Time to bow before the queen?

CajunPenguin

xsiborg wrote: »

im no great historian but yes, i do remember the penal laws and the penal colonies in australia, but honestly Nodin, that was how long ago now? i also remember from my history books reading about the famine and can you honestly say we would have survived as a nation had the british not decided to hand out meal? talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

yes of course i'll admit that the british government back then committed terrible atrocities, but by that same token, have the IRA not done the same since in the name of war? canary wharf, omagh, to name but two! we cant totally paint ourselves out to be innocent either if one wants to go down that route.

as for catholics in swimming pools- sure you're nearly not welcome on boards.ie now if you're catholic! you only need look at the amount of catholic bashing threads in AH that are allowed run and run to see evidence of that!

I don't agree with the old "ah sure it was years ago" argument. I'll forgive them 700 years of basically just being bastards 700 years from when they stopped.Which is about 690 years from now. Does that sound fair?

xsiborg

CajunPenguin wrote: »

I don't agree with the old "ah sure it was years ago" argument. I'll forgive them 700 years of basically just being bastards 700 years from when they stopped.Which is about 690 years from now. Does that sound fair?

sounds silly if im honest, and the reason why is that modern britain isn't made up of anyone that's going to give a fiddlers about what the british empire did for the last 700 years, let alone what they did last year, geez, bear a grudge much? and how old are you anyway? you obviously didnt live through it so was this a chip on your shoulder that was handed down or what?

oh dear god you're only 14, right, back on your xbox you armchair activist! :pac:

CajunPenguin

xsiborg wrote: »

sounds silly if im honest, and the reason why is that modern britain isn't made up of anyone that's going to give a fiddlers about what the british empire did for the last 700 years, let alone what they did last year, geez, bear a grudge much? and how old are you anyway? you obviously didnt live through it so was this a chip on your shoulder that was handed down or what?

oh dear god you're only 14, right, back on your xbox you armchair activist! :pac:

Just because I'm 14 doesn't mean I'm not perfectly capable of having an intelligent conversation.Also, I a well educated in my Irish history, my republican family and my 'RA-head history teacher saw to that. I don't mind the British.I believe we have a good thing going with the Brits, we have almost complete peace and while we probably should have Northern Ireland there's no point going after it now and ruining it all. While Argentina asking for the Falkland (or Las Malvinas) back peacefully is a good example but I also know we can't just have the back like that because far too many people in the North work for the British government and there are too many Unionists for Ireland to support.

xsiborg

CajunPenguin wrote: »

Just because I'm 14 doesn't mean I'm not perfectly capable of having an intelligent conversation.Also, I a well educated in my Irish history, my republican family and my 'RA-head history teacher saw to that. I don't mind the British.I believe we have a good thing going with the Brits, we have almost complete peace and while we probably should have Northern Ireland there's no point going after it now and ruining it all. While Argentina asking for the Falkland (or Las Malvinas) back peacefully is a good example but I also know we can't just have the back like that because far too many people in the North work for the British government and there are too many Unionists for Ireland to support.

well now that a more thoughtful and reasonable response than the silly hitler comparison you made earlier!

i dont think argentina "asked" for the falklands back though, that's why there was the falklands war, and i dont think anyone in the north working for the british government has anything to do with why the majority do not want to join the irish republic.

CajunPenguin

CajunPenguin wrote: »

While Argentina asking for the Falkland back peacefully is a good example.

History lesson

The Falklands War began on Friday 2 April 1982, when Argentine forces invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. The British government dispatched a naval task force to engage the Argentine Navy and Air Force, and retake the islands by amphibious assault. The resulting conflict lasted 74 days and ended with the Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982, which returned the islands to British control. 649 Argentine military personnel, 255 British military personnel and three Falkland Islanders died during the conflict. It remains the most recent external conflict to be fought by the UK without any allied states and the only external Argentine war since the 1880s.

grindle

xsiborg wrote: »

Godwin's Law.


we got there eventually! :pac:

Too late.

xsiborg

grindle wrote: »

Too late.

fecker!

grindle

xsiborg wrote: »

fecker!

ZING!

Edit: I retract my zing, this guy had it for real. Not including Grammar-Nazism.

