Did Ulster Unionism divide and rule ?

Delancey

I posted this question quite some time ago and although it attracted some stimulating discussion unfortunately one of boards most notorious trolls quickly jumped onboard and completely derailed the thread to the extent that the moderators had to lock it.
Said troll seems to be keeping a low profile so hopefully this time won't see a repeat performance.

Firstly I will make a couple of observations and then draw them together to form my theory.
At the time of the partition of the Island of Ireland the Free State was a largely agrarian economy with relatively little in the way of industry , Northern Ireland on the other hand had substantial industry like shipbuilding , textiles , heavy engineering , etc.
Northern Ireland workers had similar issues that industrial workers around Europe had at the time : housing , healthcare , wages , etc.
The conditions in Northern Ireland it could be argued were 'ripe' for Socialism yet this never took root. Why ?

Northern Ireland's Prime Ministers from Craig onwards were all from the Unionist Party and were drawn almost exclusively from the landed and titled gentry. None were even educated in Northern Ireland but rather attended British public schools , 2 attended Eton for example.
The only exception was the last Prime Minister Brian Faulkner who attended a school in Dublin and though not of the gentry , as the son of the worlds biggest shirt manufacturer ( 3,000 workers at 1 point ) could be argued to have been of the 'ruling class'.

It would seem that the Protestant working class year after year were voting for the Ulster Unionist Party , a party that seems to have been dominated by the very class of people that industrial workers elsewhere in Europe were voting against.

My theory is that it was a deliberate policy to practice 'divide and rule' in Northern Ireland , it was a policy to foster division and to cause the protestant working class to focus on the Constitutional or National question rather than on the more ' bread and butter ' issues like wages and housing.
Such a policy would clearly have benefitted the ruling class and kept socialism at bay.

Does my theory stand up to scrutiny ? Did the Ulster Unionist Party effectively sell out the working class that kept it in power for over 50 years ?

Snickers Man

Delancey wrote: »

The conditions in Northern Ireland it could be argued were 'ripe' for Socialism yet this never took root. Why ?


It would seem that the Protestant working class year after year were voting for the Ulster Unionist Party , a party that seems to have been dominated by the very class of people that industrial workers elsewhere in Europe were voting against.

My theory is that it was a deliberate policy to practice 'divide and rule' in Northern Ireland , it was a policy to foster division and to cause the protestant working class to focus on the Constitutional or National question rather than on the more ' bread and butter ' issues like wages and housing.
Such a policy would clearly have benefitted the ruling class and kept socialism at bay.

Does my theory stand up to scrutiny ? Did the Ulster Unionist Party effectively sell out the working class that kept it in power for over 50 years ?

A very similar argument has been thrashed out in print before, particularly by Socialist writers like Eamon McCann and Michael Farrell.

McCann's book War and an Irish Town, in its first edition, contained a long section on the history of Northern Ireland and its coexistence with the South (Free State and Republic) in the 20th century. He pointed out that the ruling and business classes of both states encouraged a strong focus on the "national question" as a way of keeping their working classes preoccupied on something other than their own social advancement.

As long as the National Question was paramount, it could be used to distract the working classes from any socialist ideology they might adopt. McCann pointed out, however, that the crucial difference between the two states was that although Dublin could complain loud and long and make speeches every Easter Monday about the injustice of partition, in practice they cared little for the issue and it remained as a sacred cow; something to be worshipped and to insist that everybody else appeared to worship but otherwise to be left alone and to wander aimlessly and to forage for itself.

In the north, because the loyalty of a significant recognisable portion of the population could not be taken for granted, the anti-Dublin, anti-popery message had to be backed up with action. They couldn't possibly let the working classes on either side of the sectarian divide unite and fight in their own interests could they? So they had to feed the divide with discrimination in jobs, housing and economic development.

This is not to say that the protestant working class had it cushy. Far from it. But they at least had a better chance of employment and a sense of belonging than their catholic counterparts.

McCann dropped most of that section from later editions of his book because, as he said himself, the same subject matter had been covered in much greater depth in Michael Farrell's book "Northern Ireland: the Orange State".

One of the later developers of this theory was the former Loyalist terrorist David Ervine. He pointed out statistics which showed that although the rate of people from Catholic working class housing estates attending third level education was low by UK standards, in Protestant working class estates it was even worse.

