1912 Covenant

The Ulster Covenant and the accompanying Women's Declaration was largely a sectarian headcount. From my own family history, most of my Protestant ancestors were signatories, while all of my Catholic ancestors did not sign. This is probably a typical picture.

Some of the men who signed paid the ultimate price on the battlefield a few years later for their loyalty. Some folk might praise them for their patriotism. Others might suggest that they were extremely foolish. I couldn't possibly comment!

Instead, let's look at the main signing locations and the number of male and female signatories in the Coleraine area on Saturday the 28th of September 1912. If you wish to conduct searches of your own, simply use the attached link. Remember that Coleraine was part of the North Londonderry constituency. Portrush was not, which is why I haven't included its signing venues.

The list is:

Coleraine town hall: 3,824

Articlave (Presbyterian church?): 650

Ballyrashane: 433 (their local LOL is 431!)

Cromic Institute, Portstewart: 365

Second Presbyterian church, Dunboe: 289

Portstewart Orange Hall: 260

Articlave Orange Hall: 247

Methodist schoolroom, Portstewart: 151

Unspecified venue, Coleraine: 99

Methodist school, Portstewart: 40

Methodist hall, Portstewart: 10

Check out the following links:

Twitter @1900to1910

Twitter @1911to1921

Facebook: Coleraine Since 1845

https://apps.proni.gov.uk/ulstercovenant/Search.aspx

Irish Unity?

 It's hard to take the possibility of a 32-county state seriously when the Irish Republic don't take it seriously. None of them seem intent on competing in Northern Irish constituencies in a united state. As a consequence, we may well have nine or ten different political parties represented in a future Dail, with fifteen or twenty seats each. This would be a recipe for chaos, or at best parliamentary gridlock. The only beneficiaries of unity would be Sinn Fein who would double their Dail representation.

That's the first complexity and obstacle for unity.

Secondly, those who voted against Brexit did so on the basis that leaving the EU would leave us economically worse off. Surely, this argument holds true for Irish unity.

It's not easy to predict the economic outcome of Irish unity, but one could hazard a guess that unification will leave both sides of the border worse off. If anyone thinks that John Bull is going to write a big blank cheque as a leaving present, they are seriously deluded.

When push comes to shove, how keen would the good folk in the Irish Republic be when they have to fund the benefits of welfare recipients in the northern counties? Surely an increase in taxation would be required? How will they feel when investment in their business parks, industrial estates, and public transport is shunted down the queue by reallocation of funds to Carrickfergus or Ballymena or Limavady?

I'm not hostile to the concept of a united Ireland. However, rejoining the EU isn't an attractive thought. A state that takes four months to elect its prime minister after an election isn't exactly an enticing prospect either.
The only real winners would be the Shinners. 

Irish republicanism is a fine ideal. What ruins it for me is Irish republicans.

Greedy Pigs

 MORE THAN SIXTY GREEDY PIGS

The following individuals are named in recent annual reports for various Northern Ireland Executive departments. Some people might say that those below are selfish, overpaid money grabbers, but I couldn't possibly comment.

The publication of their salary figures is done in a characteristically sneaky way by putting neither a pound sign nor the zeros next to each amount. Furthermore, a couple of departments have tried to camouflage the top earners' identity by initialising their first name. Are they ashamed to reveal the full name?

I regard these people as the enemy. As so much public funds are diverted into their bank accounts, it means that there are less financial resources allocated elsewhere in the public sector. Some folk might describe this as a disgusting scandal, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Anyhow, their inflated remuneration applies to the following years:
*2017-2018
**2018-2019
***2019-2020

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE
David Sterling, £455,000-£460,000*
Brenda King, £200,000-£205,000*
Dr Mark Browne, £95,000-£100,000*
Katrina Godfrey, £100,000-£105,000*
Peter Toogood, £90,000-£95,000*
Colm Shannon, £195,000-£200,000*
Chris McNabb, £90,000-£95,000*
Graeme Wilkinson, £105,000-£110,000**

DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT, and RURAL AFFAIRS
Dr D McMahon, £165,000-£170,000**
B Doherty, £220,000-£225,000***
N Fulton, £145,000-£150,000***
R Huey, £125,000-£130,000***
F McCandless, £140,000-£145,000***
D Small, £135,000-£140,000***
D Reid, £90,000-£95,000**
S McGrade, £210,000-£215,000**

DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION
Derek Baker, £150,000-£155,000*
Fiona Hepper, £115,000-£120,000**
John Smith, £225,000-£230,000**
Noelle Buick, £130,000-£135,000**
Gary Fair, £90,000-£95,000**
Gavin Boyd, £145,000-£150,000**

DEPARTMENT for the ECONOMY
Mike Brennan, £220,000-£225,000***
Noel Lavery, £160,000-£165,000**
Heather Cousins, £125,000-£130,000***
Eugene Rooney, £110,000-£115,000**
Colin Lewis, £120,000-£125,000***
Richard Rodgers, £105,000-£110,000***
Diarmuid McLean, £100,000-£105,000***
Stephen McMurray, £100,000-£105,000***

