Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

the removal of the Union flag from Belfast city hall.

As mandated by the 'new Ireland'.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

As mandated by the 'new Ireland'.

That's funny I thought it was mandated by the city council.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

it was mandated by the city council.

Which no longer has the supematist Unionist veto.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which no longer has the supematist Unionist veto.

Suprematist? I thought the hall was more Baroque. Sorry that was a low blow.

I still don't see where you're going with this, what's the new Ireland?

Lelantos

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which no longer has the supematist Unionist veto.

And when the balance of power swings back, it's less new Ireland, more old UK?

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Suprematist? I thought the hall was more Baroque. Sorry that was a low blow.

Malevich Says NO!

I still don't see where you're going with this, what's the new Ireland?

The GFA has ushered in a new arrangement for all of Ireland, it is working in the main. Unionism, (as practiced by the DUP and UUP) has changed, it has altered, it is no longer pure 'Unionism'. Therefore it needs to redefine what it is.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

As mandated by the 'new Ireland'.

Is that the same 'new Ireland' that names play parks after terrorists

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The GFA has ushered in a new arrangement for all of Ireland, it is working in the main. Unionism, (as practiced by the DUP and UUP) has changed, it has altered, it is no longer pure 'Unionism'. Therefore it needs to redefine what it is.

I don't see why. Two competing ideologies can co exist without re defining you know.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't see why. Two competing ideologies can co exist without re defining you know.

It's not me that is throwing Bertie Woot out of 'Unionism'.
'Unionism' is too narrow to allow for accomodation of differing views within it, hence your description of Bertie Woot having 'gone over to the other side'. That is in spite of the fact that many others have done exactly the same thing as Bertie Woot, e.g. the DUP and UUP at the table.
You can see that conflict within Unionism most clearly in the Flag issue and the difficulties it posed for the leaders of the above parties.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's not me that is throwing Bertie Woot out of 'Unionism'.
'Unionism' is too narrow to allow for accomodation of differing views within it, hence your description of Bertie Woot having 'gone over to the other side'. That is in spite of the fact that many others have done exactly the same thing as Bertie Woot, e.g. the DUP and UUP at the table.
You can see that conflict within Unionism most clearly in the Flag issue and the difficulties it posed for the leaders of the above parties.

Unionism is a political ideology not an ethnicity. I don't agree that unionism has no room for movement, the DUP and power sharing shows they do. On the other hand if a guy rejects the core principal of unionism (the maintenance of the union) then he can no longer be called a unionist.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the other hand if a guy rejects the core principal of unionism (the maintenance of the union) then he can no longer be called a unionist.

The DUP and UUP have accepted that the 'Union' might not be able to be maintained because it may not be right in the eyes of the people, and if and when that happens they can have no objection. Which is all Bertie Woot has done

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The DUP and UUP have accepted that the 'Union' might not be able to be maintained because it may not be right in the eyes of the people, and if and when that happens they can have no objection. Which is all Bertie Woot has done

Bertie has shifted his preference towards a UI, he thinks a UI is in the best interest of the people and he would vote for it in a referendum. The DUP don't, that's the difference.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

is in the best interest of the people

Unionism will never be able to act in that way because of it's inbuilt redundancy even if it is in the best interests of the 'people'. That is why it needs to redefine itself.

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it wasn't. That's just another argument along the lines that something you disagree with has no validity. Sorry, but reality is not required to conform to republican beliefs.

Also, you forgot to point out the error of his ways to Chuck Stone.

Oscar its a historical fact that the act of Union was only passed by way of threats and bribes, against the will of the Irish people. And was in fact illegal under British law, even aside from this.

This is typical of your ilk - you hide behind a thin veneer of respectability to cloak underhanded and illegal going ons in order to justify your world view.

junder

GRMA wrote: »

Oscar its a historical fact that the act of Union was only passed by way of threats and bribes, against the will of the Irish people. And was in fact illegal under British law, even aside from this.

This is typical of your ilk - you hide behind a thin veneer of respectability to cloak underhanded and illegal going ons in order to justify your world view.

And just what is Oscars ilk? Since as I recall he is Niether a unionist or even northern Irish

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Unionism will never be able to act in that way because of it's inbuilt redundancy even if it is in the best interests of the 'people'. That is why it needs to redefine itself.

Just spent some time gazing at my navel and have come to the conclusion that i am quite happy as I am, and don't feel the need to 'redefine' myself

Zombrex

There should be a vote (in 2022 or when ever), and when everyone votes no Republicans should then hopefully shut up about it and stop pretending they have the support of the people :pac:

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Just spent some time gazing at my navel and have come to the conclusion that i am quite happy as I am, and don't feel the need to 'redefine' myself

Which is why we will hear the sound of kicking and screaming for sometime to come.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Unionism will never be able to act in that way because of it's inbuilt redundancy even if it is in the best interests of the 'people'. That is why it needs to redefine itself.