This is sometimes taken by loyalist extremists (or trolls ) as evidence that the catholics were a shower of whingers with nothing to complain about and they should just cop themselves on but Ervine's analysis was that it was the continued division in society that was an impediment to progress. The Prods were kept down with the illusion that they were one better than the Taigs.

There are parallels with discriminatory societies elsewhere. Some white supremacists in the US point to the fact that there were many white slaves, or the next closest thing, in the early days of the colonies and therefore the **** should stop complaining and demanding redress.

It is well demonstrated in the film Mississipi Burning where Gene Hackman's character describes a scene where his racist smallholder father had killed the mule of a black man who was showing signs of social progression with the excuse "If you ain't better than a ****** then you're no good at all." As he pointed out, his dad was "Just an old man who was so full of hate he couldn't see it was being poor that was killing him."

If you have developed your theories without reference to either McCann's or Farrell's books then you could do worse than check them out. Remember, as George Orwell put it in 1984 "The best books are the ones that tell you what you already know"

HellsAngel

Delancey wrote: »

I posted this question quite some time ago and although it attracted some stimulating discussion unfortunately one of boards most notorious trolls quickly jumped onboard and completely derailed the thread to the extent that the moderators had to lock it.
Said troll seems to be keeping a low profile so hopefully this time won't see a repeat performance.

Firstly I will make a couple of observations and then draw them together to form my theory.
At the time of the partition of the Island of Ireland the Free State was a largely agrarian economy with relatively little in the way of industry , Northern Ireland on the other hand had substantial industry like shipbuilding , textiles , heavy engineering , etc.
Northern Ireland workers had similar issues that industrial workers around Europe had at the time : housing , healthcare , wages , etc.
The conditions in Northern Ireland it could be argued were 'ripe' for Socialism yet this never took root. Why ?

Northern Ireland's Prime Ministers from Craig onwards were all from the Unionist Party and were drawn almost exclusively from the landed and titled gentry. None were even educated in Northern Ireland but rather attended British public schools , 2 attended Eton for example.
The only exception was the last Prime Minister Brian Faulkner who attended a school in Dublin and though not of the gentry , as the son of the worlds biggest shirt manufacturer ( 3,000 workers at 1 point ) could be argued to have been of the 'ruling class'.

It would seem that the Protestant working class year after year were voting for the Ulster Unionist Party , a party that seems to have been dominated by the very class of people that industrial workers elsewhere in Europe were voting against.

My theory is that it was a deliberate policy to practice 'divide and rule' in Northern Ireland , it was a policy to foster division and to cause the protestant working class to focus on the Constitutional or National question rather than on the more ' bread and butter ' issues like wages and housing.
Such a policy would clearly have benefitted the ruling class and kept socialism at bay.

Does my theory stand up to scrutiny ? Did the Ulster Unionist Party effectively sell out the working class that kept it in power for over 50 years ?

Divide and rule, secterianism and pogroms against the natives/Catholics or indeed what was callled "soft Prods" ( Protestants who were left wing or nationalist) went on long before partition, since the Penal Laws, Ulster plantation right up to modern times.

( Incidentally, divide and rule is said to have been a tatic going back to the Romans in Germany to keep the various tribes apart from revolting together against them )

HellsAngel

Snickers Man wrote: »

A very similar argument has been thrashed out in print before, particularly by Socialist writers like Eamon McCann and Michael Farrell.

McCann's book War and an Irish Town, in its first edition, contained a long section on the history of Northern Ireland and its coexistence with the South (Free State and Republic) in the 20th century. He pointed out that the ruling and business classes of both states encouraged a strong focus on the "national question" as a way of keeping their working classes preoccupied on something other than their own social advancement.

As long as the National Question was paramount, it could be used to distract the working classes from any socialist ideology they might adopt. McCann pointed out, however, that the crucial difference between the two states was that although Dublin could complain loud and long and make speeches every Easter Monday about the injustice of partition, in practice they cared little for the issue and it remained as a sacred cow; something to be worshipped and to insist that everybody else appeared to worship but otherwise to be left alone and to wander aimlessly and to forage for itself.

In the north, because the loyalty of a significant recognisable portion of the population could not be taken for granted, the anti-Dublin, anti-popery message had to be backed up with action. They couldn't possibly let the working classes on either side of the sectarian divide unite and fight in their own interests could they? So they had to feed the divide with discrimination in jobs, housing and economic development.

