However, it is just the latest in an inevitably ongoing series of spats. Ongoing, because the UUP has failed to grasp that being a “broad church” is a negative, not a positive; and because as the UUP continues to “research” why it exists, the DUP continues to eat into any reason for it to do so.

This week, the next DUP move became apparent at the weekend. We are now in a situation where the DUP membership elected a Leader who attends GAA matches, whereas the UUP membership elected one who specified he won’t. Any UUP member spurned in any way now has the straightforward option of joining the DUP; any UUP voters increasingly turned off by ongoing internal wrangling which has no relevance to the lives of the daily public in this brutal economic climate can simply switch to the DUP (or a resurgent Alliance Party). People are now openly questioning which the “more liberal” Unionist party is.

The nature of “Unionist Unity” became clear too. The UUP has consistently set out its stall that it is not the DUP and that it puts country before party. Yet now it turns out that its Minister is effectively part of a joint Unionist team on the Executive with five DUP colleagues, and that, in that guise, he was behind the ludicrous plot to split a Department between his supposed arch rivals the DUP and Sinn Fein – a move all about putting party before country.

Tom Elliott reluctantly answered questions about David McNarry’s role, and did so reasonably well (although he still has to explain quite why his party was so keen to hand more power to Sinn Fein). However, he has not yet answered a somewhat more straightforward question: why does his party exist?

Of course, once they were handed back, some people – ranging from libertarians right through to ITN journalists – were complaining about a witch hunt and about how we have to face that fact that million-pound bonuses are the “going rate”. To which I say – frankly, they shouldn’t be!

First, the witch hunt: this blog is usually among the first to respond to simplistic witch hunts of this kind. Indeed, it is quite correct for the current UK Government to point out it is somewhat hamstrung on this issue by the legislation passed by the last, Labour Government. The decision by Labour to try to make an issue of this was yet another strategic blunder, for all it would do is highlight its own inadequacy in dealing with the issue of bonuses (this is yet another legacy of Gordon Brown’s determination to deal with everything by commission rather than by making proper decisions). Yet this witch hunt was absolutely correct – no one, I repeat no one, deserves or needs a bonus of that scale, no matter how paid or how determined.

Second, the “going rate”: what nonsense! If someone already paid in the high six figures wishes to leave their job because they don’t get a million-pound bonus, frankly, let them! Have we forgotten that we bought this ludicrous notion of these “genius bankers” throughout the Blair Years, only for them to lead us into economic oblivion? Remember, pre-2007, how we had to pay them these ludicrous salaries and bonuses to keep them here otherwise they would go somewhere else? Care to note that that would have given “somewhere else” the cost of the bail out that has now been imposed on the UK tax payer?

The truth of the bail out of the banks is that banks are now effectively public services – even the ones that didn’t take the bail out now know that they could avail of one should it become necessary, which essentially puts them into the public service bracket. Would we pay the head of the NI Civil Service a million-pound bonus?! If there are bankers out there who are such geniuses they can command million-pound bonuses in New York or Dubai, I say let them – then it is someone else’s risk, and some other tax payer can pay the price if (and when) it all goes wrong.

All that said, two other things are vital here. First, as noted before on this blog, it was all the revenue raised by these “geniuses” which paid for the public spending boom – that is why we now have the reverse the rises in public spending during the Blair Years, not least because they had little discernible effect on poverty. Second, we are all in this – the English-speaking world is now riddled with a culture of valuing everything by a dollar or pound sign rather than by its actual worth. Ultimately the obscene bonuses being offered to bankers are the upper and extreme end of a scale that we are all on, representative of the worst excesses of a problem to which we have all contributed.

That is why we need to recognise that these bankers’ bonuses are obscene, and they should cease, across the board. Only then will we be able to tackle the greed which has poisoned our society further down the scale.

The FA Cup has been destroyed by greed. It is a classic case.