What inbuilt redundancy?

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is why we will hear the sound of kicking and screaming for sometime to come.

True there is nothing worse (atleast from your perspective) then a unionist that is confident in his identity, how much easier it would be for you if I was to rant about 'Fenians and taigs' just so you could have the superior feeling, unfortunately for you though such langauge is not part of my vocabulary. I am not a supremacist, I am not sectarian, homophobic, sexist or racist, I am a loyalist, deal with it

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

I am a loyalist, deal with it

It has been 'dealt' with, and it doesn't like it.


p.s. there's a diference between confidence and fiddling while Rome burns. Loyalism has nothing to be loyal too anymore, it's death warrant was signed by the very government it was 'loyal' too. Pretending otherwise and not working to define a new future, in a changed political world is what is causing the kicking and screaming. Unionism/Loyalism simply has to change, correction- it has to admit that it has changed, the name doesn't fit anymore.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

It has been 'dealt' with, and it doesn't like it.


p.s. there's a diference between confidence and fiddling while Rome burns. Loyalism has nothing to be loyal too anymore, it's death warrant was signed by the very government it was 'loyal' too. Pretending otherwise and not working to define a new future, in a changed political world is what is causing the kicking and screaming. Unionism/Loyalism simply has to change, correction- it has to admit that it has changed, the name doesn't fit anymore.

Why because you say so?

GRMA

junder wrote: »

And just what is Oscars ilk? Since as I recall he is Niether a unionist or even northern Irish

There are plenty of labels one could attach if they decided to go down that road.

But it is laughable that he points to the act of union as an event with any degree of political legitimacy - shows a massive misunderstanding of history - but I didnt have him marked as someone who knew their history anyway.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Why because you say so?

No, not because I say so, but because it would be 'being honest'.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you insist on an actual point in time (I'm not sure why you feel you get to set the parameters of the discussion in that way, but whatever), I would have to say the Act of Union.

Why do you think that Ulster, or any part of the island of Ireland for that matter since there weren't two jurisdictions on the island prior to 1921, suddenly ceased to become a colony with the Act of Union? It's an event that happened, but all events that occurred may not be legitimate.

Iwasfrozen

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Why do you think that Ulster, or any part of the island of Ireland for that matter since there weren't two jurisdictions on the island prior to 1921, suddenly ceased to become a colony with the Act of Union? It's an event that happened, but all events that occurred may not be legitimate.

It's called self determination.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, not because I say so, but because it would be 'being honest'.

So it because you say so. You talk about supermacist mindsets. Telling somebody what they should be thinking seems pretty supermacist to me , which is exactly what you are doing. You may not like my beliefs, fair enough your entitled to your opinion, but I not going to change just because you say so, I am confident in my culture and my beliefs, I enjoy my culture, I am already looking forward to the 12th with my new son, can't wait until he is old enough to join my band, or my apprentice boys club. i will raise my son to be confident in his beliefs, I will raise my son to not be ashamed or made to feel ashamed of his culture. I will also raise my son to know that he is superior to no man (or women) he will be raised to not be sectarian, racist, homophobic or sexist and I will raise him to be tolerant. I wonder if he will be shown the same tolerance, somehow I doubt it

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, not because I say so, but because it would be 'being honest'.

You didn't answer my question what inbuilt redundancy is there in the unionism? What's redundant about maintaining the Union?

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

So it because you say so. You talk about supermacist mindsets. Telling somebody what they should be thinking seems pretty supermacist to me , which is exactly what you are doing. You may not like my beliefs, fair enough your entitled to your opinion, but I not going to change just because you say so, I am confident in my culture and my beliefs, I enjoy my culture, I am already looking forward to the 12th with my new son, can't wait until he is old enough to join my band, or my apprentice boys club. i will raise my son to be confident in his beliefs, I will raise my son to not be ashamed or made to feel ashamed of his culture. I will also raise my son to know that he is superior to no man (or women) he will be raised to not be sectarian, racist, homophobic or sexist and I will raise him to be tolerant. I wonder if he will be shown the same tolerance, somehow I doubt it

You may be confident for the purposes of an internet debate, but anybody can see the conflict within Unionism/Loyalism. The main parties are fracturing because of it and it is quite evident that ordinary Unionists/Loyalists are wandering about in an abyss of confusion and anger. It's time for leadership to stand up and redefine who you are in the new Ireland arrangement.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You didn't answer my question what inbuilt redundancy is there in the unionism? What's redundant about maintaining the Union?

'Unionism' is no longer adequate as a political definition, it no longer can be just about Unionism, because that philosophy is too narrow and rigid, as we have seen. And it flies in the face of what the DUP and UUP are actually doing politically. In that sense it is redundant.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's called self determination.

