When & How could there be a united Ireland?

owenc

Bebs wrote: »

Irish people have this awful victim complex about themselves. That was then and this is now. Man (or woman) up and move on with your lives.

At least someone has told them to grow up and stop this bloody nonscence before i tair my hair out! One minute they're talking about how irish is my first language the next they are talking about heritage and how bad english people are.:eek:

lugha

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes, thats right, events which took place outside of living memory are irrelevant......

I would say living memory is a very good place to draw the line. It is absolutely impossible to hope to right every wrong in history, at some point you have to acknowledge that we are we are, and the only matter to consider is to determine the best way to proceed. If you are going to reverse every national boundary change that was brought about by wrong doing then can you suggest what you think the map of Europe should look like? Would you require that America be given back to the native Indians and the “settlers” return home? Likewise with the Aborigines in Australia?
And horror of horrors, what would you do if it archaeologists were to find that the native Irish (?) actually supplanted another people (maybe some English folk!!! :eek:) a few thousand years ago. Would you be prepared to pack your bags and desist from your occupying ways? :pac:
Being a policeman for history might be a fun topic for a discussion, but it utterly unpragmatic.

owenc

charlemont wrote: »

"yes" says the britman "i got all them stupid paddys arguing about their own land, its working, all that sky tv and sun newspaper has the stupid paddys thinking like ourselves, yes were converting them to west brits and they are so dumb they dont even know it, they think its stylish and posh to act like this ha ha ha "

Who are you talking to?? If its me i don't watch sky its crap and northern ireland people are North Brits.

Mike 1972

lugha wrote: »

And horror of horrors, what would you do if it archaeologists were to find that the native Irish (?) actually supplanted another people.

+1

Given that the "native Irish" are actually comprised of the decendents of various invading tribes why should Scottish (?) "Planters" be the only ones expected to have a lawyer reexamine the title deeds to their land

Given how relevent this stuff is and all...............

owenc

Mike 1972 wrote: »

+1

Given that the "native Irish" are actually comprised of the decendents of various invading tribes why should Scottish "Planters" be the only ones expected to have a lawyer reexamine the title deeds to their land

Given how relevent this stuff is and all...............

Ulster scots are not irish they are descended form the lowlands which goes the whole way upto aberdeen which was not concurred by the irish peoples. Oh right i see your point but still.

Bottle_of_Smoke

owenc wrote: »

Ulster scots are not irish they are descended form the lowlands which goes the whole way upto aberdeen which was not concurred by the irish peoples. Oh right i see your point but still.

That makes sense to me. As Scots Gaelic is a lot more common in Northern Scotland.

Though amongst hardline unionists there's a commonly held belief that the ancestors of the Ulster planters came from Ulster. And the plantation was a "homecoming"

What part of Coleraine can you see Scotland from? Its pretty inland is there a high point or something? Wouldn't mind having a look. Could see what I think was Scotland from Giant's causeway. And can see Donegal quite easily from Portstewart.

owenc

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That makes sense to me. As Scots Gaelic is a lot more common in Northern Scotland.

Though amongst hardline unionists there's a commonly held belief that the ancestors of the Ulster planters came from Ulster. And the plantation was a "homecoming"

What part of Coleraine can you see Scotland from? Its pretty inland is there a high point or something? Wouldn't mind having a look. Could see what I think was Scotland from Giant's causeway. And can see Donegal quite easily from Portstewart.

Why would hardline unionists want to be descended from ulster i thought they were loyal to the queen and all??
Yes you can see it really easily from the giants causeway heres a pic of it from the giants causeway http://www.flickr.com/photos/merbearstare/2882015312/. I live on a hill so thats the only reason why i can see it, if you goto castlerock beach which is west of coleraine you can see it. Its best to be viewed on top of knocklayde in ballycastle, i was up there on a very sunny summers day with no haze or nothing and could see away upto about troon. Theres another picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/nondesigner/4671600636/

Wolfe Tone

lugha wrote: »

I would say living memory is a very good place to draw the line. It is absolutely impossible to hope to right every wrong in history, at some point you have to acknowledge that we are we are, and the only matter to consider is to determine the best way to proceed. If you are going to reverse every national boundary change that was brought about by wrong doing then can you suggest what you think the map of Europe should look like? Would you require that America be given back to the native Indians and the “settlers” return home? Likewise with the Aborigines in Australia?
And horror of horrors, what would you do if it archaeologists were to find that the native Irish (?) actually supplanted another people (maybe some English folk!!! :eek:) a few thousand years ago. Would you be prepared to pack your bags and desist from your occupying ways? :pac:
Being a policeman for history might be a fun topic for a discussion, but it utterly unpragmatic.