The whole point of the competition was that it wasn’t about money. It was about a straight knock-out competition in which, by quirk of maths (and muddy January pitches), only one team remained unbeaten at the end. Ties went on for months, and that was part of the fun; Wembley was reserved specifically for the final, and that was part of the romance; third round games kicked off at 3pm on the first Saturday of the year, and you left that space in your diary. It was a truly magical competition. It is no more.

The first hint of impending doom was the 1991 semi-final. Leaving aside my biased bitterness about the result, it is worth recording that Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal had to meet at Wembley “because it would be unfair to send the fans away from London” and “because no other ground was available”. Yet two years later the FA saw fit for a Sheffield derby semi-final to take place at Wembley, 200 miles down the M1, excusing this by saying that it would be unfair for the North London derby (Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur having been drawn together again) to take place there but not the Sheffield. Ten years after the first effort, when the two North London teams met in the semi-final for a third time, the FA was quite happy to send them 200 miles up the M6 to Old Trafford. The truth is everyone involved in 1991 wanted money in the bank, concern about the fans (as ever) was feigned.

The next year came the true debacle, the introduction of penalty shoot-outs. This was to “help the teams sort out their fixture lists”. Yet since 1992, European competition has seen far more games added to those fixture list that the removal of second replays removed. No one would ever think of reducing the Premier League from 20 teams to aid “fixture lists”. Of course, a second replay against Sheffield United isn’t quite as attractive as a European night against Inter Milan, even if it’s a redundant group game. Money talks, again, but the result is the FA Cup is no longer won by the sole team to remain unbeaten.

Further disaster followed of course. Much though I don’t care to remember it personally, and despite all of the above, perhaps the greatest semi-final ever was played between treble-chasing Manchester United and back-to-back-double-chasing Arsenal in 1999 – a semi-final replay in fact. Beckham bent it, Keane got sent off, Bergkamp missed, Giggs got the ball… a sublime goal to settle a sublime game for the neutral. And remember it was a replay. There have been no semi-final replays since. We have been deprived of such epics because, apparently, we’d much rather see a Europa League game against Wisla Krakow.

The end came in 1999/2000. Holders Manchester United, incredibly, were allowed to withdraw from the competition altogether. To make matters worse, Third Round day was shifted to November, and included in the hat were the surprised players of Darlington – surprised because they had already been knocked out in the second round! Instead of playing Manchester United, therefore, Aston Villa had to knock Darlington out for a second time en route to the last final at the old Wembley – a final made fairly pointless by the fact that the defending and current league champions were not even competing. This showed that other competitions – even daft new “FIFA World Club” competitions invented for the sake of a few quid by an incompetent Swiss who excuses racism – were more important than the oldest Cup in the game. Money – directly from that supposedly big-club competition, semi-directly from United’s and the Premier League’s global marketing efforts, indirectly from the FA’s desire to host the World Cup (that worked out well…) – did all the talking. Forget the romance of the Cup, and forget the home-based fans.

My own team, Arsenal, enjoyed a great run after that – having been “not really knocked out” (aka beaten on penalties) of the “not really the FA Cup” (no Manchester United) in 2000, it reached the final in 2001 and the semi in 2004, while winning the competition in 2002, 2003 and 2005. But it just wasn’t the same. My own reaction to these triumphs was satisfaction of course, but probably on a par with the 1987 League Cup rather than the 1994 Cup-Winners’ Cup – that is how far the competition had fallen.

The media can talk it up all they want – a once magical competition has been destroyed by the FA, by the media, and most of all my money. It is a true lesson in where greed gets us.

There are some great lobbyists out there on behalf of victims of domestic violence. Notably, they are good at hitting the apparently “lowest” political level by ensuring Councillors and party campaigners are included in their campaigning. That is an excellent way of building awareness and support – and one too often overlooked.

I have visited Australia only once, in 1995/6, but I am more familiar with South African English, a much under-researched variety.

