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

Fratton Fred

thehighground wrote: »

I'd regard this as a personal attack on you which you felt the need to defend!

OscarBravo to Dudess: It's a contrarian viewpoint. This is a discussion forum, where contrarian viewpoints are allowed once they're expressed with civility. Let's keep it on-topic.

I'd expect better from a mod.

you might want to check out Dudess' signature.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

That's not a terribly reliable measure of support for a UI. An individual does not necessarily support all of the policies of the party that they vote for. I'm sure there are plenty of voters in NI who, just like in the south, float between parties depending on who they perceive to be the best candidate in their constituency.

The most recent poll (2007) I have seen on the subject puts support for a UI in NI at about 23%, with support for the current union at about 66%:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

NI ain't a normal political arena like you have down here or any 'normal' political society. I've met many people from NI on both sides and the national question/tribal issue comes first rather than the other policies of the party when deciding who to vote for at the ballot box.
If you meet any Nationalist/Unionist, they will most never vote for a party of the other side unless forced to like in the election after the GFA and that has never been repeated.
Why do you think the likes of the DUP and SF always get more votes? It ain't on their economic policies!

Hence elections are the only valid poll on where voters stand. Most political commentators on NI agree with this.(Watch BBC/UTV political programs and you will learn about this)
That poll you linked to is not a valid one. Its an opinion poll carried out by an organisation, not an election poll which garners a much greater sampling of the population.(talking the whole electorate in an election)

Quite a large minority. In fact, the percentage of Catholics in the North who consider themselves nationalist seems to be declining:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/results/polatt.html

A very silly view. To inform you, the SF and SDLP are nationalist parties. Their vote has climbed substantially in recent years. Now according to your logic, they must be getting that increase in vote from 'Protestants' as you say it ain't coming from the Catholics

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

NI ain't a normal political arena like you have down here or any 'normal' political society. I've met many people from NI on both sides and the national question/tribal issue comes first rather than the other policies of the party when deciding who to vote for at the ballot box.
If you meet any Nationalist/Unionist, they will most never vote for a party of the other side unless forced to like in the election after the GFA and that has never been repeated.
Why do you think the likes of the DUP and SF always get more votes? It ain't on their economic policies!

People are voting on who they believe best serves their interests in Westminster or Stormont though.

Asking if they want unity with the South is a different question entirely and may not automaticaly follow on from their normal vote. Until the question is actually asked, I'm not sure anyone can say for certain what will happen.

SF obviously don't believe they have the majority vote though, otherwise they would have demanded the referendum by now.

thehighground

Fratton Fred wrote: »

People are voting on who they believe best serves their interests in Westminster or Stormont though.

Asking if they want unity with the South is a different question entirely and may not automaticaly follow on from their normal vote. Until the question is actually asked, I'm not sure anyone can say for certain what will happen.

SF obviously don't believe they have the majority vote though, otherwise they would have demanded the referendum by now.

Can you explain how SF MPs (5 seats) get elected to Westminister even though they don't take up their seats? Why not give their vote to the SDLP (3 seats) who do? How come the Alliance has no Westminister seats and the UUP only has 1. FYI, the DUP has 9.

The Stormont Assembly seems doomed to failure because of its inability to get beyond tribal ties and focus on what is good for all the people of NI.

The Corinthian

You leave a thread for a few days and the lunatics take over the asylum...

TOMASJ wrote: »

Was that the election in December 1919, when 78% of the people of the 32 county's of Ireland voted to end British rule in Ireland. and voted for a United Ireland, that was steam rolled by the brits.

You seemingly have forgotten that partition was accepted democratically in (southern) Ireland in 1937, with the caveat of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. These irredentist claims were subsequently repealed democratically in 1999. While NI did not vote in either, given the demographics, it is highly unlikely that their inclusion would have made any difference to the outcome.

As for any 'steam rolling by the Brits' - isn't the civil war over at this stage? It was even a Fianna Fail (born out of those who opposed partition in the civil war) who acknowledged partition in 1937, FFS!

O'Morris wrote: »

Yes it can. If the majority of the people in the north vote to join up with the 26 counties then it will no longer be part of the UK.

And again I need to ask this, do the 26 counties get a say in this? I would think that we might get to vote too and even if there is a simple majority in NI, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that there would be one down south - indeed, I would have great doubts as things stand.