CajunPenguin

xsiborg wrote: »

well now that a more thoughtful and reasonable response than the silly hitler comparison you made earlier!

i dont think argentina "asked" for the falklands back though, that's why there was the falklands war, and i dont think anyone in the north working for the british government has anything to do with why the majority do not want to join the irish republic.

yes, but my da always told me it's futile because if we get a united Ireland the unionists would f*ck us up and also we would automatically make hundreds if not thousands of people redundant. And we need that like we need a hole in the head, as the say. I would never bow to the queen politically or literally and to be honest if any attempt were made to put us back under british rule, or for that matter any other rule but Ireland's I would fight against it because I hate monarchies and imperialism.

CajunPenguin

Deleted User wrote: »

History lesson

Wow there was a war over the Falklands? Gosh I never knew.
I meant currently you eejit that's like saying Hitler's army peacefully had a short stay in France and Poland

awec

CajunPenguin wrote: »

Wow there was a war over the Falklands? Gosh I never knew.
I meant currently you eejit that's like saying Hitler's army peacefully had a short stay in France and Poland

The Falklands were never Argentina's to take back. The situation between the Falklands and Ireland is incomparable.

The Argentinian claim on the Falklands consists of nothing more than "its close to us so it should be ours".

Imagine Ireland deciding all of a sudden that it wants the Isle of Man.

CajunPenguin

awec wrote: »

The Falklands were never Argentina's to take back. The situation between the Falklands and Ireland is incomparable.

The Argentinian claim on the Falklands consists of nothing more than "its close to us so it should be ours".

Imagine Ireland deciding all of a sudden that it wants the Isle of Man.

The Falklands are part of Britain's desperate attempt to keep their long dead empire still going. And while you may say the inhabitants of these countries are happy to stay under british rule I doubt the natives fell the same. Britain have always portrayed as the good guys, the brave british fighting the evil people but in fact they terrorised countries around the world, they stole land, among other things (they weren't the first to arrive in the falklands) and started te first drug war. their list of crimes is loooong and bad but we are taught the britis were always the lesser of two evils. They were also the bad guys in WWI

steddyeddy

awec wrote: »

The Falklands were never Argentina's to take back. The situation between the Falklands and Ireland is incomparable.

The Argentinian claim on the Falklands consists of nothing more than "its close to us so it should be ours".

Imagine Ireland deciding all of a sudden that it wants the Isle of Man.

India and ireland would be a better one.

xsiborg

CajunPenguin wrote: »

yes, but my da always told me it's futile because if we get a united Ireland the unionists would f*ck us up and also we would automatically make hundreds if not thousands of people redundant. And we need that like we need a hole in the head, as the say. I would never bow to the queen politically or literally and to be honest if any attempt were made to put us back under british rule, or for that matter any other rule but Ireland's I would fight against it because I hate monarchies and imperialism.

Cajun, im happy to hear you still listen to your dad (my young lad doesn't give a fiddlers what i tell him, and he's only seven! :pac:), but then there are times when well, no, christ i dont quite know how to put it, but suffice to say i don't agree with your dad's perspective...

me personally im not too bothered by monarchies or imperialism, in the same way as we in the republic have a president who has no say in the constitution only to sign a few bits of paper every so often, monarchies and imperialism are pretty much the same, only the wording is different! :pac:

Fratton Fred

CajunPenguin wrote: »

The Falklands are part of Britain's desperate attempt to keep their long dead empire still going. And while you may say the inhabitants of these countries are happy to stay under british rule I doubt the natives fell the same. Britain have always portrayed as the good guys, the brave british fighting the evil people but in fact they terrorised countries around the world, they stole land, among other things (they weren't the first to arrive in the falklands) and started te first drug war. their list of crimes is loooong and bad but we are taught the britis were always the lesser of two evils. They were also the bad guys in WWI

You should really start reading history books.

awec

CajunPenguin wrote: »

The Falklands are part of Britain's desperate attempt to keep their long dead empire still going. And while you may say the inhabitants of these countries are happy to stay under british rule I doubt the natives fell the same. Britain have always portrayed as the good guys, the brave british fighting the evil people but in fact they terrorised countries around the world, they stole land, among other things (they weren't the first to arrive in the falklands) and started te first drug war. their list of crimes is loooong and bad but we are taught the britis were always the lesser of two evils. They were also the bad guys in WWI

Are you for real?

