Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Towards a United Ireland
Options
Comments
-
-
Revel is a strong word. I want to maintain the status quo but I don't revel in it.Bertie Woot wrote: »Not everyone agrees, and that's a typically negative and defeatist attitude from someone who seems to revel in partition.
It's just the truth, that's honestly what I think is going to happen. I won't see a UI in my life time and assuming we're roughly the same age presumably you won't either.
It's not occupied. The British have a democratic mandate for their presence.Bertie Woot wrote: »So Irish Republicans branding NI the "occupied six counties" is wrong? Explain how it's wrong.
No one mentioned PULs I said Ulster Scots are a separate nation what politics or religion that separate nation has doesn't alter it. Religion does go a long way in shaping culture though. Historically it was very important in people's lives and this has naturally carried undertones into our own society.Bertie Woot wrote: »It's a different and demarcated territory, but like I said, not all PUL's are Ulster-Scot. They are however, British. There's a fundamental difference, as British includes English.
Brazil.Bertie Woot wrote: »Really? Name one.
Because they are two completely different ideologies with only internationalism in common. Tbh you've taken the best bit out of socialism.Bertie Woot wrote: »I don't believe in globalism or multi-national corporatism, so why should I believe in internationalist Socialism?
A return? When did it ever happen first time round? Anyway I hope not our economy is in a bad enough state. lolBertie Woot wrote: »Like James Connolly, I believe that independence from Britain can create the conditions for a return to real Irish Republican Socialist politics.
It goes deeper then that. The need to classify and label oneself is present in every culture in the world, well that I'm aware of, I can only assume it's instinctive.Bertie Woot wrote: »Perhaps they're just being comprehensive about their national and cultural identity.
That would only be true if you consider us one nation.Bertie Woot wrote: »You selfishly enjoy your comfort zone and have no desire to risk full national liberation.
Significant role? 15%? You'll be out voted on every issue.Bertie Woot wrote: »Our home shall be your home and vice versa. You won't be dictating anything, as Unionists shall play a significant role in legislation and policy making within a democratic state.
Then why list them as assets to unification? Unification won't give us the Giant's Causeway. We have that regardless. I could drive up next weekend if the fancy took me.Bertie Woot wrote: »I didn't say they were.
Because patriotism and a favourable disposition towards Irish unity are not obligate.Bertie Woot wrote: »Explain why you don't agree with them.
I already did. I explained to you why we don't need your land, labour or capital to function. We have a working economy and vibrant export market as it is. We're going through a rough patch atm but these things are never permanent. Unification is an ideological dream, if it gives some people something to strive for then fine, best of luck to them, but you can't endanger the institutions of the state over it.Bertie Woot wrote: »Explain how there are "no benefits" to reunification. Explain how it's "just change for change sake".0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Unification is an ideological dream, if it gives some people something to strive for then fine, best of luck to them, but you can't endanger the institutions of the state over it.
But why does unification have to endanger the institutions of the state?
Fair enough, if Loyalists were dragged into a UI right now, there would probably be violence.
The thing is, I've spoken to moderate OO members, who were born and raised in Ireland - who freely stated that the British atrocities perpetrated on the Irish over many years were wrong.
These are moderate, but active OO members - so I would assume they are familiar with the Unionist viewpoint. Yet, of their own volition, with no prompting by me - they stated that wrongs were committed.
I can only assume that, like Bertie Woot, this is because they are familiar with Irish history, and so can understand both perspectives.
Add to that the fact that they grew up in a peaceful society - and while they celebrate their British heritage, there is none of the raw bitterness that is evident in some people from both sides of the political divide in the North.
That being the case, is it not possible that a combination of time for wounds to heal, and history being taught from both perspectives, would bring about a greater chance of mutual trust and understanding - and thus, less resistance to a UI?0 -
Thanks. I actually never knew about that.
This would be the version that I'm familiar with:
http://www.irishcultureandcustoms.com/ASaints/Columcille.html.
Strangely enough, though, I have a book (purportedly the prophecies of Columcille), in which he is also referred to as Columbanus - it would appear that Columbanus and Columcille were two different men, since one was born in Donegal, and the other in Meath, though the timeframe is similar, which might explain the confusion.
The other thing I find confusing, is I remember at one stage having a discussion on Boards about the Irish provinces - where there was mention of a British sub-kingdom, which existed around the 3rd or 4th century, and, in the version I read, existed with the permission of the Gaelic lords.
