembered? (Image: PA) Let the media into Gaza The first and continuing victim of war is truth. Despite evidence from non-Palestinians, western doctors among them, about the near-famine conditions in Gaza, it has not come as a surprise to watch and listen to Israeli officials claim it is a lie that Palestinians are facing starvation. From what I have seen from interviews with [[Israel]]i citizens, they too believe the world is subject to Hamas propaganda. There is a way for the world to see, without bias, the actual conditions under which Palestinians are now compelled to live – reverse the present [[Israel]]i policy and let the world's media into [[Gaza]] so that we can all see for ourselves from objective reporting. If not, why not, is the question Keir Starmer should put to his [[Israel]]i counterpart. As for Hamas, is it not past time for those in its leadership languishing in the safety of Qatar to be asked why, given its ability to construct miles of tunnels in Gaza, it did not build shelters for the population when it must have known that Israel would respond to the atrocity of October 7 with a fury not seen before? Jim Sillars, Edinburgh. Shame on Ian Murray The Secretary of State for Scotland's antipathy towards the Scottish Government is persistent, but surely reached a new low when he castigated Public Finance Minister Ivan McKee for using the word 'genocide' during a BBC broadcast discussion about recognising the state of Palestine ("Minister confirms Scottish Government 'genocide' in Gaza position", heraldscotland, August 3). Ian Murray wants the courts to decide what is genocide, presumably before the UK Government acts, and despite the fact that the UN Special Committee, Amnesty International and Médicin San Frontières have all used the term to describe the continuing Israeli actions in Gaza. In addition, reports from the front line bring us daily reports of massive fatalities, destruction of infrastructure, displacement of communities, murder of aid workers, and human rights abuses, all of which meet the criteria for genocide. But Ian Murray wants to wait on the courts, and by doing so extends the United Kingdom's complicity in the despicable acts of the Israeli state. Shame on him. Graeme Forbes, Edinburgh.
Irish Times
30-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
The Root of All Evil by Cormac Moore: An insightful guide to how the Border came to be where it is
The Root of All Evil: The Irish Boundary Commission Author : Cormac Moore ISBN-13 : 978-1788551779 Publisher : Irish Academic Press Guideline Price : €19.99 Arriving from Belfast at my in-laws' house in Warrenpoint, overlooking Carlingford Lough and therefore the Border, I invariably receive a text message saying: 'welcome to Ireland' (a bizarre experience to northerners who thought they had been there all along). Sometimes a second message appears, a moment later, welcoming me back to the UK. These messages from mobile providers usually have exclamation marks and other excitable punctuation to alert travellers to changes in contractual terms as a result of a border drawn quickly and often arbitrarily a century ago. Understanding why the Border exists has generated a universe of narrative history covering the Ulster Plantation onwards, but as Cormac Moore's crisp and insightful new book The Root of All Evil shows, understanding how diplomatic manoeuvring and bureaucratic inertia created and sustained the Border is essential too. The Boundary Commission is a critical part of that story. The commission has its centenary this year, and it is oddly fitting that it will pass with minimal commemoration. It was an anticlimactic coda to a revolutionary decade. But it was supposed to be a big deal, and was certainly understood as being so by the signatories who agreed its fatally vague terms in article 12 of the 1921 Treaty. READ MORE The principle of 'temporary exclusion' from Home Rule for Ulster was conceded by John Redmond before the first World War. Fast forward through revolution and the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 later created two devolved entities: Northern and Southern Ireland. By the time of the Treaty talks only the first of these was functioning per the terms of the Act, with James Craig ensconced as prime minister and determined to turn Northern Ireland into 'a new impregnable pale'. But the treaty talks were not just between the imperial British government and the 26 counties, but all of Ireland – represented by the plenipotentiaries of the provisional government. Knowing the North would be an area of contention, the British split the Sinn Féin delegation by seeking secret agreement from Arthur Griffith (technically the lead Irish participant) that his delegation would, if pressed, accept continued exclusion of the six counties on the basis that a commission would be appointed to determine the wishes of local inhabitants and adjust the Border. The Machiavellian Lloyd George appears to have given private assurances (or intimations) to Griffith that the commission would transfer vast swathes of the nationalist North, and at a minimum Tyrone and Fermanagh, into the South. These assurances were either lies or artfully constructed so as to be overinterpreted. However, it was not Griffith alone, but the entire Irish delegation who agreed the obviously flawed (from a nationalist perspective) article 12, which qualified the commitment to local wishes being respected by adding the crucial words: 'so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions'. Moore's book expertly explains how these 11 words served to 'nullify' the entire claimed purpose of the commission – to respect the wishes of local inhabitants. The maximum claim prepared by the Free State officials in the North Eastern Boundary Bureau would have moved the Border as far north as my hometown of Downpatrick in east Down. Not only did that not happen, but no major areas of Tyrone