DEPARTMENT of FINANCE
Joanne McBurney, £250,000-£255,000***
Sue Gray, £245,000-£250,000***
Hugh Widdis, £190,000-£195,000***
Bill Pauley, £175,000-£180,000**
Eugene O'Loan, £155,000-£160,000***
Paul Wickens, £145,000-£150,000**
Jill Minne, £140,000-£145,000**
Ian Snowden, £140,000-£145,000***
Claire Archbold, £135,000-£140,000**
Des Armstrong, £130,000-£135,000***
Stewart Barnes, £160,000-£165,000**
Siobhan Carey, £130,000-£135,000***

DEPARTMENT of HEALTH
R Pengelly, £195,000-£200,000**
S Holland, £130,000-£135,000**
C McArdle, £90,000-£95,000**
Dr Michael McBride, £200,000-£205,000**
D McNeilly, £145,000-£150,000**
J Johnston, £125,000-£130,000**
N Lloyd, £105,000-£110,000**
S Gallagher, £200,000-£205,000**
D West, £135,000-£140,000**

DEPARTMENT for COMMUNITIES
Jackie Kerr, £125,000-£130,000**
Louise Warde Hunter, £115,000-£120,000**
Deborah Brown, £90,000-£95,000**

DEPARTMENT for INFRASTRUCTURE
Katrina Godfrey, £175,000-£180,000**
Peter May, £130,000-£135,000*
John McGrath, £105,000-£110,000**
Dr Andrew Murray, £120,000-£125,000**
Fiona McCandless, £110,000-£115,000*
John Irvine, £195,000-£200,000**

DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE
Peter May, £155,000-£160,000***
Anthony Harbinson, £140,000-£145,000***
Ronnie Armour, £150,000-£155,000***
Deborah Brown, £95,000-£100,000***
David A Lavery, £110,000-£115,000**
Lianne Patterson, £120,000-£125,000**

You've Been Framed

Framed Certificate Copies Of The Ulster Covenant for sale, £8. 

Simply email gw930@yahoo.com with the names of your ancestors and I will dispatch a certificate on request.

Also, framed certificates of the war dead from the two world wars are available, same price and same email address as above.

FARCEBOOK!

 I BLOODY HATE IT WHEN CERTAIN FOLK ON FACEPUKE POST QUOTES AND ASSORTED BULLSHIT IN HUGE LETTERS SO THAT EVERYONE NOTICES IT. WELL WHEN I SEE SOMETHING SO ATTENTION-SEEKING, I QUICKLY SCROLL BEYOND IT. FOOLS! xo

A Few Observations Of Politics [by the author and commentator Gary Watton]

Why, why, and why again must Neanderthal Northern Ireland persist with the cumbersome Single Transferable Vote for the purpose of electing three MEPs out of a list of only ten candidates? Surely a 'first-past-the-post', or to be precise first three-past-the-post solution is infinitely more preferable and far less time-consuming. Considering the fact that Northern Ireland's voters cast their preferences on the Thursday and then wait until the following Monday for the count to begin, and then after the yawn fest of several eliminations and vote re-distributions, the final two MEPs are not officially over the finishing line until the Tuesday, five days after the vote. It's a shambolic scenario which even Third World countries would be able to avoid. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from maintaining the same electoral system for the European parliamentary election in the six-counties constituency. Almost always, the top three first preference votes go to the three MEPs who are ultimately elected after the laborious nonsense of the redistribution of the votes of eliminated candidates. This drama simply prolongs the agony unnecessarily in a farce that is akin to much ado about nothing. Come on Norn Iron, let logic prevail.


Secondly, I've been watching a copious amount of election and general politics coverage on the BBC and let me assure the ill-informed that when it comes to confronting politicians, the highly competent Andrew Neil makes Jeremy Paxman seem like a pussycat. In fact, I find JP to be very affable and someone who relishes the opportunity for a tete-a-tete with all manner of people. Jeremy just loves interviews, even if he may protest otherwise. He is perfectly at home in such interviews.


This brings me on to another issue. Politicians are getting worse, not better, at evading questions and failing to give straight answers. The political swine even compound this disagreeable situation by generally starting most responses with "First of all, let me make the following point" which is the repeated formula of trying to clarify a number of points and promote a number of bits and pieces which the interviewer has not requested. Such manoeuvring from politicians does little to reinforce public confidence in a profession that is viewed in some circles as a playground for slippery characters whose commitment to honesty, straight-talking, and integrity is conspicuous by its absence. Please politicos, answer the flaming question and stop sidestepping issues. It's counter-productive.