This is not to say that the protestant working class had it cushy. Far from it. But they at least had a better chance of employment and a sense of belonging than their catholic counterparts.

McCann dropped most of that section from later editions of his book because, as he said himself, the same subject matter had been covered in much greater depth in Michael Farrell's book "Northern Ireland: the Orange State".

One of the later developers of this theory was the former Loyalist terrorist David Ervine. He pointed out statistics which showed that although the rate of people from Catholic working class housing estates attending third level education was low by UK standards, in Protestant working class estates it was even worse.

This is sometimes taken by loyalist extremists (or trolls ) as evidence that the catholics were a shower of whingers with nothing to complain about and they should just cop themselves on but Ervine's analysis was that it was the continued division in society that was an impediment to progress. The Prods were kept down with the illusion that they were one better than the Taigs.

There are parallels with discriminatory societies elsewhere. Some white supremacists in the US point to the fact that there were many white slaves, or the next closest thing, in the early days of the colonies and therefore the **** should stop complaining and demanding redress.

It is well demonstrated in the film Mississipi Burning where Gene Hackman's character describes a scene where his racist smallholder father had killed the mule of a black man who was showing signs of social progression with the excuse "If you ain't better than a ****** then you're no good at all." As he pointed out, his dad was "Just an old man who was so full of hate he couldn't see it was being poor that was killing him."

If you have developed your theories without reference to either McCann's or Farrell's books then you could do worse than check them out. Remember, as George Orwell put it in 1984 "The best books are the ones that tell you what you already know"

Were you in the Socialist Workers Movement or the Stickes ( Offical Sinn Fein) back in your radical student days at uni ?

I wouldn't equate Micheal Farrell with McCann. I have read Michael Farrell's excellent Arming the Protestants and the Orange State and makes no secret of it that he is an Irish nationalist in the tradition of Tone, Connolly, Liam Mellows etc However McCann is a completely different story, like a typical 'Irish' Marxist he takes his que from the comrades on the 'mainland' i.e. the workers of the world nonsense and that if all the proletarians in OIreland could put their nationalist tribalism behind them, they'd be living in a world of Marxist utopia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the 'Irish' Socialist Workers position still that they would like to see a united Ireland in a Workers Republic of the British Isles or something similiar.

Another thing about Micheal Farrell is that while on the executive of the Civil Rights movement he was arrested, badly beaten and interned for several months in 1971. Now, could you imagine say, Martin Lurther King or Jesse Jackson having the same happen to them in America. Says it all about the conduct of the British as they tried to ' keep the peace' while the leaders of the UVF like Gusty Spence could openly dander around east Belfast drinking pints and doning the balacalva now and again to shoot a few taigs.

As for David Irvine and the greater number of Catholics attending university, unionists didn't have to worry about academic achievement as due to the secterian aparthied their was always a job for them in the shipyards, Stormont administration, B Specials etc.

MarchDub

Delancey wrote: »

I posted this question quite some time ago and although it attracted some stimulating discussion unfortunately one of boards most notorious trolls quickly jumped onboard and completely derailed the thread to the extent that the moderators had to lock it.
Said troll seems to be keeping a low profile so hopefully this time won't see a repeat performance.

Firstly I will make a couple of observations and then draw them together to form my theory.
At the time of the partition of the Island of Ireland the Free State was a largely agrarian economy with relatively little in the way of industry , Northern Ireland on the other hand had substantial industry like shipbuilding , textiles , heavy engineering , etc.
Northern Ireland workers had similar issues that industrial workers around Europe had at the time : housing , healthcare , wages , etc.
The conditions in Northern Ireland it could be argued were 'ripe' for Socialism yet this never took root. Why ?

Northern Ireland's Prime Ministers from Craig onwards were all from the Unionist Party and were drawn almost exclusively from the landed and titled gentry. None were even educated in Northern Ireland but rather attended British public schools , 2 attended Eton for example.
The only exception was the last Prime Minister Brian Faulkner who attended a school in Dublin and though not of the gentry , as the son of the worlds biggest shirt manufacturer ( 3,000 workers at 1 point ) could be argued to have been of the 'ruling class'.

It would seem that the Protestant working class year after year were voting for the Ulster Unionist Party , a party that seems to have been dominated by the very class of people that industrial workers elsewhere in Europe were voting against.