1. People on the Falklands want to remain British. As such, Britain is of course going to defend the Falklands against attack. How many "natives" of the Falklands do you think there are?

2. Bad guys in WW1? Are you for real?

As for monarchies. Lizzy is a tourist attraction. Americans with their deep pockets love her, they can't get enough of the whole royal thing. She costs the average British tax payer 10p a year. I reckon she'll be staying.

Sound of Silence

forfuxsake wrote: »

That ain't true. No matter how much you or I would want it to be.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/northern-catholics-dont-want-united-ireland-2800103.html

I don't want to live in Britain, or for any part of Ireland to be British but what I am asking is that is there any decent argument for that stance considering sovereignty is pretty much fcuked out the window anyway.

I would actually like people to tell me why it is a bad idea.

I believe it's quite short-sighted to come to such a conclusion.

Hell, I could trot out figures showing the huge decline in support for the Orange Order since it's dizzying height in the early 70's to the very humbling position it's found itself in today. Could these figures be seen to give an accurate portrayal of the state of Unionism in Northern Ireland, or do they simply indicate how Unionism has evolved since the Good Friday Agreement.

The figures detailed in the article simply indicate an immediate desire for economic stability over a long-term goal - the eventual goal being a United Ireland. In no way do these results indicate a concerted move towards Unionism.

One also has to consider the context that these results are being placed in. They are being contrasted with statistics gathered five years ago! Five years ago Ireland was still riding high on the Celtic Tiger, and as such the desire for UI was not simply tangible but also practical.

Sound of Silence

awec wrote: »

Are you for real?

1. People on the Falklands want to remain British. As such, Britain is of course going to defend the Falklands against attack. How many "natives" of the Falklands do you think there are?

2. Bad guys in WW1? Are you for real?

As for monarchies. Lizzy is a tourist attraction. Americans with their deep pockets love her, they can't get enough of the whole royal thing. She costs the average British tax payer 10p a year. I reckon she'll be staying.

I think he's referring to the innumerable claims to the Falklands. Britain certainly not being the first to claim the islands, nor colonise them.

Either way, it's not for us to decide.

Sound of Silence

xsiborg wrote: »

get back on your xbox and play some more MW3 like a good chap, you're not living in kuwait or anything with your hostile invader nonsense! have you SEEN the irish amy with their 20 year old choppers and their guns that might as well be blunderbusses for all they'd be worth, we're not even a nuclear state. now contrast that with the arsenal available to the british army, who spend billions on defense every year.

if they "invaded" us, it wouldnt even GET to hostile before they'd have us all wiped out! i have to laugh! :pac:

Whilst I'm sure the Fourteen year old kid you blasted was quick to ignore your ad hominem retort, I would find it difficult to treat you with a similar level of respect.

Regarding your frantic spew of words and what I assume was a paltry attempt at satire, It's clear to all that you've mistaken National fervour with violent intent. No on here wishes to wage a war for what's left of our sovereignty, but defend to the end what little remains of it.

As another poster had stated, it looks like you won't.

"George Bernard Shaw", Gilbert K Chesterton -

"The Irishman is neither poet enough nor snob enough to be swept away by those smooth social and historical tides and tendencies which carry Radicals and Labour members comfortably off their feet. He goes on asking for a thing because he wants it; and he tries really to hurt his enemies because they are his enemies. This is the first of the queer confusions which make the hard Irishman look soft. He seems to us wild and unreasonable because he is really much too reasonable to be anything but fierce when he is fighting."

CajunPenguin

CajunPenguin wrote: »

Wow there was a war over the Falklands? Gosh I never knew.
I meant currently you eejit that's like saying Hitler's army peacefully had a short stay in France and Poland

You were the one that stated that Argentina peacefully wanted the falklands back!
Starting a trade embargo with companies that deal with the Falklands isn't peaceful by international standards.

Sound of Silence

Mickeroo wrote: »

Did Ireland EVER exist as a fully fledged nation before the last century? Isn't the whole idea of sovereign nations as they exist today something that only really came about in the last 3 or 4 hundred years? Genuine questons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Ireland

xsiborg

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Whilst I'm sure the Fourteen year old kid you blasted was quick to ignore your ad hominem retort, I would find it difficult to treat you with a similar level of respect.

i couldnt care less for your opinion of me tbh, but the "fourteen year old kid", as you put it, was quick to come back with a reasonable reply with no lofty airs or graces about himself, shame the same cant be said for your post!