Irlbo wrote: »

The advantage of a United Ireland???,national all Ireland unity,the entire country being under a 32 county republic,finally giving us some completeness,some pride that the country as a whole is under the one government,free from foreign influence,are you so conceeded your just concerned with whats in for you financially?

LOL. Spoken like a true romantic with absolutely no acquaintance of reality.

So, we are being asked to risk (almost certainly as things stand) long-lasting economic hardship that would make the eighties look like a boom, political instability and potentially armed campaigns for the sake of completeness, pride and freedom from foreign influence (which does not exist in the real World, btw)?

I think you're really going to have to work on your sales pitch, because that one is not going to convince anyone beyond fringe nationalist nutcases.

The Corinthian

Allah Hu Akbar wrote: »

Threads about the troubles never get a debate going because they're always locked as soon as someone claims for example the IRA were right in the war.

Seems perfectly appropriate to lock such threads. After all, if one advocates that the use of force is a valid approach in a democratic environment, then one should not whinge when that use of force is used to lock the thread.

nesf wrote: »

NI threads are like abortion threads. Little actual debate occurs, you just get two bunches of posters, both utterly convinced that they are right, arguing in circles convinced somehow that this time it'll be different and that they might win.

Fair point. Issues such as those transcend, and thus reject, reason. People either believe in one side or believe in the other.

Debate is irrelevant as it becomes a simple matter of faith.

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

That poll you linked to is not a valid one.

Because you say so?

gurramok wrote: »

To inform you, the SF and SDLP are nationalist parties. Their vote has climbed substantially in recent years.

Has it?

The combined % vote they received in the NI assembly elections was around the 40% mark in 1998, 2003 and 2007. The number of votes they received in 2003 and 2007 was similar; about 280-285,000, down from about 320,000 in 1998.

In the 1997 UK elections, they received about 320,000 votes between them. In 2001, they received about 345,000 votes and in 2005, they received about 300,000 votes.

Where’s this “substantial climb” you refer to?

GuanYin

thehighground banned 1 week.

Dudess severely warned.

When I give a warning, I expect it to be heeded.

The next off-topic post gets banned.

O'Morris

Camelot wrote:

We HATE the Provo's.

So do I. And so do many other nationalists.

Camelot wrote:

That is True O'Morris, and if it happens then so be it, but the way I see things (as a very mild & moderate Unionist) is that the South would have to change in its relationship with 'Britishness' & cultures in Britain & on the island of Ireland . . . in other words, we would probably be back in 1918-22 territory, only this time we might all (England, Scotland, Ireland & Wales) come to some arrangement whereby we recognise our CONNECTIONS & our Cultural ties

Absolutely. I'm very pro-British and would consider myself to be a unionist in the sense that I want to see a union of the British isles as an alternative to the political union we're in now with the Europeans.

I would like to see a day when the term British will be used in the same sense that Scandinavian is used today i.e. to designate a family of nation with strong cultural, geographic and political ties. I look on people in Britain as our cousins.

Camelot wrote:

But from an IRISH UNIONIST point of view, all the parts of the 'British Isles' have cultural & historical similarities, which we Unionists just Love to maintain >

Of course, but we'll still have those cultural and historical ties in a united Ireland. Our ties with Britain will be stronger because we won't have the running sore of the north to poison relations between the two islands.

One of the dignitaries who will be given an honoured position at the opening ceremony of the united Ireland parliament will be the Queen herself.

Camelot wrote:

whereas historically, Irish Nationalists/Republicans have tried to deny & erase all ties

Maybe they have but couldn't the same be said about the unionists and their attempts to erase and deny their shared history with the catholic Irish in both the north and the south of Ireland?

While people in the republic are often accused of ignoring the sacrifice made by southern Irishmen in the first world war, northern unionists could also be accused of ignoring the sacrifices made by hundreds of Ulster protestants in the 1798 rebellion.

Camelot wrote:

But, it has always been the case (since 1922) that Irish Nationalists/Republicans have always wanted to SPLIT their ideology 100% from any other part of 'These Islands'

Not true, republicans always have, but not nationalists in general. Irish nationalists have always recognised the need to maintain the connection with Britain. Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Fein, wanted a dual monarchy with Britain.

Camelot wrote:

Maybe a lot of our Troubles on this island (Unionist & Nationalist) are down to misinterpretation, ignorance, and misunderstanding between the two main ideologies (British'ness & Irish'ness)?