First off when have I ever said that they should leave? I want a UI built on the foundations of the 1916 proclamation. A UI for Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Atheists etc, an inclusive multicultural society. They don't have to leave, unless they want to of course.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

First off when have I ever said that they should leave? I want a UI built on the foundations of the 1916 proclamation. A UI for Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Atheists etc, an inclusive multicultural society. They don't have to leave, unless they want to of course.

Well i predict that a good lot will leave and as a matter of fact i know a few people who have said that they would leave is this was to happen.

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

Well i predict that a good lot will leave and as a matter of fact i know a few people who have said that they would leave is this was to happen.

I doubt that, why should they leave? It is their home too. Most nationalists didn't leave, although many were driven out. The largest forced movement of people since WW2 I believe.

Out of interest have you read the 1916 proclamation Owen?

lugha

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

First off when have I ever said that they should leave? I want a UI built on the foundations of the 1916 proclamation. A UI for Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Atheists etc, an inclusive multicultural society. They don't have to leave, unless they want to of course.

Well I don’t give any more credence to what the 1916 lot had to say that I do to modern day dissident republicans. Both were / are presumptuous enough to claim to know what was best for the Irish people without a mandate from the people. If you reject the latter then logic dictates that you must reject the former, though bizarrely, this is lost on many.

And even if they did have authority, the proclamation is just a lofty, aspirational document. If you read the manifesto of any modern political party you would see a similar blueprint for a glorious new future. Making the promise of a manifesto and delivering a reality is a different matter entirely. And I think the same would have proven to be true of the proclamation, especially as it must a hostile claim of the allegiances of all Irish people, even though they knew full well that there a sizable minority who would never give them their allegiance.

Can you explain to me how the proclamation would give rise to this utopian, new Ireland that you dream off, when for example, the undoubtedly fine words in Fianna Fail’s last election manifesto did not? Can you explain how the proclamation would have prevented the spawning of the tyrannical Catholic church? (doesn’t God get a look in after about 5 words? :pac:) . They’re just words, and IMO, not even very fine words in places.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I doubt that, why should they leave? It is their home too. Most nationalists didn't leave, although many were driven out. The largest forced movement of people since WW2 I believe.

Out of interest have you read the 1916 proclamation Owen?

Because unionists want british rule.

Wolfe Tone

lugha wrote: »

Well I don’t give any more credence to what the 1916 lot had to say that I do to modern day dissident republicans. Both were ........

God is mentioned twice in the proclamation. How many times is He mentioned in our constitution? It is a lofty and aspirational document. That is a good thing, a great thing. Should we not set high goals and strive to achieve them? Should we cast aside our ideals and settle for what we have? I say no. They said no. Martin Luther King said no. Nelson Mandela said no. Gandhi said no.


I have no doubt that the men in my signature would have been highly dissatisfied with the "republic" which eventually resulted.

There is no such place as Utopia, the truth is in the name, literally no-place. You cannot deny that what is outlined in the proclamation is a noble goal to strive towards.

The Irish Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally.

Is that not something we should strive towards? The proclamation was an extremely liberal and modern document. Equal rights for all citizens. What other country of the day had that? Certainly not Britain, nor America.

You may say that it is an impossible dream, but I think not. Who doesn't want a nation built on the principles of:
1.Religious freedom
2.Civil Liberty
3.Equal rights for all citizens
4.Equal opportunities for all?

The 7 men in my signature fought and died for this. They hoped that their deaths would inspire others to build a nation based on these principles. These principles were forgotten along the way.


A free nation of free peoples, men and women both. That is what they wanted.


A United Ireland will not just be an extra six counties. It will be a new country, a new beginning. Should we settle for mediocrity when we can have better?

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

Because unionists want british rule.

Nationalists want Irish rule. Most have not abandoned their homes. Most unionists wont either.

Bottle_of_Smoke

owenc wrote: »

Why would hardline unionists want to be descended from ulster i thought they were loyal to the queen and all??

It is truly bizarre. It is probably made up to counter the "you stole our lands" argument from Republicans.

If you ever read the pulseresources.org forum its mentioned now and then

Bebs

Mussolini will you be the one leading us into this glorious new era?

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

Mussolini will you be the one leading us into this glorious new era?

I really should have picked a different name!

Democracy will decide who will no doubt.

Bebs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I really should have picked a different name!

Democracy will decide who will no doubt.

In your opinion which party bests represents the republican agenda at the moment?

