thing as an ethnic nationality, as the history of Ulster Unionism so clearly demonstrates'. Quite apart from the fact that it is only the history of somewhere else that can prove what Ulster Unionism is not, it is a shame that he wants to dwell on the 'clear' differences between nouns which are 'not necessarily' synonymous. Later, however, Loughlin returns to the theme by drawing out the distinction between 'British nationalism as a conceptual framework' and 'the debate on national identity' - clearly, this is a very subtle work.

Loughlin's run-ins with Alvin Jackson, with whom he forms a school of historical thought (the Home Rule Historians), are legendary, and here there is much to amuse. Several years ago, Jackson surveyed speeches which Loughlin had used in support of a point and claimed that they had been misrepresented. There followed a series of spats. Now, Loughlin is back with a sustained critique of Jackson's view of nationalism - which, he was no doubt pleased to discover, misrepresents the views of the authority cited. At times, indeed, the motivation in commenting on work appears to be revenge. Checking against the index, Loughlin's descriptions of Jackson's work run thus: 'hardly credible'; 'fatally flawed'; 'There are, however, serious reservations'; 'conceptual problem'; and, best of all, 'However, as I point out - something which Jackson ignores - there were problems with Gladstone's conception of British patriotism'. This tendency to nit-pick and the overall pettiness of the dispute detracts from what is otherwise a remarkable contribution to our knowledge.

One other comment which seems relevant is the structure of the book, which simply runs chronologically from the 1880s to 1994. It may be filled with brilliant insights and an argument of great originality, but it has to be noted that such a format does not lend itself to the making of an argument so much as merely recounting events between two dates. Arguably, 1972 would have been a better end-point, as it would have allowed the evidence to be harnessed to a process rather than a date. Alternatively, a chapter looking to the future of British identity might have circumvented the whole problem. At the very least, an attempt to explain why a closing year has been selected should have been made as it is not self-evident.

Perhaps, too, the significance of this work as a demonstration of the continuing importance of the British hinterland throughout all of Ireland should have been stated. If both Gailey and Loughlin had done this, it might have become possible to portray Sayers and his type as Southern British Ulstermen; as it is, one dreads their work just being ignored. Gailey can help the situation by drawing upon the very impressive research in his study as the basis for a series of articles raising questions rather than