Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think you need to learn a bit more about Scottish attitudes to being British before going off on one

Scots are british. Whether some of them like that or not.

The attitudes to this subject in your part of scotland will vary a lot from other parts where there are far fewer catholic immigrant descendants.

The scots have played a full part in the United Kingdom, providing more than just the current PM!

It wasn't me!

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The uprest in that sense will probably be against a dictator or non-democratic regime

Bit of a broad assumption to make. Panem et circenses and all that jazz.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

Scots are british. Whether some of them like that or not.

I always say this to my Scottish workmates and guess what? the vast majority of Scots I know regard themselves as Scottish rather than British. I always remind them that they can vote to change that although I get some weak response about how they are Labour voters (similar to how most people vote FF through an obligation rather than rationality) and would never vote for anybody other than Labour.

The attitudes to this subject in your part of scotland will vary a lot from other parts where there are far fewer catholic immigrant descendants.

I have worked all over Scotland with the railway and the majority of people [that I have met] still regard themselves as Scottish including a lot of the people who I would expect to be full blooded Unionists.

The scots have played a full part in the United Kingdom, providing more than just the current PM!

They certainly have and hopefully the English will get more irked with the West Lothian Question and the Scottish Raj.

murphaph

Well it's a very clever tactic Mr. Salmond is using to drive a wedge in the Union. He is an astute politician but I wonder will socts see through it or go for it. He's selling them a 'dream' of emulating the RoI, when in fact it is not even guaranteed that Scotland outside the UK would be admitted to tyhe European Union, nevermind anything else.

I know people in Glasgow and heading towards Greenock/Gurrock and they are quiet unionists. I met one idiot friend of a friend who thought I'd be a card carrying member of SF because I came from Dublin. I told him where to go.

If scots really want independence from England then they'll vote for it but I believe that just as with Northern Ireland, any such poll would fail.

dublinscot

murphaph wrote: »

Not really-the highest level of republican support was found in Northern Ireland

I was refering to Great Britain.

Scots are british. Whether some of them like that or not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jan/23/socialtrends

Britishness

Gordon Brown's choice of Britishness as one of the defining themes of his government may be out of tune with the popular mood, the report suggests. It found that people in England are substantially less likely to define themselves as British and more likely to assert an English identity than 15 years ago.

In Scotland, the proportion of people claiming to be British rather than Scottish is now only 14%. The study found that "only" or "mainly" British has fallen to 13% in England and 3% in Scotland.


Source: 24th British Social Attitudes report

murphaph wrote:

when in fact it is not even guaranteed that Scotland outside the UK would be admitted to tyhe European Union, nevermind anything else.

Why wouldn't we be permitted?

If scots really want independence from England then they'll vote for it but I believe that just as with Northern Ireland, any such poll would fail.

I bet a year ago you also thought we'd never ever elect a nationalist government.

In our history Scots have twice been asked directly about our place within the United Kingdom, and both times (1979 and 1999) the majority have voted to transfer power to Edinburgh, rather than retain it in London.

We Scots might be ambivalent, but we tend to make the right choice when it comes down to it.

SHH

Where do I sign up?

murphaph

dublinscot wrote: »

Why wouldn't we be permitted?

Scotland is currently just a region of a sovereign nation within the EU. Seceeding from that nation relinquishes the rights it has as part of the EU. Scotland would likely have to apply for EU membership and currently that would require a treaty to be ratified by all the member states. The EU electorate has grown weary of expansion and a 'yes' vote is by no means certain. I'm not making this stuff up-It's been well publicised that the legal status (from an EU point of view) of a secessionary Scotland is unclear. Scotland may be able to propser independent of the EU (like the IoM/Channel Islands etc.) but its citizens would no longer have the automatic freedom of movement they currently enjoy within the EU. IoM and Channel Islands citizens hold restricted british passports which do not allow them the automatic right to live and work across EU member states. Scotland could/would likely end up with its own passports but with similar restrictions.

dublinscot wrote: »

I bet a year ago you also thought we'd never ever elect a nationalist government.

There's a huge leap from electing the SNP/SF/SDLP etc. etc. to spend english tapayers' money in devolved assemblies than to elect to seceed from the United Kingdom (and the source of that funding). When we seceeded from the UK we didn't live in a modern welfare state with relatively (certainly compared to the RoI) good public services. It's different today.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

There's a huge leap from electing the SNP/SF/SDLP etc. etc. to spend english tapayers' money in devolved assemblies than to elect to seceed from the United Kingdom (and the source of that funding). When we seceeded from the UK we didn't live in a modern welfare state with relatively (certainly compared to the RoI) good public services. It's different today.