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Regarding your frantic spew of words and what I assume was a paltry attempt at satire, It's clear to all that you've mistaken National fervour with violent intent. No on here wishes to wage a war for what's left of our sovereignty, but defend to the end what little remains of it.

my fratic spew of words was no paltry attempt at satire, it was simply me being dismissive of a ridiculous post, quite unlike your paltry attempt to pass yourself off as an intellectual.

as for nobody wishing to wage war? you havent read through the whole thread then. there were quite a few one off posters who did the old "that be fightin talk!" routine, but they were largely ignored.

Sound of Silence wrote: »

As another poster had stated, it looks like you won't.

correct. i wont, because i support the idea of aligning ourselves with the british government, and if you had read through the whole thread you would know that, instead of just jumping in at the end and endowing upon us your air of faux superiority.

Sound of Silence wrote: »

"George Bernard Shaw", Gilbert K Chesterton -

"The Irishman is neither poet enough nor snob enough to be swept away by those smooth social and historical tides and tendencies which carry Radicals and Labour members comfortably off their feet. He goes on asking for a thing because he wants it; and he tries really to hurt his enemies because they are his enemies. This is the first of the queer confusions which make the hard Irishman look soft. He seems to us wild and unreasonable because he is really much too reasonable to be anything but fierce when he is fighting."

that'd be the same George Bernard Shaw then who founded the LONDON school of economics, was also skeptical of the irish free state, and spent most of his life in britain, under british rule... :rolleyes:

you really should read up on these things before you go pulling irrelevant quotes to make yourself sound like an intellectual, only to have it backfire spectacularly.

KeithAFC

The figures detailed in the article simply indicate an immediate desire for economic stability over a long-term goal - the eventual goal being a United Ireland.

I don't believe that at all. When the Irish Republic had its boom years, there was still no big urge amongst the people of Northern Ireland to join the Republic. So I don't really buy into this argument.

Perhaps people are just happy with peace and the status quo.

Sound of Silence

KeithAFC wrote: »

I don't believe that at all. When the Irish Republic had its boom years, there was still no big urge amongst the people of Northern Ireland to join the Republic. So I don't really buy into this argument.

Perhaps people are just happy with peace and the status quo.

Living in Northern Ireland my entire life, and spending time talking to Nationalists, I should know.

Many feel that the time is not right for a United Ireland. Nationalists place too much value on a UI to potentially throw it away.

KeithAFC

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Living in Northern Ireland my entire life, and spending time talking to Nationalists, I should know.

Many feel that the time is not right for a United Ireland. Nationalists place too much value on a UI to potentially throw it away.

Funny you say that, I get the complete opposite feed back from Republicans. Republicans online who debate that partition is more secure than ever. That a lot of young "Nationalists" have absolutely no interest in politics.

Sound of Silence

xsiborg wrote: »

i couldnt care less for your opinion of me tbh, but the "fourteen year old kid", as you put it, was quick to come back with a reasonable reply with no lofty airs or graces about himself, shame the same cant be said for your post!

As opposed to your entirely reasonable reply, which essentially amassed to "the Brits have Nukes, therefore we should definitely submit, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot." Give me a break...

my fratic spew of words was no paltry attempt at satire, it was simply me being dismissive of a ridiculous post, quite unlike your paltry attempt to pass yourself off as an intellectual.

If you had been dismissive, perhaps you would have dismissed the post, rather than spend time to write a long rant about the respective military capabilities of each Country when this had little if anything to do with the initial post.

as for nobody wishing to wage war? you havent read through the whole thread then. there were quite a few one off posters who did the old "that be fightin talk!" routine, but they were largely ignored.

Wage a war against what? The status quo? As mentioned previously, you've mistaken Nationalism and Patriotism for some kind of violent intent.

correct. i wont, because i support the idea of aligning ourselves with the british government, and if you had read through the whole thread you would know that, instead of just jumping in at the end and endowing upon us your air of faux superiority.

I did know that. That's why I wrote it...

You assumed that everyone else would be as quick to jump ship as you were.

that'd be the same George Bernard Shaw then who founded the LONDON school of economics, was also skeptical of the irish free state, and spent most of his life in britain, under british rule... :rolleyes:

Then you would realise that it was not a George Bernard Shaw quote...