or Fermanagh were transferred, nor were Derry or Newry. As Moore's book shows, the fallout from the commission reinforced the Border rather than adjusting or undermining it. And if Griffith gets blamed for his naivety, it pales when set against the 'appalling ineptitude' of Eoin MacNeill , the Free State appointee to the commission. Of the three-man commission, MacNeill was working alongside a South African judge, ostensibly impartial but in reality steeped in imperial influence, and Joseph Fisher, Belfast publisher of the unionist Northern Whig newspaper. [ Micheál Martin talks about Cormac Moore's book The Root of All Evil Opens in new window ] Whereas Fisher constantly and strategically leaked inner deliberations of the commission to the unionist government and ultimately the press, MacNeill treated his role with chaste propriety, believing himself not to be 'a representative of a Government nor ... an advocate for a particular point of view'. In fact, MacNeill was literally a representative of the Free State government, and was chosen because his northern nationalist background would better enable him to articulate their views. His failure to competently perform either of these tasks culminated in his agreeing a boundary with minimal changes, and then resigning in ignominy when the recommendations were leaked to a newspaper to the humiliation of WT Cosgrave's government. The report itself then was buried for half a century. Moore's book succeeds because he tells a story that is both very particular, with close reading of archive material and chronological detail but also, to use the cliche, mindful of the big picture. It wasn't just the mistakes of Griffith or MacNeill, or the canniness of Lloyd George, or the obduracy of Craig, that shaped the Boundary Commission. It was 'facts on the ground', including the construction of Silent Valley reservoir in the Mournes as a source of Belfast's water, and therefore an 'economic circumstance' allowing the wishes of south Down residents to move into the Free State to be overridden. But there was also the erection of customs posts by a Free State government desperate to demonstrate its newly won fiscal independence, and in doing so 'unwittingly aiding' the unionist northern government in creating a sense of permanency around the Border. As we consider the future of the Border in Ireland, and indeed an Ireland without a border, this book is a useful guide to some of how we got here and how we might avoid some of the same mistakes again.
Irish Examiner
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
The Mick Clifford Podcast: How the Boundary Commission shaped history and resentment
James Craig, the leader of unionist Ireland in the 1920s, coined the phrase 'the root of all evil' to describe the Boundary Commission — the body set up in 1922 to determine exactly where the border between the South and North of Ireland should lie. But what was it all about? Could it have been any different? Did the border actually beget evil? Cormac Moore has written a fascinating account of the Boundary Commission, entitled The Root of All Evil. Cormac is this week's guest on the podcast. The Root of all Evil: The Irish Boundary Commission Cormac Moore Read More The Mick Clifford Podcast: Who is in the mix to be the next president?
Irish Examiner
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Book review: The short but extraordinary life of the Border Commission
While the IRB held the higher ground on the battlefields of Ireland during the War of Independence, Lloyd George and his team of negotiators had the advantage of experience in the subsequent Treaty negotiations. It was Michael Collins who first suggested the establishment of a border commission to decide the jurisdictions of the Dublin and Belfast governments. Lloyd George adopted the idea and produced an ambiguous clause that became Article 12 of the Treaty. Notwithstanding the extreme pressure the Irish negotiating team was subjected to, its decision not to refer the wording of Article 12 for legal opinion was, at best, naïve. The story of the Irish Boundary Commission, and the four years it took to establish that body, is outlined in Cormac Moore's latest book, The Root of All Evil. Moore has previous publications on various aspects of Irish history, these include The GAA v Douglas Hyde, Birth of a Border, and The Irish Soccer Split. The Root of All Evil is a thorough and insightful investigation of all aspects of the Border Commission. The book explains in detail the drawn-out attempts to set up the commission, its short but extraordinary life, and its inevitable end. It has long been argued that Sinn Féin had more interest in the Oath of Allegiance than in partition; Moore argues that this opinion does not stand up to scrutiny. He argues that considerable time and effort was spent on using the Commission as a means of rescuing Fermanagh, Tyrone, and possibly south County Down from Ulster. This optimism was ill-founded, as Moore shows that Britain intended to side with unionist leader, James Craig, whose motto was 'not an inch'. Indeed, Craig's description of the Boundary Commission, 'the root of all evil,' gave Moore the title of the book. The Boundary Commission should have begun its work immediately in 1922. The outbreak of the Civil War, however, delayed the process. Political upheaval in Britain, resulting in a change of government, further added to the delay. Even more time was lost as Britain searched the Empire for a 'suitable' independent chairman. Richard Feetham, a judge in the South African Supreme Court, was appointed. Ireland appointed Eoin MacNeill as its commissioner. This was a grave error. MacNeill, who was also minister for education, proved to be inept in the commissioner role. Belfast had to be forced to appoint a commissioner by the British government. The fact that Belfast refused to engage should not be taken to mean that they were