For who exactly? Self determination based on religious allegiance? The Irish parliament that passed the Act of Union (Ireland) in August 1800 was composed mainly of the Protestant Ascendancy. How was it representative of the majority of the Irish population who were Catholics, and therefore banned from sitting in it due to the Penal Laws.

tomasocarthaigh

A big YESSSSSSS! (Or TÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ!!!!)

T runner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's called self determination.

The 1800 Act of Union was not self determination. Lord Cornwallis admitted corruptly paying 1.5 million pounds to buy votes among (exclusivley COI Irish MPs). Ireland with 1/3 of the population only accounted for 1/6 westminister MPs under the new arrangement. This is clearly not an act of selfdetermination, rather the act of a colonial power corruptly misbehaving once again in its oldest colony.

As for self determination of the 6 counties..... heres the closest definition we have...the UN definition for self determination:

"It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference".

Ulster Protestants are therefore NOT and NEVER claimed to be a seperate "nation" to the rest of Ireland. Ireland was always regarded even by the British as a seperate nation (even during the act of Union period).

The creation of NI was not thus an act of self determination for a Protestant "nation" rather it was the result of British caving in to pressure to the Unionists threat of violence. The tone of Unionist resistance to Home rule was always sectarian in nature. They were not a seperate nation and therefore the self determination argument is mute. Even Unionist historians do not cite this reason: rather the fact that they were born in the UK being a valid reason to flout the wishes of the vast majority of their countrymen.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Unionism' is no longer adequate as a political definition, it no longer can be just about Unionism, because that philosophy is too narrow and rigid, as we have seen. And it flies in the face of what the DUP and UUP are actually doing politically. In that sense it is redundant.

Why is it no longer an adequate political definition? Sorry but you're just repeating the same crap again, Unionism and Republicanism are not compatible ideologies true. But there is no reason two incompatible competing ideologies can't peacefully co exist. Unionism is no more rigid in that sense then nationalism, I'm sorry but you're talking a lot of hot air.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

For who exactly? Self determination based on religious allegiance? The Irish parliament that passed the Act of Union (Ireland) in August 1800 was composed mainly of the Protestant Ascendancy. How was it representative of the majority of the Irish population who were Catholics, and therefore banned from sitting in it due to the Penal Laws.

T runner wrote:

The 1800 Act of Union was not self determination. Lord Cornwallis admitted corruptly paying 1.5 million pounds to buy votes among (exclusivley COI Irish MPs). Ireland with 1/3 of the population only accounted for 1/6 westminister MPs under the new arrangement. This is clearly not an act of selfdetermination, rather the act of a colonial power corruptly misbehaving once again in its oldest colony.

As for self determination of the 6 counties..... heres the closest definition we have...the UN definition for self determination:

"It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference".

Ulster Protestants are therefore NOT and NEVER claimed to be a seperate "nation" to the rest of Ireland. Ireland was always regarded even by the British as a seperate nation (even during the act of Union period).

The creation of NI was not thus an act of self determination for a Protestant "nation" rather it was the result of British caving in to pressure to the Unionists threat of violence. The tone of Unionist resistance to Home rule was always sectarian in nature. They were not a seperate nation and therefore the self determination argument is mute. Even Unionist historians do not cite this reason: rather the fact that they were born in the UK being a valid reason to flout the wishes of the vast majority of their countrymen.

I misread the quote, I'm not going to argue the act of Union was self determination. It obviously wasn't.

On the other hand I would like to ask you, both of you. What you would define as a nation and tell me why the Ulster Scots people do not count for that? For me a a nation is based on a group of "people" who exhibit real (or perceived) ethnical, religious, historical, political, or cultural differences from any other set or group of people within a demarcated territory. Since the Ulster Scots fit all these criteria I think it's fair to say they are a people deserving of their own nation.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

You may be confident for the purposes of an internet debate, but anybody can see the conflict within Unionism/Loyalism. The main parties are fracturing because of it and it is quite evident that ordinary Unionists/Loyalists are wandering about in an abyss of confusion and anger. It's time for leadership to stand up and redefine who you are in the new Ireland arrangement.



'Unionism' is no longer adequate as a political definition, it no longer can be just about Unionism, because that philosophy is too narrow and rigid, as we have seen. And it flies in the face of what the DUP and UUP are actually doing politically. In that sense it is redundant.

Thing is, there is no 'new Ireland' the border is still there and Northern Ireland still exists, you could say there is a new Northern Ireland, but aside from a few changes to the constitution the republic pretty carrys on as it did before

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I misread the quote, I'm not going to argue the act of Union was self determination. It obviously wasn't.

