Do all Catholics in the six counties want a united Ireland?

marco murphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

have you got a link, I can't find it on Google.

All I can find is the death of the Loughgall brigade (Which, lets face it, is the real reason terrorist sympathisers dislike the SAS, because they had a nasty habit of killing these sorts of murdering, low life, scum)

As is your past chosen subscription to a brigade.

Fratton Fred

Perestroika wrote: »

As is your past chosen subscription to a brigade.

DublinDes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

have you got a link, I can't find it on Google.

All I can find is the death of the Loughgall brigade (Which, lets face it, is the real reason terrorist sympathisers dislike the SAS, because they had a nasty habit of killing these sorts of murdering, low life, scum)

Yeah, and I bet you weren't able to find Nairac's remains either

Maybe you should try heading up to the Cooley mountains and if you find him I believe their's a note attached - Please return to SAS HQ, Hereford - Compliments of the Provisional IRA

The Corinthian

I think you'll find that the issue is not as simple as nationalist/Catholics versus loyalist/Protestants.

It's not even a question of simply wanting or not wanting a united Ireland, as many so, but not at any cost. The same goes for many loyalists who would want to remain in the Union at any cost. And to complicate matters further there's quite a few people up North, both Catholic and Protestant, who would prefer to go it alone and tell both London and Dublin to piss off - as long as they could afford to do so (which they can't at present).

Those who to fall into the at any cost category, on both sides, tend to be the extremes; armchair militants, malcontented teenagers (or immature twenty-somethings) and psychopathic nutjobs.

stovelid

The Corinthian wrote: »

And to complicate matters further there's quite a few people up North, both Catholic and Protestant, who would prefer to go it alone and tell both London and Dublin to piss off - as long as they could afford to do so (which they can't at present)..

It's true. Even among unionists, I think. Despite the much-trumpeted love of the UK, it has always been a marriage of convenience. They have always had zero compunction about disregarding the wishes of Britain when it comes to their own interests. The union is often a misnomer: the golden unionist era was when Britain just funded NI, allowed a unionist hegemony and just let them get on with it. In 1969, direct rule was something that most unionists did not welcome.

When I lived in the North, I was always acutely aware of (and knew many people from) that other demographic (both catholic and protestant) that didn't fall on either side of the divide. I'm from England originally, moved to Dublin when I was young, and I never had the overwhelming sense that the North was totally like either. There is a definitely a case for people just being from Ulster, without recourse to Britain or The Republic. Even if Ulster is a designation that has been hijacked by Unionism.

TOMASJ

stovelid wrote: »

It's true. Even among unionists, I think. Despite the much-trumpeted love of the UK, it has always been a marriage of convenience. They have always had zero compunction about disregarding the wishes of Britain when it comes to their own interests. The union is often a misnomer: the golden unionist era was when Britain just funded NI, allowed a unionist hegemony and just let them get on with it. In 1969, direct rule was something that most unionists did not welcome.

When I lived in the North, I was always acutely aware of (and knew many people from) that other demographic (both catholic and protestant) that didn't fall on either side of the divide. I'm from England originally, moved to Dublin when I was young, and I never had the overwhelming sense that the North was totally like either. There is a definitely a case for people just being from Ulster, without recourse to Britain or The Republic. Even if Ulster is a designation that has been hijacked by Unionism[/QUOTE

As far as a independents for the six counties goes forget it, even if all the nationalist left that little statlet to the Unionist they would fall out and divide it again , Just look at how many protestant churches their are how many Unionist and Loyalist political party's their are and how many paramilitary wings they have, I think things probally would get worse if left to their own devices.

LordSutch

The last I heard, about one third of Catholics along with approximately 98% of Protestants wish to maintain the Union, so the answer to the original question is 'NO' - Not all Roman Catholics want a united ireland . . .

TOMASJ

Camelot wrote: »

The last I heard, about one third of Catholics along with approximately 98% of Protestants wish to maintain the Union,

Where did you hear that at

LordSutch

I thought my observations were common knowledge? you hear things on BBC Newsline or comments from Stormont, or RTE or where ever? or are you saying that its more than one third of catholics who wish to remain in the Union?

TOMASJ

[quote=Camelot;57651077

]I thought my observations were common knowledge? you hear things on BBC Newsline or comments from Stormont, or RTE or where ever? or are you saying that its more than one third of catholics who wish to remain in the Union?