It referenced Shaw's sense of Irish identity, and his understanding of what drives the Irish people toward Nationalism and Republicanism - both concepts which seem alien to the British establishment.

Auvers

who the hell wants to join another state that is economically fcuked

now on the other hand we should maybe consider joining and allying ourselves with upcoming fourth Reich :P

cassi

bwatson wrote: »

cassi wrote: »

Like the orange order celebrating the battle of the boyne????

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of your post.

I assume that you understand the difference between a pitched battle fought between the armies of two rival monarchs and the murder of defenceless women and children?

I think you know well what im at. You said yourself the celebrating of deaths is shameful. Is this not true for both sides of the coin?

You seem well knowledgeable when it comes to history so i assume you understand there are two views to every conflict. Your innocents may not ne innocent to others.

Im far from being a nationalist but im also well able to see the horrible legacy the british have left as regards this country. Thankfully i can see the past as past.

This isnt necessarly directed just to you bwatson, history cant be ignored but learned from and constant finger pointing or book passing isnt going get any debate settled.

Anyway ive said my piece, this has been an entertaining thread.

xsiborg

Sound of Silence wrote: »

As opposed to your entirely reasonable reply, which essentially amassed to "the Brits have Nukes, therefore we should definitely submit, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot." Give me a break...

If you had been dismissive, perhaps you would have dismissed the post, rather than spend time to write a long rant about the respective military capabilities of each Country when this had little if anything to do with the initial post.

Wage a war against what? The status quo? As mentioned previously, you've mistaken Nationalism and Patriotism for some kind of violent intent.

I did know that. That's why I wrote it...

You assumed that everyone else would be as quick to jump ship as you were.

Then you would realise that it was not a George Bernard Shaw quote...

It referenced Shaw's sense of Irish identity, and his understanding of what drives the Irish people toward Nationalism and Republicanism - both concepts which seem alien to the British establishment.

ya got me, good man, now lets move it along.

Richard

CajunPenguin wrote: »

The Falklands are part of Britain's desperate attempt to keep their long dead empire still going. And while you may say the inhabitants of these countries are happy to stay under british rule I doubt the natives fell the same.

.

What natives?

Sound of Silence

xsiborg wrote: »

ya got me, good man, now lets move it along.

I apologise if I came across a little brash. I didn't mean it.

Sound of Silence

KeithAFC wrote: »

Funny you say that, I get the complete opposite feed back from Republicans. Republicans online who debate that partition is more secure than ever. That a lot of young "Nationalists" have absolutely no interest in politics.

You argue that these people have no interest in politics, yet you clearly say that they define themselves as Nationalists and Republicans? I'm assuming your substituting the word "Catholics" for "Nationalists"...

Even so, it would be folly to assume that the people you meet on the Internet could approximate any sort of accurate cross-section of society.

For example, I've spoken to Unionists and Loyalists who deify Lenny Murphy and his cronies, and who call Michael Stone a "true hero of Ulster". I've also spoken to Unionists and Loyalists who have argued that all Irish Catholics should be exterminated to make way for a Protestant Nation - (Probably taking a page out of George Seawright's book). Do these people approximate Unionism as it stands today? Absolutely not.

awec

Sound of Silence wrote: »

You argue that these people have no interest in politics, yet you clearly say that they define themselves as Nationalists and Republicans? I'm assuming your substituting the word "Catholics" for "Nationalists"...

Even so, it would be folly to assume that the people you meet on the Internet could approximate any sort of accurate cross-section of society.

For example, I've spoken to Unionists and Loyalists who deify Lenny Murphy and his cronies, and who call Michael Stone a "true hero of Ulster". I've also spoken to Unionists and Loyalists who have argued that all Irish Catholics should be exterminated to make way for a Protestant Nation - (Probably taking a page out of George Seawright's book). Do these people approximate Unionism as it stands today? Absolutely not.

Such people would be very much in the extreme minority within Unionism.

I think Unionism has unfairly been painted as a bunch of god fearing Paisley loving bible bashing nutjobs.

Unfortunately people seem to equate Protestant and Unionist, Nationalist and Catholic, and whilst that may be true for most people there are certainly middle grounders where that doesn't quite stand up.

