Tim Pat Coogan on Ulster unionists

johnny_doyle

tac foley wrote: »

...and this will take place.......when?

I thought that the government of the RoI had given up their constitutional claim to the return of the six counties to the republic, the so-called 26+6 = 1 deal.

tac

hopefully soon. As Ireland changes but, more importantly, as the UK changes.

johnny_doyle

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

You do know a majority of the votes cast in the 1918 election were for political parties whose policy it was to remain within the United Kingdom? If you are interested here are the figures.

PARTIES IN FAVOUR OF REMAINING IN UNITED KINDGOM

Irish Unionist - 257,314 votes (25.3%)
Irish Parliamentary - 220,837 votes (21.7%)
Labour Unionists - 30,304 votes (3%)
Labour - 12,164 votes (1.2%)
Independent Unionist - 9,531 votes (0.9%)
Independent Nationalist - 8,183 (0.8%)

TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF VOTES - 53.1%


PARTIES IN FAVOUR OF SEPARATION FROM UNITED KINGDOM

Sinn Féin - 476,087 votes (46.9%)

TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF VOTES - 46.9%

If the proposition for immediate separation from the United Kingdom in 1918 was to be assessed as a constitutional referendum, then it was defeated.

UK democracy doesn't work that way. Elections across the UK throw up interesting side statistics but in the British system, it's first past the post in terms of constituencies won.

In the 1979 UK elections the Fancy Dress Party polled more votes that the Keep Britain United Party. The Irish Independence Party and the Irish National Party also polled more votes than the Keep Britain United Party. The Conservative Party won a landslide result in terms of seats but only got 43.9% of the vote.

You can slice and dice British voting patterns in so many ways and claim mandates for this, that and the other depending on your own politics.

In terms of the 1918 election, it's worth considering how far SF had come since the Easter Rising and how many were still not entitled to vote despite their interest in politics (that would include many Unionists, Nationalists, women and so on)

pedroeibar1

tac foley wrote: »

...and this will take place.......when?

I thought that the government of the RoI had given up their constitutional claim to the return of the six counties to the republic, the so-called 26+6 = 1 deal.

tac

They did, in 1998, Articles 2 & 3, Belfast Agreement.

With about one third of the workforce employed by the 'state' and its economy dependant on large handouts from HM Govt, the RoI far into the foreseeable future could not possibly afford integration, even if it was handed back to us on a plate.

MakeEmLaugh

johnny_doyle wrote: »

UK democracy doesn't work that way. Elections across the UK throw up interesting side statistics but in the British system, it's first past the post in terms of constituencies won.

In the 1979 UK elections the Fancy Dress Party polled more votes that the Keep Britain United Party. The Irish Independence Party and the Irish National Party also polled more votes than the Keep Britain United Party. The Conservative Party won a landslide result in terms of seats but only got 43.9% of the vote.

You can slice and dice British voting patterns in so many ways and claim mandates for this, that and the other depending on your own politics.

In terms of the 1918 election, it's worth considering how far SF had come since the Easter Rising and how many were still not entitled to vote despite their interest in politics (that would include many Unionists, Nationalists, women and so on)

I did say "If the proposition for immediate separation from the United Kingdom in 1918 was to be assessed as a constitutional referendum, then it was defeated." I was not arguing that Sinn Féin did not win a majority of seats in the 1918 election, they did.

However, the myth, peddled by many - including dissident republicans such as the Continuity IRA - that the 'overwhelming majority of the Irish people' voted for Sinn Féin in the 1918 election is just that, a myth.

As these figures prove, a majority of the Irish people did not vote for Sinn Féin in the 1918 election.

Rebelheart

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I did say "If the proposition for immediate separation from the United Kingdom in 1918 was to be assessed as a constitutional referendum, then it was defeated." I was not arguing that Sinn Féin did not win a majority of seats in the 1918 election, they did.

However, the myth, peddled by many - including dissident republicans such as the Continuity IRA - that the 'overwhelming majority of the Irish people' voted for Sinn Féin in the 1918 election is just that, a myth.