[/quote]
Just saying don't believe everything you read see or hear,
Like there are those that will ram it down your throat that Ulster Scotch is a language.and a lot of folk believe that.

McArmalite

podge79 wrote: »

Here's a wee quote from it -" Not only has massive collusion taken place between Gardai and the I.R.A. in the border areas....etc "

so because a loyalist/unioinist says it it's got to be a load of lies but if the opposite accusation is made its the god honest truth?

if it happened it happened; if it didnt it didnt

its a tough thing to do but it's time to move on to a positive future leaving behind the dark days of the past instead of constantly dragging them up

Wee Willie Frazer of LoveUlster infamy said it :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

podge79 wrote: »

its a tough thing to do but it's time to move on to a positive future leaving behind the dark days of the past instead of constantly dragging them up

Not going to happen I'm afraid. Nationalism - be it republican, unionist or whatever - is a product of romanticism, which is nostalgic by nature.

TOMASJ wrote: »

As far as a independents for the six counties goes forget it, even if all the nationalist left that little statlet to the Unionist they would fall out and divide it again , Just look at how many protestant churches their are how many Unionist and Loyalist political party's their are and how many paramilitary wings they have, I think things probally would get worse if left to their own devices.

I really don't get how unification with the republic would work out any more peaceably, TBH.

However I'd agree that even if there was a preference to go it alone, NI is still politically too unstable and, more importantly, is currently economically non-viable, to do so.

McArmalite

The Corinthian wrote: »

I really don't get how unification with the republic would work out any more peaceably, TBH.

So they are going to put up the fight they had been promising to in 1922 when 10,000's of their unionist brethern were abounded to the newly formed Free State and about 1/3 of Ulster proper ?? God, we should be all afraid shouldn't we.

And for a man so much against terrorism, isn't quite a contradiction that you also believe that the threats of violence form a minority should be allowed to dictate to society the outcome ??

The Corinthian

McArmalite wrote: »

So they are going to put up the fight they had been promising to in 1922 when 10,000's of their unionist brethern were abounded to the newly formed Free State and about 1/3 of Ulster proper ?? God, we should be all afraid shouldn't we.

And for a man so much against terrorism, isn't quite a contradiction that you also believe that the threats of violence form a minority should be allowed to dictate to society the outcome ??

I never suggested any such thing. I was commenting/responding to your point that an independent NI would degenerate into division and violence; forcing the united Ireland solution would result in the same. If there is any double standard here it is that you will bring up such a scenario for an independent NI, but happy to ignore it in a unified Ireland.

And what is this rubbish about 'Ulster proper'? So what if NI is six out of nine of what historically were was the province of Ulster? It's not set in stone for time without end, after all - otherwise we'd still have five provinces in Ireland.

You raise though an interesting point however, in that the spectre of an independent NI really scares the shìt out of militant nationalists (and presumably militant unionists) - it's a self-determination scenario which also takes away the boogyman of British occupation that militant nationalists like to whinge about (or Dublin hegemony that militant unionists scaremonger over).

djpbarry

The Corinthian wrote: »

You raise though an interesting point however, in that the spectre of an independent NI really scares the shìt out of militant nationalists (and presumably militant unionists)...

Indeed; they'd have to think up a whole new reason to hate each other. I'm sure they'd come up with something quick enough...

McArmalite

The Corinthian wrote: »

And to complicate matters further there's quite a few people up North, both Catholic and Protestant, who would prefer to go it alone and tell both London and Dublin to piss off - as long as they could afford to do so (which they can't at present).

stovelid wrote: »

When I lived in the North, I was always acutely aware of (and knew many people from) that other demographic (both catholic and protestant) that didn't fall on either side of the divide...... There is a definitely a case for people just being from Ulster, without recourse to Britain or The Republic. Even if Ulster is a designation that has been hijacked by Unionism.

So if you meet so many nationalists in the six counties who want to an independent ' Ulster ', well tell me, how come this has barely ( if at all ) ever been echoed down the years by the SDLP and certainly not Sinn Fein. Sorry lads, can we keep to reality and not the makey uppy theories of your alleged experiences. I grew up within a few miles of the border, about half of my relations are from the north. I've worked, drank, played sports etc with God knows how many nationalists form all over the six counties and don't try and tell me that their is a considerable number of them who'd have the faintest interest in an independent ' Ulster '.:rolleyes:

In fact I'd say their would probably be a greater number of people in the People's Republic of Cork who'd rather an independent Cork than nationalists in the six counties who'd want an independent ' Ulster '.