Next of all, I am particularly amused and confused by all these deluded politicians who state that although their party is struggling terribly in the opinion polls, they retort with "That's not what I've been hearing on the doorsteps." Oh come off it. Has it not occurred to you that many people are merely agreeing with you and pledging to vote for you just to get rid of you from their door? When politicians try to persuade us that the feedback on the doorsteps is favourable, then they are only fooling themselves. Candidates really must stop persisting with this broken record about what they are hearing on the doorsteps. It's boring.


Furthermore, we find that when an election is over, the vanquished state that they didn't quite get the message across properly. Could it be that the voters are more than familiar with your message and just did not like what they heard?


Finally, the electorate also have unrealistic expectations of the various political parties. This usually explains why newly-elected governments are suddenly very unpopular one or two years after coming to power, such as 1967, 1976, 1981, and 2012. The stupid electorate expect the new incumbents to wave a wand and introduce all manner of reforms that will lead to increases in pay, cuts in taxes, a prosperous economy, better transport services and an improved transport infrastructure, better healthcare provision, improved education standards, oh and world peace too. People expect far too much of elected politicians and it is important that political parties dampen down the naïve expectations of the population, instead of wild-eyed daydreams of jam tomorrow and a brighter future, as they misleadingly promise in conference speeches and manifesto 'spin'. High expectations lead to hopes dashed and reveal elected governments to be impotent or incompetent or just downright dishonest about their vision of better times ahead. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

*****SEE ALSO http://gw930.blog.com

Tags: doorsteps; expectations; false promises

Ed Miliband: Unelectable? [by the author and commentator Gary Watton]

There is a lot of silly talk doing the rounds in media circles about how unelectable and unconvincing Ed Miliband is. It's true that the clever one is still very much on a learning curve and that euphemistically his leadership is 'a work in progress', but it's important to make one or two points to defend this besieged individual.

First of all there is a lot of tosh about how Ed 'doesn't look like a future Prime Minister'. What drivel. Did Margaret Thatcher, pre-1979, seem like Prime Minister material? Did Harold Wilson appear to be authoritative and a commanding presence before he was appointed as the first among equals? Most people, David Cameron included, don't look like a Prime Minister until they actually become one. After all, we all know of countless individuals in our family and friendship circles who we struggled to imagine as becoming a doctor or a teacher until they were actually employed as such. Similarly, we all wondered with some alarm how a particular young guy or young woman could ever cope as a father or a mother, only to subsequently discover that they were 'naturals' in such roles - something that was not patently apparent before the event.
Secondly, poor young 'red Ed' is simply the latest in a long line of Labour leaders whom Fleet Street has taken an almost instant dislike to. Perhaps with the exception of Tony Blair [a bloke who could have charmed his way out of a room with no doors in it], almost all Labour leaders in living memory have incurred the antipathy of a media that is unashamedly right of centre and which almost automatically pulls up its drawbridge when a new Labour leader enters the bear-pit of British politics. After all, the hacks and journos may have had a begrudging admiration for the wily Harold Wilson, but they were less impressed with 'sunny Jim' Callaghan. The red tops thought that Michael Foot was more a laughable fool than a would-be statesman. The gutter press also stamped on Neil Kinnock, even though he took significant and courageous steps to move Labour away from the brink of militancy. Then there was Gordon Brown, another Labour leader whom the media mercilessly threw rotten tomatoes at.

Yes, it seems to go with the territory for any Labour leader that he or she will have to cope with the abuse from a prejudiced media that decides right from the starting pistol that the new incumbent is not worthy of the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, Ed Miliband spectacularly demonstrated in the Labour leadership contest that he should not be written off as a no-hoper. This should serve as an ominous reminder for the complacent Conservative leadership and complacent conservative press. Red Ed may not look like Prime Minister material but it wasn't so long ago that he didn't necessarily pose as Labour leadership material either. Life is full of little surprises. Could unelectable, unconvincing Ed be standing at the portico of ten Downing Street in May 2015? Stranger things have happened.

Mind you, if Ed does prove to be a dead Ed next May and is as unelectable as the doom-mongers would have us believe, then it is likely that he will fall on his own sword, post-election. We then could be faced with the very real possibility that the personable and media-friendly Chuka Umunna [or the talented Rushanara Ali] could be upgraded to the position of Leader of the Opposition. I would quite like to see this. In particular, I would dearly love to see Trevor Kavanagh of the Scum newspaper and the other Labour-haters in the press pour scorn on Mr Umunna. It would be interesting to see if they can find any angle to heap their customary abuse upon him, as to criticise a black person could be misconstrued as 'racist'. Oh it would be jolly nice fun to see the swine of the media belatedly button their big lips in the face of a Labour leader. Again, stranger things have happened.

In the mean time, we all must soldier on with the seemingly unelectable Ed Miliband. I suspect that although he lacks the charisma of Nigel Farage or the gravitas of David Cameron, young Edward just might be triumphantly waving from the doorstep of ten Downing Street next year.

*****SEE ALSO http://gw930.blog.com