On the other hand I would like to ask you, both of you. What you would define as a nation and tell me why the Ulster Scots people do not count for that? For me a a nation is based on a group of "people" who exhibit real (or perceived) ethnical, religious, historical, political, or cultural differences from any other set or group of people within a demarcated territory. Since the Ulster Scots fit all these criteria I think it's fair to say they are a people deserving of their own nation.

Your description of what may constitute a nation seems fair enough.

But have the Ulster-Scots always been a single entity though according to the criteria you have described above? What about religion? Religion was a key sign of loyalty according to the authorities back then (late 18th Century).

The Penal Laws discriminated against non-conformist Protestants (Presbyterians etc) as well as Catholics. They could sit in parliament but not hold office. Many thousands of Presbyterians participated in the 1798 rebellion looking for Irish independence.

Iwasfrozen

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Your description of what may constitute a nation seems fair enough.

But have the Ulster-Scots always been a single entity though according to the criteria you have described above? What about religion? Religion was a key sign of loyalty according to the authorities back then (late 18th Century).

The Penal Laws discriminated against non-conformist Protestants (Presbyterians etc) as well as Catholics. They could sit in parliament but not hold office. Many thousands of Presbyterians participated in the 1798 rebellion looking for Irish independence.

So since you agree with my definition of a nation why do you not think the Ulster Scots fit the description? They are religiously (protestantism, check) ethnically (Scottish, check) historically (long standing hatred on both sides, check) politically (DUP vs SF, check) cultural differences (pipe bands, orange order, marching etc.) different from the Irish people and since they are concentrated in the north east of the island then why shouldn't they constitute their own nation?

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Thing is, there is no 'new Ireland' the border is still there and Northern Ireland still exists, you could say there is a new Northern Ireland, but aside from a few changes to the constitution the republic pretty carrys on as it did before

You never really got that bit, did you, or rather, you are just doing what pure Unionists do, ignore the reality and the redundancy of the old 'Never, Never Never' guff? The British got it, they saw that it had to be a 'whole island solution' and it was, hence; it's a 'new Ireland', because, like it or not, we are all involved in the solution. Hence the redundancy of a single rigid political philosophy.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

You never really got that bit, did you, or rather, you are just doing what pure Unionists do, ignore the reality and the redundancy of the old 'Never, Never Never' guff? The British got it, they saw that it had to be a 'whole island solution' and it was, hence; it's a 'new Ireland', because, like it or not, we are all involved in the solution. Hence the redundancy of a single rigid political philosophy.

But your not, the republica involvment in Northern Ireland is fairly minimal and the future of Northern Ireland will be determined by the people of Northern Ireland

Bertie Woot

LordSutch wrote: »

Oh I agree that he's "a rational well thought out person", but in fairness Padma, even your language is loaded in favour of Irish Nationalism (to the exclusion of UK Unionism), and I quote "something that can be instrumental in bringing the Unionists and indeed the Loyalists in from the cold"

But I mean, who's to say that Unionists are out in the cold anyway?

Surely they have always seen us as being out in the cold, not just at the birth of the state, but in the modern world/climate too, what with us being governed by Brussels & unable to even set our own interest rates!

Thing is, how do you convince one million (approx) Unionist/British folk to leave their beloved NHS, their BBC, their Royal Mail + their National heritage, and their comfort within the UK as a country > and then replace that with becoming part of the ROI.

I mean, what is the Big Carrot to get them to leave the UK and join the ROI?

Good question. There are many advantages to sustaining the union with GB, some of which you've mentioned. Being part of one of the world's major political and economic players also provides a sense of status and has real social and economic benefits. However, being part of the EU is not one of them. Ireland may need immigrants (correct me if I'm wrong), but the people of Britain have seen a transmogrification of their cultural landscape due to unfettered mass immigration and multiculturalisation which ahas been reported as "unwanted". The nature and presence of Islam throughout England has caused the rise of the far-right in the form of the EDL, BNP and other groupings. Although Dublin has becoming increasingly multicultural, Ireland can live without the down side to multiculturalism, and it's important to remember that the addition of one million fiercely loyal British Unionist Protestants to a traditionally Nationalist Catholic Irish Republic shall cause considerable social, political and cultural strain, thus exacerbating the potential for conflict.