That's very probable. I would like to see the day when it will be possible for someone to be both Irish and British, in the same way it's now possible for someone to be both a Norwegian and a Scandinavian.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

Quite a large minority. In fact, the percentage of Catholics in the North who consider themselves nationalist seems to be declining:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/results/polatt.html

You're wrong old chum. The percentage of the catholic population who consider themsevles nationalist is not declining, it's rising. Look again at the surveys you linked to.

The percentage of the catholic population who consider themselves nationalist has increased by 2% from 54% in 2006 to 56% in 2007. Protestants who consider themselves unionist have increased by 1% in the same period. As well as that, the percentage of catholic population who considered themselves unionist in the 2006 survey was 3%. The percentage who considered themselves unionist in the 2007 survey was 0%

Overall, the percentage of the population who consider themselves unionist has remained static at 36% while the percentage of the population who consider themselves nationalist has risen from 23% in 2006 to 24% in 2007. A 1% increase in the nationalist population in a year is surely good news for the united Irelanders.

The Corinthian wrote:

And again I need to ask this, do the 26 counties get a say in this?

Absolutely, there will need to be a referendum in the 26 counties as well. If a majority in either part of the country votes against it then there cannot be a united Ireland.

The Corinthian wrote:

it is by no means a foregone conclusion that there would be one down south - indeed, I would have great doubts as things stand.

No doubt in my mind at all. If there is a referendum, the majority in the republic will vote for a united Ireland. No doubt about it.

This Corinthian wrote:

So, we are being asked to risk (almost certainly as things stand) long-lasting economic hardship

Nobody wants to see long-lasting economic hardship or civil war and so if there is any evidence that either will be a likely result of a united Ireland you would see support for it completely disappear, both in the north and the south. I would not support a united Ireland if I thought there was any evidence to support your scaremongering.

The Corinthian wrote:

Seems perfectly appropriate to lock such threads. After all, if one advocates that the use of force is a valid approach in a democratic environment, then one should not whinge when that use of force is used to lock the thread.

And what about the people who don't think the use of force is a valid approach in a democratic environment? Presumably they do have a right to whinge?

studiorat

Irlbo wrote: »

The advantage of a United Ireland???,national all Ireland unity,the entire country being under a 32 county republic,finally giving us some completeness,some pride that the country as a whole is under the one government,free from foreign influence,are you so conceeded your just concerned with whats in for you financially?

Pride? Completeness? Free from Foreign Influence? What the hell has that got to do with anything? Sounds like the usual nationalist sh1te, sure isn't the bleeding rugby team one and the same? What else do you want?

Re-joining the commonwealth would be a step towards a united Ireland, do you think you could stomach that? Closing Leinster house and moving the whole shmozzle up to Stormont, how would that suit ya?

O'Morris

studiorat wrote: »

Re-joining the commonwealth would be a step towards a united Ireland, do you think you could stomach that? Closing Leinster house and moving the whole shmozzle up to Stormont, how would that suit ya?

Wouldn't be a problem for me. It doesn't make any difference to me where the Irish capital is situated.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

Because you say so?

No, as its a survey of a tiny amount of people per year unlike an election which gets the views of hundreds of thousands.

djpbarry wrote: »

The combined % vote they received in the NI assembly elections was around the 40% mark in 1998, 2003 and 2007. The number of votes they received in 2003 and 2007 was similar; about 280-285,000, down from about 320,000 in 1998.

In the 1997 UK elections, they received about 320,000 votes between them. In 2001, they received about 345,000 votes and in 2005, they received about 300,000 votes.

Where’s this “substantial climb” you refer to?

Provide the links to back up your numbers.
Don't forget to add in hardline Republican Independents who ran to oppose SF, they got a good few thousands in places like Armagh, thats what happened in the last election.

studiorat

O'Morris wrote: »

Wouldn't be a problem for me. It doesn't make any difference to me where the Irish capital is situated.

Well leaving the commonwealth was as I've said one of the things that dug the unionists in. It was a serious shambles, because even though we left the commonwealth we still ended up trying to get all the perks, freedom of movement and goods and trade etc. A classic example of the nationalist attitude of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I think is pretty irrelevant really, voting for one bunch of fcukers rather than another. Look at the president of the country, she's from the north! I can wander in and out of NI all I want, what's the difference?
Surely not some 800 year old hangover?

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

No doubt in my mind at all. If there is a referendum, the majority in the republic will vote for a united Ireland. No doubt about it.