Australian English strikes me as essentially British, including British terms such as “mobile” (versus “cellphone”) and “give way” (versus “yield”, i.e. in driving). I did note while I was there the prevalence of “Can I get” over “Can I have” (although the former is now indisputably gaining ground in the UK also), a seemingly peculiar spelling “aging” (“ageing” would strike me as preferable, but most Style Guides give either as optional), and of course the “Labor Party”, although that is explained by its foundation going back to a time when “labor” was an optional spelling even in the UK. In his encyclopedia on the English Language, David Crystal further notes that the apparently “British” spelling “-ise” (as it “realise” etc) is obligatory in Australia, as opposed to optional in the UK (the London Times still has “-ize”) and unknown in North America. Australia, of course, has its own terms, some of which have made it back to the UK via soap operas and such like (but are perhaps unknown in North America) – for example, I received a text message the other day from an Ulsterman using the word “arvo”, an Aussie-ism for “afternoon”.

Southern African English is, for me, much more interesting, and not just because of my greater affinity to it having visited the country roughly once a year from 2000-8, and frequently before that also. It is of similar origin in some ways to Australian (and New Zealand), and to the untrained ear the accent can sound similar (perhaps in fact more similar to New Zealand than Australia). However, it is markedly different, largely because of its different setting (in Africa), and perhaps mainly due to influence from the (Dutch-derived) Afrikaans language. In the English of South Africa there is no particular “British” bias, with terms such as “cellphone” preferred to “mobile”, and also tag lines such as “you guys”; television is not South Africa’s strongest suit, it has to be said, and visitors could be forgiven for thinking it is almost entirely made up of American sitcoms, hence this tendency. However, intermixed with all of this are some seemingly peculiar/ingenious Afrikaans-isms, including “bakkie” (for pickup truck, these are more common in South Africa), “robot” for traffic light (hence the seemingly hilarious road sign “Robot Ahead”), and numerous delicious food items (as well as some, if fewer, not so delicious ones). Some Afrikaans terms, from “aardvark” to “trek”, have made it into Standard English both in the British Isles and North America.

Both Australian and South African English are notable also because of their lack of distinct regional accents, even over vast areas. You may be able to tell an Australian’s class from their speech, but not their geographic origin (at least, not with any certainty). This may change – New Zealand English was not regarded as clearly distinct from Australian phonologically until after World War Two, but is markedly different now (especially in pronunciations such as “fish and chips”). South Africa displays minor regional variation (though it is not well researched), seemingly somewhat dependent on the level of influence of Afrikaans (by far the dominant language among whites in the Cape in the west of the country, but almost unknown as a first language in KwaZulu-Natal in the east), and yet in such a large country speech remains remarkably uniform.

Coming from Northern Ireland, where accents are distinct every 20 miles or so, this regional commonality is astonishing, yet it reflects the common trend of “language introduction” (in the United States itself, while regional accents exist, displays considerably fewer proportionately than the UK).

Ultimately, varieties such as Australian and South African English are perhaps best approached in their own right, as opposed to via “British” or “American”.

He was not arguing (and nor would I argue) that he didn’t belong to a particular “side” of Northern Ireland society, although I think we came to agree over our correspondence that it would be helpful to recognise that there are those for whom “sides” matter more than others, and there are those for whom there are more than two “sides” (we may not have agreed this, by the way, it is merely my inference from a few 140-character notes). This does raise some interesting points, however:

- if someone is not a practising Protestant, not a particularly avowed Unionist, and has no sense of affinity to “Loyalist” culture, what does link them to those who live in “PUL communities” (an academic term, but one often readily accepted for self-identification)?

- is the notion of moving from allegedly lazy terms such as “Protestant” or “Catholic” to academic-looking terms such as “PUL” or “CNR” in fact liable to pigeon-hole us all further, necessitating not just a religious or political affiliation but a whole raft of affiliations all of which must be held by all of the people living within a particular community?

- ultimately, would it not make more sense to change the terminology to more “nationality”-based (since we all have a nationality but not necessarily a particular political identification or religious faith)?