My theory is that it was a deliberate policy to practice 'divide and rule' in Northern Ireland , it was a policy to foster division and to cause the protestant working class to focus on the Constitutional or National question rather than on the more ' bread and butter ' issues like wages and housing.
Such a policy would clearly have benefitted the ruling class and kept socialism at bay.

Does my theory stand up to scrutiny ? Did the Ulster Unionist Party effectively sell out the working class that kept it in power for over 50 years ?

As well meaning as this might be, this is not history - it's social theory.

P. Breathnach

I sometimes think that discussion of NI would be better if people with political affiliations or strong political sympathies (either side of the divide) were to stay out of it. So many people seem to wear simultaneously both blinkers and tinted glasses (be they green or orange).

I can't remember who described the NI conflict as "the last religious war in Europe". It's a point worth considering, even though I do not wholly agree. It's a conflict where, for the most part, the sides are marked by their religious affiliation, but they are not positively motivated by religion.

The conflict predates the setting-up of NI, and any considered analysis should take on board that Ulster unionism as a political movement did not create the conflict: it simply accepted it and, to its shame, for the most part went along with it.

I see the conflict in NI as tribal in character. It's a more primitive division than the economic divisions that have characterised most conflicts in Western Europe in the past couple of centuries. I don't think a society can move on to class conflict until it has dealt with its more primitive tribal or religious contests. There have been similar problems in the Balkans and in the Middle East in recent decades: Serb nationalism has been a more potent force than economic aspiration; Sunni/Shia rivalries are pursued to the extent that whole states are driven into unnecessary poverty.

P. Breathnach

MarchDub wrote: »

As well meaning as this might be, this is not history - it's social theory.

I disagree. History is concerned with what happened and why it happened.

MarchDub

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I disagree. History is concerned with what happened and why it happened.

History is the actual recorded record of events based on source material - what the OP is presenting is not this.

Social theory on the other hand seeks to explain change in society or factors that contribute to its organization —how it develops, what factors facilitate and inhibit it, and what results from it.

Snickers Man

HellsAngel wrote: »

Were you in the Socialist Workers Movement or the Stickes ( Offical Sinn Fein) back in your radical student days at uni ?

Good Lord no!! As a devout contrarian I loathed and despised well spoken presumptuous self righteous so-sea-alists when I was a student. As one gets older, one learns that there are some things much worse than self-righteous, supercilious, condescending left wingers; for example self-righteous, supercilious, condescending right wingers. Of the kind that predominate in the media both here and abroad.

HellsAngel wrote: »

I wouldn't equate Micheal Farrell with McCann.

Nor did I, but they both have strong left wing credentials. Farrell started off in People's Democracy, remember. Nothing especially nationalist about that.

McCann actually said in the foreword to one of the later editions of his book that he dropped a lot of the analysis of the history of northern Ireland because it had been adequately covered in Farrell's The Orange State and the additions he was planning to his own book would have made it too long to include both.

HellsAngel wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the 'Irish' Socialist Workers position still that they would like to see a united Ireland in a Workers Republic of the British Isles or something similiar.

I dunno. Ask them.

HellsAngel wrote: »

Another thing about Micheal Farrell is that while on the executive of the Civil Rights movement he was arrested, badly beaten and interned for several months in 1971. Now, could you imagine say, Martin Lurther King or Jesse Jackson having the same happen to them in America.

Hell yeah. Ever read King's "letter from Birmingham Jail"? The title says it all.

And he endured his share of beatings and stabbings too.

HellsAngel wrote: »

As for David Irvine and the greater number of Catholics attending university, unionists didn't have to worry about academic achievement as due to the secterian aparthied their was always a job for them in the shipyards, Stormont administration, B Specials etc.

I think that was precisely Irvine's point. The situation was debilitating for the Protestant working class because it encouraged them NOT to get educated and question their own leaders. He saw through the "We're all good Protestant boys together; I wouldn't have a Catholic about my own place" bull**** as benefitting only the wealthy classes while his own people were expected to endure the sharp end of a bitterly divided society. Who was that good for?

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

As well meaning as this might be, this is not history - it's social theory.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I disagree. History is concerned with what happened and why it happened.

MarchDub wrote: »

History is the actual recorded record of events based on source material - what the OP is presenting is not this.

I agree that the OP is presented as a theory. I have been asked to allow this thread to remain open. I am prepared to monitor how it progresses in the hope that it could be interesting if it looks at how the status of working class unionists has been handed down without changing/ progressing since 1920's (i.e. their heritage). For this to happen the discussion should develop using sources to back up arguments or points made, this has'nt happened so far. There is some slight overlap with politics (which is as per H&H charter) but if necessary I will move the thread to there.