As these figures prove, a majority of the Irish people did not vote for Sinn Féin in the 1918 election.

And as a British nationalist what, pray tell, are your support figures for the British colonial government's regime in Ireland since the Treaty of Mellifont in 1603? Did even one person vote for it in 1918, or in any year before it? Oh but it's always different when it's your crowd.

jonniebgood1

Rebelheart wrote: »

And as a British nationalist what, pray tell, are your support figures for the British colonial government's regime in Ireland since the Treaty of Mellifont in 1603? Did even one person vote for it in 1918, or in any year before it? Oh but it's always different when it's your crowd.

Calm it a bit Rebelheart. If you have something to say then try and do it more constructively than the quoted post. Any issue with this then PM me.

Moderator.

MakeEmLaugh

Rebelheart wrote: »

And as a British nationalist what, pray tell, are your support figures for the British colonial government's regime in Ireland since the Treaty of Mellifont in 1603? Did even one person vote for it in 1918, or in any year before it? Oh but it's always different when it's your crowd.

Being born and reared in Sligo, I cannot speak for any British nationalists.

I have quoted nothing but facts. Instead of employing inaccurate ad hominem arguments, why not try to disprove the facts I have given? I'll understand if you cannot.

tac foley

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

They did, in 1998, Articles 2 & 3, Belfast Agreement.

With about one third of the workforce employed by the 'state' and its economy dependant on large handouts from HM Govt, the RoI far into the foreseeable future could not possibly afford integration, even if it was handed back to us on a plate.

Uh, thank you. My question was in the nature of a rhetorical one. Obviously that point was overlooked, and I'll have to be clearer in future.

tac

Duckworth_Luas

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

As these figures prove, a majority of the Irish people did not vote for Sinn Féin in the 1918 election.

They prove nothing. Sinn Féin won 25 seats unopposed, almost a quarter of entire number of seats. This was because the unionists and the Irish Parliamentary Party saw no point in running a candidate who would be defeated in a landslide.

Dr.Nightdub

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

This was because the unionists and the Irish Parliamentary Party saw no point in running a candidate who would be defeated in a landslide.

And Labour were "persuaded" not to run.

Duckworth_Luas

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

And Labour were "persuaded" not to run.

Labour decided themselves not to run candidates against SF and the IPP in the election. They treated it as a referendum on independence.

MakeEmLaugh

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

You do know a majority of the votes cast in the 1918 election were for political parties whose policy it was to remain within the United Kingdom? If you are interested here are the figures.

PARTIES IN FAVOUR OF REMAINING IN UNITED KINDGOM

Irish Unionist - 257,314 votes (25.3%)
Irish Parliamentary - 220,837 votes (21.7%)
Labour Unionists - 30,304 votes (3%)
Labour - 12,164 votes (1.2%)
Independent Unionist - 9,531 votes (0.9%)
Independent Nationalist - 8,183 (0.8%)

TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF VOTES - 53.1%


PARTIES IN FAVOUR OF SEPARATION FROM UNITED KINGDOM

Sinn Féin - 476,087 votes (46.9%)

TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF VOTES - 46.9%

If the proposition for immediate separation from the United Kingdom in 1918 was to be assessed as a constitutional referendum, then it was defeated.

As these figures prove, a majority of the Irish people did not vote for Sinn Féin in the 1918 election.

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

They prove nothing.

You've gotta love that logic!

"I'm not interested in facts! I find they tend to cloud my judgement!"

Duckworth_Luas

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

You've gotta love that logic!

"I'm not interested in facts! I find they tend to cloud my judgement!"

Bizarre!

johnny_doyle

The following map of the 1918 election could do with some myth busting :

http://newmapsofulster.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/ireland-1918.html

What the figures prove is that of the majority of people who voted didn't vote for Sinn Fein which is not quite the same as your statement.. What they don't deal with is those who weren't able to vote (as well as those who chose not to vote for whatever reason). The population of Ireland had fallen to just over 4.39million but the electorate was just less than 1.94million. How many adults didn't have the vote?

