will we ever see a 32 county republic

T runner

Deedsie wrote: »

So it should be a British and Northern Irish passport?

Yes it should.

jimmmy

T runner wrote: »

Yet people from UK of GB and NI must define themselves as British.
.

No they dont; they can call themselves Northern Irish or United Kingdomers if they want.

T runner wrote: »

This is a deliberate suppression of the Irish identity in NI.

lol. lol No wonder many foreigners laugh at some Irish.

Do you think people from the Canaries get annoyed at being called Spanish because they have a Spanish passport ?

junder

T runner wrote: »

Yes it should.

and what about your northern irish compatrioits who don't see themselves as either british or Northern irish, should the passport then read British, Northern Irish, Irish

getz

Deedsie wrote: »

First three lines of my last post. Is that not respect. A year ago i would have gagged saying that.

I have read about the British Empire, and it was very successful and impressive but also harsh and greedy and suppressant to any culture but there own.

And as a near neighbour to Britain, Ireland and the Irish bore the brunt of the savagery of the British Empire.

Irish identity is long in existence before the British empire, so no we are not all British because we live in close proximity to one another.

I think if the nation is ever united, it will be defined by the two groups, Ulster Irish and Irish.

the only time ireland was ever united was when it was british before that it was number of different kingdoms- the irish like the british are a immigrant race

T runner

junder wrote: »

and what about your northern irish compatrioits who don't see themselves as either british or Northern irish, should the passport then read British, Northern Irish, Irish

To be fair if your preaching about your right to an identity in your state you must allow others their right to their identity under that state.

Its academic but, British and Northern Irish would be an accurate reflection of the peoples of the UK as its defined (UK of GB and NI).
The advantages of this would be that it would promote a NI identity, which is attractive to some catholics and also to some protestants (maybe yourself?) who would envisage a NI more independent of Britain in the future.

British and Irish would more accurately reflect how people actually see themselves in the two areas. Although this would mean catholics and protestants remain polarised identitywise.

Either would be a sign that the UK government looked on the citizens of the land under its juristiction with more understanding.

It would also be a positive sign for unionists that the UK government intended to be in the relationship with NI for the very long haul. I am not sure if thats the case or not.

junder

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Thats really interesting stuff to be honest mate, I didn't know about any of that.

It kind of makes it easier to understand why you don't feel Irish, but rather British (I think British would be the wrong word actually but thats a different discussion) given that you must have a totally different history and traditions etc.

Of course, in your situation being Half English, its a different story, but I'm speaking for the Unionist population, a lot of them must share a similar background so it would make sense.

Its kind of ironic now that your ancestors didn't want Union, but you would be in favour of it, but I guess that is the way the world works.I believe some of the Indians in America have similar feelings toward the USA



junder, do you think that Northern Ireland was a dumping ground for people who didn't support the British Union?
We saw the English do this with Australia and many other places, I'm just wondering what do unionists feel about this?

Were a lot of people forcibly resettled?

They are actully DNA databasing my family clan at the moment, seems we have some eastern european blood following our vains, it turns out that one of the last legions to man hadrians wall were mainly from the shores of the river danube and as the roman empire collapsed they stayed on a married into the local clans, these eastern europeans were great horse men and its though that it is were the reivers got thier horse born tactics from. Incerdently this is not just random planter history but my direct famil history, my clan name is mentioned quite alot in the links i posted.

jimmmy

And what about the poor oppressed people of Jersey and the Isle of Man ...should'nt they get a mention on the passport ?

junder

T runner wrote: »

To be fair if your preaching about your right to an identity in your state you must allow others their right to their identity under that state.

Its academic but, British and Northern Irish would be an accurate reflection of the peoples of the UK as its defined (UK of GB and NI).
The advantages of this would be that it would promote a NI identity, which is attractive to some catholics and also to some protestants (maybe yourself?) who would envisage a NI more independent of Britain in the future.

British and Irish would more accurately reflect how people actually see themselves in the two areas. Although this would mean catholics and protestants remain polarised identitywise.

Either would be a sign that the UK government looked on the citizens of the land under its juristiction with more understanding.