There are those, of course, who suggest we should just move away from these “labels” altogether. Certainly, I am greatly discomforted by terms such as “PUL” (for the aforementioned “pigeon-holing” reasons). Yet it is equally dangerous to suggest that we are all free agents free of any influence placed upon us by parents and peers in childhood or by our general social culture and biases even in adulthood. It is ludicrous to suggest that if “government” were simply to stop even hinting at a broad Protestant/British versus Catholic/Irish divide, the Shankill would suddenly become just like the Falls – plainly, it wouldn’t! Seeking overall labels to place on communities is as descriptive as it is prescriptive – even if, either way, it is always imperfect!

I myself have always had two things to specify on the subject, first about the nature of the divide itself, and second about the importance of an overarching civic identity of some sort.

Although it is not always wrong to “label” communities (noting particularly that people who live within them are often to ones who label them), it is important to recognise that we do not have “mirror images” in Northern Ireland. Where religious affiliation may be more important to one community, national affiliation may be more important to another; where one group may find the symbolism of historical and military imagery important, another may find the symbolism of a language important; where some people may take a particular political viewpoint to be inherent to their identity, another may wish to avoid politics altogether. The most serious mistake government makes, therefore, is not “labelling” in itself (problematic though this can be), but the notion that because one “side” gets something, the other “side” needs something similar – often the value of one thing (say, a language or a flag) may be much higher to one community (however defined) than to another.

Also, for all this “labelling”, there must also be a focus on our responsibilities to each other as citizens of the same jurisdiction; or, put another (perhaps slightly less comfortable) way, no matter how “Loyalist or Republican” we are, or “Protestant or Catholic”, or whatever combination of whatever identities and backgrounds, we are all ultimately “Northern Irish” citizens. It is that which gives us our rights (legally, in fact), and it is that which also gives us responsibilities as people with a common designation (referred to in the 1998 Agreement as being “people of Northern Ireland”).

Dear Mr Salmond,

We have had significant debate thus far on the timing and nature of a referendum rather than on the actual issue of Scotland’s constitutional status. I am sure we can both agree, although we take opposing views on it, that it is in fact the constitutional status we should be talking about.

We understand also that the issue of Scottish independence is for the residents of Scotland themselves, alone, to determine. That is why we will shortly be publishing legislation clarifying that the right to call such referendums will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

I wish to explain to you why a referendum with anything more than a single, yes/no question would in this case be pointless. It is the UK Government’s intention, and has always been, to pursue greater localisation of decision making across the UK, and thus significantly greater devolution to Scotland. You have thus far been unclear about what you take “devo max” to mean, but let me be clear about what the UK Government would intend to do should the people of Scotland vote to remain within our Union.

We will publish proposals within three months of a referendum based on many of the recommendations of the Calman Commission, which will include but not be limited to:

- the devolution of welfare;

- the creation of a Scottish Civil Service;

- the creation of a Scottish tax collection authority; and

- the replacement of the Barnett formula with a system based mainly on tax and revenue collection within Scotland funding services within Scotland.

Naturally, should the people of Scotland decide to remain within the Union, they would continue to enjoy all the benefits influencing our common monetary policy, our common defence policy (with the full range of jobs available to Scots, as to other UK citizens, in our armed services), and our common diplomatic corps, one of the most extensive in the world.

To be clear, therefore, I am not proposing a three-way referendum because for the UK Government, the “do nothing” option does not exist. We are committed to expanding devolution while maintaining, for Scots, all the opportunities that come with being part of a larger Union.

Aefauldlie,

David Cameron

Alasdair McDonnell’s comments started a sideshow of a debate in the media about the notion of MLA pay rises, with a number of people coming out essentially in favour. We should not be fooled! Let us look at some of the arguments…

1. Paying MLAs more would get us better MLAs. To which I present to you: TDs in the Republic of Ireland. Paid far more, are they really a step above? Seriously?! Paying MLAs more would only make internal selection processes even more vicious and personal, thus in fact driving the people we want away.

2. They don’t get paid as much as MSPs. You bet they don’t! MSPs represent nearly three times as many people each!

3. They haven’t had a pay rise for ages. Nor have lots of people; and in fact, they have had a rise in kind, with Office Cost Allowance dramatically increased by Peter Hain prior to the 2007 restoration.

