Any protestants in NI that feel Irish?

woodoo

p.oconnor wrote: »

Do you mean keep the country united with the republic pre-1920's ? It's ironic that if the British had not giving the free state in 1922 the country today probably would have been united under Dublin rule.

Yeah the free state was a ridiculous thing to agree to. In or out of the union but the country united and not partitioned.

woodoo

Fuinseog wrote: »

no cos we are ruled by feckless corrupt politicians, albeit slightly better than FF, who could not organise a piss up in a brewery.

I worked with protestants. they are hard workers with a sense of decency. mick wallace politicans would be intolerable to them. in Britain a politician who does not pay tax or is is found to be on the take is usually asked to resign.

Its a serious low for this country that he remains in the Dail.

p.oconnor

woodoo wrote: »

Yeah the free state was a ridiculous thing to agree to. In or out of the union but the country united and not partitioned.

It really is a major "What if'" of Irish history. I often wonder if Michael Collins could have foreseen the events after he signed the Anglo-Irish treaty would his opinion have changed on the treaty. I think he would have been disgusted at a divided country almost 100 years later.

woodoo

p.oconnor wrote: »

It really is a major "What if'" of Irish history. I often wonder if Michael Collins could have foreseen the events after he signed the Anglo-Irish treaty would his opinion have changed on the treaty. I think he would have been disgusted at a divided country almost 100 years later.

True, the man was only 32 years old too. Massive decision for someone that age to make.

flogging a dead horse

A question that maybe a politically pertinenet question. How many Scottish people consider themselves British. Apart from blue and tax cheating old firm, that is. IS there going to be a referendum in Scotland? They have the oil, and there distant cousins the Norweigan live the life, while Scot's live in poverty, with some places in Glasgow making old Ballymun palatial.
Incidentally BP is the reason why Brits are a hated bunch in the USA. Realistically British Patroleum in English Petroleum.
If Scotland tears up the act of union, then will the 6 couinties join with us? An indepent N Ireland, or a federal Ulster ruled by Dail Eireann?
Both Old Firm are hated in Scotland.

Varied

I would consider myself an Irish republican from the north. I support Ulster rugby and the ROI soccer. I have/had many friends in college that consider themselves unionists.

The best thing about us was that we never talked about politics or religion, we were a neutral group that didn't give a fook about any of that. We knew eachothers beliefs and we quietly respected them. I was born a catholic but I consider myself atheist.

p.oconnor

woodoo wrote: »

True, the man was only 32 years old too. Massive decision for someone that age to make.

Very true, exceptional man, I have respect for all sides of the divide at the time, every single one of them took the decision either to back the treaty or not out of their love of this country, every one of them put the current shower to shame and they must be turning in their graves.

flogging a dead horse wrote: »

If Scotland tears up the act of union, then will the 6 couinties join with us? An indepent N Ireland, or a federal Ulster ruled by Dail Eireann?

Scotland probably will stay in the Union but if they opted out the decision would have no impact on the situation in the north, they will always be part of the Union until the majority vote to united the country.

p.oconnor

Varied wrote: »

I would consider myself an Irish republican from the north. I support Ulster rugby and the ROI soccer. I have/had many friends in college that consider themselves unionists.

The best thing about us was that we never talked about politics or religion, we were a neutral group that didn't give a fook about any of that. We knew eachothers beliefs and we quietly respected them. I was born a catholic but I consider myself atheist.

As an Irish republican from the north do you think the recent poll saying only 7% wanted a united Ireland is accurate?

LordSutch

p.oconnor wrote: »

As an Irish republican from the north do you think the recent poll saying only 7% wanted a united Ireland is accurate?

I am curious, was that 7% of people in Northern Ireland, or . . .

please explain as I didn't see the poll.

p.oconnor

LordSutch wrote: »

I am curious, was that 7% of people in Northern Ireland, or . . .

please explain as I didn't see the poll.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/just-7pc-in-north-want-ireland-to-be-united-3134105.html

Varied

p.oconnor wrote: »

As an Irish republican from the north do you think the recent poll saying only 7% wanted a united Ireland is accurate?

