Why did the Unionist Party oppose the introduction of the NHS?

The Scientician

I just read it in a book about Northern Ireland am curious why they opposed it.

Richard

The Scientician wrote: »

I just read it in a book about Northern Ireland am curious why they opposed it.

I don't know, but it may be them taking their lead from the Conservative Party who opposed it in 1945.

The Unionsts adopted it in 1948, however, along with Great Britain.

Snickers Man

There could be any number of reasons.

First the complimentary ones.

They were sturdy independent folk with a natural protestant distrust of bureaucracy and hierarchy. Each man was responsible for his own destiny, there was no need for a nascent nanny state to take over the functions of independent industry and responsible saving for a rainy day.

For these reasons they opposed all forms of "welfare" legislation that were introduced by the most hard-line left-wing nationalising socialist government that Britain ever had. And with the largest majority following its landslide post-war election victory.

The virtues of private individual enterprise as opposed to the aristocratic system of perpetual inherited wealth for the upper classes and social exclusion for the plebs was essentially a republican viewpoint, and one which sat well with those hardy northerners who had supported the United Irishmen in 1798. It was also the outlook which the Scotch Irish brought to America where it has had an influence that lasts to this day.

Thrift, independence, a strong work ethic, family values and community solidarity based on the church. That's all the "welfare" you needed.

And now the cynical viewpoint.

Any war is ultimately won by the womb. Protestant Unionists were being outbred by Catholics (and still are). The only way to maintain a protestant majority was to encourage the Catholic working class to bugger off. Far from encouraging emigration, the theory went, any form of welfare state would only encourage the fenians to stay at home and live off social welfare.

Then they would eventually bite the hand that fed them and take over. Especially if, horror of horrors, we actually educated large numbers of the blighters to university level. That's why the unionists were opposed to the education act which saw a huge increase in the number of Catholics going to grammar school. This was the well spoken generation that joined People's Democracy and the Northern Ireland Civil Rights movement and eventually established the SDLP. (Social Democratic and Labour Party? What kind of name was that for a nationalist party?)

Even the frightfully nice Terence O'Neill, seen by the hardline Unionists as a pathetic appeasing traitor because of his overtures to the Catholic community and the southern government said round about the time of his resignation (from memory) "It is awfully hard to explain to Protestants that if you give Catholics the opportunity to work hard and save they will live like Protestants. But if you discriminate against them they will simply raise a family of 10 children on social insurance."

If anybody wants to dig out a verbatim quote of the above then please do. But it was something very similar to the above.

Nice reason or nasty reason? Take your pick.

The Scientician

Ha I just read the quote in the same book:

If a Roman Catholic is jobless, and lives in the most ghastly hovel, he will rear eighteen children on National Assistance.

jonniebgood1

The Scientician wrote: »

Ha I just read the quote in the same book:

What is the name of the book and who is the quote attributed to?

Snickers Man

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What is the name of the book and who is the quote attributed to?

Found the quote. It was in the Belfast Telegraph of May 10 1969.

"It is frightfully hard to explain to Protestants that if you give Roman Catholics a good job and a good house. they will live like Protestants because they will see neighbours with cars and television sets; they will refuse to have eighteen children. But if a Roman Catholic is jobless, and lives in the most ghastly hovel, he will rear eighteen children on National Assistance. If you treat Roman Catholics with due consider and kindness, they will live like Protestants in spite of the authoritative nature of their Church . . . "

This penetrating (or should I say unbelievably patronising) analysis was the deduction of former Northern Ireland Prime Minister Terence O'Neill.

The Scientician

Snickers Man wrote: »

Found the quote. It was in the Belfast Telegraph of May 10 1969.

"It is frightfully hard to explain to Protestants that if you give Roman Catholics a good job and a good house. they will live like Protestants because they will see neighbours with cars and television sets; they will refuse to have eighteen children. But if a Roman Catholic is jobless, and lives in the most ghastly hovel, he will rear eighteen children on National Assistance. If you treat Roman Catholics with due consider and kindness, they will live like Protestants in spite of the authoritative nature of their Church . . . "

This penetrating (or should I say unbelievably patronising) analysis was the deduction of former Northern Ireland Prime Minister Terence O'Neill.

Well O'Neill was the guy who wanted to drain Lough Neagh in the 1950's and create a new county. Yet he was the progressive in the Northern Irish establishment in the late '60s.

jonniebgood1

The Scientician wrote: »

Well O'Neill was the guy who wanted to drain Lough Neagh in the 1950's and create a new county.

Link/ source? not familiar with this.

The Scientician wrote: »

Yet he was the progressive in the Northern Irish establish in the late '60s.

His meetings with Lemass were controversial for alot of the more conservative unionists. Previous north prime ministers such as brooke had not met with him. I think it is correct to describe him as progressive- particularly when you consider some of the other characters that followed.

The Scientician

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Link/ source? not familiar with this.
His meetings with Lemass were controversial for alot of the more conservative unionists. Previous north prime ministers such as brooke had not met with him. I think it is correct to describe him as progressive- particularly when you consider some of the other characters that followed.

It's mentioned in Making Sense Of The Troubles by McKittrick and McVeigh (2002). Which is a book I heartily recommend to anyone who wants a primer (no pun intended) on the Troubles.

I don't have my copy on hand but I find reference to it online lest you think I'm making stuff up!

Some say that Captain O'Neill was also a man of a whimsical nature, one of his suggestions being to drain Lough Neagh and as such create a seventh county in Northern Ireland.

from: http://northern-ireland-history.blogspot.com/2011/01/northern-ireland-troubles-beginning.html

There's also a reference to it in Ireland: A History
By Thomas Bartlett. Alas, I've no further details on the matter.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Link/ source? not familiar with this.
His meetings with Lemass were controversial for alot of the more conservative unionists. Previous north prime ministers such as brooke had not met with him. I think it is correct to describe him as progressive- particularly when you consider some of the other characters that followed.

I remember the first meeting with O'Neill when Lemass went north. Most of the discussion in the newspapers surrounded the possible economic advantages of co-operation, the politics was downplayed. But even the average Unionist was uneasy and found expression for this with the Rev Paisley. The infamous response that Paisley had to the Lemass visit and the much vaulted bridge-building meeting that O'Neill hosted in Stormont:

"A traitor and a bridge are very much alike, they both go over to the other side".