4. They can be kicked out at short notice. Not that short – the next election isn’t due until 2015, and of course they’ll likely switch that (rightly, in fact) to 2016. Should they lose their seat, they get a settlement. All of that is hardly going to result in “grinding poverty”!

MLAs are paid almost exactly double the average private sector wage, complete with job security to 2015-16. Given the lack of legislation coming forward anyway, there is simply no case for a pay rise – and don’t let any supposedly “clever” people tell you otherwise!

Yours aye,

Ian Parsley

You no doubt remember me as the gentleman with the frankly ludicrous knowledge of past World Cups, noted also for famously hitting the bar from the halfway line during that crucial Sunday morning friendly match against Gateshead Health Authority in early 1999. They didn’t have YouTube in those days unfortunately, but you will no doubt note that Thierry Henry has never been recorded as managing that, and of course when even Pele tried it, at Mexico ’70, he missed completely.

Some years ago I reluctantly had to accept my football career was over, having failed even to select myself for my own University Intra-Mural team. The final blow was your decision to make Cesc Fabregas – aged precisely 10 years and one day younger than me – Captain of Arsenal Football Club. There comes a time when you just have to let go of your dream, as the last six seasons have taught us all.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but notice two things:

- the return of formerly retired players to the game at various big Premier League clubs; and

- the dearth of defending talent at Arsenal (let’s be honest, Squillaci hasn’t turned out to be the answer, has he?)

Like Thierry Henry, I’m 34. Like Thierry Henry, I am perhaps not quite at full match fitness. Like Sebastian Squilaci, I once lived in Andalusia, but I was in eastern Andalusia which is completely different so you can overlook that one.

Therefore I feel it appropriate to bring my availability for selection, even if only as another defensive option on the bench, to your attention. Admittedly, I have a small business to steer through a recession and a book to be published soon (with subsequently lecture tours, fan buses, you know the sort of thing – those Americans love anything to do with Ireland), so I couldn’t do training or Champions’ League. Nor would I want to be cup-tied, of course. However, as there is currently no election canvassing to be done at weekends, I do feel I could make myself available for League games through the two-month period to the end of the financial year.

Obviously, I’d need to look at flights, particularly for the Spurs game on 26 February, so do please get back to me soon.

Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Gaffeur, l’expression de mes sentiments distingués.

Ian Parsley

PS: Just to clarify, as I am not currently attached to a club, you would not in my case even have to clear insurance.

I recall a meeting I held alongside Trevor Lunn, probably in 2008, with a group who wished to build a Belfast “Rapid Transit” system. Certainly in my case they were preaching to the converted – more than 10% of my youth was spent in Germany in the company of trams (even in relatively small cities like Bielefeld), the benefits of which, in transport terms alone, are immediately obvious.  The  problem was, the documentation presented was amateur (leading me to wonder whether they really were capable of delivering), and there was no one supporting them (or even the wider case). It was a classic case of trying to win political support for a case merely on the grounds of the case alone – sadly, no politician is going to react to that, no matter how favourable their instinct is. The skill is to demonstrate professionalism and much wider support, so that the politician knows he/she will not be embarrassed by supporting the case/project, and will be rewarded by broad popularity at the polls for doing so.

What was required, first off, was really professional documentation (and perhaps a presentation), to give the impression of a business which not only talked a good game but was professional enough to deliver on it. I have no idea whether the two gentlemen present at this meeting were capable of delivery or not, but their documentation alone left me to wonder – despite the fact all the information I would likely want was contained in the file they gave us.

Secondly, there is little point in even the most professional company arriving at Stormont, handing over a file or delivering a presentation, and then expecting full backing for their case. Politicians’ currency is votes, they will need evidence that there will be much wider support for the proposal than just those advocating it in the room. Here, public affairs companies can help with “coalition building”, to demonstrate broad support (and likely popularity).

In short, politicians will support an unlikely proposal with likely support over a likely proposal with unlikely support. To deliver likely support takes internal professionalism and external coalition building.