Which poll is that?

Edit: Just seen it, I respect people's views on it, it's understandable considering the state of the economy.

p.oconnor

Varied wrote: »

Which poll is that?

As above..
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/just-7pc-in-north-want-ireland-to-be-united-3134105.html

Il Trap

bilston wrote: »

Well most of my 500 odd posts on Boards have been made on the Rugby board so I'd have absolutely no problem representing Ireland at sport!

The Olympics obviously throws up a slightly different question because there is an alternative in the form of GB.

My attitude would be that I would be delighted to represent either however it would depend on who I'd represented before or how I'd be been brought up in that sport. So for example if I played my particular sport for Ireland away from the Olympics then I'd represent Ireland at the Olympics, even if there was a GB team. However if I represented NI in that sport then I'd represent GB...(if I was remotely good enough obviously:D)

If I represented Ireland at sport (and in fact I did at age group level in a sport (not Rugby) when I was 17 or 18) I won't pretend that I'd be entirely comfortable standing to the Tricolour or the Soldiers Song but I'd still do it respectfully. But then I see those as symbols of the Irish Republic as opposed to the island of Ireland if that makes sense.

A fair point, but it of course there is a significant section of the population of the North that would disagree completely with that opinion (not saying that you in particular are suggesting otherwise) and would very much see the tricolour and Amhráin na bhFiann as represenative of an all-island Irish nation - a legitimate belief that they are wholly entitled to. It rankles with me when people try to attribute all that is of Irish nationalism strictly to the territory that is south of the border - again, not accusing you of doing so.

Jimoslimos

p.oconnor wrote: »

Scotland probably will stay in the Union but if they opted out the decision would have no impact on the situation in the north, they will always be part of the Union until the majority vote to united the country.

Well given that many unionists up North would consider their heritage 'Ulster Scots' it is worthy of consideration.

Ideologically they may still feel 'British' but politically the options would be,

a) Linked to a united Ireland
b) A union with Scotland
c) Remain in the union with England and Wales.
d) An independent NI

b) is least likely,
c) Most likely, but raises questions on what 'Unionism' really is, i.e without England it ceases to exist - Scotland, Wales & NI are disposable.
d) even less financially viable than a united Ireland

flogging a dead horse

I have a few English friends and they and lot of their friends regard themselves as English. Scotland up north is another country and potentially another state. Welsh people generally regard themselves as British, intrestingly they use their native language in a more daily use than our own native language.

flogging a dead horse

Also Britain will still exist in name as a geographical location , even if the Scots were to seek independence. After all England, Wales and Scotland all live on the one island. The island of Britain, not the island of England, the way the Iberian peninsula has two countries.

grenache

Regarding Irish Unionism, I feel David Ervine hit the nail on the head a few years back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tamf5CI1yVY

Fratton Fred

flogging a dead horse wrote: »

Incidentally BP is the reason why Brits are a hated bunch in the USA. Realistically British Patroleum in English Petroleum.

It must have changed an awful lot since I worked there then.

BP isn't that big a player in the north sea anymore, but there is still a very big Scottish contingent in the workforce, mainly due to getting first digs on the large number of Scots that do oil industry related courses in Scottish universities.

However, despite the name, BP has a very American feel about the place. All budgets are in US dollars, their largest area of operations is in the states and job titles are American, ie I worked for a vice president, not a director.

40% of the company is US owned, hence the amount of facepalming in Wall Street when Obama was getting stuck in to them. That cost a lot of US pension funds a lot of money.

TheTwiz

Border-Rat wrote: »

I grew up with the Captain of the National Cricket Team. He was a bit of a Loyalist at school, I guess he grew out of it.