Who are you trying to convince? I'd certainly not be so sure - after all, if you look at an example of partition in the World, Cyprus, the north voted to join the south then the south shocked everyone by saying no.

Nobody wants to see long-lasting economic hardship or civil war and so if there is any evidence that either will be a likely result of a united Ireland you would see support for it completely disappear, both in the north and the south. I would not support a united Ireland if I thought there was any evidence to support your scaremongering.

I think there's more than enough evidence that the economy of NI is heavily dependant on subsidy and the public sector to begin with. The burden of absorbing such an economy would be crippling and any claims that it would result in a renaissance of investment and commerce are frankly wishful thinking.

Their own attempts at stable self governing is fragile to say the least, and presently in deadlock due to the polarized and tribal nature of the political landscape there - how might this magically be absorbed into what is presently a pretty homogeneous and centralized state has not even been raised in the south.

All this before we consider the security implications. I'm certainly not convinced that the unionist community would meekly accept unification, as has been claimed, and I'm certainly not alone in this.

Of course, this is now and in five, ten or thirty years the conditions may be met that would make unification more achievable - I don't discount this. However, this has to be weighed against the social drift between northern and southern Ireland; as time passes, we become increasingly separate, and this too will be a factor.

And what about the people who don't think the use of force is a valid approach in a democratic environment? Presumably they do have a right to whinge?

Of course, they're not hypocrites. If you set out the rules of engagement you need to live by them.

You can hardly claim the moral high ground if you accept force as a valid tool of politics, and then it goes against you. This is why in the case of past British 'shoot to kill' policies during the troubles, cries of foul from the provos were treated with contempt by most. Given this, it does not excuse the British governments own hypocrisy at claiming that it was a criminal issue and then treating it using rule of war.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

Wouldn't be a problem for me. It doesn't make any difference to me where the Irish capital is situated.

I think you'll find it makes a difference to a lot of Dubliners who would not like to see the economic benefits of being a capital (along with property prices) migrate. They have votes too.

TOMASJ

The Corinthian wrote: »

You leave a thread for a few days and the lunatics take over the asylum...

You seemingly have forgotten that partition was accepted democratically in (southern) Ireland in 1937, with the caveat of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. These irredentist claims were subsequently repealed democratically in 1999. While NI did not vote in either, given the demographics, it is highly unlikely that their inclusion would have made any difference to the outcome.

Need to get your facts right "You brought up the Twenties"
and said
Hell, shouldn't you be respecting that referendum we had on the subject back in the twenties?
My answer was
Was that the election in December 1919, when 78% of the people of the 32 county's of Ireland voted to end British rule in Ireland. and voted for a United Ireland, that was steam rolled by the brits.

If that vote wasn't an endorsement for a United Ireland then dont know what it would take.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

The percentage of the catholic population who consider themselves nationalist has increased by 2% from 54% in 2006 to 56% in 2007.

I wouldn’t consider that a significant change and it’s certainly not enough to extract a trend. However, there does seem to be a long-term decline in the % of Catholics in NI who consider themselves nationalist:

Year | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007
% | 63 | 70 | 62 | 65 | 65 | 60 | 57 | 56 | 54 | 56

2004 – 2007 all report values below the mean value for the period (about 60.6%). Anything that shows people in NI are moving away from labelling themselves as either unionist or nationalist is to be welcomed, in my opinion.

gurramok wrote: »

No, as its a survey of a tiny amount of people per year unlike an election which gets the views of hundreds of thousands.

Polls tend to give a reasonably accurate representation of people’s views – take the US presidential election as an example. A large enough sample size should give an accurate representation of the whole population. That’s not to say that the poll is gospel, but it gives a reasonable indication of people’s views.

gurramok wrote: »

Provide the links to back up your numbers.

I just went by the summary in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Northern_Ireland

I accept that it may not be 100% accurate, but electoral results on Wiki are usually correct.

Irlbo

Dont go by any surveys done by the establishment,obviously it be bias in their favour,there should be an all Ireland survey done,then we'd certaninly have an overwheming majority

getz

you cannot expect anything but fear from the northern irish-when they see-this kind of sh--t on irishboards words like [occupying british] and [scottish settlers]-you forget the northern irish are british-a lot longer than the republic has been around--you cannot be a foreign occupying nation in your own country-as far as being settlers, all the irish are settlers[if you go back far enough]the celts settled in ireland from europe vie britain about 500bc--- start looking for what the irish have in common then maybe

djpbarry

Irlbo wrote: »

Dont go by any surveys done by the establishment,obviously it be bias in their favour...