I would certainly say that if it came to a vote not all catholics would vote yes. Middle class catholics from mixed areas are going to want to know how exactly they are better off should they vote yes.

KeithAFC

Sound of Silence wrote: »

You argue that these people have no interest in politics, yet you clearly say that they define themselves as Nationalists and Republicans? I'm assuming your substituting the word "Catholics" for "Nationalists"...

Even so, it would be folly to assume that the people you meet on the Internet could approximate any sort of accurate cross-section of society.

For example, I've spoken to Unionists and Loyalists who deify Lenny Murphy and his cronies, and who call Michael Stone a "true hero of Ulster". I've also spoken to Unionists and Loyalists who have argued that all Irish Catholics should be exterminated to make way for a Protestant Nation - (Probably taking a page out of George Seawright's book). Do these people approximate Unionism as it stands today? Absolutely not.

People who come from designated nationalist areas. Hince the (").

Richard

Richard wrote: »

.

What natives?

The Penguins!

Sound of Silence

KeithAFC wrote: »

People who come from designated nationalist areas. Hince the (").

Living in what could be described as a designated "Nationalist" area, I have yet to encounter anyone who does not actively wish for a United Ireland. I've lived in this area my entire life.

Having not simply embraced the terms stipulated in the Good Friday Agreement, the Nationalist population in my area also recognise that the pursuit of a United Ireland requires a very practical and logical approach.

Sound of Silence

awec wrote: »

Such people would be very much in the extreme minority within Unionism.

I think Unionism has unfairly been painted as a bunch of god fearing Paisley loving bible bashing nutjobs.

Admittedly Peter Robinson is slightly inclinded toward the typical stereotype of the Bible-Thumping Unionist.

Here

It's also apparent that Iris shared similar views - perhaps even to a greater extent. At least it provided some artistic inspiration though! :rolleyes:

Here

Despite this, the DUP have certainly become infinitely more progressive since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. This is evidenced by the concerted efforts of their members to reach across the divide and at least tollerate organisations like the GAA.

The TUV are an entirely different kettle of fish. Unionists, however, were reluctant to jump on that bandwagon, which I really appreciate.

Unfortunately people seem to equate Protestant and Unionist, Nationalist and Catholic, and whilst that may be true for most people there are certainly middle grounders where that doesn't quite stand up.

Very true.

I would certainly say that if it came to a vote not all catholics would vote yes. Middle class catholics from mixed areas are going to want to know how exactly they are better off should they vote yes.

This is essentially the crux of my arguement. However, it would be wrong to assume that these apparent moderates had abandoned the idea entirely.

Dyr

Sound of Silence wrote: »

, the Nationalist population in my area also recognise that the pursuit of a United Ireland requires a very practical and logical approach.

Or more military grade explosives than is practicable

awec

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Admittedly Peter Robinson is slightly inclinded toward the typical stereotype of the Bible-Thumping Unionist.

Here

It's also apparent that Iris shared similar views - perhaps even to a greater extent. At least it provided some artistic inspiration though! :rolleyes:

Here

Despite this, the DUP have certainly become infinitely more progressive since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. This is evidenced by the concerted efforts of their members to reach across the divide and at least tollerate organisations like the GAA.

The TUV are an entirely different kettle of fish. Unionists, however, were reluctant to jump on that bandwagon, which I really appreciate.



Very true.



This is essentially the crux of my arguement. However, it would be wrong to assume that these apparent moderates had abandoned the idea entirely.

The DUP are a party I couldn't bring myself to vote for because to me they have not done enough to get rid of the old DUP / Free P image. That and the fact I find them distinctly unlikeable. The exception to this is Sammy Wilson, who personally I think is a fantastic Finance minister and goes against the grain slightly of your typical DUP MLA.

And yep, I agree. Middle class Catholics certainly haven't abandoned the idea of a United Ireland, or lost their aspirations for one, but they don't have a "United Ireland at whatever cost" outlook. They want it, but the effect it has on them and their families must be for the better.

As it stands with recessions and debt and what not, very few people in NI would be better off as part of a 32 county Ireland.

woodoo

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Living in what could be described as a designated "Nationalist" area, I have yet to encounter anyone who does not actively wish for a United Ireland. I've lived in this area my entire life.