William Porterfield? You can tell by his name and being from the North he wouldnt be happy with all the cricket fans waving tricolours

Fratton Fred

TheTwiz wrote: »

Border-Rat wrote: »

I grew up with the Captain of the National Cricket Team. He was a bit of a Loyalist at school, I guess he grew out of it.

William Porterfield? You can tell by his name and being from the North he wouldnt be happy with all the cricket fans waving tricolours

I think there are a few unfair assumptions being made here.

William Porterfield has been dedicated to Irish cricket, more so than a couple of cricketers from the south tbf.

TheTwiz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think there are a few unfair assumptions being made here.

William Porterfield has been dedicated to Irish cricket, more so than a couple of cricketers from the south tbf.

He has no other choice to be fair

davet82

p.oconnor wrote: »

As an Irish republican from the north do you think the recent poll saying only 7% wanted a united Ireland is accurate?

wow i never expected a figure like that, thanks for the link.

An Coilean

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The State basically accommodated them and as you say, "Their" religion was "Tolerated"? are you implying then that, you know, those prods weren't really Irish were they.

Lets face it, protestants in the south, whilst not actively discriminated against, weren't exactly made to feel welcome.

The use of 'their' is simply to signify that I am talking about a specific group of people. Maybe you know another way to refer to a group of people without using 'Their', perhaps I could have said 'The Protestants' every time, but that seems to me as open to the interperatation you ascribe to the use of 'Their'.


As for 'Tolerated', that is the accepted term for the position their religion held in the country. Catholisim was'nt exactly the state religion, though it was close to being.

To be honnest though I am at a loss to see what should have happened to make Protestants in the new state feel welcome. Should the new state have thrown a big party in their honnor?
They were not 'made to feel welcome' in the same way Gingers were not made to feel welcome. Except in the case of protestants, the got their own seperate Education system, the senate was set up specifically to make them feel more able to engadge in national politics, and the first head of state was himself a Protestant.

The question I have is why is this important? So the new state did not go out of it way to welcome Protestants, it did not go out of its way to welcome people from Wexford either, perhaps they should also have some sort of greviance?

p.oconnor

davet82 wrote: »

wow i never expected a figure like that, thanks for the link.

I would say that figure is somewhat skewed due to the economic collapse down here though but saying that I think the vast majority want to remain as it is now, a shared power-sharing government in Britain.

davet82

p.oconnor wrote: »

I would say that figure is somewhat skewed due to the economic collapse down here though but saying that I think the vast majority want to remain as it is now, a shared power-sharing government in Britain.

as long as the majority want to keep things the way it is, democracy should be respected. I often wonder as time goes by will this ever change...

who knows stranger things have happened but i wouldn't hold my breath

Fratton Fred

An Coilean wrote: »

The use of 'their' is simply to signify that I am talking about a specific group of people. Maybe you know another way to refer to a group of people without using 'Their', perhaps I could have said 'The Protestants' every time, but that seems to me as open to the interperatation you ascribe to the use of 'Their'.


As for 'Tolerated', that is the accepted term for the position their religion held in the country. Catholisim was'nt exactly the state religion, though it was close to being.

To be honnest though I am at a loss to see what should have happened to make Protestants in the new state feel welcome. Should the new state have thrown a big party in their honnor?
They were not 'made to feel welcome' in the same way Gingers were not made to feel welcome. Except in the case of protestants, the got their own seperate Education system, the senate was set up specifically to make them feel more able to engadge in national politics, and the first head of state was himself a Protestant.

The question I have is why is this important? So the new state did not go out of it way to welcome Protestants, it did not go out of its way to welcome people from Wexford either, perhaps they should also have some sort of greviance?

Having an inclusive, secular education and health system would have been a good start.

Also allowing Priests to have an excessive amount of sway. For example, in the case of the Mayo Librarian controversy, the library commitee of 12 members included about 8 priests, who were never going to give the job to a protestant.

