We need to talk about unionist entitlement. It rarely is recognised by its name yet it continues to be something ever pervasive within our politics and society.
From Plantation to the Penal Laws and up to Partition, the propagation of the place and interests of a privileged caste in Ireland took precedence as a matter of British policy, ensuring a sense of superiority and entitlement flourished.
It was laid bare once again during the recent election campaign when senior Ulster Unionist Party figure, Danny Kennedy, bitterly complained whilst live on television about Sinn Féin having the audacity to try and win council seats held by unionists, stating that such behaviour was not in the interests of reconciliation nor the vision of a new Ireland.
In the intervening period, it raised its head through Ian Paisley's assertion that a united Ireland must require a supermajority to come into effect, whilst the Union survives merely on the basis of the '50 per cent plus one' consent rule.
It was heard clearly through the manufactured outrage when unionist leaders were frustrated in their initial attempts to erect yet another unionist marker, the centenary stone monument, within grounds of the shared legislature at Stormont notable for the complete absence of a visible monument recognising the nationalist/republican tradition.
It can be heard in the deafening silence from every unionist political leader when challenged, ahead of the last Assembly, to confirm that they would serve in the capacity of deputy First Minister alongside a nationalist First Minister.
It is apparent in the decision-making at BBC NI, which provides extensive highlights coverage programmes of Twelfth of July parades involving dozens of loyalist paramilitary aligned bands playing music, both sectarian and laudatory of said paramilitaries, whilst never countenancing the idea of providing a highlight show for a republican commemoration – or, perish the thought, the annual Wolfe Tones concert in the Falls Park.
It is behind the fury denouncing the holding of commemorations for republicans whilst failing to recognise how every objection that could be raised to such events is equally applicable to episodes of British remembrance, in November and other times, for forces who brought murder, misery and destruction to this island and many other lands over many, many generations.
Our society has been changing significantly over the past quarter century in very positive ways that have challenged the entitled mindset of political unionism, including through the dissolution of the Ulster Defence Regiment and transformation of policing, effectively robbing unionism of state forces it traditionally could have relied upon to enforce its will.
The reason a sharp focus needs to be brought upon unionist entitlement now is because of how it continues to impact upon the framing of the discussions surrounding constitutional change.
The one-time senior advisor to David Trimble, Graham Gudgin, recently derided the notion of 50 per cent plus one being acceptable for unity, lamenting that the British government did not simply declare the north to be "inalienable British territory" and floated the possibility of repartition as a means to thwart a democratic mandate for Irish unity.
The peerless authority on Irish unity in the world of academia is Professor Brendan O'Leary. Anyone genuinely interested in giving consideration to the challenges, potential pitfalls and opportunities of constitutional change should make a point of getting their hands on his authoritative book Making Sense of a United Ireland, published last year.
There is an obvious logic to the academic concept of 'losers' consent' as articulated by O'Leary. But in an Irish context, there is a very clear danger that it could be cynically moulded into an undemocratic unionist veto by a different name.
Indeed, the utterances of Gudgin, Paisley and the very manner in which constitutional change is framed as necessitating specific steps to have taken place in advance that have never been considered as concessions for the minority community currently living within the Union point to reasons to be vigilant with regard to the transparent efforts to shift the goalposts, as has happened so often before. The next time someone states that the Tricolour and Irish national anthem 'must' change ahead of unity, consider when exactly the Union Flag and British national anthem have been changed to accommodate the nationalists of this part of Ireland.
The Good Friday Agreement provides the model within which the consent of losers is confirmed. It is why, post-1998, those of us committed to the attainment of a united Ireland have nevertheless been content for our political leaders to work the institutions agreed within the three-stranded approach.
Unionists are entitled to nothing less but certainly nothing more than their neighbouring nationalists in whatever constitutional framework within which we live.
The clear evidence from our history and the living examples from today outlined above is that dismantling the entitlement mindset which stubbornly persists within unionism must be part of the process of both creating an equal society today and developing the type of respect for the academic principle of losers' consent essential to facilitate a successful transition to Irish unity.