Delancey

MarchDub wrote: »

As well meaning as this might be, this is not history - it's social theory.

An interesting point but one that begs the question of where does History begin/end and social theory begin/end ?

For example ,the impact of Cultural Nationalism like GAA , Irish language , etc cannot be underestimated for its impact on the more direct or ' historical ' nationalism.

At the end of the day Northern Ireland seems to have been the only place in Europe with a strong industrial working class where Socialism failed utterly to take root - surely this is worthy of examination ?

MarchDub

Delancey wrote: »

An interesting point but one that begs the question of where does History begin/end and social theory begin/end ?

To answer you honestly, social theory belongs to another department. History can tell us - hopefully, if we can get the source material - what events happened. You can't for example claim that an event happened/ or didn't happen without the back up of the evidence of source material that backs up your claim.

Delancey wrote: »

For example ,the impact of Cultural Nationalism like GAA , Irish language , etc cannot be underestimated for its impact on the more direct or ' historical ' nationalism.

In this example you give this actually can be historically traced because the source material is there to show that this was not 'accidental' or 'incidental'. History shows us the planning behind this 'cultural revolution' and the stated purpose of it. Yeats, Hyde and Cusack are foremost as sources.

But to enlarge on your point - if this were not so sourced it would be a sociological question, not historical.

Delancey wrote: »

At the end of the day Northern Ireland seems to have been the only place in Europe with a strong industrial working class where Socialism failed utterly to take root - surely this is worthy of examination ?

I don't for a moment question the worthiness of this examination but it is a theoretical examination - the empirical historic record will not yield the answer.

paky

yes sure it did. I think its amazing that unionists, who are only a majority in two Irish counties, are responsible for the partition of the whole island of Ireland.

Wolfe Tone

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the status quo ensured that many unionist working class people got work while their nationalist neighbors didn't.

My theory is that it was a deliberate policy to practice 'divide and rule' in Northern Ireland , it was a policy to foster division and to cause the protestant working class to focus on the Constitutional or National question rather than on the more ' bread and butter ' issues like wages and housing.

They got the best houses, jobs and pay already, why would they vote against that?

jonniebgood1

paky wrote: »

yes sure it did. I think its amazing that unionists, who are only a majority in two Irish counties, are responsible for the partition of the whole island of Ireland.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the status quo ensured that many unionist working class people got work while their nationalist neighbors didn't.

They got the best houses, jobs and pay already, why would they vote against that?

NOTE: As per my post no. 10. Please provide a source for opinions posted.
The reason for this is to avoid unnesessarily provocative statements (not that either of these are) and to ground the discussion in fact.
If there are any queries on this please PM me.
Thanks- moderator

MarchDub

paky wrote: »

yes sure it did. I think its amazing that unionists, who are only a majority in two Irish counties, are responsible for the partition of the whole island of Ireland.

You’re a bit off track but heading in the right direction.


Protestant voters had a majority in four of the counties of the nine counties of traditional Ulster – Derry, Antrim, Down and Armagh. This is the reason for the border being gerrymandered around only six counties of Ulster. The four majority Protestant counties were joined in with two Catholic Counties, Fermanagh and Tyrone to form – under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 – the new region within the UK to be known as Northern Ireland. The purpose of drawing the line around those six was to give a permanent majority of Protestant/Unionist voters within Northern Ireland. Then further gerrymandering within the two Catholic counties made Catholic power nonexistent.


This is widely documented in just about any history of modern Ireland. Check it out in Tim Pat Coogan’s work on De Valera and Michael Collins or Gabriel Doherty and Dermot Keogh’s Michael Collins and the Making of the Irish State. A really good book for population and economic stats is Ireland 1912-1985 Politics and Society by Joseph J Lee.

MarchDub

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the status quo ensured that many unionist working class people got work while their nationalist neighbors didn't.



They got the best houses, jobs and pay already, why would they vote against that?