It would also be a positive sign for unionists that the UK government intended to be in the relationship with NI for the very long haul. I am not sure if thats the case or not.

so what about the scotish english and welsh, don;t they get a mention to?

getz

jimmmy wrote: »

And what about the poor oppressed people of Jersey and the Isle of Man ...should'nt they get a mention on the passport ?

you must also remember the people from gibraltar whoops sorry their british passport has a gibraltar coat of arms on the front-maybe thats the answer for northern ireland put the cross of saint patrick on the front

jimmmy

They pay their taxes so they are entitled to the same passport as someone from anywhere else in the UK.

A person from the Canaries is entitled to a Spanish passport and does not crib about it.

Someone from Tasmania gets an Australian passport and calls himself Australian.

T runner

junder wrote: »

so what about the scotish english and welsh, don;t they get a mention to?

Under the definition of the UK they are the British.

T runner

getz wrote: »

the only time ireland was ever united was when it was british before that it was number of different kingdoms- the irish like the british are a immigrant race

That is incorrect. Ireland was United as a free state briefly in 1921 before the Unionists pulled out, partitioning Ireland.

jimmmy

T runner wrote: »

Under the definition of the UK they are the British.

And what about the poor oppressed people of Jersey and the Isle of Man ...should'nt they get a mention on the passport ?

And next time you meet a Tasmanian are you not going to point out how the dastardly Australian government treats him / her ? lol

getz

T runner wrote: »

That is incorrect. Ireland was United as a free state briefly in 1921 before the Unionists pulled out, partitioning Ireland.

sorry i missed that week

garrincha62

I hope its never unified. Too much hassle.

T runner

jimmmy wrote: »

And what about the poor oppressed people of Jersey and the Isle of Man ...should'nt they get a mention on the passport ?

The isle of Man and Jersey are not parts of the United Kingdom. They are Crown dependencies.

Jimmmy, your making up facts to support your weak arguments is getting a bit tiresome. If you want to engage in grown up debate do so, but do so using facts as the building blocks for your arguments (at least some of the time)

gurramok

getz wrote: »

go the the serch engine yahoo then type in british passports in ireland -that will lead you to the relevant site

Did so http://www.google.ie/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=british+passports+in+ireland&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D

Only that Unionist site reform.org say it which is not a proper source. The Guradian say its 250,000 as a maximum estimation.

You then say its from British govt stats, provide the official source please.

Also, how many people in Britain hold Irish passports?

T runner

getz wrote: »

sorry i missed that week

There is also records of dozens of high kings of Ireland in historical times. Did you miss those millennia too?

T runner

junder wrote: »

They are actully DNA databasing my family clan at the moment, seems we have some eastern european blood following our vains, it turns out that one of the last legions to man hadrians wall were mainly from the shores of the river danube and as the roman empire collapsed they stayed on a married into the local clans, these eastern europeans were great horse men and its though that it is were the reivers got thier horse born tactics from. Incerdently this is not just random planter history but my direct famil history, my clan name is mentioned quite alot in the links i posted.

Let us know when you have the other 255 constituents of your "direct family" DNA tested. Then you will know where you really came from! (Im betting Ireland)

jimmmy

T runner wrote: »

The isle of Man and Jersey are not parts of the United Kingdom. They are Crown dependencies.

I only asked about them.....do you object if and when people from there call themselves British ? And you did not answer the question ; next time you meet a Tasmanian are you not going to point out how the dastardly Australian government treats him / her ? The Oz passport does not even mention Tasmania !

T runner

jimmmy wrote: »

I only asked about them.

Because you thought they were part of the Uk. Youre bull****ting again Jimmmy.....

And you did not answer the question ; next time you meet a Tasmanian are you not going to point out how the dastardly Australian government treats him / her ? The Oz passport does not even mention Tasmania !

Tasmania to Australia is similar to, the Orkneys to Scotland or Achill to Ireland.
No more silly example please.

Dannyboy83

T-Runner
British and Irish would more accurately reflect how people actually see themselves in the two areas. Although this would mean catholics and protestants remain polarised identitywise.

This is actually incorrect.

I will post stats for you here:

Scotland
In a 1997 poll, people in Scotland were asked whether they felt they were Scottish or British. They answered as follows:

• Belief that they were Scottish – 28%
• Belief that they were more Scottish than British – 35%
• Belief that they were equally British and Scottish – 29%
• Belief that they were more British than Scottish – 3%
• Belief that they were British and not Scottish – 3%
• No thoughts on the issue – 2%
  Therefore 63% indicated that they felt that they were Scottish or more Scottish than British. Again, this would fit in with the Marshall model – those who felt that they were Scots would wish for their own Parliament.