And BTW lads, did you define Ulster as the six county secterian gerrymander or the nine counties ?? Bet the latter would not be too populiar with our unionist friends

McArmalite

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never suggested any such thing. I was commenting/responding to your point that an independent NI would degenerate into division and violence; forcing the united Ireland solution would result in the same. If there is any double standard here it is that you will bring up such a scenario for an independent NI, but happy to ignore it in a unified Ireland.

And what is this rubbish about 'Ulster proper'? So what if NI is six out of nine of what historically were was the province of Ulster? It's not set in stone for time without end, after all - otherwise we'd still have five provinces in Ireland.

You raise though an interesting point however, in that the spectre of an independent NI really scares the shìt out of militant nationalists (and presumably militant unionists) - it's a self-determination scenario which also takes away the boogyman of British occupation that militant nationalists like to whinge about (or Dublin hegemony that militant unionists scaremonger over).

" I was commenting/responding to your point that an independent NI would degenerate into division and violence; forcing the united Ireland solution would result in the same. ". I never said such or implied anything about an independent six county state. Your the one who affirms that forcing the united Ireland solution would result into division and violence as in your post #73 “ I really don't get how unification with the republic would work out any more peaceably, TBH.”

I have consistenly said that without the support of britian, they'll do as little as they did in 1922 when 10,000's of their unionist brethern were abandonded to the newly formed Free State and about 1/3 of Ulster proper.

" So what if NI is six out of nine of what historically were was the province of Ulster? ". So what !!!!!! Well if you were an nationalist it wouldn’t need any explaination as it was the mechanicism by which britain managed to hold onto part of Ireland’s national territory and heralded in even greater sectarian discrimination for the nationalists entrapped behind the sectarian gerrymander.

“ You raise though an interesting point however, in that the spectre of an independent NI really scares the shìt out of militant nationalists (and presumably militant unionists) - it's a self-determination scenario which also takes away the boogyman of British occupation that militant nationalists like to whinge about (or Dublin hegemony that militant unionists scaremonger over).” Pushing the unionist line ( independent ‘ Ulster ‘ ) as usual, which is always the constant theme of your posts.

And as I’ve asked before, and for a man so much against terrorism, isn't quite a contradiction that you also believe that the threats of violence from a minority should be allowed to dictate to society the outcome ?? But I suppose I can conclude that you do indeed believe that the threats of violence from a minority - just the unionists mind - should be allowed to dictate to society the outcome, again as you state in post #73 “ I really don't get how unification with the republic would work out any more peaceably, TBH.”

The Corinthian

McArmalite wrote: »

Sorry lads, can we keep to reality and not the makey uppy theories of your alleged experiences. I grew up within a few miles of the border, about half of my relations are from the north. I've worked, drank, played sports etc with God knows how many nationalists form all over the six counties and don't try and tell me that their is a considerable number of them who'd have the faintest interest in an independent ' Ulster '.:rolleyes:

And when opt your lips let no dog bark...

I think you'll find that there are plenty of others who have had different experiences to you. Some have actually grown up in NI rather than "within a few miles of the border". Not everyone has been brought up in the politics of hate.

McArmalite wrote: »

I have consistenly said that without the support of britian, they'll do as little as they did in 1922 when 10,000's of their unionist brethern were abandonded to the newly formed Free State and about 1/3 of Ulster proper.

The evidence of the last thirty years seems to point to the opposite.

Well if you were an nationalist it wouldn’t need any explaination as it was the mechanicism by which britain managed to hold onto part of Ireland’s national territory and heralded in even greater sectarian discrimination for the nationalists entrapped behind the sectarian gerrymander.

Actually that does not really make sense as they did not partition off the entire province.

Pushing the unionist line ( independent ‘ Ulster ‘ ) as usual, which is always the constant theme of your posts.

Actually, an independent ‘ Ulster ‘ is not the unionist line (by definition). It simply seems to be seen as an alternative by a growing number in NI who do not identify with either the Republic or the UK.

And as I’ve asked before, and for a man so much against terrorism, isn't quite a contradiction that you also believe that the threats of violence from a minority should be allowed to dictate to society the outcome ??

