Sir, – Mike Nesbitt of the Ulster Unionist Party has spoken about how unionism would retain the balance of power in a united Ireland ("Unionists 'could hold balance of power into perpetuity' in all-Ireland parliament", Ronan McGreevy, News, July 24th).
It seems not to have occurred to Mr Nesbitt that in a united Irish republic there could be no “unionism”; unionism is (or ought to be) about maintaining the Union with Great Britain.
Contrary to John Glennon (Letters, July 26th), it is a matter of allegiance rather than nebulous "heritage". Without that union, how can there be any sort of unionism?
Nationalists in Northern Ireland can and do aspire to reunification but an end to partition (should it occur) would be conclusive; no one at present is proposing periodical border polls after reunification.
When Mr Nesbitt speaks of representing “our people” in a united Ireland he is (so one suspects and fears) talking about advocating for Ulster Protestants, not political unionism.
As a pro-union Catholic I regard his apparent equation of unionism and Protestantism disturbing and indeed offensive.
It is odd that Mr Nesbitt does not devote his time to strengthening support for the union rather than speculating about a united Ireland.
But then one recalls that as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, he hardly succeeded in the former task. – Yours, etc,
CDC ARMSTRONG,
Belfast.