I'll see if I can find it, when I get time. I've been up since 5.30 am, and a quick search for Air Ghialla brings up this:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/colla.htm
which is different to the version I remember - though I may just be confused, since Scotti was used on my childhood as a description of the Scots. I actually wasn't aware that it was politically incorrect until I (accidently) offended a Scot.
But I'm too tired to do any serious searching tonight, so I'll say Goodnight, and try to get to the bottom of this when my brain is working.:D0 -
It's possible and in theory I wouldn't oppose a 100% peaceful unification.But why does unification have to endanger the institutions of the state?
Fair enough, if Loyalists were dragged into a UI right now, there would probably be violence.
The thing is, I've spoken to moderate OO members, who were born and raised in Ireland - who freely stated that the British atrocities perpetrated on the Irish over many years were wrong.
These are moderate, but active OO members - so I would assume they are familiar with the Unionist viewpoint. Yet, of their own volition, with no prompting by me - they stated that wrongs were committed.
I can only assume that, like Bertie Woot, this is because they are familiar with Irish history, and so can understand both perspectives.
Add to that the fact that they grew up in a peaceful society - and while they celebrate their British heritage, there is none of the raw bitterness that is evident in some people from both sides of the political divide in the North.
That being the case, is it not possible that a combination of time for wounds to heal, and history being taught from both perspectives, would bring about a greater chance of mutual trust and understanding - and thus, less resistance to a UI?0 -
Advertisement
-
That's a viewpoint that I've heard more than once from Unionists, and it puzzles me.
The version of history that I learned at school would say that Columbanus moved to Iona, and was eventually joined by other monks, who initially traded with the picts, and eventually went on to convert many of them.
I use the term "version" of history, because, as I'm sure you're aware, historians traditionally managed to imbue history with their own viewpoint, eg: In Britain, colonisation is part of a "glorious history", and Cromwell was a hero.
In Ireland, on the other hand, there was nothing glorious about being colonised (or oppressed), and Cromwell is viewed as something which is quite unprintable on Boards.:D (No offence intended!).
I'd be genuinely interested in hearing the British viewpoint on how Scotland was settled.
How about a historical review?? When the Gaels of continental Europe (Germany, Spain) invaded Ireland approximately 500 BC, some of the indigenous Irish tribes in the North of Ireland eg. "the Cruthin" fled Gaelic aggression and relocated to Scotland. The Cruthin of Ulidia (Ulster) were a sister tribe of the Pictish peoples of Scotland and assimilated easily.
Over a period of centuries the Gaels colonised the four provinces of Hibernia, and imposed their language and culture on the indigenous Irish tribes, with what was left of the Cruthin becoming Gaelicised.
Subsequently, in the 5th century the "Scots" or "Scotti" migrated from their homeland in Ireland and founded several Kingdoms on the western coast of Scotland. In Argyll they founded the kingdom of "Dalriada". In 843 AD under King Robert MacAlpin, they finally rose to power over the indigenous Pictish peoples and re-named the land "Scotland".
Fast forward to the Ulster plantation beginning in 1609 and what you essentially have is a return of the Irish Cruthin to their homeland of Ireland ie. Ulster. That's a part of Irish history which Irish Republicans have vehemently disputed, instead preferring to view the Ulster plantation as part of a continued invasion and colonisation process.It would be quite ironic, really, if it proved to be the case that Ulster Scots were descended from the Irish, as opposed to sharing part of their culture.
Contemporary Ulster-Scots are not just descended from the indigenous Irish who fled to Scotland from Gaelic aggression and the colonisation of Ireland, they are Irish as they were born in Ulster.I wouldn't worry too much about calling yourself a Republican.
I'm a Republican, though a strictly non-violent one.
I'm Catholic - but Republicanism existed long before the PIRA - and will exist as an ideal in many Countries that have nothing to do with Ireland, no matter what happens in Ireland.
True.But there are Irish Protestants, who are Unionists, members of the Orange Order, and they are not discriminated against.
Do you mean not discriminated against in the ROI or NI? It has been alleged that discrimination against Southern Protestants did in fact take place, as their numbers greatly reduced post partition.If it's been achieved in 26 Counties, why would it not be achieved in 32?
If I'm not mistaken, the Protestant population of the ROI has been so greatly reduced as to be negligible. Correct me if I'm wrong.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, the Protestant population of the ROI has been so greatly reduced as to be negligible. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Very true. Check out this nice visual from Wikipedia. The proportion of protestants in the Republic has decreased significantly since independence. Unfortunately it doesn't give a breakdown for specific denominations.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Ireland_protestants_1861-1991.gif0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Revel is a strong word. I want to maintain the status quo but I don't revel in it.