That's why we need to get it right first time. There shall be no trial runs. The persuaders for Irish reunification need to set out their stall in a manner which shall be overwhelmingly appealing to the British Ulster Unionist, and I'll be honest with you here; Sinn Fein are the very worst persuaders/salesmen for Irish reunification. The Provisional IRA's campaign caused a lot of hurt and has instilled within the British people of Ulster a resentment and distrust of Irish Republicanism which shall take generations to ameliorate, if ever. The Ulster Unionist knows that SF have no alternative to persuasion as the IRA lost their war (yes they did). Gerry Adams has proved himself a pathological liar by repeatability denying his IRA past, and Martin McGuinness has openly admitted his past IRA membership. So Adams is viewed with contempt among the Unionist community for attempting to conceal his PIRA beginnings, and McGuinness is viewed with equal contempt for admitting his PIRA membership. There is no love or sympathy for the IRA among the Unionist people, with them being viewed as a fascist organisation who sustained a 30 year violent campaign against the wishes of even most Irish nationalists north and south of the border. The IRA were not Irish freedom fighters to the Unionist people, they were brutal and barbaric terrorists guilty of multiple atrocities and shall always be viewed that way, and that is why Sinn Fein are the very worst salesmen for Irish reunification.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think it's integral to the success of any way forward that the Unionist community accept their part of the responsibility for the existence of the IRA, the INLA and all their loyalist counterparts. The idea of them sitting up on the high moral ground with unstained hands is ludicrious in the extreme and has always been. The fact that they are now the greatest threat to the peace, as we seek 'normalisation' speaks of the refusal of many to rid themselves of the sense of entitlement that caused the conflict in the first place.
We all have responsibility for what happened, just as we have responsibility for the future.

The Unionist establishment at Stormont 1921 to 1968 was guilty of institutionalised discrimination against the Irish Nationalist Catholic people in Northern Ireland, and even David Ervine, leader of the Progressive Unionist Party and former UVF terrorist (now deceased) condemned the Unionist establishment for its wrongdoing; something which the UUP and DUP have failed to do. Working class Unionists (Loyalists) are prepared to and have faced up to the wrongs of the past, the mainstream Unionist parties don't feel they are under any obligation to acknowledge Unionism's misdemeanours. Equally, Sinn Fein -IRA have yet to issue a full and unconditional apology for all of the totally unnecessary murders which they perpetrated in the name of Irish liberation, and until that apology is forthcoming, the goal of Irish reunification lies in the realm of fantasy world.

I said earlier that the debate and the celebration of our cultural differences could be a fascinating and nourishing one if we could get to the stage of simply respecting each other.
I would have no qualms whatsoever of a shared future with the likes of Bertie Woot, and I would look forward to a spirited and intelligent debate of the significances of different aspects of our cultures and their place in a new Ireland. United or not, we still have to find a way to share this island.
The obstacles to a peaceful and respectful future lie, just where they have always lain...in intransigence and one sided blame mentalities like the one above.
It's fascinating to at last hear a respectful and intelligent contribution from the Unionist fraternity on here. I have many questions and need to digest what he/she has said and maybe this thread is not the place for them. Stay on board Bertie!

I'm still here, and whilst I have no love of Sinn Fein or the IRA, I do think that the aspiration to peaceful Irish reunification is a perfectly valid and illegitimate one, and although convincing the Unionist community (from which I come) that Irish reunification is in their best interests is going to be an unbelievably arduous task for any body of Irish Nationalism, I firmly believe that through rigorous education of the history of Ireland from prehistoric times to the present day, and teaching Unionists and Nationalists to EMPATHISE with the other side (and there are sides), we can build within both communities a tolerance and understanding which shall hopefully ameliorate the hatred and bitterness which has characterised life in Northern Ireland since its conception, and ultimately pave the way for Unionists to finally grasp the nettle, swallow the bitter pill, embrace their Irishness, recognise tht Britain doesn't give a sh*t about them, and walk into the new Ireland as free men and of their own volition, and without fear of persecution.

I drove across the border and entered the Temple Bar in Dublin and paid a ridiculous 6 euro for a bottle of stout. That was my first painful step toward Irish reunification, and if I can do that, all Ulstermen can, as although the price of alcoholic beverage in the Republic is outlandish and needs to be addressed as urgent, Protestant Ulstermen enjoy a good session, but they are not going to be tempted into venturing across the geographic border, and more importantly, the border which has been etched in their mind, with alcohol prices like that.

Crooked Jack

Zombrex wrote: »

There should be a vote (in 2022 or when ever), and when everyone votes no Republicans should then hopefully shut up about it and stop pretending they have the support of the people :pac:

I would fully accept the results of an all-Ireland vote and never bring the subject up again.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I would fully accept the results of an all-Ireland vote and never bring the subject up again.

Great let's have it tomorrow morning.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Great let's have it tomorrow morning.

Well I'd prefer a bit of debate and an opportunity for people in the know to explain how and why it would or wouldn't work.
But I mean that in all sincerity, if there was a one off all-Ireland vote on the issue I would accept the outcome fully and defend it, even if i disagreed with it.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So since you agree with my definition of a nation why do you not think the Ulster Scots fit the description? They are religiously (protestantism, check) ethnically (Scottish, check) historically (long standing hatred on both sides, check) politically (DUP vs SF, check) cultural differences (pipe bands, orange order, marching etc.) different from the Irish people and since they are concentrated in the north east of the island then why shouldn't they constitute their own nation?