preparing to thwart any potential unsatisfactory findings of the commission. Between 1921 and 1925, proportional representation (PR) voting was abolished in Ulster. Following this many local councils had their voting areas gerrymandered to ensure Unionist majorities. Councils with nationalist majorities such as Tyrone and Fermanagh became unionist councils. The three-man commission eventually got to work in 1925. It decided there would be no communication with the London, Dublin, and Belfast governments. MacNeill abided by this decision, but the Ulster commissioner, Joseph Fisher, had no such qualms; he fed everything back to the Ulster Unionists. MacNeill resigned from the commission as it was about to publish its findings. It had become obvious that the proposed changes were little more than the straightening of some jagged border lines. The Irish government decided it would be best to bury the report for all time. In an effort to save face with voters in the South, the Dublin government sought other financial concessions from Britain. Some concessions on war retribution payments were achieved. This left thousands of nationalists, who live near the northern side of the border, believing they were sold out for cash. What The Root of All Evil clearly shows is neither Sinn Féin nor the subsequent Free State government had a coherent plan on how to deal with the Ulster Unionists. As Moore says, '[The Irish government] failed to grasp that Ulster unionism's hatred of Dublin was stronger than its love for the Empire.' One hundred years on, one wonders if anything has changed? Read More Book review: A salacious tale of murder on the border of fact and fiction
Irish Times
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Partition was ‘designed to be intractable', says Micheál Martin
Partition 'broke apart a single, more diverse society' and was designed to be 'intractable' because it created two states dominated by majority interests in the decades afterwards, Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said. The suppression of the 1925 Boundary Commission report and the 'humiliation' of the Dublin government when the Border was left as it is today was 'a defining moment' in history, Mr Martin said. The Boundary Commission was set up as part of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act to redraw the Border that had then been agreed, taking into account the wishes of locals, along with geographic and economic issues. The Free State government had expected large swathes of land to be transferred from Northern Irelan d by the commission and it panicked when it realised that was not going to happen. READ MORE Nationalists had hoped transfers to the Free State would include areas such as south Armagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone, where there were Catholic/nationalist majorities. Instead, the report recommended only minor changes. Once the findings were leaked, London, Dublin and the unionist-controlled Stormont quietly put the report aside and reached an agreement that left the Border unchanged. Instead, the Free State avoided paying any part of the United Kingdom's national debt, getting out of a commitment it had incurred under the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The final text of the commission's report was not published for nearly 40 years. Speaking at the launch of a history of the commission – titled The Root Of All Evil and written by historian Cormac Moore – the Taoiseach said the commission's report, and the reaction to it, was 'a radicalising moment'. Describing the book as a work of 'impeccable archival research', Mr Martin said Mr Moore is 'part of a generation of young historians who have used the opening up of archives to give us a broader and deeper view of our past'. Praising such work, the Taoiseach went on: 'If all we see of the past is a reflection of our current beliefs then we are missing out on opportunities to find new ways forward and rejecting the need to challenge ourselves. 'For those who want to move past partisan and ideological debates of previous decades, a body of work is being built up which challenges us to look for new ways of framing the questions we ask of our history,' he said. [ Many Northern nationalists doubt Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael's commitment to Irish unity Opens in new window ] Quoting approvingly the words of Trinity College Dublin historian Anne Dolan, the Taoiseach told the book launch: 'Maybe history's job is to make it harder to be so certain and so shrill.' He continued: 'The Boundary Commission did not create partition, but it demonstrated the entrenchment of a hardline approach defined by dominating as large a space as possible rather than constructing diverse societies. Laying some of the blame at the door of London, he said: 'There is no way of looking at the evidence of London's behaviour and missing the consistent bad faith which it showed to both the Dublin government and majority of the Irish people.' 'Partition introduced a division on this island which had no precedence in this island's history,' he said, adding that partition ignored the reality of 'how most services and institutions worked' and the opinions of large numbers of Border communities. 'Partition broke apart a single, more diverse society and created states which were less diverse and more open to being dominated by one interest. By creating jurisdictions which were likely to diverge significantly, partition was designed to be intractable.' Pointing to the future, Mr Martin said that for 'the first time in a hundred years we have a sustained effort under way to build understanding, engagement and mutual development' on the island. The 'generosity of spirit with which individuals, groups and communities on both sides of the Border' are engaging together is 'one which has the potential to help us to break with failed approaches of the past'.