There are sound statistics for what you say. Jonathan Bardon in A History of Ulster quotes the 1901 census on jobs in the Belfast area: [I’ve typed it out from the book]

Skilled Protestant artisans also feared that Home Rule could threaten their privileged position in the industrial workforce. There were as many low-paid unskilled workers in Belfast who were Protestant as were Catholic but the great majority of better-paid skilled workers in the city were Protestant. In 1901 this 'aristocracy of labour' formed 24 percent of the city's workers and though about a quarter of the citizens were Catholic they held only 6 per cent of the jobs as shipwrights, 10 per cent as boilermakers, 10 per cent as engine and machine workers, 12 per cent as plumbers and 15 percent as carpenters.

By contrast, 41 per cent of low paid dockers and 50 per cent of female linen-spinners in Belfast were Catholic. A Dublin parliament might contemplate an attempt to redress this state of affairs.

Bearing in mind that after partition – most especially on July 21st 1920 in the Harland and Wolff shipyard - Catholics were driven from their jobs. On that day over 10,000 Catholic men and 1,000 Catholic women lost their employment.


In Northern Ireland Catholic unemployment rates were two or three times that for Protestants well into the twentieth century. The 1981 census gives a Catholic male unemployment rate of 32% for Belfast [15% for Protestant] Derry was 36% unemployment for Catholic men and 14% for Protestant men. Because many Catholics boycotted the census [it was a called protest] the Catholic rate is considered to be probably higher.

paky

MarchDub wrote: »

You’re a bit off track but heading in the right direction.


Protestant voters had a majority in four of the counties of the nine counties of traditional Ulster – Derry, Antrim, Down and Armagh. This is the reason for the border being gerrymandered around only six counties of Ulster. The four majority Protestant counties were joined in with two Catholic Counties, Fermanagh and Tyrone to form – under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 – the new region within the UK to be known as Northern Ireland. The purpose of drawing the line around those six was to give a permanent majority of Protestant/Unionist voters within Northern Ireland. Then further gerrymandering within the two Catholic counties made Catholic power nonexistent.


This is widely documented in just about any history of modern Ireland. Check it out in Tim Pat Coogan’s work on De Valera and Michael Collins or Gabriel Doherty and Dermot Keogh’s Michael Collins and the Making of the Irish State. A really good book for population and economic stats is Ireland 1912-1985 Politics and Society by Joseph J Lee.

back then that was the case. nationalists now are a majority in counties armagh, derry, tyrone and fermanagh

P. Breathnach

paky wrote: »

back then that was the case. nationalists now are a majority in counties armagh, derry, tyrone and fermanagh

Can you back that up? [Coz I ain't convinced.]

paky

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Can you back that up? [Coz I ain't convinced.]

take a look at the northern assembly seats. you'll notice nationalist parties have a majority of representatives from the mentioned counties but obviously not an overall majority in the house

MarchDub

paky wrote: »

back then that was the case. nationalists now are a majority in counties armagh, derry, tyrone and fermanagh

I thought you were referring to the era of partition in the early twentieth century and the method used then for partition.

Here is a distribution for 1991. As you say the new system is not based on the traditional county lines but on these Local Government Districts.

Maybe you have a link for later figures?

paky

percentage of catholics as of 2006


(Scaoileadh creidimh in Ulaidh / Religious devision in Ulster Dark orange 0-10% Catholic Mid orange 10-30% Catholic Light orange 30-50% Catholic Light green 50-70% Catholic Mid green 70-90% Catholic Dark green 90-100% Catholic Céatadán na gcaitliceach i)

P. Breathnach

paky wrote: »

percentage of catholics as of 2006


(Scaoileadh creidimh in Ulaidh / Religious devision in Ulster Dark orange 0-10% Catholic Mid orange 10-30% Catholic Light orange 30-50% Catholic Light green 50-70% Catholic Mid green 70-90% Catholic Dark green 90-100% Catholic Céatadán na gcaitliceach i)

Wow! Talk about colour-coding: shades of orange and green. Subtle. Are we to suppose that every Catholic is a nationalist and every Protestant a unionist?

Oh, take all this away: we are supposed to be considering the past performance of political unionism.

paky

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Oh, take all this away: we are supposed to be considering the past performance of political unionism.

no obviously not but you did ask

owenc

paky wrote: »

back then that was the case. nationalists now are a majority in counties armagh, derry, tyrone and fermanagh

So what! County Londonderry outside of Derry city is unionist and there is a considerable unionist majority in the east londonderry Constituency and in the west Londonderry constituency most of the voters are for the sdlp and I can guarantee you now that the most of them would be unionists in a referendum... Also county Londonderry is only catholic by like 3percent or something And that's because of implants from donegal if they weren't here it would be Protestant.

owenc

MarchDub wrote: »

I thought you were referring to the era of partition in the early twentieth century and the method used then for partition.