I'd have difficulties though with you attempting to rigidly apply those definitions in defining an Ulster-Scots nation on its own.

On religion, many Protestants would see themselves as Irish. Ethnically, Irish Nationalists/Republicans have Scottish links too. Are you applying the Scottish ethnic link strictly in terms of Unionism? Politics = Unionism again? Historically, only "hatred"?

Cultural definition? Many Irish people who may be Republicans have flute bands, marches etc as well. Concentration in the northeast of the island, is this meant in terms of geography?

Bertie Woot

John Knox. wrote: »

I think you have fallen for his posts hook line and sinker. It was obviously made by an Irish Republican who is not from the ethnic background of the Ulster Scots.

I'll take that as a compliment. I am from the Unionist community and was very much of that mentality for most of my adult life, and despite IRA violence, thinking like an Irish Republican has come easy. There comes a time in life when you are capable of detaching yourself from the strong emotional attachment you have had to the culture, political affiliation, national allegiance and indeed the religion you were born into. The ability to look at the past in an intellectually honest and impartial manner is not easy when you are from one community of the other in Northern Ireland. Most of the time we've played a zero-sum game and engage in political points scoring to the detriment of the other. There is a stage beyond that; where we can survey the past and acknowledge the origin of the problem, recognise that wrongs have been committed by both sides, and accept that this new stage in the political evolution of Ireland as a nation shall ultimately lead to reunification. Maybe not in my lifetime, but some day.

The Unionist people are a relic of British imperialism in Ireland. We can continue to hang onto mother Britain's coat-tail, a mother who has been attempting to orphan us for four decades, or we can finally get real, salvage our dignity, and embrace our destiny as Irishmen in a reunified 32 county independent Ireland. National self determination does not have to be an exclusive goal or preserve of one group of people. I want the best for Ireland, and ALL of its people.

It was full of hyperbole and lies frankly. There is next to no chance of the Ulster Scots people voting Yes in a border poll. The Republican argument is based around "800 years, oppression" nonsense. They don't have a valid 21st century argument to why the Protestant population in Ulster should vote yes in a border poll to join a state which doesn't want them.

I'd appreciate it if you could pinpoint my alleged "hyperbole" and "lies". Oppression and tyranny under 800 years of British rule in Ireland was a reality for the Irish people, and yes, British colonial plantation settlers from Scotland and England also suffered greatly as a result of a series of Irish uprisings. If you can provide historical text which states that the Irish people had a big happy party under British colonial rule I'd be happy to survey it. The people of the Irish Republic recognise that the current Irish economy isn't strong enough to handle reunification, but that doesn't mean they have abandoned their traditional and long held Nationalist aspiration. The ROI may not want us at present, but then, despite lip service, Britain doesn't want us either. If you think that England appreciates Ulster's loyalty, you are sorely mistaken.

If they put more effort in Ulster by embracing why the province is different from the rest and work to make it better they would be better off. Instead it is constant need for big government ruling over us.

Ulster has always been a different part of Ireland since the Black pig's dyke and Cuchulainn, who fought the "men of Ireland". But Ulster is as much part of Ireland as it is part of the United Kingdom. In fact what Unionists refer to as "Ulster" is not Ulster at all. It is a mere 6 out of 9 of Ulster's counties (aka Northern Ireland); and a province which was partitioned at the same time when Ireland was partitioned.

Wolfe Tone was not a true son of Ulster. He was a Dublin man and his ethnic origins were English. English people haven't been looked upon that favorably by us in history either.

Agreed. The English view Northern Ireland as a delinquent cousin, a waste of English tax-payer's money, and a troublesome liability. The English wish nothing more than to see NI exit from the UK. Why should we sustain loyalty to England? Tone viewed England as the source of all of Ireland's political ills, and he was right.

The Irish rebellion of 1798 didn't involve the majority of Ulster Scots and actually led to the foundation of the Orange Order which helped fight it off. There has never been a time in history when the Irish and the Ulster Scots have got on and united. Never.

Anachronism. The Orange Institution (known today as the Orange Order) was founded in 1796 near the village of Loughgall in County Armagh, and two years before the 1798 rebellion; so it was not a product of the rebellion as its existence preceded it.

The Ulster-Scots are referred to as "Scotch-Irish" by the Americans, and the term is accurate, as the Scots are descended from the Irish, as it was the Irish who first settled Scotland. The indigenous Irish Ulster tribes of the Ulaidh and Cruthin/Cruithne fled Gaelic colonisation of Ireland and resettled in Scotland among the Pictish peoples, who were a sister tribe of the Cruthin. They returned to Ulster in 1609 and the beginning of the Ulster plantation.