Basically, just dropping this laughable belief still held by many that to be truely Irish, you have to be a catholic.

Marcusm

Where To wrote: »

There aren't many Anglicans in Ireland.

Only those who are members of the Church of Ireland.......

p.oconnor

davet82 wrote: »

as long as the majority want to keep things the way it is, democracy should be respected. I often wonder as time goes by will this ever change...

who knows stranger things have happened but i wouldn't hold my breath

Time will tell but I honestly don't think we will ever see it in our lifetime.

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Having an inclusive, secular education and health system would have been a good start.

Also allowing Priests to have an excessive amount of sway. For example, in the case of the Mayo Librarian controversy, the library commitee of 12 members included about 8 priests, who were never going to give the job to a protestant.

Basically, just dropping this laughable belief still held by many that to be truely Irish, you have to be a catholic.

many protestants in the new state did not have access to protestant schools,and as the education/welfare system was catholic run,they would be at the bottom of any list to get it .the jewish population had it even harder, many jewish doctors had to leave the new state to practice their profession as they found it hard to get their sick into the hospitals,yet in the north despite the well documented discrimination the catholic population has increased

Nulty

minidazzler wrote: »

Ireland is an artificial country created by boundaries of the sea though it was never truly united. The High Kings/King of Tara were NOT in charge of a country that was united by any manner of means.

Culture, man, Culture! Go away with your "Artificial" nonsense. Nation vs State and all that.

Crooked Jack

davet82 wrote: »

as long as the majority want to keep things the way it is, democracy should be respected. I often wonder as time goes by will this ever change...

who knows stranger things have happened but i wouldn't hold my breath

But it's not democratic. Asking the people of Ireland, all the people of Ireland, would be democratic. Or even asking all the people of Britain and Ireland, while not ideal, would be closer to democracy. but just asking the people in the area that was specifically designed to usurp democracy is not democratic.
The north's very existence as a separate entity is an affront to democracy.
Now I'm realistic, so for the sake of the people of Ireland and the peace of the country I support the Peace Process and put up with this but do not try and pass of the farce we have here as democracy

davet82

Crooked Jack wrote: »

But it's not democratic. Asking the people of Ireland, all the people of Ireland, would be democratic. Or even asking all the people of Britain and Ireland, while not ideal, would be closer to democracy. but just asking the people in the area that was specifically designed to usurp democracy is not democratic.
The north's very existence as a separate entity is an affront to democracy.
Now I'm realistic, so for the sake of the people of Ireland and the peace of the country I support the Peace Process and put up with this but do not try and pass of the farce we have here as democracy

I think the state of the country economicly and with the threat of violence in forcing a united ireland on the people of the six counties (who clearly want to remain in britain both catholic and prodestant majority) most people in ireland would also vote to leave it the way it is...

the english on the other hand would probably vote to get rid of it, how things have changed :pac:

p.oconnor

Crooked Jack wrote: »

But it's not democratic. Asking the people of Ireland, all the people of Ireland, would be democratic. Or even asking all the people of Britain and Ireland, while not ideal, would be closer to democracy. but just asking the people in the area that was specifically designed to usurp democracy is not democratic.
The north's very existence as a separate entity is an affront to democracy.
Now I'm realistic, so for the sake of the people of Ireland and the peace of the country I support the Peace Process and put up with this but do not try and pass of the farce we have here as democracy

Of course what you are saying is right but the current situation is a compromise between both sides, it is a lot better to keep the current arrangement in place then to go back to the bad old days. The British government is the only one who can change the current agreement and do what it sees fit in terms of democracy, they and the Irish government have decided it will be the people of the 6 counties that will decide, not the people of Ireland and Britain.

p.oconnor

davet82 wrote: »

I think the state of the country economicly and with the threat of violence in forcing a united ireland on the people of the six counties (who clearly want to remain in britain both catholic and prodestant majority) most people in ireland would also vote to leave it the way it is...

the english on the other hand would probably vote to get rid of it, how things have changed :pac:

I don't know about that, I think it would be hard to see most Irish people refusing to unite the country whatever the ramifications.