And as I responded before, I did no such thing. I was simply pointing to your own argument that an independent NI would result in violence - while ignoring the fact that unification with the Republic would result in the same.

This is in no way suggesting that violence from a minority should be allowed to dictate anything, only that what you suggest is no better - except in your own fantasy World where the unionist population would see themselves beaten and leave for Scotland...

Zynks

I was in El Salvador a few years back, and as some may know, they had a savage civil war that make NI look like kids play. I asked them how did they move on and the common answer was that when the soviet funding dried out after the fall of the USSR, the Americans also pulled the plug and there was no motivation left to carry on.

Maybe a period on their own as an independent coutry would allow them take responsibility and awareness that they need to work together to secure a better life for all.

They are almost there, but there still is this baby sitting going on that really doesn't help in my opinion.

McArmalite

The Corinthian wrote: »

And when opt your lips let no dog bark...

I think you'll find that there are plenty of others who have had different experiences to you. Some have actually grown up in NI rather than "within a few miles of the border". Not everyone has been brought up in the politics of hate.

And this coming from the fella on another thread, who claimed that nationalists in the six counties were ethnically more like Scottish Catholics than the rest of the country. I actually read that on an internet machine in a pub after the All Ireland final, with people from Kerry, Dublin and all over the country congratulating the Tyrone fans. But then I wouldn't expect anything better from a unionist, did you get that from one of your favorite Paisley speeches ? And who the hell are you unionists ethnically like, drunken Rangers supporters on the afternoon of a match with Celtic ? And then the following day the vast majority go back to been ordinary Scots and couldn't give any more of a sh!te about the unionists or their little ' Ulster ' just like the rest of Scotland, England and Wales. Indeed the vast majority of them would be glad to be rid of you crowd.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The evidence of the last thirty years seems to point to the opposite.

As previously stated - without the support of britian they'll do as little as they did in 1922 when 10,000's of their unionist brethern were abandonded to the newly formed Free State and about 1/3 of Ulster proper. The loyalists wouldn't find their ar$e with both their hands without the brits arming, training and directing them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually that does not really make sense as they did not partition off the entire province.

Stupidest comment you've made so far, even for a unionist.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, an independent ‘ Ulster ‘ is not the unionist line (by definition). It simply seems to be seen as an alternative by a growing number in NI who do not identify with either the Republic or the UK.

In the mid 70's they couldn't shut up about anything else for a while as they were copying the racist Rhodesian Ian Smith's ( birds of a feather ) Unilateral Declaration of Independence for so called ' Ulster '.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And as I responded before, I did no such thing. I was simply pointing to your own argument that an independent NI would result in violence - while ignoring the fact that unification with the Republic would result in the same.

I've never stated " an independent NI would result in violence ". I've never even considering an " independent NI " Yet again :rolleyes: as previously stated " without the support of britian, they'll do as little as they did in 1922 when 10,000's of their unionist brethern were abandonded to the newly formed Free State and about 1/3 of Ulster proper." Again - Pushing the unionist line as usual, which is always the constant theme of your posts, though undoubtedly your going to tell me your a nationalist

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is in no way suggesting that violence from a minority should be allowed to dictate anything, only that what you suggest is no better - except in your own fantasy World where the unionist population would see themselves beaten and leave for Scotland...

For those unionists who refuse to accept Irish sovereignty, well if they want to leave for Scotland ( where they can reminisce with drunken Rangers fans on the afternoon of a Celtic game ) or anywhere else.....FINE BY ME

djpbarry

McArmalite wrote: »

Again - Pushing the unionist line as usual, which is always the constant theme of your posts, though undoubtedly your going to tell me your a nationalist

Or neither?

The Corinthian

McArmalite wrote: »

But then I wouldn't expect anything better from a unionist, did you get that from one of your favorite Paisley speeches ?

A unionist? LOL. Last time I checked arguing in favour of an independent NI is certainly not a unionist stance (unionism is defined by support for NI's union with Britain - the hint is in the name).

Of course, in the fanatic's dictionary, I suppose that any viewpoint that differs from doctrine must of course belong to the enemy. Therefore if it is not staunchly republican, it must be unionist.