Bertie Woot

John Knox. wrote: »

Why do Republicans say this? Out from the cold is paradise to us. We don't want to be involved in a Republican state. We simply want to be left alone. Why don't some Republicans get this and understand we are culturally, ethnically, religiously and politically different in every way and we wish to maintain that.

What's wrong with being "culturally, ethnically, religiously and politically different" in a united Ireland? Is it because we fear a united Ireland more than anything? Where does that fear come from?

Bertie Woot

John Knox. wrote: »

Exactly.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good story, even if it is a story based on delusion. The politicians in the UK are in a majority when it comes to keeping the Union together. They are looking to strengthen the Union, not weaken it.

Some people have this saying that if English people could vote they would want Northern Ireland to leave the Union. This argument is a fallacy in the grand scheme of things because they would do the exact same for Scotland judging by opinion polls.

The English don't get a vote in the 2014 Scottish referendum. Neither would they in a border poll here in Ulster. So why on earth would Ulster Protestants care about what way English people would vote in a border poll when they would never get the chance to vote anyway. Its an irrelevant point to make.

You can bet your bottom dollar/pound/euro that if the English were given the opportunity to vote in a referendum to have NI removed from the UK they'd jump at the offer. Unlike Scotland, NI has been a perpetual thorn in their side. They resent NI for benefiting more than other constituent UK countries under the current Barnett Formula, they view us as a nuisance state, and they generally perceive us all as "Irish", and regardless of whether you are British Unionist Protestant or Irish Nationalist Catholic.

Of course we don't give a rat's ass what the English think, as they are mostly irrelevant to us, but that is what they think, and they would disown NI tomorrow if they could.

T runner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the other hand I would like to ask you, both of you. What you would define as a nation and tell me why the Ulster Scots people do not count for that? For me a a nation is based on a group of "people" who exhibit real (or perceived) ethnical, religious, historical, political, or cultural differences from any other set or group of people within a demarcated territory. Since the Ulster Scots fit all these criteria I think it's fair to say they are a people deserving of their own nation.

The Ulster Scots only accounted for 65% of Protestants in the six counties. They did not have a majority in any one county (Antrim perhaps). So even if they ever claimed themselves to be a different nation (they didn't). They are not numerous enough, nor dense enough in numbers. If "Ulster Scots" form a nation then surely "Irish" within NI is another qualified nation and are due self determination as they must be as different to Ulster Scots as Ulster Scots are to them?

No, the self determination is not a valid reason. The reason was a refusal to be a minority in a majority Catholic state and a back down by the British government from their position of Home Rule for Ireland.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well I'd prefer a bit of debate and an opportunity for people in the know to explain how and why it would or wouldn't work.
But I mean that in all sincerity, if there was a one off all-Ireland vote on the issue I would accept the outcome fully and defend it, even if i disagreed with it.

Sure have all the discussion time needed I'd be pretty confident of a pro union vote, same way I'm pretty confident of a pro union vote in Scotland too. Having said that I would vote for a UI if I got the chance. And I know you would, I believe you.

junder

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Good question. There are many advantages to sustaining the union with GB, some of which you've mentioned. Being part of one of the world's major political and economic players also provides a sense of status and has real social and economic benefits. However, being part of the EU is not one of them. Ireland may need immigrants (correct me if I'm wrong), but the people of Britain have seen a transmogrification of their cultural landscape due to unfettered mass immigration and multiculturalisation which ahas been reported as "unwanted". The nature and presence of Islam throughout England has caused the rise of the far-right in the form of the EDL, BNP and other groupings. Although Dublin has becoming increasingly multicultural, Ireland can live without the down side to multiculturalism, and it's important to remember that the addition of one million fiercely loyal British Unionist Protestants to a traditionally Nationalist Catholic Irish Republic shall cause considerable social, political and cultural strain, thus exacerbating the potential for conflict.

That's why we need to get it right first time. There shall be no trial runs. The persuaders for Irish reunification need to set out their stall in a manner which shall be overwhelmingly appealing to the British Ulster Unionist, and I'll be honest with you here; Sinn Fein are the very worst persuaders/salesmen for Irish reunification. The Provisional IRA's campaign caused a lot of hurt and has instilled within the British people of Ulster a resentment and distrust of Irish Republicanism which shall take generations to ameliorate, if ever. The Ulster Unionist knows that SF have no alternative to persuasion as the IRA lost their war (yes they did). Gerry Adams has proved himself a pathological liar by repeatability denying his IRA past, and Martin McGuinness has openly admitted his past IRA membership. So Adams is viewed with contempt among the Unionist community for attempting to conceal his PIRA beginnings, and McGuinness is viewed with equal contempt for admitting his PIRA membership. There is no love or sympathy for the IRA among the Unionist people, with them being viewed as a fascist organisation who sustained a 30 year violent campaign against the wishes of even most Irish nationalists north and south of the border. The IRA were not Irish freedom fighters to the Unionist people, they were brutal and barbaric terrorists guilty of multiple atrocities and shall always be viewed that way, and that is why Sinn Fein are the very worst salesmen for Irish reunification.