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

In your opinion which party bests represents the republican agenda at the moment?

Sinn Féin. I would have thought that obvious.
They have the most say out of any republican party in the north.

Of course it is important to remember that other political parties such as Fianna Fáil have a UI as a stated aim.

Bebs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Sinn Féin. I would have thought that obvious.
They have the most say out of any republican party in the north.

Of course it is important to remember that other political parties such as Fianna Fáil have a UI as a stated aim.

Do you think that a lot of SF's electoral success is owed to their policy of strong support for a re-unified Ireland?

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

Do you think that a lot of SF's electoral success is owed to their policy of strong support for a re-unified Ireland?

A lot of it yes.

Bebs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

A lot of it yes.

How much emphasis do SF put on their policy of a united Ireland? Would it be a defining policy for the party?

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

How much emphasis do SF put on their policy of a united Ireland? Would it be a defining policy for the party?

I suggest looking at their home page. Has it all there. And yes.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/

Bebs

It would seem that you're right. SF do seem to incarnate that dream of a 32 county republic. Do you think there would be enough support from voters who would share that vision to allow SF to rival the big 3 political parties in terms of seats in the next general election?

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

It would seem that you're right. SF do seem to incarnate that dream of a 32 county republic. Do you think there would be enough support from voters who would share that vision to allow SF to rival the big 3 political parties in terms of seats in the next general election?

No, people are too set in the FF/FG divide.


Don't forget, FF are a splinter of SF, and call themselves the "Republican party". They have ALWAYS had a stated aim of a UI, from Dev to Haughey to Bertie, they have all said it. They intend to run for office in the 6 counties in the future also. They have done very little to advance that aim of a UI though. So an argument cannot be made "people don't want a UI because they don't vote SF" Every poll ever conducted down south has shown a large majority in favor of a UI. However, I feel that SF will have an important role to play in Southern politics.

Bebs

So do FF represent the largest proportion of voters who would be in favour of a united Ireland?

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

So do FF represent the largest proportion of voters who would be in favour of a united Ireland?

I don't know were you are going with this to be honest. You have as good an idea as I do. No one votes for a party for one sole reason. I can only tell you why I will vote for a certain party, not anyone else reasons.

Bebs

I'm sure they don't vote on one issue to the exclusion of all others, but one issue or policy can be primarily responsible for a party's electoral success. You gave a good example in how a lot of SF's electoral success has come from voters who were attracted to their vision of a UI.

I'm just kind of thinking in my head about how strong the support must be for a UI. On the one hand, if a large majority of voters support it as you say they do in those polls, then SF cannot be representing the largest concentration of UI voters as their electoral base is too small to account for the majority of a 'large majority'.

So that leaves FF as being the party most likely to represent the majority of those voters who voted yes in those surveys to having a UI. But then you pointed out to me that while FF do espouse support for a UI, they do very little about it, especially when you compare them to SF. Like you said, SF are by far the most pro-active in working towards a UI. They're also a party who are particularly defined by their policy of support for a UI, much more so than FF for instance.

I must be missing something because a large majority of people are in favour of a UI, but a minority of that group vote for a party who are working hard at achieving that goal. Maybe you're right and there are other factors at play like economic or social policies but I had a look at the SF website and their economic and social policies look really sound and I can't see why people who'd like to see a UI would have any problems in voting for SF based on their economic or social policies.

Maybe it was something about the survey? Perhaps the surveys are asking the wrong questions, like instead of asking are people for or against a UI, they should be asking are they for or against and then ask people to weigh how much they'd like to see it happen rather than being generally in favour or opposed. That would give us more of an idea of whether people really have the courage of the convictions that they're registering in the survey. Perhaps they could also tell us how much the issue weighs in their decision to vote when it comes to choosing a national government? That might give us an explanation as to why SF's central policy is one that a large majority endorse but they only enjoy a fraction of that support in the polls.

Lets hope that people realise that a UI would be good for everyone and vote SF in the next election. :):)

Wolfe Tone

SFs perceived legacy of violence puts many people off. That is the main reason. Also, in the scheme of things SF have not been contesting elections down south for that long, and as well ll know Irish voters seem to be very set in their ways. However it is growing in popularity steadily, both North and South.
I like SFs social policies, and am growing to appreciate their economic policies also. Do you mind if I ask what party you support? Maybe its because I am tired but I seem to remember you being against a UI, what is your stance?

Bebs

I'm not for or against UI. I don't think it's an inevitability and I would be against anything that jeopardises the fragile peace that's taken so long to achieve and that the people in both communities deserve.