You want to maintain the partition of Ireland, whether you revel in it or not.It's just the truth, that's honestly what I think is going to happen. I won't see a UI in my life time and assuming we're roughly the same age presumably you won't either.
I'm 44 and just 16 years ago I never thought I would see a sustainable peace in NI, Sinn Fein and Unionists sharing government, and Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness laughing together. It has happened. Whether a UI happens in my lifetime or not is not important. What is important is the elimination of the causes of rebellion and conflict, and whilst Ireland is divided it shall never truly be at peace. I think Dissident Republican murders post GFA have demonstrated that.It's not occupied. The British have a democratic mandate for their presence.
That mandate was brought about under pressure. I believe that the British-Unionist-Protestant people have a right to be in Ireland, but I do not believe that price to pay for their presence is continued partition.No one mentioned PULs I said Ulster Scots are a separate nation what politics or religion that separate nation has doesn't alter it. Religion does go a long way in shaping culture though. Historically it was very important in people's lives and this has naturally carried undertones into our own society.
Ulster-Scots are Unionists and Loyalists, they constitute probably the majority segment of the British populace in NI, but they are not a "separate nation". NI however, is a separate nation.Brazil.
They speak Portuguese. Is that not a language?Because they are two completely different ideologies with only internationalism in common. Tbh you've taken the best bit out of socialism.
Internationalist Socialism is the ideal, but we have to be pragmatic. A world-wide revolution is not going to happen.A return? When did it ever happen first time round? Anyway I hope not our economy is in a bad enough state. lol
We had Socialist politics with Connolly. Today's Republican Dissidents, RNU in particular, are pushing a Socialist agenda. Socialism has traditionally constituted a significant aspect of Republicanism, only the Shinners under Adams abandoned it.It goes deeper then that. The need to classify and label oneself is present in every culture in the world, well that I'm aware of, I can only assume it's instinctive.
We like label things because it makes life simple and easier to navigate. That is not necessarily a negative.That would only be true if you consider us one nation.
We're not at present, but mark my words, we will be one day.Significant role? 15%? You'll be out voted on every issue.
Unionists shall constitute approximately 20% of the Irish population post reunification.Then why list them as assets to unification? Unification won't give us the Giant's Causeway. We have that regardless. I could drive up next weekend if the fancy took me.
But you would have to drive across a border into a neighbouring but by definition 'foreign' country, which you do not regard or want as your country. So why come here?Because patriotism and a favourable disposition towards Irish unity are not obligate.
You've certainly made that clear.I already did. I explained to you why we don't need your land, labour or capital to function. We have a working economy and vibrant export market as it is. We're going through a rough patch atm but these things are never permanent. Unification is an ideological dream, if it gives some people something to strive for then fine, best of luck to them, but you can't endanger the institutions of the state over it.
Your attitude is probably the most downbeat, cynical, negative, defeatist, pessimistic and disheartening I've ever encountered from an Irishman. I'll stop short of referring to you as unpatriotic.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Revel is a strong word. I want to maintain the status quo but I don't revel in it.
It's just the truth, that's honestly what I think is going to happen. I won't see a UI in my life time and assuming we're roughly the same age presumably you won't either.
.
Things can change very quickly, my dad believed that there would never be peace, that it wasn't possible. I would love him to be here to see the Chuckle Brothers.
The calls for a border poll and this very discussion shows that the idea and aim is growing in the conciousness of the people.
It's moving along vey nicely in my opinion, I can see it on the table inside 20 years. Huge and monumental shifts have taken place already.0 -
Then you're a good bit older then me, elimination of conflict will happen, it's going to happen with unification or without as the economy and opportunities for young people improve.Bertie Woot wrote: »I'm 44 and just 16 years ago I never thought I would see a sustainable peace in NI, Sinn Fein and Unionists sharing government, and Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness laughing together. It has happened. Whether a UI happens in my lifetime or not is not important. What is important is the elimination of the causes of rebellion and conflict, and whilst Ireland is divided it shall never truly be at peace. I think Dissident Republican murders post GFA have demonstrated that.
.That mandate was brought about under pressure. I believe that the British-Unionist-Protestant people have a right to be in Ireland, but I do not believe that price to pay for their presence is continued partition
The mandate I referred to was the GFA, brought about by the democratic wish of both jurisdictions of Ireland.
But how does one define a nation only through shared culture, descent, traditions, ethnicity etc. The nationalists in NI share all those attributes with me the Ulster Scots don't. That makes them a separate nation within a demarcated territory nationalists as Irish people living in the UK.Ulster-Scots are Unionists and Loyalists, they constitute probably the majority segment of the British populace in NI, but they are not a "separate nation". NI however, is a separate nation.