Surely you mean British taxpayers money? If not please explain with regard to Scotland

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Surely you mean British taxpayers money? If not please explain with regard to Scotland

It's pretty obvious what I mean I should have thought. Scotland and Northern Ireland currently enjoy more spending per capita than they either generate. That defecit is made up by taxes raised in....England. Scotland almost covers its costs according to some publications but almost isn't enough to maintain current living standards so an independent Scotland either increases taxes or reduces spending to make the books balance. Bye bye free Uni/prescriptions etc. etc. As I say, Salmond is clever: highly publicise the extra 'benefits' the scots receive over the english to sow seeds of discontent south of the border and get pushed out of the UK if the scots don't vote themselves out.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is pretty obvious what you are getting at; You are trying to say that Scotland can only survive because the English give them the money. That is not true.

Outside of the South of England, the rest of England, Wales and NI lag well behind Scotland with respect to paying their way.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is pretty obvious what you are getting at; You are trying to say that Scotland can only survive because the English give them the money. That is not true.

Outside of the South of England, the rest of England, Wales and NI lag well behind Scotland with respect to paying their way.

I suggest reading what I say rather than putting words in my mouth. I said Scotland could likely survive outside the UK with lower spending or higher taxes than it currently enjoys. However if Scotland is not allowed to join the EU then her industries may decide to locate elsewhere. It is possible scotland could develop a strong banking sector (Edinburgh is the second financial city in the UK) to take advantage of being outside the EU but that's a big if.

I have the utmost respect for Scotland and her people. I think they have done tremendous things and the UK would have been a much weaker country without scots paticipation, from the top down.

It is up to scots to decide if they would be better off leaving that union but the reason we mentioned scotland was because SFIRA always suported scots independence, while at the same time holding a contadictory opinion on ireland remaining divided.

If most scots favour independence from England, fair enough I'm a democrat and if most NI citizens favour something other than unity with the RoI then ditto to the above.

nacho libre

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Just a point. Being afraid of planes and tanks and guns and bombs doesn't mean the armies using these things are using terrorist tactics (I know, madness, isn't it?). What would you have armies use to more efficiently achieve the pacification of a region? The thing is, armies use violence to quell uprest, where the IRA use it to provoke uprest. If you can show me how the IRA have contributed to peace, at any point in their long history, I'll be incredibly impressed. I might even boggle.

Are you seeking to legitimize state terror with your implication that state armies always pursue noble aims like pacifying regions?
As if all armies throughout the ages were only intervening in trouble spots to pacify them rather than conquer them.
The latter certainly involved using terrorist tactics to achieve a political objective. Which in turn lead to armies often fomenting more unrest rather than quelling it.

It wasn't me!

Which is why the age of colonialism is done. Modern armies are peace-keeping forces.

Riddle101

murphaph wrote: »

I and most decent people would take offence at that. Oglaigh na hEireann are and have been for many decades a professional army, only sent into military action by the will of Dail Eireann, and in our particular case (along with other nations), only in support of UN resolutions.

So you think it's ok to compare our professional (albeit small) defence forces who went into the Congo and Lebanon etc. to maintain peace between waring factions and primarily to prevent civilian loss of life to the filthy scum of the PIRA?

I wasn't talking about the PDF. I was was talking more around the lines of the US Army, The BA, the Chinese and Russian Armies. Armies that are used to invading countries and using bombing campaigns as a way of fighting. The PDF i agree are professional and i wans't putting them down if that's what i thought but all i'm saying is people seem to justify what the Americans do as fighting terrorism yet they use a lot of terrorist tactics for an Army who's against all this stuff

The thing is, armies use violence to quell uprest, where the IRA use it to provoke uprest. If you can show me how the IRA have contributed to peace, at any point in their long history, I'll be incredibly impressed. I might even boggle

So i guess resistance groups are all terrorists simply because they like to provoke uprest. Is that not the point of a rebellion(Not that i'm saying there's a rebellion going on) but if the French Resistance and the Partisans provoked uprest in WW2 that means they weren't professional.

Contribute to peace you ask? well i wouldn't say they did much but if they hadn't been fighting dyring the troubles then no one would have heard what was going on the Northern Ireland during the troubles, no one would have listened. Is the reason why the British government have been trying to calm things down for the last decade not because the IRA had been causing a lot of conflict. I can't say the IRA are soley responsible with all the changes in Northern Ireland but the British Government did start listening to all majorities in Northern Ireland and not just the Unionists.

It wasn't me!

If the IRA hadn't been causing problems during the troubles there wouldn't have been much to hear about. :rolleyes:

LordSutch

As a matter of interest, there was a thread/ rumour going around a couple of years ago about a possible "New Union" emerging if Scotland left the UK . . . comprised of Scotland & Northern Ireland should they also feel the need to flee the nest?