I'm not a party voter and I find myself in the situation of picking the best of a bad lot at the moment. I live in Meath East and I couldn't honestly see myself voting for a SF candidate here.

My point over the last few posts is that a UI is something vague and fuzzy and can be achieved in one of a hundred ways. That's why the opinion polls taken on the subject aren't particularly helpful in anything more than a vague, aspirational way. They don't take into account of how important the issue is to each respondent or indeed how the respondent would like a UI to occur or how bothered the respondent would be if there was to be no UI.

Supporting a UI doesn't necessarily mean that your views correspond with the views that SF hold in terms of a republic based on the precepts of 1916 etc. and that isn't taken into account in these surveys.

If people were to consider a UI with SF shaping the constitution etc. then people may reconsider their answer.

Wolfe Tone

Exactly, you don't have to be a SF supporter to be for a UI. Thousands of nationalists don't support them.

Bebs

Exactly. This creates a problem when gauging support for a UI. There's no one template for a UI which is being used when people are asked do they support a UI or not. So perhaps you would like a UI founded on the precepts of the 1916 Rising while I would like a UI within the United Kingdom. We'd both be ticking the same box currently but what we actually mean is poles apart.

For that reason polls on the strength of support for a UI are relatively meaningless without any solid definition being put onto what a UI means in the context of the survey which is something that current surveys are not doing (and who'd blame them).

Killer Wench

jordan.. wrote: »

Do you think American kids are thought the full truth of what was done to native Americans?

No, they are not. It surprises me how many Americans actually believe that American Indians are extinct; if they do know that Natives are still alive today, they believe that all live on reservations, own horses, and live in tipis. They are not taught about the ethnic cleansing, the attempts to eradicate entire tribes, etc.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Nationalists want Irish rule. Most have not abandoned their homes. Most unionists wont either.

Oh yes they will, you've underestimated them.;) Ask anyone from here and see the answer you get.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

No, people are too set in the FF/FG divide.


Don't forget, FF are a splinter of SF, and call themselves the "Republican party". They have ALWAYS had a stated aim of a UI, from Dev to Haughey to Bertie, they have all said it. They intend to run for office in the 6 counties in the future also. They have done very little to advance that aim of a UI though. So an argument cannot be made "people don't want a UI because they don't vote SF" Every poll ever conducted down south has shown a large majority in favor of a UI. However, I feel that SF will have an important role to play in Southern politics.

Its upto the people of northern ireland on a UI not people down south thats why i don't like the idea of the SF

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

Oh yes they will, you've underestimated them.;) Ask anyone from here and see the answer you get.

If you are right, which I highly doubt, I would have, if anything, overestimated them.

owenc wrote: »

Its upto the people of northern ireland on a UI not people down south thats why i don't like the idea of the SF

When it comes down to it the 26 counties will have to vote too. The constitution will have to be changed, or even better, a new one drawn up.

T runner

ardmacha wrote: »

This has been discussed endlessly with a great of irrelevancy brought in each time. This is likely to happen, Catholic families are only slightly, if at all, larger than Protestant ones. But there will be more Catholics in the child bearing age groups for the foreseeable future. There will be quite a significant middle block that is open to discussion on the matter. But this change is not going to happen suddenly and there is plenty of time to plan for it.

Discussion of economics always uses examples suited to the person proposing them. For most if its history NI was part of a richer state than the ROI, this is no longer the case, they are about the same. This is reflected in things like roads which are not better in NI. What NI is now is a poor region which receives a lot of transfers. Present economic conditions mean that the UK government will have to redue expenditure. This will reduce transfers and may mean more private sector growth. NI will in a decade have a rough balance on current expenditure, but will not be making a full contribution to the interest on UK debt. Conseuqently, if it is transferred without debt then its financial position would be largely unchanged in a united Ireland.

Health, education etc are a matter of policy, people can have the arrangements they wish to have. NI need not change policies if these suit it better and in some cases the ROI should adopt these too.

Finally, with the slow pace of change there can be discussion of things. But the idea that there will be nationalist majority in NI which then remains in the UK indefinitely is risible. Nationalist voters may have concerns about practical matters but they would expect those they vote for to sort these things out, so that obstacles can be removed. And practical matters don't all go one way, people may anticipate better pensions for instance.

Ineviatbly, some bright spark will pop up and say that people in the 26 counties won't go for it, but this too is nonsense. A gradual peaceful evolution will be widely supported and for every shoneen 26 countyist there will be someone else who welomes this as chance to reform the politicial system.