It is but it's not their own. That's why you don't need a language to be a nation. Ulster Scots speak English.They speak Portuguese. Is that not a language?
Let's be pragmatic socialism is not going to happen. Socialist ideas have influenced our culture and for that I'm grateful but that's as far as it's going to go.Internationalist Socialism is the ideal, but we have to be pragmatic. A world-wide revolution is not going to happen.
Maybe but I won't live to see it.We're not at present, but mark my words, we will be one day.
From wikipedia:Unionists shall constitute approximately 20% of the Irish population post reunification.
No. of Ulster Scots = 950,000
Population of all Ireland = 6,399,115
(950,000/6,399,115)*100 = 14.8%
Like I said you'll be voted down on every issue.
So? I don't want unity with France. Wouldn't stop me holidaying there.But you would have to drive across a border into a neighbouring but by definition 'foreign' country, which you do not regard or want as your country. So why come here?
You're restraint is appreciated. I don't understand how any one legitimate ideology can be any more pessimistic then another but how and ever each to their own.Your attitude is probably the most downbeat, cynical, negative, defeatist, pessimistic and disheartening I've ever encountered from an Irishman. I'll stop short of referring to you as unpatriotic.0 -
Advertisement
-
Perhaps. I'd also like to see a border poll. I think it would be very interesting.Happyman42 wrote: »Things can change very quickly, my dad believed that there would never be peace, that it wasn't possible. I would love him to be here to see the Chuckle Brothers.
The calls for a border poll and this very discussion shows that the idea and aim is growing in the conciousness of the people.
It's moving along vey nicely in my opinion, I can see it on the table inside 20 years. Huge and monumental shifts have taken place already.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »Things can change very quickly, my dad believed that there would never be peace, that it wasn't possible. I would love him to be here to see the Chuckle Brothers.
The calls for a border poll and this very discussion shows that the idea and aim is growing in the conciousness of the people.
It's moving along vey nicely in my opinion, I can see it on the table inside 20 years. Huge and monumental shifts have taken place already.
I can remember people saying ( not long after the gfa was signed ) that they could never see a return to the troubles, they have since changed thier minds. Northern Ireland is teetering on the brink, dissidents bombs are growing more commonplace, and while the security services on both sides of the border have been very good at scuppering the plans of dissidents, to use a provie quote, they only have to be lucky once0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Then you're a good bit older then me, elimination of conflict will happen, it's going to happen with unification or without as the economy and opportunities for young people improve.
Dissident Republicans are intent on sustaining their low-level campaign. It's futile of course, but what gives them the reason is partition, and it's only a matter of time before they pull off a spectacular. Reunification shall remove the cause of Republican rebellion and violence, but what is equally if not more important to reunification is making a 32 county Irish Republic work, and for all of its people.The mandate I referred to was the GFA, brought about by the democratic wish of both jurisdictions of Ireland.
Yes, and the Irish people, north and south of the border and Protestant and Catholic, voted to support the GFA because after 30 years of conflict they were jaded, war-weary and crying out for peace. It was either endorse the GFA or witness a resumption of conflict. The pressure to support the GFA was immense.But how does one define a nation only through shared culture, descent, traditions, ethnicity etc. The nationalists in NI share all those attributes with me the Ulster Scots don't. That makes them a separate nation within a demarcated territory nationalists as Irish people living in the UK.
The British people of Ulster are not exclusively "Ulster-Scots", and you are obfuscating an ethnic and cultural group with narrower nationality. Nationality is part of ethnicity, but ethnicity encompassess many other social factors, such as race, religion, language et al. Northern Ireland via partition is a separate nation, but the Ulster-Scots are not a nation, they are an ethnicity and a people.It is but it's not their own. That's why you don't need a language to be a nation. Ulster Scots speak English.
You speak the English language which is not your own, it is the language of the coloniser. You have a language which has been called "your own" ie. Gaelic, but even that is the language of a former coloniser of Ireland.Let's be pragmatic socialism is not going to happen. Socialist ideas have influenced our culture and for that I'm grateful but that's as far as it's going to go.
We need an alternative to capitalism, as there is no point in overcoming partition to permit selfish, greedy, ruthless capitalist parasites to continue exploiting the Irish working class.From wikipedia:
No. of Ulster Scots = 950,000
Population of all Ireland = 6,399,115
(950,000/6,399,115)*100 = 14.8%
*hits self on head with keyboard* Like I've stated twice: the British in NI are not exclusively Ulster-Scot, so your figure is an underestimate.So? I don't want unity with France. Wouldn't stop me holidaying there.