Define "establishment". Are Sinn Féin not part of the establishment?

The survey was set up by Queens University and the University of Ulster. I think it's fair to say that they are two reputable institutions.

Not the first time a republican has dismissed this survey, but I’ve yet to see anyone produce an alternative.

Irlbo

Well if your trying to have a dig at me about Sinn Fein,just let you know not a member,yes they are establishment,too establishment for my liking

Irlbo

Queens University and Ulster University,two institutions funded heavily by the British govenement in steeped in unionist and protestant tradition,yeah very un-bias,dont care what their surveys say to be honest,I dont recognise any partionist body thats why I follow republicanism

getz

irlbo i see that you would like a all ireland vote to make the north come under the republican banner-a few years ago a certain mr blair attemped to give gibralta over to spain against the wishes of its people -as my wife is from gibralta she wrote to our europ MP who happend to be at that time the leader of the EU labour party. he wrote back saying gibralta belongs to its people and no country has rights to go against the wishes of its people-both northern ireland and gibralta have a EU MP so without the north excepting the vote --its no go

djpbarry

Irlbo wrote: »

Queens University and Ulster University,two institutions funded heavily by the British govenement in steeped in unionist and protestant tradition,yeah very un-bias,dont care what their surveys say to be honest,I dont recognise any partionist body thats why I follow republicanism

On other words, you're going to dismiss any facts that don't support your argument (I'm being rather generous in referring to your posts as an argument).

But anyway, Queen's University was designed to be a non-denominational alternative to Trinity, which was controlled by the Anglican Church.

The Corinthian

Irlbo wrote: »

Queens University and Ulster University,two institutions funded heavily by the British govenement in steeped in unionist and protestant tradition,yeah very un-bias,dont care what their surveys say to be honest,I dont recognise any partionist body thats why I follow republicanism

So you only recognise evidence that agrees with your position?

Did you embrace 'republicanism' as a result of family background or was it something you picked up later in life, like college? I'm just curious as to how fanaticism forms in the human psyche.

Irlbo

Still maintained,funded and adminstered by the British Government,through its civil servants

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

I wouldn’t consider that a significant change and it’s certainly not enough to extract a trend. However, there does seem to be a long-term decline in the % of Catholics in NI who consider themselves nationalist:

Year | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007
% | 63 | 70 | 62 | 65 | 65 | 60 | 57 | 56 | 54 | 56

2004 – 2007 all report values below the mean value for the period (about 60.6%). Anything that shows people in NI are moving away from labelling themselves as either unionist or nationalist is to be welcomed, in my opinion.
Polls tend to give a reasonably accurate representation of people’s views – take the US presidential election as an example. A large enough sample size should give an accurate representation of the whole population. That’s not to say that the poll is gospel, but it gives a reasonable indication of people’s views.

Again, thats a silly post. On repeating, NI is not a normal election arena. It's even impossible to get some people to state what their religion is judging by the huge number who put down 'Not Applicable' in the last census.(13% refused to do so and they ain't atheists )

Now, you're saying they can even take a proper opinion poll!:rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote: »

I just went by the summary in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Northern_Ireland

I accept that it may not be 100% accurate, but electoral results on Wiki are usually correct.

You've forgotten two things. In 2005, there were new rules for voter registration. About 200,000 were struck off as thought initially(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4266613.stm)

Then they reckoned 80,000 were struck off because of the new rules (http://www3.u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=56103&pt=n )
The number struck off depends on who one believes.

Have a look here http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/elect.htm
The electorate declined between 2005 and 2007 despite a population increase.

This has been allegedly fixed by now when they amended the new rules. Secondly, voter turnout along with independents and their allegiances need to be taken into account.
At the next election, expect the percentages to resume their normal pattern from pre 2005.

The Corinthian

Irlbo wrote: »

Still maintained,funded and adminstered by the British Government,through its civil servants

Have you ever gone to university?

Irlbo

Would come from a republican family,but in the Fianna Fail vein,I formed my own ideas in my teens,and have got a little bit wise to things and got a little bit more open in my ideas as I got older,but always maintained a republican outlook to things,far from a fanatic my old flower,dont see anything wrong with being a republican