The figures also show the big changes that had taken place in Ireland since the creation of the Ulster Volunteers in their efforts to defy the British democratic process by illegal means and the demise of the IPP and their efforts to work the British democratic process.

If SF won the majority of seats in Ireland, then it's job done as far as voting is concerned. The number of individual votes doesn't come into it in British election results (and the elections shouldn't be construed as referendums). This is why the Liberals in the UK are now always pushing for Proportional Representation - having got 23% of the vote in the 2010 election, the Liberals only got 57 seats; Labour got 29% of the vote and won 258 seats. (In the UK elections of 1918, it was the other way around). In 1918, SF got a larger percentage of the Irish vote than Maggie Thatcher and the Conservatives did in UK elections during their "popular years" (1979 to 1997).

Since 1918, no party has ever achieved more than 50% of the vote in British elections yet there have been "landslide" wins. In at least 2 post 1945 UK elections, the party which polled the most votes didn't win enough seats to form the Government.

In terms of election results in the Six Counties since 1922, the area shows no similarity to anywhere else in the UK (obviously England, Scotland and Wales are old established countries whereas the Six Counties isn't old nor a country). Voters in England, Scotland and Wales contribute votes to the make up of the UK Govt whereas voters in the Six Counties contribute nothing to the UK Govt (and generally nothing to the UK).

As pointed out in this thread, the Six Counties relies on handouts from the rest of the UK to prop it up. How long will the UK be prepared to pump in funds while at the same time enduring (and sometimes sniggering at) the antics of bigots pretending to be pro-British?

MakeEmLaugh

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

As these figures prove, a majority of the Irish people did not vote for Sinn Féin in the 1918 election.

johnny_doyle wrote: »

What the figures prove is that of the majority of people who voted didn't vote for Sinn Fein which is not quite the same as your statement.

How is that different from what I said?

Thomas_I

tac foley wrote: »

I'll wait until I find it remaindered. Mind you, his 'Irish Civil War', co-written with George Morrison, is to be recommended, if only for the fact that it's one of the few books about the ICW that does not have 'left-handed' Lee-Enfield rifles in the illustrations.

As for his version of the life of Michael Collins, I prefer 'Michael Collins - a life' by James McKay.

tac

I don´t have that book "Irish Civil War", but another about that period with the title "Brother against Brother" by Liam Deasy. I haven´t started to read it yet and it is a rather thin book in compare to other history books.

What´s the difference between TPC´s book and that by James McKay about Michael Collins? There are so many books about him and one I´d recommend is "The Path to Freedom", Michael Collins in his own words. You can read it also there:

http://generalmichaelcollins.com/pages/Path_to_Freedom.html

Besides, this is also an interesting website about Michael Collins. They sell even that film "The Treaty" (starring Brendan Gleeson as Michael Collins) there.

conor.hogan.2

I would rather read Ruth Dudley Edwards than a lot of Tim Pat Coogan (both are pretty bad at what they do imo).

I would also prefer to read what is written on random walls, probably better written.

jonniebgood1

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I would rather read Ruth Dudley Edwards than a lot of Tim Pat Coogan (both are pretty bad at what they do imo).

I would also prefer to read what is written on random walls, probably better written.

This thread and indeed this forum is not the place for unsubstantiated opinion based commentary. If there is a criticism of a persons interpretation of history that is fine but there needs to be examples of where that persons conclusions are inaccurate or incorrect rather than commentary such as that quoted and other examples through the thread. If you dont like to read Coogan that is fine but there surely is a reason for this.

Moderator.

GRMA

Irish civil war by Coogan and Morrison very good.

As for Ruth Dudley Edwards - that "historian" cannot be taken seriously after the treatment of P.H Pearse - I'm sure you all know what I refer to - delving into it might derail the thread but in line with what the mod has said above I can if he so wishes, but I suspect most know what I am referring to.