That wouldn't surprise me in the least, as the French have been described as "Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys".You're restraint is appreciated. I don't understand how any one legitimate ideology can be any more pessimistic then another but how and ever each to their own.
You seem like a good lad, but you just don't seem to have a proper grasp on political reality and the destiny of Ireland. I'll benevolently put that down to age, and without wishing to sound patronising.0 -
Bertie Woot - you may not wish to sound patronising , but I have news for you- you couldn't be more patronising if you tried. Bit I will benevolently put it down to having a one track mind when it comes to reality without wishing to be insulting.
It makes no difference what your analysis is of why people voted for the GFA.
They voted for it and it is the only game in town- make it work.
As for paramilitary groups not accepting this that or the other - they are fundamentaly undemocratic by nature and a rump will always find a reason for violence .
For example ie what if we did have a 32 county republic , what guarantee is there that some will just fight on until we have a Socialist Republic ?0 -
Of course it's futile and as the years drag on without unification they will become disillusioned and abandon their cause. The idea will never die but once the goal is seen to be unachievable people are not going to risk their lives for it. Especially if they have other goals to work towards. That's the real cure to solving the dissident problem. Education. This generation is already lost but give the young ones opportunity and starve the IRA of recruits.Bertie Woot wrote: »Dissident Republicans are intent on sustaining their low-level campaign. It's futile of course, but what gives them the reason is partition, and it's only a matter of time before they pull off a spectacular. Reunification shall remove the cause of Republican rebellion and violence, but what is equally if not more important to reunification is making a 32 county Irish Republic work, and for all of its people.
There would have been no return of conflict, not when they had already sat together. And even if there was if an agreement was hammered out once it would pave the way to hammering out alternatives. I definitely think the Unionists got a raw deal. The agreement only provided one way territorial change, no get out clause. God knows why they agreed to it.Yes, and the Irish people, north and south of the border and Protestant and Catholic, voted to support the GFA because after 30 years of conflict they were jaded, war-weary and crying out for peace. It was either endorse the GFA or witness a resumption of conflict. The pressure to support the GFA was immense.
Race: They are racially different from the Irish.The British people of Ulster are not exclusively "Ulster-Scots", and you are obfuscating an ethnic and cultural group with narrower nationality. Nationality is part of ethnicity, but ethnicity encompassess many other social factors, such as race, religion, language et al. Northern Ireland via partition is a separate nation, but the Ulster-Scots are not a nation, they are an ethnicity and a people.
Religion: They have a different religion to the Irish.
Language: Historically they spoke a different language to the Irish. They don't anymore but language is not needed for a nation.
Any other criteria to apply to the Ulster Scots to prove to you they are a separate nation from us?
English is my language. It's the language of my friends and family and the language I was educated in. To me Irish is just a language I learned back in school. It doesn't matter to me what my ancestors spoke because if I went back far enough they'd probably be speaking Norse or French too.You speak the English language which is not your own, it is the language of the coloniser. You have a language which has been called "your own" ie. Gaelic, but even that is the language of a former coloniser of Ireland.
We really don't. Capitalism rewards those who work and punishes those who don't. Socialism causes a lazy, dependant population. What we need is high social mobility. Not social equality.We need an alternative to capitalism, as there is no point in overcoming partition to permit selfish, greedy, ruthless capitalist parasites to continue exploiting the Irish working class.
Where do the extra 319,956 non ulster scots unionists come from?*hits self on head with keyboard* Like I've stated twice: the British in NI are not exclusively Ulster-Scot, so your figure is an underestimate.
The French, along with the Russians and British are historically the most militarily successful countries in the world.That wouldn't surprise me in the least, as the French have been described as "Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys".
I would put you down differently. You have an ideological point of view, Irish Unity, much like socialism, is an unrealistic dream. To me you seem like a dreamer who has his head in the clouds and follows his heart instead of his head.You seem like a good lad, but you just don't seem to have a proper grasp on political reality and the destiny of Ireland. I'll benevolently put that down to age, and without wishing to sound patronising.0 -
Bertie Woot - you may not wish to sound patronising , but I have news for you- you couldn't be more patronising if you tried. Bit I will benevolently put it down to having a one track mind when it comes to reality without wishing to be insulting.
Exaggerate much? If anything, I've been very restrained.It makes no difference what your analysis is of why people voted for the GFA. They voted for it and it is the only game in town- make it work.