And who the hell are you unionists ethnically like, drunken Rangers supporters on the afternoon of a match with Celtic ? And then the following day the vast majority go back to been ordinary Scots and couldn't give any more of a sh!te about the unionists or their little ' Ulster ' just like the rest of Scotland, England and Wales. Indeed the vast majority of them would be glad to be rid of you crowd.

There we go with that wonderful delusion that I must be some sort of free Presbyterian Nordie again. Ironically, I'm as papist as you get. I even have an ancestor who was a Pope

Still, I find the unadulterated hate you use to describe that ethnic group rather telling.

As previously stated - without the support of britian they'll do as little as they did in 1922 when 10,000's of their unionist brethern were abandonded to the newly formed Free State and about 1/3 of Ulster proper. The loyalists wouldn't find their ar$e with both their hands without the brits arming, training and directing them.

You stated an opinion, which similarly one could say of the militant nationalist community in relation to support that they have received in the past from elements in both the US and the Republic (especially from bandit territory near the border).

Of course, the reality is that regardless where the support comes from, the will is there in both communities for organized violence and terror. When the will is there, the organization will generally follow - unless of course, like yourself, you believe one of the groups to be untermenchen and incapable regardless.

Stupidest comment you've made so far, even for a unionist.

You might say why as opposed to bleating about it.

In the mid 70's they couldn't shut up about anything else for a while as they were copying the racist Rhodesian Ian Smith's ( birds of a feather ) Unilateral Declaration of Independence for so called ' Ulster '.

In the past to a limited degree, which never really took off, but increasingly many in the NI are questioning their ties, real or imagined, with either the Republic or the UK, although all agree that even before one considers the political implications, economically it wouldn't work.

For those unionists who refuse to accept Irish sovereignty, well if they want to leave for Scotland ( where they can reminisce with drunken Rangers fans on the afternoon of a Celtic game ) or anywhere else.....FINE BY ME

Wow, you really hate them don't you? Was it that you were brought up, near the border, brainwashed with stories of 'the Struggle'? Maybe the extended family gave a few volunteers to 'the Cause'? Did that include you or are you simply overcompensating because you were too young at the time?

It's actually interesting to note how you repeatedly dehumanize an entire section of the population of NI - your "even for a unionist" implied that stupid comments are typical of them, not to mention your stereotypical description of them as little more than "drunken Rangers supporters". The pure hate seething from you is palpable.

On an anthropological level, I think you're fascinating.

The Corinthian

djpbarry wrote: »

Or neither?

Sush you. In his World that doesn't exist.

oscarBravo

McArmalite wrote: »

Stupidest comment you've made so far, even for a unionist.

This post is the final straw that has earned McArmalite an indefinite ban. When he's prepared to have an adult discussion - in other words, to accept the possibility that other people can hold a different world view from his - the ban will be lifted. Any future ban will be permanent.

There has been a distinct lack of civility on NI-related threads recently. It won't be tolerated. If you can't discuss the topic like grown-ups, do it somewhere else.

oscarBravo

Following a predictably grown-up PM from McArmalite, the ban is now permanent.

TOMASJ

The Corinthian

I really don't get how unification with the republic would work out any more peaceably, TBH.

It wouldn't at first but after a few years of bluster and- Clontibret type- invasions without the might of Britain behind them things would undoubtedly settle and peace would prevail.

luckyfrank

I think its important to remember that no matter what is said that eventully one day a united ireland is envitable

It may not happen in my lifetime 'hope it does' or my kids lifetimes but one day it will happen

I think in a few decade at least the unionsits will see that all the scaremongering that there leaders do about the south is untrue and infact the feniens are actully ok i believe they will see they have more in commen with us than with people from the mainland uk

Victor

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

'Do all nationalists want a united Ireland' is a different question.

As has been stated above, nationalist does not equal catholic.

Don't all nationalists want a united Ireland, republicans are another matter.

The Corinthian

TOMASJ wrote: »

It wouldn't at first but after a few years of bluster and- Clontibret type- invasions without the might of Britain behind them things would undoubtedly settle and peace would prevail.

Famous last words.

djpbarry

luckyfrank wrote: »

I think its important to remember that no matter what is said that eventully one day a united ireland is envitable

No, it isn't.

luckyfrank wrote: »

I think in a few decade at least the unionsits will see that all the scaremongering that there leaders do about the south is untrue and infact the feniens are actully ok i believe they will see they have more in commen with us than with people from the mainland uk

You don't think there's a little more to it than that?