Crooked Jack

davet82 wrote: »

I think the state of the country economicly and with the threat of violence in forcing a united ireland on the people of the six counties (who clearly want to remain in britain both catholic and prodestant majority) most people in ireland would also vote to leave it the way it is...

the english on the other hand would probably vote to get rid of it, how things have changed :pac:

Well firstly the accuracy and importance of that poll (I assume your referring to the Red C 7 per cent one) has been waaaaaaayyy overstated.
Secondly, again, it only asks people in the north, which just goes back to my last point about the north being a subversion of democracy.
Thirdly, what you, I or any other individuals think the people of Ireland might do is no substitute for actually asking them.

Cant disagree with your last point though

getz

davet82 wrote: »

I think the state of the country economicly and with the threat of violence in forcing a united ireland on the people of the six counties (who clearly want to remain in britain both catholic and prodestant majority) most people in ireland would also vote to leave it the way it is...

the english on the other hand would probably vote to get rid of it, how things have changed :pac:

you do have a point what it costs in keeping northern ireland in one year would bail out the irish economy,

Crooked Jack

p.oconnor wrote: »

Of course what you are saying is right but the current situation is a compromise between both sides, it is a lot better to keep the current arrangement in place then to go back to the bad old days. The British government is the only one who can change the current agreement and do what it sees fit in terms of democracy, they and the Irish government have decided it will be the people of the 6 counties that will decide, not the people of Ireland and Britain.

Absolutely, that's why I pointed out that I fully support the peace process. Im not suggest forcing unity on anyone.
It just riles me up when people try to refer to any decision made solely in the north as somehow democratic

Crooked Jack

getz wrote: »

you do have a point what it costs in keeping northern ireland in one year would bail out the irish economy,

The british block grant to the north is around 10bn, 5bn of which they get back.
If 5bn could have fixed the economy we wouldnt be in this mess.

p.oconnor

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Absolutely, that's why I pointed out that I fully support the peace process. Im not suggest forcing unity on anyone.
It just riles me up when people try to refer to any decision made solely in the north as somehow democratic

Ya the north has a very complex history, it should never have existed if democracy was observed, if full democracy was observed protestants would still be running the north as a single party dictatorship and if a democratic referendum was held on an all-Ireland basis it again would not exist.

The current system is an ad hoc attempt at democracy but it does seem to be working. Irish politics .... simple out :rolleyes:

bluecode

I always think that probably one of the worst aspects of partition was the fact that we effectively lost the input of the Protestants in the North. That plus the industry based there. The result was a country dominated by the Catholic, sorry Roman Catholic church because of course the Anglican, Epicopalians, C of I consider themselves 'Catholic' too.:p

When the Unionist said 'Home rule was Rome rule'. They were wrong but by asbenting themselves from the job. They made sure the 26 counties was dominated by the Church. To the detriment of the country.

p.oconnor

bluecode wrote: »

When the Unionist said 'Home rule was Rome rule'. They were wrong but by asbenting themselves from the job. They made sure the 26 counties was dominated by the Church. To the detriment of the country.

You are right if the Unionists had given in to home rule it probably would have been great for the country, I'm sure the unionist/nationalist thing would have faded away shortly after home rule and we would have been run by an elected government and not the Catholic church.

getz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The british block grant to the north is around 10bn, 5bn of which they get back.
If 5bn could have fixed the economy we wouldnt be in this mess.

could be far worse,what is the gain of a all ireland at this time when the result may mean you would have to leave the country to be able to feed your family,in the north the cost would be enormous,no NHS and thousands out of work in the public sector,on top of that i very much doubt that the irish state could afford or handle the violence that would certainly happen,be careful what you wish for

p.oconnor

getz wrote: »

could be far worse,what is the gain of a all ireland at this time when the result may mean you would have to leave the country to be able to feed your family,in the north the cost would be enormous,no NHS and thousands out of work in the public sector,on top of that i very much doubt that the irish state could afford or handle the violence that would certainly happen,be careful what you wish for

Jesus you paint a pretty picture of us alright :rolleyes: it's not all bad, definitely not as bad as the hardship ensured in the north since partition.