The Unionist establishment at Stormont 1921 to 1968 was guilty of institutionalised discrimination against the Irish Nationalist Catholic people in Northern Ireland, and even David Ervine, leader of the Progressive Unionist Party and former UVF terrorist (now deceased) condemned the Unionist establishment for its wrongdoing; something which the UUP and DUP have failed to do. Working class Unionists (Loyalists) are prepared to and have faced up to the wrongs of the past, the mainstream Unionist parties don't feel they are under any obligation to acknowledge Unionism's misdemeanours. Equally, Sinn Fein -IRA have yet to issue a full and unconditional apology for all of the totally unnecessary murders which they perpetrated in the name of Irish liberation, and until that apology is forthcoming, the goal of Irish reunification lies in the realm of fantasy world.



I'm still here, and whilst I have no love of Sinn Fein or the IRA, I do think that the aspiration to peaceful Irish reunification is a perfectly valid and illegitimate one, and although convincing the Unionist community (from which I come) that Irish reunification is in their best interests is going to be an unbelievably arduous task for any body of Irish Nationalism, I firmly believe that through rigorous education of the history of Ireland from prehistoric times to the present day, and teaching Unionists and Nationalists to EMPATHISE with the other side (and there are sides), we can build within both communities a tolerance and understanding which shall hopefully ameliorate the hatred and bitterness which has characterised life in Northern Ireland since its conception, and ultimately pave the way for Unionists to finally grasp the nettle, swallow the bitter pill, embrace their Irishness, recognise tht Britain doesn't give a sh*t about them, and walk into the new Ireland as free men and of their own volition, and without fear of persecution.

I drove across the border and entered the Temple Bar in Dublin and paid a ridiculous 6 euro for a bottle of stout. That was my first painful step toward Irish reunification, and if I can do that, all Ulstermen can, as although the price of alcoholic beverage in the Republic is outlandish and needs to be addressed as urgent, Protestant Ulstermen enjoy a good session, but they are not going to be tempted into venturing across the geographic border, and more importantly, the border which has been etched in their mind, with alcohol prices like that.

A fair post,

Iwasfrozen

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I'd have difficulties though with you attempting to rigidly apply those definitions in defining an Ulster-Scots nation on its own.

On religion, many Protestants would see themselves as Irish. Ethnically, Irish Nationalists/Republicans have Scottish links too. Are you applying the Scottish ethnic link strictly in terms of Unionism? Politics = Unionism again? Historically, only "hatred"?

Cultural definition? Many Irish people who may be Republicans have flute bands, marches etc as well. Concentration in the northeast of the island, is this meant in terms of geography?

Sure many do but in the North most don't, the numbers don't matter when you're talking about religious identity. Ireland is still a catholic country, we may have a growing atheist group, particularly amongst the young but our culture and international identity is still very much shaped by our religion. If you're an atheist in Northern Ireland you may find yourself asked "yes, but are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist?"

They do, but again that's not important, the Ulster Scots have a shared origin that is ethnically distinct from the native Irish breeding between the two groups did of course happen but due to the historical hatred they've felt for each other this would have been kept to a much lower amount that usual. I would eat my hat if a research into the ethnic make up of the two groups didn't show Ulster Scots with more lowland Scottish blood the Irish nationalists.

For politics the ethnic Ulster Scots have traditionally favoured the maintenance of the Union with great Britain (Unionism) again as distinct from the native Irish in the area who have tended to favour nationalism. The political difference is really the most important one, once you have determined the Ulster Scots as a separate people to the Irish then you look to their politics to determine the result of their right to self determination. A right neither the native Irish or British have a right to take away from them.

Sure there are native Irish republicans who march in pipe bands that's to be expected no cultural pursuit is 100% employed by the group it is associated with. What I am saying, and I used the pipe bands to demonstrate this, is that there exists an Ulster Scot culture and identity separate from that of native Irish nationalists who feel this culture is foreign or alien to them. I really shouldn't put those words in brackets because the culture (like orangefest) really is foreign to the nationalist. He totally doesn't understand it (as if you're ever one boards on the 12th of July you'll know all about).

And yep, the Ulster Scots were cordend off in the north east of the historic country of Ireland (I say historic because our own constitution changed the meaning of the name Ireland to only mean 26 counties) and that is why that area was separated politically from us. And should remain so for the foreseeable future.