I voted for the GFA, as I lived through every day of 'the troubles' and like most people, wanted peace. I also want to see the GFA deliver democratic and peaceful Irish reunification.As for paramilitary groups not accepting this that or the other - they are fundamentaly undemocratic by nature and a rump will always find a reason for violence .
Can't argue with that.For example ie what if we did have a 32 county republic , what guarantee is there that some will just fight on until we have a Socialist Republic ?
There is no guarantee, and I'll be one of them, or support those who do fight to eradicate the scourge of capitalism and the inherently corrupt banking elite who have basically urinated on Ireland, the UK, America and the world.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Of course it's futile and as the years drag on without unification they will become disillusioned and abandon their cause. The idea will never die but once the goal is seen to be unachievable people are not going to risk their lives for it. Especially if they have other goals to work towards. That's the real cure to solving the dissident problem. Education. This generation is already lost but give the young ones opportunity and starve the IRA of recruits.
I'm glad you're so optimistic about violent Dissidents and Republicans in general abandoning their cause and by coming to view a UI as "unachievable", however it's not a view I share. And as regards education, if young Irish Nationalists read up on Irish history from the 12th century onward it might have the effect of spurring them into the ranks of Dissidents as opposed to away from them.There would have been no return of conflict, not when they had already sat together. And even if there was if an agreement was hammered out once it would pave the way to hammering out alternatives. I definitely think the Unionists got a raw deal. The agreement only provided one way territorial change, no get out clause. God knows why they agreed to it.
The Provisionals most certainly would have returned to the armed campaign sooner or later, and to further jolt activity towards a settlement the way they did with Canary Wharf. Unionism got a first class deal as the GFA secures NI's union with GB, and for the first time in its existence. It also legitimises the Northern Irish state. It was Republicans who got the short end of the stick, as they essentially had to accept the legitimacy of NI, sit in a devolved parliament and administer British governance of a part of the UK their campaign had been designed to destroy. Republicans have been coerced to play the democratic long numbers game. Unionism has won the battle, as Republicans have been forced to abandon armed struggle and surrender their weaponry, but the war is by no means over.Race: They are racially different from the Irish.
Religion: They have a different religion to the Irish.
Language: Historically they spoke a different language to the Irish. They don't anymore but language is not needed for a nation.
Any other criteria to apply to the Ulster Scots to prove to you they are a separate nation from us?
Ulster-Scots and the irish are both Caucasian. In fact, contemporary Ulster-Scots are Irish, like I've already explained. Ulster-Scots are Protestant and mostly Presbyterian, most Gael descended Irish are Catholic, so you're right about religion. Ulster-Scots speak a dialect of English, indigenous Irish used to speak Gaelic, a language which was imposed upon them by the Gaelic invader, but today both Northern Ulster-Scot and Northern and Southern Irish mostly speak English.
The Ulster-Scots are part of the British-Unionist-Protestant people of Northern Ireland, and NI is a different nation to the ROI, but like I've said 3 times already; the Ulster-Scots are not a "separate nation". They are part of a people ie. "British" who live in NI. There is no exclusively "Ulster-Scots" nation.English is my language. It's the language of my friends and family and the language I was educated in. To me Irish is just a language I learned back in school. It doesn't matter to me what my ancestors spoke because if I went back far enough they'd probably be speaking Norse or French too.
Fair enough.We really don't. Capitalism rewards those who work and punishes those who don't. Socialism causes a lazy, dependant population. What we need is high social mobility. Not social equality.
That's just a typically erroneous, pro-capitalist, right-wing, conservative analysis of Socialism.Where do the extra 319,956 non ulster scots unionists come from?
Not sure where you got this figure, but if it's correct, they are probably descended from the English. From the 12th to the early 17th century it was mostly Anglo-Norman and English colonial settlers who came across to Ireland, we didn't see large numbers of Scots until the plantations. Ulster in particular.The French, along with the Russians and British are historically the most militarily successful countries in the world.
The difference of course being that the French capitulated to the Nazis, whereas the British and Russians collaboratively defeated them.I would put you down differently. You have an ideological point of view, Irish Unity, much like socialism, is an unrealistic dream. To me you seem like a dreamer who has his head in the clouds and follows his heart instead of his head.
I may have an ideological POV, but Irish unity is most certainly achievable, as The GFA provides the mechanism by which to achieve it. I don't mind being described as "a dreamer who has his head in the clouds and follows his heart instead of his head". I follow both my heart and my head, and in perfect unison.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »Dissident Republicans are intent on sustaining their low-level campaign. It's futile of course,
Not as long as people like you hold out the hope that they will win, and people will give them a United Ireland to stop the violence.
