THIS newspaper, as regular readers would expect has very strict rules about ethics, These prohibit journalists from taking gifts that might he construed as bribes. So I had better start by declaring an interest.
A jar of King William's Orange Preserve, made for the Ulster Society in Lurgan, sits on the breakfast table as we listen to Morning Ireland. It was given to me by John Taylor at a meeting in Newtownards a few weeks ago. I thought of rejecting it, but remembered that I had not returned the Irish Resistance calendar presented to me by Sinn Fein at Christmas. The marmalade seemed to even things out.
I had driven North to hear the deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party address the annual general meeting of his constituency association. I didn't need an orange sweetener to judge that the speech was skilful, important and brave. As interesting was the reaction of his audience.
Mr Taylor spelt out a number of hard political realities which must have been quite difficult for this staunchly unionist audience. Yet it seemed to take them calmly.
I was particularly struck by two points which he made. The first related to the proposal for an elected body. Mr Taylor explained nationalists' fears about the proposal - that it might grow into an assembly that would neglect or ignore the relationships between North and South, and between Dublin and London.
This was not the intention, he said, unionists had no desire to neglect these issues. There was no question of a return to Stormont and any unionist who still thought in such terms was not addressing the issues seriously. On the contrary, such talk only served to exacerbate the worst fears and suspicions of nationalists.
The other part of the speech which seemed particularly timely was an appeal to Sinn Fein to "make the leap of faith" involved in embracing the principle of consent. Nobody expected republicans to abandon their commitment to an independent, united Ireland, nor was there any objection to their standing for election on that platform. But to make progress possible, they must accept that so long as most people in Northern Ireland wanted the Union, that would continue to be the reality.
HE referred to the Workers' Party in the North, to the fact that it has never handed in its arms, yet is now accepted as a constitutional party because it has, crucially, accepted the principle of consent.
Given that Mr Taylor still bears, very visibly, scars from the bullets which the Official IRA shot into his neck and jaw, this betokens at the very least a high degree of political flexibility. If the MP for Strangford were a rather gentler figure, with less of a gift for getting up nationalist noses, we might even be prepared to praise his ability to forgive and put the past behind him.
After the meeting he asked me about the political view from Dublin. As far as I remember, Dick Spring's name was not mentioned. Mr Taylor was more concerned about John Bruton, the conflicting signals which seemed to emanate from the Taoiseach's office and made it difficult for unionists to detect any consistent strategy.
He asked me what people in Dublin thought would be in the report of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, whether there was any real chance that Sinn Fein would sign up to the principle of consent. It would be immensely helpful, he said, if that were to happen.
I've reported my impressions of the meeting now because the speech merited a great deal more attention than it got in the media here. It is extremely unfortunate, to say the least, that most of the parties in this State now seem bent on a public war of words with the unionist leadership. David Trimble has been presented as both obstinate and deliberately discourteous.
As always, the situation looks rather different to the unionists. They believe that their leaders have tried to reassure nationalists on the proposal for an assembly and that their arguments have been dismissed without a hearing, as part of a cunning plot to resurrect Stormont.
Dragging John Taylor into this political quarrel, on the basis of remarks made to a newspaper, is ill judged. There has always been a touch of the professional rottweiler about Mr Taylor. I've suffered the odd lash of his tongue myself, during the early years of reporting on Northern Ireland. His remarks often seem deliberately designed to provoke a response, though Dick Spring himself has been sensible enough to play down the political importance of his comments.
IT IS not very long since this newspaper, along with others, was reporting the widespread hope in political circles here that John Taylor would be elected as the new leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. Perhaps if he had made fewer speeches in this State and been less obviously interested in engaging in debate down here, he would have fared better when it came to the vote in the Ulster Hall.
Instead David Trimble, trusted because of his stance as the Orange defender at Drumcree, emerged victorious. This is something we must not forget, because neither Mr Trimble nor those around him will do so. Without it we cannot understand the depth of mistrust and suspicion which still exists among grassroots unionists, and the scale of the challenge which faces their leaders.
We get impatient when the unionists appear to be so reluctant to make the leap of faith involved in trusting Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. After all, we say, the guns are silent and have remained so for many months. What's their problem?
Yet most nationalists seem to experience the very same reactions when asked to give unionist leaders just a small portion of the benefit of the doubt, to consider the possibility that they too may have changed.
This is extremely difficult, particularly just now when David Trimble's position at Westminster is so strong that he feels able to issue threats about next week's Scott Report on the sale of arms to Iraq. He clearly believes that some kind of assembly is now a certainty and is already, to some extent, on an election footing. Equally, because he is a clever man, he knows that it will not happen without the consent of the Irish Government and the nationalist parties in the North.
It may be that the Government's proposal for a Dayton style peace conference will provide a way out of the current impasse, although there is also a real danger that renewed American pressure could simply add to British and unionist resentment, as happened with the Mitchell commission.
The Tanaiste is right when he says that neither individuals nor parties have to like one another but that, ultimately, "We have to live and work together." It would help that process if we could start to listen more carefully, not to the public recriminations but to what the other side is actually saying, in a more reflective mode.