Fratton Fred

bluecode wrote: »

I always think that probably one of the worst aspects of partition was the fact that we effectively lost the input of the Protestants in the North. That plus the industry based there. The result was a country dominated by the Catholic, sorry Roman Catholic church because of course the Anglican, Epicopalians, C of I consider themselves 'Ccatholic' too.:p

When the Unionist said 'Home rule was Rome rule'. They were wrong but by asbenting themselves from the job. They made sure the 26 counties was dominated by the Church. To the detriment of the country.

Small "C".

davet82

p.oconnor wrote: »

I don't know about that, I think it would be hard to see most Irish people refusing to unite the country whatever the ramifications.

sounds like we need a poll

idk - i never thought we'd give up a claim to north either and look how that vote went

getz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The british block grant to the north is around 10bn, 5bn of which they get back.
If 5bn could have fixed the economy we wouldnt be in this mess.

the british goverment bailed out ireland with a £6bn loan last time,so just think what a £10 bn grant income every year could do for the state ,because that what it cost [your figures ] to keep the north now

davet82

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well firstly the accuracy and importance of that poll (I assume your referring to the Red C 7 per cent one) has been waaaaaaayyy overstated.
Secondly, again, it only asks people in the north, which just goes back to my last point about the north being a subversion of democracy.
Thirdly, what you, I or any other individuals think the people of Ireland might do is no substitute for actually asking them.

Cant disagree with your last point though

I agree with the polls being overrated but i reckon it still comes up with the same answer.

I think it is only right in asking what the people of the north want only as its them that has to live there, i'd love to see a united ireland but only if a majority wants it up there.

I agree with your last point too. I'll be honest i am not that clued in when it comes to the north and my views are easily interchangable as it dosent effect me or bother me too much i guess. But i do find it all very interesting

p.oconnor

davet82 wrote: »

sounds like we need a poll

idk - i never thought we'd give up a claim to north either and look how that vote went

I don't think the constitutional claim on the north made a blind bit difference on achieving a United Ireland, if anything it reinforced the perception to the unionists that we down south were backward looking and afraid to change our ways. Giving up the claim merely threw the ball into the court of the people of the north, it gave them the message of unite with us if you want, if not let it stay as it is and we won't loose any sleep over it either way.

davet82

p.oconnor wrote: »

I don't think the constitutional claim on the north made a blind bit difference on achieving a United Ireland, if anything it reinforced the perception to the unionists that we down south were backward looking and afraid to change our ways. Giving up the claim merely threw the ball into the court of the people of the north, it gave them the message of unite with us if you want, if not let it stay as it is and we won't loose any sleep over it either way.

Reverse psycology, we're a clever bunch

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

But it's not democratic. Asking the people of Ireland, all the people of Ireland, would be democratic. Or even asking all the people of Britain and Ireland, while not ideal, would be closer to democracy. but just asking the people in the area that was specifically designed to usurp democracy is not democratic.
The north's very existence as a separate entity is an affront to democracy.
Now I'm realistic, so for the sake of the people of Ireland and the peace of the country I support the Peace Process and put up with this but do not try and pass of the farce we have here as democracy

Don't be ridiculous. Southern independence wasn't voted on by all of the UK. Democracy in this case is not ideal because it allows the majority to repress the minority. Unionists had as much right to reject independence as nationalists had to seek it. Yes unionists were the minority in Ireland but nationalists were the minority in the UK. Both are minorities depending on how you look at it. Why would Britain turn their loyal citizens over to a hostile state?