But actually, they are a pathetic shadow of the IRA, and the IRA got nothing till they stopped, and little enough then.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Not as long as people like you hold out the hope that they will win, and people will give them a United Ireland to stop the violence.
But actually, they are a pathetic shadow of the IRA, and the IRA got nothing till they stopped, and little enough then.
I do not support Dissident violence, and I did not support PIRA violence. One is as futile as the other. People did not give the PIRA a UI to stop their violence, what they did give them was a peaceful means by which to achieve their aspiration. The dissidents simply disagree with the means to the end, as they believe that the GFA shall not deliver Irish unity and oppose SF's participation in a power sharing executive at Stormont..0 -
Regardless of whether or not you share my view surely you agree that providing opportunities to young people will starve the IRA of potential recruits. During the troubles many young people were disillusioned with the establishment so they fought against it hoping a NI would treat them better. The key here is social mobility. A high social mobility As long as they have goals, dreams, plans, something to work for then they won't risk their liberty by associating with dissidents.Bertie Woot wrote: »I'm glad you're so optimistic about violent Dissidents and Republicans in general abandoning their cause and by coming to view a UI as "unachievable", however it's not a view I share. And as regards education, if young Irish Nationalists read up on Irish history from the 12th century onward it might have the effect of spurring them into the ranks of Dissidents as opposed to away from them.
I disagree the Unionists were sold out. NI can join the Republic but under the GFA it can never leave again if it wants to, there is no get out clause. The GFA is a one way document. It's very easy for republicans to sit in Stormont and legitimise British rule because they see themselves as moving closer to Irish Unity.The Provisionals most certainly would have returned to the armed campaign sooner or later, and to further jolt activity towards a settlement the way they did with Canary Wharf. Unionism got a first class deal as the GFA secures NI's union with GB, and for the first time in its existence. It also legitimises the Northern Irish state. It was Republicans who got the short end of the stick, as they essentially had to accept the legitimacy of NI, sit in a devolved parliament and administer British governance of a part of the UK their campaign had been designed to destroy. Republicans have been coerced to play the democratic long numbers game. Unionism has won the battle, as Republicans have been forced to abandon armed struggle and surrender their weaponry, but the war is by no means over.
Caucasian? I guess I should have used ethnicity instead of race. But let me ask you something. How would you define nationality? And why do the Ulster Scots not meet that definition? Ethnically, culturally, religiously, historically, they are distinct from the Irish. And they occupy a demarcated territory. That makes them a nation in my books.Ulster-Scots and the irish are both Caucasian. In fact, contemporary Ulster-Scots are Irish, like I've already explained. Ulster-Scots are Protestant and mostly Presbyterian, most Gael descended Irish are Catholic, so you're right about religion. Ulster-Scots speak a dialect of English, indigenous Irish used to speak Gaelic, a language which was imposed upon them by the Gaelic invader, but today both Northern Ulster-Scot and Northern and Southern Irish mostly speak English.
The Ulster-Scots are part of the British-Unionist-Protestant people of Northern Ireland, and NI is a different nation to the ROI, but like I've said 3 times already; the Ulster-Scots are not a "separate nation". They are part of a people ie. "British" who live in NI. There is no exclusively "Ulster-Scots" nation.
Why is it erroneous?That's just a typically erroneous, pro-capitalist, right-wing, conservative analysis of Socialism.
Population of Ireland = 6,399,115Not sure where you got this figure, but if it's correct, they are probably descended from the English. From the 12th to the early 17th century it was mostly Anglo-Norman and English colonial settlers who came across to Ireland, we didn't see large numbers of Scots until the plantations. Ulster in particular.
20-15= 5
5*(6,399,115/100) = 319,956
Ulster was hardly colonised at all until the plantations. It was the most gaelic of all the provinces. It's fair to say the vast majority of unionists in Ulster would have come from the plantations and are Ulster Scot.
My figure of 319,956 is based of your estimate that unionists would make up 20% of the population of a UI. But I'd say that's unlikely especially since unification won't happen for decades. You'll probably make up 16-17%. God knows why you think you'll have more of a democratic say with us. You'll be voted down on every issue and Ireland has few laws protecting minorities. Ask the travellers.
Only the French state capitulated. many french fought on. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything though.The difference of course being that the French capitulated to the Nazis, whereas the British and Russians collaboratively defeated them.