Id certaily agree with most of this. As a citizen of the ROI I would certainly welcome a change in political structures. Also I would imagine the different outlooks of the citizens of the new state would be of immense advantage to all people.

T runner

owenc wrote: »

We went to a school were they taught us correct history and not some crap made up. My familiy were farmers and they BOUGHT the land.

Sorry Owen but Irish history is generally not taught in NI schools. Looks like you are the one who is being taught "made up crap".

Wolfe Tone

T runner wrote: »

Sorry Owen but Irish history is generally not taught in NI schools. Looks like you are the one who is being taught "made up crap".

We have been through this before.... didn't go anywhere. Once his teacher says it it is true apparently.

Bebs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

We have been through this before.... didn't go anywhere. Once his teacher says it it is true apparently.

We're not exactly the soul of impartiality when it comes to history in the South.

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

We're not exactly the soul of impartiality when it comes to history in the South.

Exactly, I am just trying not to have this sidetracked into a debate with Owen about the value of his teaching. For instance he maintained that the 1916 leaders were hung and not shot for ages as that is what his teacher told him. We have been down that road.

However I would maintain that the teaching of Irish history at secondary level(the books anyway) are relatively impartial. One example is the books about the North which interchanged between Derry and Londonderry in reference to the city and included primary sources such as interviews with protagonists on both sides.

Japer

Bebs wrote: »

We're not exactly the soul of impartiality when it comes to history in the South.

Too true. I remember well the pride of place posters of the 1916 " heroes" had on the walls of the corridors, and in the classroom it was drummed in to many of us about the famine, to hate the auld enemy, about the great men of the easter rising, etc. The reality was that far more Irish men volunteered to serve in the British army in WW1 than ever took part in the Easter Rising. In fact when they surrendered many of the people who took part in the easter rising found themselves spat at and jeered etc by the people of Dublin.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If you are right, which I highly doubt, I would have, if anything, overestimated them.


When it comes down to it the 26 counties will have to vote too. The constitution will have to be changed, or even better, a new one drawn up.

Go and ask a unionist what they would do then?:rolleyes: Well, if yous get the choice on whether Northern Ireland stays i will be truly angry, it is the choice of the people of Northern Ireland and not a foreign country.

owenc

T runner wrote: »

Sorry Owen but Irish history is generally not taught in NI schools. Looks like you are the one who is being taught "made up crap".

I goto a majorityly protestant school and we are taught irish history we even learn't it in primary school, so theres one for you.

owenc

Bebs wrote: »

We're not exactly the soul of impartiality when it comes to history in the South.

You tell them! They think they know what its like (especially mis thingy telling me that unionists won't leave:rolleyes:) and they have no clue, life is different to reported on news channels and papers. Where abouts are you from?

owenc

Japer wrote: »

Too true. I remember well the pride of place posters of the 1916 " heroes" had on the walls of the corridors, and in the classroom it was drummed in to many of us about the famine, to hate the auld enemy, about the great men of the easter rising, etc. The reality was that far more Irish men volunteered to serve in the British army in WW1 than ever took part in the Easter Rising. In fact when they surrendered many of the people who took part in the easter rising found themselves spat at and jeered etc by the people of Dublin.

How are they heroes they shot and killed innocent people. Thats what my history teacher said!!

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

Go and ask a unionist what they would do then?:rolleyes: Well, if yous get the choice on whether Northern Ireland stays i will be truly angry, it is the choice of the people of Northern Ireland and not a foreign country.

The souths constitution will have to be changed, so a vote on whether to accept the 6 counties will be needed, and a all Ireland vote (hopefully) on a new constitution.

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

How are they heroes they shot and killed innocent people. Thats what my history teacher said!!

They are my heroes. And to look at it that way is a very blinkered view.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Exactly, I am just trying not to have this sidetracked into a debate with Owen about the value of his teaching. For instance he maintained that the 1916 leaders were hung and not shot for ages as that is what his teacher told him. We have been down that road.

However I would maintain that the teaching of Irish history at secondary level(the books anyway) are relatively impartial. One example is the books about the North which interchanged between Derry and Londonderry in reference to the city and included primary sources such as interviews with protagonists on both sides.

I know more about history than what that bloody teacher told me, i don't beleive everything she tells me!!:mad: She thinks theres no catholic unionists and i don't beleive in that. What are you saying about derry (londonderry) now, are you saying that they are wrong because they have londonderry written in them and interchange between nationalist and unionist views.:rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

We're not exactly the soul of impartiality when it comes to history in the South.

owenc wrote: »

How are they heroes they shot and killed innocent people. Thats what my history teacher said!!

You see what I meant?