Wales
In 1997, a poll of people in Wales found the following:

• Those who considered themselves Welsh – 17%
• Those who considered themselves more Welsh than British – 25%
• Those who considered themselves more British than Welsh – 10%
• Those who considered themselves British – 12%
• No thoughts on the issue – 4%

Therefore less than a majority in Wales considered themselves ‘Welsh’ when this poll was done – 42%.

This is very different from the result found in Scotland.



None the less, Scotland and Wales have had devolution.

The current thought is that the SNP & Labour are going to move for independence and take Scotland out of the UK. Then they will start applying for special grants to the EU.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/scotland_and_devolution.htm




============================================================================
============================================================================



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence#Proposed_referendum

The SNP has a manifesto commitment of holding an independence referendum by 2010.[33][34] After winning the 2007 election, the SNP-controlled Scottish Government published a White Paper entitled Choosing Scotland's Future, which outlines options for the future of Scotland, including independence.[35][36] At the time Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Liberal Democrats opposed a referendum offering independence as an option. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also publicly attacked the independence option.[37] Based on a subsequent debate in the Scottish Parliament,[38] the three main parties opposed to independence formed the Calman Commission.[39][40] This will review devolution and consider all constitutional options bar independence.[41]

However, Wendy Alexander had been seen as straying from the established anti-referendum position held by Labour while she was the leader of the Scottish Labour group of MSPs. In May 2008 she called for an independence referendum within 12 months, saying the SNP should have the "courage of its convictions".[42] In a subsequent Prime Minister's Questions time, Gordon Brown denied that Alexander's statement was intended to contradict party policy.[43] Alexander's words also caused concern amongst the other founders of the Calman Commission.[44] In response to Alexander, SNP First Minister Alex Salmond told the Scottish Parliament that he would be sticking to the SNP manifesto commitment of a 2010 referendum.[45] It is unclear how Alexander's resignation from the position of leading Scottish Labour MSPs will affect the Labour Party's attitude to a referendum, as the candidates to replace her have expressed different attitudes towards a referendum.[46][47][48]

Tavish Scott, the new leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, said after being elected that he might consider backing a multi-option referendum with independence as one choice.[49]

jimmmy

T-runner; you still have not answered the question : do you object if and when people from there ( Isle of Man, Jersey ) call themselves British ? ( say for example if they were asked their nationality if and when they were on a trip to the far east ).
And if not, why not, given that you object to good citizens from N. Ireland calling themselves British ? I think they are entitled to call themselves whatever they want, that is what democracy is all about.
No more dodging the question please.

Can'tseeme

Jimmmy, I'm new to these boards so I'm still coming to understand were people are coming from here.

A few questions,

1) Do you think that it would have been better for Ireland to have stayed under British rule?

2) Do you think by and large, Britian were fair as rulers in Ireland and Ireland was a fair society?

3) Do you think that irish culture is offensive or sectarian? If so, is there ways to improve it?

4) Do you think that unionist culture is offensive or sectarian? If so, is there ways to improve it?

5) Is the tricolour offensive?

T runner

jimmmy wrote: »

T-runner; you still have not answered the question : do you object if and when people from there ( Isle of Man, Jersey ) call themselves British ? ( say for example if they were asked their nationality if and when they were on a trip to the far east ).
And if not, why not, given that you object to good citizens from N. Ireland calling themselves British ?
No more dodging the question please.

I havent objected to anyone calling themselves anything. I have stated that they are not British and I would object to the British government forcing the British identity on all the citizens of NI I have explained why quite clearly already.

I think they are entitled to call themselves whatever they want, that is what democracy is all about.

You seem to have a problem with people from NI being allowed to call themselves as Irish or Northern Irish under UK citizenship. You cant have it both ways.