Having not simply embraced the terms stipulated in the Good Friday Agreement, the Nationalist population in my area also recognise that the pursuit of a United Ireland requires a very practical and logical approach.

Its all about timing. Right now Ireland is in such a state people aren't realistically discussing a UI. But Ireland will come good again and hopefully the younger generation will demand standards and a country run well without corruption and cronyism. On the other hand with peace London will expect NI to begin to stand on its own 2 feet and generate money itself. Less handouts etc. Scotland may even leave the union.

We will see how it all stands in 15 or 20 years time. I think a UI is likely particularly if Catholics begin to out number PUL people (the only section of the North that have people who hate Irish people... a minority i know). No Catholic even if they favour the Union right now has a burning hatred or Ireland or Irishness. Whenever the PUL are outnumbered things will change up there.

awec

Let's get something straight here. There is more chance of me growing a second glove rock than Scotland leaving the union.

woodoo

awec wrote: »

And yep, I agree. Middle class Catholics certainly haven't abandoned the idea of a United Ireland, or lost their aspirations for one, but they don't have a "United Ireland at whatever cost" outlook. They want it, but the effect it has on them and their families must be for the better..

And that is the way it should be. What Kieth fails to understand is that these sort of people will never be militantly against a UI. They will vote pragmatically. He won't be able to rely on moderate Catholic's to save the union in the long term.

woodoo

awec wrote: »

Let's get something straight here. There is more chance of me growing a second glove rock than Scotland leaving the union.

Not in the coming years but the march is on. It will happen i believe. They won't become a Republic though imo.

awec

woodoo wrote: »

Not in the coming years but the march is on. It will happen i believe. They won't become a Republic though imo.

The SNP are a nationalist party but a vote for the SNP in Scotland is not like a vote for Sinn Fein in the north.

It's a protest vote, basically saying "the other party's are so unbelievably poor that we're voting SNP".

In the north the constitutional issue is front and centre. Sinn Fein could come out tomorrow and say that if they are elected they'd take 50 quid off everyone to do up their HQ with a new lick of paint and nationalists would still vote for them.

In Scotland, the constitutional issue isn't really under much question at the moment. Someone voting for the SNP doesn't necessarily have a nationalist outlook. Politics in Scotland is much more mature than in the north.

psychward

awec wrote: »

Politics in Scotland is much more mature than in the north.

What % of the population is split by sectarianism e.g Rangers/Celtic fans ?

I have come across some unbelieveable bigots in my time from Scotland who I approached with a very open mind but were impossible to get along with unless completely ignored. And I never expected to meet them either. When you think Scotland you think Braveheart etc etc

awec

psychward wrote: »

What % of the population is split by sectarianism e.g Rangers/Celtic fans ?

I have come across some unbelieveable bigots in my time from Scotland who I approached with a very open mind but were impossible to get along with unless completely ignored. And I never expected to meet them either. When you think Scotland you think Braveheart etc etc

I am not saying it doesn't have it's dinosaurs as well.

psychward

awec wrote: »

I am not saying it doesn't have it's dinosaurs as well.

Unfortunately being flawed is part of the human condition. Some of us are closer to erm... Nirvana than others lol .

What interests me is which party do sectarian bigots tend to vote for in Scotland ?

KeithAFC

woodoo wrote: »

And that is the way it should be. What Kieth fails to understand is that these sort of people will never be militantly against a UI. They will vote pragmatically. He won't be able to rely on moderate Catholic's to save the union in the long term.

You would be surprised. The DUP are doing a great job at attracting the middle and upper class Catholic vote. Things are changing. A lot of people just want to stay in the status quo. All the DUP have to do is keep the liberal stance up and the Union will be fine.

HavingCrack

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Living in what could be described as a designated "Nationalist" area, I have yet to encounter anyone who does not actively wish for a United Ireland. I've lived in this area my entire life.

Would this be considered a 'working class' "Nationalist" area by any chance? I find middle and upper class Nationalists are a lot more pragmatic. They aren't opposed to a United Ireland but they don't actively wish for it either.

woodoo

KeithAFC wrote: »

You would be surprised. The DUP are doing a great job at attracting the middle and upper class Catholic vote. Things are changing. A lot of people just want to stay in the status quo. All the DUP have to do is keep the liberal stance up and the Union will be fine.

So long as they keep pretending you mean.