As I say ~ it was just rumblings a few years ago, but it makes you think, if the North & Scotland got any closer (talk of a land bridge in the future) then anything is possible, and as has been said by many previous posters 'Northerners are mailny of Scottish origin" and much closer to Scottish/ British culture than we are down here.

Dunno what the Real IRA would make of that? who would they Bomb then?

Zombrex

Riddle101 wrote: »

they prefer to use Planes, tanks and other types of equipment to impose terrorism.

That's like saying "they fought a guerilla war with nuclear weapons"

If you have planes and tanks it is very doubtful that a Commander would be stupid enough to use terrorism, considering terrorism as a military tactic is very slow and most of the time doesn't even work. If the IRA had planes and tanks I seriously doubt they would be blowing up pubs and shopping centres.

Riddle101 wrote: »

All i'm saying is, the IRA are no different to any other army because they all have the same strategy just do it differently. If we're to judge the IRA then we should also be judging all armies of the world.

I do judge all armies of the world.

A Dub in Glasgo

What is terrorism?

I naively thought it was a tactic to terrorise the civilian population

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What is terrorism?

I naively thought it was a tactic to terrorise the civilian population

It is a tactic to terrorise a civilian (or military) population into invoking change (political, military or social) themselves on your behalf out of desperation to remove the state of terror.

It is kinda like a form of blackmail. If you have lots of guys and men and ammo you can rob the bank yourself. If you don't, you kidnap the bank manager's daughter and make him rob the bank for you out of fear.

The IRA simply did not have the ability to force the British Army out of the North. So they terrorised the British in the hopes that they would leave themselves.

I would love to say that large armies don't use terrorism that much because they have high moral standards, but it is more likely that they don't use it because they don't have to and it rarely works.

galwayrush

I wish these nut-cases would just **** off and disappear:mad:

A Dub in Glasgo

Wicknight wrote: »

It is a tactic to terrorise a civilian (or military) population into invoking change (political, military or social) themselves on your behalf out of desperation to remove the state of terror.
.

I do not know how a military population can go to war without facing terrorism with your definition. I fail to see how any war is not terrorism to the civilian population

dublinscot

murphaph wrote: »

It's pretty obvious what I mean I should have thought. Scotland and Northern Ireland currently enjoy more spending per capita than they either generate. That defecit is made up by taxes raised in....England. Scotland almost covers its costs according to some publications but almost isn't enough to maintain current living standards so an independent Scotland either increases taxes or reduces spending to make the books balance. Bye bye free Uni/prescriptions etc. etc.

Deficit? What deficit? Scotland more than pays her way.

I mean, not even the Scottish unionists use the 'too poor' argument anymore! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7075988.stm

As I say, Salmond is clever: highly publicise the extra 'benefits' the scots receive over the english to sow seeds of discontent south of the border and get pushed out of the UK if the scots don't vote themselves out.

I wouldn't say Salmond goes out of his way to publicise it... the English press will do that for him.

But anyway, the whole point of devolution is to do things differently. If the Westminster parliament isn't implementing the same progressive policies that Holyrood is then that's their problem.

murphaph

dublinscot wrote: »

Deficit? What deficit? Scotland more than pays her way.

No it doesn't. (cue the old North Sea Oil line but remember that it was British government money and plenty of it that allowed the exploration of North Sea Oil which is one of the least hospitable places on earth to recover the stuff).

dublinscot wrote: »

I mean, not even the Scottish unionists use the 'too poor' argument anymore! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7075988.stm

That link doesn't say anything about scotland 'more than paying her way' because she simply doesn't. They don't use the 'too poor argument' for 2 reasons;
1) Scotland would likely not collapse outside the UK, but public spending would initially need reductions or taxes need raising to cover the shortfall currently made up by taxes sent north of the border.[/QUOTE]
2) It is political suicide in this age of 'small nations' to tell a people that they are so inferior that they will wither outside the UK, so even people who may believe this will often keep it to themselves and push other arguments in favour of remaining in the UK.

dublinscot wrote: »

I wouldn't say Salmond goes out of his way to publicise it... the English press will do that for him.

And he knows that! Salmond is a masterclass in politics.

dublinscot wrote: »

But anyway, the whole point of devolution is to do things differently. If the Westminster parliament isn't implementing the same progressive policies that Holyrood is then that's their problem.

Indeed, Holyrood gets x billion a year from Westminster (the majority of it is 'their own money' and the rest is an amount raised in England) and they can spend it how they like but they don't have to worry about many aspects of spending that a real country does-defence, foreign policy and so on and indeed if Scotland leaves the UK she will lose her defence bases and I doubt Scotland will be able to keep (even if they wanted to) the nuclear subs and when they go so will all the jobs in Lossiemouth etc. There are negatives to leaving the Union-that's all I'm saying. Salmond is first and foremost a scottish independent and his ideology allows him to let scotland suffer for independence on principle.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

No it doesn't. (cue the old North Sea Oil line but remember that it was British government money and plenty of it that allowed the exploration of North Sea Oil which is one of the least hospitable places on earth to recover the stuff).