Svalbard

junder wrote: »

if you can define your culture in a few sentences then you have a pretty poor culture, culture is pretty much undefinable, realesticaly it is only possiable to list parts of a culture but not the entire culture, yes orangism is part of unionist culture but so is the beatles or liverpool football club for that matter. As for being born in ireland last time i cheacked i was born in the internationally recgonized region known as northern ireland, anyway your were born in the British isles's so that must make you british, going by your own logic of course.
Still i am glad you have clarified the fact that in the event of a united ireland my culture will not only be looked down upon, sneered upon and generally villified, chances are the vast majorty of it will be banned anyway, moreover it seems going by some of your posts that the right to define yourself as you see fit ie British is also going to be denied us as well (funny thing is i thought the right to define yourself as you see fit was one of the key things about living in a democarcy)
Guess when you look at it there is nothing in a united ireland that would remotly interest the unionist community or benefit us. Funny thing is if we are so bad why on earth would you want to united with us in the first place. Oh hang on i forgot some of you made it quite clear that you would rather be rid of us, so whats it going to be then resettlement grants (sinn fein already put forward that idea back in the 80's) or will you even just dispence with that and just force us out.

I think you'll find the Beatles and Liverpool FC are best considered popular culture, not unionist culture.

I have stated how your culture appears to me, can you tell me anything positive about it?
An analogy - If the Australians had closed societies that excluded Aboriginals, if they held annual marches celebrating the murder of Aboriginals and the taking of their land, do you think that would be respectfully tolerated under the banner of culture?

Its interesting how you say a united Ireland would not benefit you - because you would be in the minority for a change, unable to hide behind your border in your apartheid state. I suppose it would be difficult to live in the real world after decades in your cocoon.
Your culture's existence is entirely artificial; it is fueled by hate and little else.

jimmmy

T runner wrote: »

I havent objected to anyone calling themselves anything. I have stated that they are not British .

In your opinion. However, as I have pointed out, if people from N. Ireland want to call themselves British, Northern Irish or Irish, that is their right. It is a democracy. For those whose allegiance is to the UK ( or who have a UK passport ) , some of them may find it easier to say one is "British" rather than a " United Kingdomer "! You do not hear people from the Canaries whinging that some other people from the Canaries call themselves Spanish, and have a Spanish passport.

T runner wrote: »

and I would object to the British government forcing the British identity on all the citizens of NI I have explained why quite clearly already..

Nobody ( but you) even raised the question of "the British government forcing the British identity on all the citizens of NI ". That is not an issue.
People who live in N. Ireland are entitled to a passport of either the Republic of Ireland or the UK ; that is their right. Nobody advocates taking that right away from them.

For those whose allegiance is to the UK it is easier to say one is "British" rather than a " United Kingdomer " . They live in a democracy, which many of them and their ancestors fought hard to defend ( not least from Nazism, Communism etc ).

T runner wrote: »

You seem to have a problem with people from NI being allowed to call themselves as Irish or Northern Irish under UK citizenship. You cant have it both ways.

No I do'nt. As I said earlier people can call themselves whatever they want....its a democracy. As someone born, bred + living south of the border, over the years I have sometimes heard some nationalists refer to "west brits". You are the one who cant have it both ways ! I have parity of esteem for whatever nationality people want to call themselves.

Grudaire

getz wrote: »

go the the serch engine yahoo then type in british passports in ireland -that will lead you to the relevant site

You mean this? British Embassy

Which says that:

"The Passport section processes some 12,000 applications for British passports, mostly from British Citizens resident here in Ireland."

Even if they all last 10 years thats still only 100k.


And can I say that people who come from Northern Ireland are not British. In fact they are as British as the Generations of Americans who claim Irishness.

They live in a democracy, which many of them and their ancestors fought hard to defend ( not least from Nazism, Communism etc ).

... and the original owners of the land

LordSutch

Cliste wrote: »

And can I say that people who come from Northern Ireland are not British. In fact they are as British as the Generations of Americans who claim Irishness.

If you read this again in daylight, i'm sure you may want to reconsider this outlandish claim.

Just starting with the UUP, are you saying that the majority of the population of NI are living a lie?

gurramok

Camelot wrote: »

If you read this again in daylight, i'm sure you may want to reconsider this outlandish claim.

Just starting with the UUP, are you saying that the majority of the population of NI are living a lie?

Cliste does have a point.

Americans/Canadians/Australians/New Zealander of British ancestry is what i'd describe those people who long to keep their British connections but yet assimilate into their new countries as Amercians/Canadians/Aussies/New Zealanders.

Same as Irish/Italian Americans. They are American but wish to retain some form of their old culture which has integrated into American culture.

Same as up north. Irish people of British ancestry came to Ireland around the same time as British people had migrated to those 4 countries mentioned, no difference.