Here is a distribution for 1991. As you say the new system is not based on the traditional county lines but on these Local Government Districts.

Maybe you have a link for later figures?

I find that map very to believe because according to that limavady is a catholic town! Well no it's not! And everyone knows that! If it was catholic why was the countys 12th held there then? Here's official figures which show it's almost 60percent Protestant! http://www.nisranew.nisra.gov.uk/census/pdf/ks_sett_tables.pdf

Magic Beans

owenc wrote: »

So what! County Londonderry outside of Derry city is unionist and there is a considerable unionist majority in the east londonderry Constituency and in the west Londonderry constituency most of the voters are for the sdlp and I can guarantee you now that the most of them would be unionists in a referendum... Also county Londonderry is only catholic by like 3percent or something And that's because of implants from donegal if they weren't here it would be Protestant.

That is an astounding observation. I suppose it would be too obvious to point out that Derry would be 100% Catholic if it wasn't for implants from Scotland.

HellsAngel

"A man in Fintona asked him how it was that he had over 50 percent Roman Catholics in his Ministry. He thought that was too funny. He had 109 of a staff, and so far as he knew there were four Roman Catholics. Three of these were civil servants, turned over to him whom he had to take when he began." Sir Edward Archdale, Unionist Party, Minister of Agriculture, Stormont, 1925

Let me firstly state that their is nothing whatsoever that Irish nationalism could do to change the secterian poison that is unionism as can be seen from the above statement as long as unionism is propped up by the British. But nevertheless, people shouldn't forget how the Catholic church and it's sleevens in the new Free State willingly played their part in the process of divide and rule.

Dev and Fianna Fail are wrongly blamed with elevating the Catholic church into the state religion, but the Cumman na Gael ( Fine Gael) govt where pandering to the Catholc church long before Dev and FF. For example, that put a ban on divorce in 1925. WB Yeats who was a Senator at the time objected to this stating "If you show that this country, southern Ireland, is going to be governed by Roman Catholic ideas and by Catholic ideas alone, you will never get the North...You will put a wedge in the midst of this nation" but it fell on deaf ears of course as the gombeen men like Cosgrave, Kevin O'Higgins etc only seen the state as a means of building personal fiefdoms regardless of the greater good of the country. This continued on with FF of course and it wasn’t into the 1990’s that the state was finally dragged into the 1960’s.

MarchDub

owenc wrote: »

I find that map very to believe because according to that limavady is a catholic town! Well no it's not! And everyone knows that! If it was catholic why was the countys 12th held there then? Here's official figures which show it's almost 60percent Protestant! http://www.nisranew.nisra.gov.uk/census/pdf/ks_sett_tables.pdf

You're probably correct as regards the town but the map is showing District Councils - not individual towns - and according to the 2005 election results the Limavady Borough Council region is 56.6% Catholic.

I have a chart which shows 2005 election results were:

Sinn Fein 6 Seats
Social Dem and Labour Party 3 Seats
Democratic Unionist Party 3 Seats
Ulster Unionist Party 2 Seats
Independent 1 Seat

Alopex

owenc wrote: »

Well they can say whatever they like but those figures are incorrect theres no way limavady borough is a catholic borough. I know it very well theres just no way at all! funnily those figures are the exact same as the ones posted above that i quoted except the opposite way around hmmm. Oh and because of the way the voting is done it is easy for the nationalists to get a majority because of the way the areas are joined i.e the protestant seats are joined with the catholic areas to make it look like its a nationalist area when its not i hate the way the ni voting system is its not fair!

That map is 20 years old remember.

owenc

Well they can say whatever they like but those figures are incorrect theres no way limavady borough is a catholic borough. I know it very well theres just no way at all! funnily those figures are the exact same as the ones posted above that i quoted except the opposite way around hmmm. Oh and because of the way the voting is done it is easy for the nationalists to get a majority because of the way the areas are joined i.e the protestant seats are joined with the catholic areas to make it look like its a nationalist area when its not i hate the way the ni voting system is its not fair! Theres also catholic areas added to the limavady borough like claudy which are millions of miles away they should be in the derry borough.. The whole system needs to be reformed. I liked the new councils but as usual they were not confirmed. Also there would've been more money for different areas etc.