It is achievable. But not for decades at least.I may have an ideological POV, but Irish unity is most certainly achievable, as The GFA provides the mechanism by which to achieve it. I don't mind being described as "a dreamer who has his head in the clouds and follows his heart instead of his head". I follow both my heart and my head, and in perfect unison.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bertie Woot wrote: »I do not support Dissident violence, and I did not support PIRA violence. One is as futile as the other.
But you can't resist pointing out that dissident violence is getting worse and only a united Ireland will stop it.0 -
We will never go back to the days of violence, the advancements in counter terrorism would mean the likes of the ira would suffer to many casualties to make a armed campaign viable, this is not a dig at the ira and I know it will ruffle a few feathers of some of you guys who respect the ira but think about all the training in Afghanistan and Iraq and the new toys the brits have like drones with gigapixal survalance and small yield guided missiles, a single one of these could monitor west belfast better than all the watch towers did years ago. I just dont think a armed campaign is possible in this decade, nor is it needed, Democratic will is guaranteed.0
-
I can remember people saying ( not long after the gfa was signed ) that they could never see a return to the troubles, they have since changed thier minds. Northern Ireland is teetering on the brink, dissidents bombs are growing more commonplace, and while the security services on both sides of the border have been very good at scuppering the plans of dissidents, to use a provie quote, they only have to be lucky once
Which goes to show that the GFA is only part of the process, not the solution.0 -
We will never go back to the days of violence, the advancements in counter terrorism would mean the likes of the ira would suffer to many casualties to make a armed campaign viable, this is not a dig at the ira and I know it will ruffle a few feathers of some of you guys who respect the ira but think about all the training in Afghanistan and Iraq and the new toys the brits have like drones with gigapixal survalance and small yield guided missiles, a single one of these could monitor west belfast better than all the watch towers did years ago. I just dont think a armed campaign is possible in this decade, nor is it needed, Democratic will is guaranteed.
3000 soldiers and policemen killed in Afghanistan last year alone by simple roadside bombs. Nearly 450 British soldiers killed since the invasion. Technology has a little way to go I think.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »Which goes to show that the GFA is only part of the process, not the solution.
The solution certinly isn't a united ireland0 -
-
the training in Afghanistan and Iraq and the new toys the brits have like drones with gigapixal survalance and small yield guided missiles, a single one of these could monitor west belfast better than all the watch towers did years ago.
All the hardware Britain and the US can muster can't quell Afghanistan. You need to win the peace. I rarely make predictions but I reckon Afghanistan will be run again by the Taliban the medieval bastards. I see three UK soldiers were killed in one of their 'safest vehicles' in Afghanistan today (yesterday?). Why the hell the people of the UK don't demand withdrawal from that hellhole is beyond me.
The British have no appetite to go back in to the north. If it kicked off again (I hope to fuck it never does btw) I can't see them wanting to get bogged down for another couple of decades.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »The solution is an ordered British withdrawal. A United Ireland is the only practical and workable choice after that.
The only time a united ireland can ever be realistically countenanced is when Northern Ireland works in its own right. The great irony for Irish republicans is they have to work toward making Northern Ireland a viable enity in its own right. No Irish government is going to sacrifice the 26 Irish republic (espically if it has managed to balance it's book) for a unstable united ireland, there eould be wide scale civil unrest, only a fool would believe there would'nt be. People are quick to slag of the flag protests, and yet those protests have cost the economy millions, imagine that ten fold. You don't need a paramiltary campaign to screw the economy, simple street protests and low level civil unrest will do it, but of course if those protesters are treated heavy handedly then it could spark of far worse violence0 -
simple street protests and low level civil unrest will do it, but of course if those protesters are treated heavy handedly then it could spark of far worse violence
Just like a Unionist with the veiled threats:( Its all been done before - granted it worked then but I'm not so sure it would in this day.0 -
Advertisement
-
The only time a united ireland can ever be realistically countenanced is when Northern Ireland works in its own right. The great irony for Irish republicans is they have to work toward making Northern Ireland a viable enity in its own right. No Irish government is going to sacrifice the 26 Irish republic (espically if it has managed to balance it's book) for a unstable united ireland, there eould be wide scale civil unrest, only a fool would believe there would'nt be. People are quick to slag of the flag protests, and yet those protests have cost the economy millions, imagine that ten fold. You don't need a paramiltary campaign to screw the economy, simple street protests and low level civil unrest will do it, but of course if those protesters are treated heavy handedly then it could spark of far worse violence
N.I. isn't and never will be 'viable' without subsidy. It can't govern itself without falling apart. It can be both as part of a UI.
What will bring all f this to a table or to a vote is the British slowly closing it's wallet.
The best bet and more attractive option then, will be to become part of a new bigger country.0
Advertisement