That link doesn't say anything about scotland 'more than paying her way' because she simply doesn't. They don't use the 'too poor argument' for 2 reasons;
1) Scotland would likely not collapse outside the UK, but public spending would initially need reductions or taxes need raising to cover the shortfall currently made up by taxes sent north of the border.
2) It is political suicide in this age of 'small nations' to tell a people that they are so inferior that they will wither outside the UK, so even people who may believe this will often keep it to themselves and push other arguments in favour of remaining in the UK.

A very small proportion of SE English taxes are sent to Scotland. The vast majority of SE English taxes go to NI, the North of England and Wales. You are constantly implying (without any back up) that Scotland needs the taxes from the SE England.

Indeed, Holyrood gets x billion a year from Westminster (the majority of it is 'their own money' and the rest is an amount raised in England) and they can spend it how they like but they don't have to worry about many aspects of spending that a real country does-defence, foreign policy and so on and indeed if Scotland leaves the UK she will lose her defence bases and I doubt Scotland will be able to keep (even if they wanted to) the nuclear subs and when they go so will all the jobs in Lossiemouth etc. There are negatives to leaving the Union-that's all I'm saying. Salmond is first and foremost a scottish independent and his ideology allows him to let scotland suffer for independence on principle.

Hallelujah for the loss of the subs and bases of Mass Destruction. Most sane people would celebrate this

The amount of money the UK spends on defence (sic) is mind boggling and Scotland would not need to spend anywhere near that kind of money (as a proportion).

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A very small proportion of SE English taxes are sent to Scotland. The vast majority of SE English taxes go to NI, the North of England and Wales. You are constantly implying (without any back up) that Scotland needs the taxes from the SE England.

Once again. Read what I say and don't tell me what I am implying. I have said it (more than once) that SCOTLAND WOULD LIKELY SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE UK AND WOULD NOT IMPLODE IN ON ITSELF! but the current positition is that more monies are spent in Scotland than are raised there. Salmond loves this as it gets great publicity in English papers and drives a wedge into the 1707 union. Perfect stuff for a scottish nationalist.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Hallelujah for the loss of the subs and bases of Mass Destruction. Most sane people would celebrate this

The amount of money the UK spends on defence (sic) is mind boggling and Scotland would not need to spend anywhere near that kind of money (as a proportion).

They may well celebrate it initially but once again, Scotland does relatively well out of UK defence spending. Jobs. If Scotland seceeds from the UK then England & Wales will most likely halt any further defence contracts for north of the border. Scotland, like Ireland could 'get away with' spending a small amount on it's own defence but just like Ireland would rely on the United Kingdom for air defence should the need ever arise.

I am happy to state that Scotland would probably be ok on its own (providing it is admitted into the EU-not cetain) but you seem incapable of admitting any negatives in leaving the Union, a union which saw scotland prosper for 2 centuries. Strange.

I believe Scotland's presbyterian workmanlike history will stand it in good stead regardless of being in the UK or not.

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I do not know how a military population can go to war without facing terrorism with your definition. I fail to see how any war is not terrorism to the civilian population

Well if you kill or imprision all the leaders of a government, and then instil your own government (as wars often end) you aren't getting the country to change its own government through a state of fear. You are actually changing the government yourself. The fear in the population is rather irrelevant to that.

marco murphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

strange how despite the fact most unionists came from Scotland, the IRA never carried out any attrocities there.

Unionist support is stronger in Glasgow than anywhere else on the "Mainland" yet it has never seen an attack.

Why would the IRA have carried out an attack on Scotland simply because unionists came from there?
I never planned to reply here, but I've noticed your bile has remained consistent, even a few months down the line, that the IRA targetted protestants and unionists.

murphaph

Poblachtach wrote: »

I never planned to reply here, but I've noticed your bile has remained consistent, even a few months down the line, that the IRA targetted protestants and unionists.

Didn't they?

bogwarrior

how it is in the north can only be really said by the people in the north , if they need help I'm sure they will ask . as far as i know the people seem to want the democratic way and not the way of the gun . some times the papers can give power to a few to keep their stories going when they have nothing better to write ,

Zombrex

Poblachtach wrote: »

I never planned to reply here, but I've noticed your bile has remained consistent, even a few months down the line, that the IRA targetted protestants and unionists.

The IRA did target Protestants and Unionists. They also killed a lot of them "by accident" by placing bombs in crowded areas and blowing them up :rolleyes: