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
-
-
Happyman42 wrote: »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.
Then there will never be a united Ireland. Viability is not just about economic viability, but also social viability. Until such time as the peace Walls come Down, the border will stay0 -
Then there will never be a united Ireland. Viability is not just about economic viability, but also social viability. Until such time as the peace Walls come Down, the border will stay
That's just it, the border is non existant now where I live and we used to have only one open but permanantly checkpointed road coming into us from N.I. They where all cratered and blocked. Must be 7 or 8 open now.
Security gates coming down in Derry today. Landscape is changing Junder and minds, slowly but surely.0 -
-
Happyman42 wrote: »That's just it, the border is non existant now where I live and we used to have only one open but permanantly checkpointed road coming into us from N.I. They where all cratered and blocked. Must be 7 or 8 open now.
Security gates coming down in Derry today. Landscape is changing Junder and minds, slowly but surely.
Sure the gates are coming down in Londonderry with its massive majorty catholic population, but wait there is one place the gates are not coming, in fact they are staying around the fountain estate to protect the tiny Protestant enclave living there. In Belfast yer the landscape is certainly changing, there are more peace walls now then there was before the ceasefires and community relations are at an all time low0 -
Advertisement
-
Sure the gates are coming down in Londonderry with its massive majorty catholic population, but wait there is one place the gates are not coming, in fact they are staying around the fountain estate to protect the tiny Protestant enclave living there. In Belfast yer the landscape is certainly changing, there are more peace walls now then there was before the ceasefires and community relations are at an all time low
And we know which community has been dragging it's feet on normalising the situation.
Unionists insisted on the border being secured, look what happens when you take the barriers down....nothing, social interaction between the two communities is almost back to pre troubles level. Prehaps they should be doing the same with the peace walls, it only adds to siege mentalities.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »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.
exactly, the British army have been training in a war which has seen as many deaths in one year as there were in all the years of the troubles against an enemy with as many world wide solders as there are people in Ireland, what have the ira been doing? The the landscape is also different, the ira would not have the advantage of thousands of square miles of mountainous desert, they have a small island of the mainland coast, one pimpled teen could keep an eye on west belfast from RAF aldergrove. Would you not agree that things would be a lot harder for the ira to sustain an armed campaign against the British army in these present days?0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »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.
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'm not sure it's quite that simple - unless you ignore the rest of the tribes living in Ulster at the time.
This:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ulster.htm#fiatach
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protohistory_of_Ireland
Followed by this:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/colla.htm
The three sons of Eochaid Duibhlein and Aileach, a daughter of the King of Alba, all bore the name of Colla - Colla Uais, Colla Meann and Colla da Crich (Fochríth). The designation Colla, meaning strong man, was "imposed on them for rebelling," their original names being Cairsall, Aodh and Muredach, respectively. The three Collas went to Scotland to obtain the assistance of their kindred to place Colla Uais on the Irish throne, and with their help placed him there, but he was compelled to give way to a relative, Muredach Tirech, who had a better title to the sovereignty.
[SIZE=-1][source: http://user.icx.net/~gimbel/genealogy/McDonald_ancestory.html] [/SIZE]
The three Collas made war with the High King of Ireland, Fiachadh, and overthrew and killed him in order to sieze the Kingship for Colla Uais, which he enjoyed for four years. Muiredach Tirech, the son of the slain king Fiachadh, overthrew the three Collas and their followers. About the year 327 the three Collas were exiled to Alba (Scotland). They were received into their maternal grandfather's court, the court of the Scots and Picts.
[SIZE=-1][source: http://www.concentric.com/~maguire/Maguire3.html][/SIZE]
suggest it was a bit more complex than that.
I think it's fair to say that
A: It's very difficult to state with any certainty what historical fact is, prior to written history being recorded in the fifth century.
B: There is no question, however, that raiding and colonisation took by both sides of what would now be known as the Irish and Scots people before chronological written histories were available.
It just depends what time period you start with (quite aside from the amount of uncertainty about the facts, since historians seem to disagree about many of them) - and it's quite possible to argue with equal honesty about who invaded who to begin with, which makes the whole thing kind of pointless.
It was a very violent period, and common sense would dictate that (how to put this delicately?) - inter- tribal progeny would likely have been numerous, to the extent that it would be quite impossible for either ethnic Scots or ethnic Irish in Northern Ireland to state with any degree of certainty that they didn't have a common ancestor at some point.
(I'm not going to even wreck my head with trying to work out the origins of the rest of Ireland - you could spend years at this, and still not come up with a definite history!)Bertie Woot wrote: »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.
I mean I would see no reason why Unionists would be discriminated against in the ROI, if unification took place.
The Republic has moved on. Nobody asks whether you're Catholic or Protestant in relation to jobs, housing etc.
For decades, Protestant schools got extra funding (owing to the smaller numbers of Protestants) to allow them an education that respected their religious ethos.
Where I live, the Catholic population regularly donate towards the upkeep of the local C of I church - because we recognise that it would be prohibitively expensive for that congregation to maintain it themselves, and are of the mindset that people have a right to worship according to their own religious beliefs.
I'm certain that discrimination took place post-partition - but it seems to have been by communities intent on revenge, moreso than a state-sponsored discrimination.
I think it's reasonable to assume that some Protestant families fled for fear of recrimination, too.
I wouldn't foresee any such discrimination, or need for fear, nowadays - and would actively support legislation to ensure any attempt at discrimination would be stamped out.
In Northern Ireland, of course, at the present time - things might be different. I wouldn't even dream of assuming that there would be no violence on the part of either Community.
Someone living there would have a better idea than I would.
Having said that. I think it's fair to say that nationalists would have less motive than Unionists to stir up trouble. The Nationalist goal would have been achieved. I stand ready to be corrected on that, of course - which is why I think more time, and a revised history syllabus is needed.
Co-education would also be a good option, when the time is right, imo.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.
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile7/Profile,7,Education,Ethnicity,and,Irish,Traveller,entire,doc.pdf
It seems to be holding steady for the last number of years at around 3%.
It's worth noting that the Catholic population is in decline.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »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.
Higher education and increased employment opportunities shall no doubt have the effect of buffering many young Nationalists away from paramilitarism, but it would be wrong to assume that with upward social mobility all working class Republicans shall abandon the Republican aspiration.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.
There may not be a "get out clause" in the GFA, but I personally would never vote for a united Ireland without there being safeguards, assurances and built-in mechanisms which shall protect the Unionists from persecution. Any reunification agreement and consequent new Irish constitution must contain items and clauses which shall prevent discrimination, and provide for British governmental intervention should any form of ill-treatment be experienced by the Unionist minority.
I've experience discrimination in employment at the hands of a Nationalist in NI, and for being from the Protestant community. I'm not about to walk willy-nilly into a reunified Ireland without very solid guarantees that the same thing shall not happen in a 32 county Irish Republic. It is in the interests of all of the people of Ireland to have learned form the past, and not allow history to repeat itself. Loyalist paramilitaries being the next IRA in the new Ireland is not my idea of Irish reunification.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.
I've already defined nationality.
Definition of "Ulster-Scots" - Ulster Scots (Ulster-Scots: Ulstèr-Scotch;[3] Irish: Ultais) are an ethnic group that has lived in Ireland since the 17th Century, and are predominantly subjects of the United Kingdom. Their ancestors were Lowland Scottish and Northern English people, many being from the "Border Reivers" culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster-Scots
NI is a separate nation, but the Ulster-Scots are merely a large ethnicity within NI. They do not constitute a separate nationality, but an ethnicity within a nation.Why is it erroneous?
Because it's a soley right-wing and thus woefully biased take on Socialism.Population of Ireland = 6,399,115
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.
We currently constitute approximately 2% of the UK populace. Compare that with your estimate of 17% (probably an underestimate) of the new Ireland population.It is achievable. But not for decades at least.
The removal of the geographical border shall only be achieved when most Unionists remove the very deeply embedded psychological border.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »There may not be a "get out clause" in the GFA, but I personally would never vote for a united Ireland without there being safeguards, assurances and built-in mechanisms which shall protect the Unionists from persecution. Any reunification agreement and consequent new Irish constitution must contain items and clauses which shall prevent discrimination, and provide for British governmental intervention should any form of ill-treatment be experienced by the Unionist minority.
One day a united Ireland may be possible and I would support one its the realpolitik of us in the south signing up to and supporting the GFA it could happen one day. But it can only happen if everyone wants it and its peaceful it cant be forced upon anyone or rushed why not consolidate the peace for now and continue building bridges. Leave it to the future generations to sort out unification if thats what they want right now I think putting the past to bed and building stronger ties with both communities should be the focus.
The part I have bolded you would really need to revise as thats a non starter. Think about what you have typed that is something people in the south will not sign up to nor agree too. Not only because it gives a foreign government a say in our country, enshrined in our constitution, but I would think people would find it offensive that such a clause insinuates there might be a witch hunt against a certain section of society. People are protected by law Irish and European. The Irish constitution will never contain a clause giving the British the ability to pull rank if they deem it so thats just a non-starter. Its good that this is being talked about as one day it could happen. It needs to be thought out further though and I think it needs a lot more time for it to become a peaceful reality.0 -
Advertisement
-
The idea will still be there, the idea will never die and doubtless there will still be token volunteers but every year that goes by and unification doesn't happen more and more people will get disillusioned and the idea will become irrelevant. There will still be shouts for unification but the shouts will be getting quieter every year. It's happening already. Remember that poll from the BBC that showed the majority, and 25% of SF supporters do not favour unification.Bertie Woot wrote: »Higher education and increased employment opportunities shall no doubt have the effect of buffering many young Nationalists away from paramilitarism, but it would be wrong to assume that with upward social mobility all working class Republicans shall abandon the Republican aspiration.
That's not going to happen, as per the points the poster above me made. Ireland is a sovereign country we can't give the UK a constitutional position to interfere in the running of our country. And it would give the thugs an excuse to continue their violence.There may not be a "get out clause" in the GFA, but I personally would never vote for a united Ireland without there being safeguards, assurances and built-in mechanisms which shall protect the Unionists from persecution. Any reunification agreement and consequent new Irish constitution must contain items and clauses which shall prevent discrimination, and provide for British governmental intervention should any form of ill-treatment be experienced by the Unionist minority.
I've experience discrimination in employment at the hands of a Nationalist in NI, and for being from the Protestant community. I'm not about to walk willy-nilly into a reunified Ireland without very solid guarantees that the same thing shall not happen in a 32 county Irish Republic. It is in the interests of all of the people of Ireland to have learned form the past, and not allow history to repeat itself. Loyalist paramilitaries being the next IRA in the new Ireland is not my idea of Irish reunification.I've already defined nationality.
Definition of "Ulster-Scots" - Ulster Scots (Ulster-Scots: Ulstèr-Scotch;[3] Irish: Ultais) are an ethnic group that has lived in Ireland since the 17th Century, and are predominantly subjects of the United Kingdom. Their ancestors were Lowland Scottish and Northern English people, many being from the "Border Reivers" culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster-Scots
NI is a separate nation, but the Ulster-Scots are merely a large ethnicity within NI. They do not constitute a separate nationality, but an ethnicity within a nation.
Definition of nationality: "A people having common origins or traditions and often constituting a nation."
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationality
Nationality consists of culture, ethnicity and a shared ancestry. Ulster Scots have all of those things different from the Irish. Therefore they are a separate nationality occupying a demarcated territory therefore NI is a separate nation to the rest of Ireland.
Because it's the truth, why work for anything when you can get it for free.Because it's a soley right-wing and thus woefully biased take on Socialism.
What's we?We currently constitute approximately 2% of the UK populace. Compare that with your estimate of 17% (probably an underestimate) of the new Ireland population.
Unionist? You aren't one anymore.
British? You aren't that either.
Ulster Scot? When I pointed out Ulster Scots would make up only 15% of
the population of a UI you told me to use Unionists as a whole.
Protestant? That's a lot more then 2% of the UK population.
In the UK unionists are a majority. In NI unionists are a majority. In a UI unionists will be a meek minority with no power. You'll have to do what the nationalists tell you because you'll be voted down on every issue and all political power will be stripped from you. Imagine the DUP in the Dáil, no Irish party would touch them, they'll be in power again. No unionists politician will.
Unionists know what side their bread is buttered on. You don't seem to.The removal of the geographical border shall only be achieved when most Unionists remove the very deeply embedded psychological border.0 -
I'm not sure it's quite that simple - unless you ignore the rest of the tribes living in Ulster at the time.
This:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ulster.htm#fiatach
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protohistory_of_Ireland
Followed by this:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/colla.htm
The three sons of Eochaid Duibhlein and Aileach, a daughter of the King of Alba, all bore the name of Colla - Colla Uais, Colla Meann and Colla da Crich (Fochríth). The designation Colla, meaning strong man, was "imposed on them for rebelling," their original names being Cairsall, Aodh and Muredach, respectively. The three Collas went to Scotland to obtain the assistance of their kindred to place Colla Uais on the Irish throne, and with their help placed him there, but he was compelled to give way to a relative, Muredach Tirech, who had a better title to the sovereignty.
[SIZE=-1][source: http://user.icx.net/~gimbel/genealogy/McDonald_ancestory.html] [/SIZE]
The three Collas made war with the High King of Ireland, Fiachadh, and overthrew and killed him in order to sieze the Kingship for Colla Uais, which he enjoyed for four years. Muiredach Tirech, the son of the slain king Fiachadh, overthrew the three Collas and their followers. About the year 327 the three Collas were exiled to Alba (Scotland). They were received into their maternal grandfather's court, the court of the Scots and Picts.
[SIZE=-1][source: http://www.concentric.com/~maguire/Maguire3.html][/SIZE]
suggest it was a bit more complex than that.
I was banned for 3 days for providing a brief and pertinent historical review pertaining to the Gaels arrival in Ireland, and you have provided a similar and related historical review of early Ulster and Scottish tribes, and been allowed to remain. That would strongly suggest a lack of impartiality and as already suggested, 'over-moderation' on Boards.ie.I think it's fair to say that
A: It's very difficult to state with any certainty what historical fact is, prior to written history being recorded in the fifth century.
B: There is no question, however, that raiding and colonisation took by both sides of what would now be known as the Irish and Scots people before chronological written histories were available.
It just depends what time period you start with (quite aside from the amount of uncertainty about the facts, since historians seem to disagree about many of them) - and it's quite possible to argue with equal honesty about who invaded who to begin with, which makes the whole thing kind of pointless.
One thing's for certain: the Anglo-Norman arrival in Ireland which led to the subsequent British invasion began with an invitation by one King Dermot McMurrough of Leinster, who requested the assistance of the English King Henry II in regaining his throne. Thats right, the Brits were invited to Ireland. Not only that, for their help they were rewarded with colonies in Ireland and the hand of McMurrough's daughter's hand in marriage.
It is crucial in attempting to understand the present situation to understand how the English arrived in Ireland, and it is very relevant to this discussion on projected reunification.It was a very violent period, and common sense would dictate that (how to put this delicately?) - inter- tribal progeny would likely have been numerous, to the extent that it would be quite impossible for either ethnic Scots or ethnic Irish in Northern Ireland to state with any degree of certainty that they didn't have a common ancestor at some point.
(I'm not going to even wreck my head with trying to work out the origins of the rest of Ireland - you could spend years at this, and still not come up with a definite history!)
Agreed.I mean I would see no reason why Unionists would be discriminated against in the ROI, if unification took place.
The Republic has moved on. Nobody asks whether you're Catholic or Protestant in relation to jobs, housing etc.
That might change with reunification and the introduction of approximately 1 million people who are vociferously and unapologetically British into the country.For decades, Protestant schools got extra funding (owing to the smaller numbers of Protestants) to allow them an education that respected their religious ethos.
Where I live, the Catholic population regularly donate towards the upkeep of the local C of I church - because we recognise that it would be prohibitively expensive for that congregation to maintain it themselves, and are of the mindset that people have a right to worship according to their own religious beliefs.
Sounds like fair and reasonable treatment, and the granting of civil and religious liberties as enshrined in the values and beliefs of the Irish Republicanism of Tone and the United Irishmen.I'm certain that discrimination took place post-partition - but it seems to have been by communities intent on revenge, moreso than a state-sponsored discrimination.
I think it's reasonable to assume that some Protestant families fled for fear of recrimination, too.
I wouldn't foresee any such discrimination, or need for fear, nowadays - and would actively support legislation to ensure any attempt at discrimination would be stamped out.
That's what Northern Protestants fear; an Irish constitution that protects against state sponsored discrimination and persecution, but it actually being carried out by individuals and groups within a UI who harbour a desire for revenge. You cannot dismiss Unionist concerns as mere paranoia or as being unrealistic. Bigotry and resentment has worked both ways in this country, as has vengeance, and until they are 100% satisfied that persecution shall not occur, Unionism shall not even contemplate the national question.
I'll go one further and say that if you had safeguards, assurances and guarantees about discrimination being written in the blood of an Irish administration, and promised Unionists higher wages, raised living standards and the proverbial life of Reilly, they would still reject any move towards a united country, as they are still psychologically and emotionally attached to the motherland; Great Britain, and still deeply distrust all things Nationalist and Republican.In Northern Ireland, of course, at the present time - things might be different. I wouldn't even dream of assuming that there would be no violence on the part of either Community.
Someone living there would have a better idea than I would.
As I've stated before, if the majority in NI voted in favour of reunification tomorrow, the Unionists who voted against shall resist all practical steps to implement the democratic wishes of the people. I'm speaking as someone who grew up within Unionism but who is sympathetic towards Irish Nationalism, and and who knows the depth of fierce and unrelenting opposition to a UI that lies within the Protestant community to this day.Having said that. I think it's fair to say that nationalists would have less motive than Unionists to stir up trouble. The Nationalist goal would have been achieved. I stand ready to be corrected on that, of course - which is why I think more time, and a revised history syllabus is needed.
Co-education would also be a good option, when the time is right, imo.
Until British-Unionist-Protestants and Irish-Nationalist-Catholics learn to live with and respect one another's nationality, religion and culture within NI, a united Ireland will not work. What you shall have are the same divisions in a different context and the same potential for civil disorder and all out conflict. In that sense I can understand why many people in the ROI are opposed to Irish reunification.
We need to be realistic and pragmatic about this. Most people want to see an end to "the situation" and divisions in this country as a whole, but especially in my region - Northern Ireland. Now, we can either (very unrealistically) begin a process of repatriation for the one million descendants of Scottish and English ie. British colonial settlers that came across to Ulster before, during and after the plantations, or we attempt to reach a compromise and an accommodation whereby indigenous Irish and descendants of British colonial settlers, who after 400 years on this island can also be safely and legitimately regarded as "Irish", can share the same piece of land and peacefully co-exist.
As you might have noticed, hitherto this has not been happening. Instead we've quite literally been at eachother's throats, and the NI conflict is one about territory, nationality, national allegiance and to some lesser but related extent, religious differences. The British colonial supremacism of the past is now deceased, past tense, and deserves to be, as it served no positive function. Some Orangemen may still cling onto this anachronistic and outdated concept of Protestant supremacy in 6 county Ulster, but the reality is very different. Your average Orangeman is a working class Protestant-Unionist with no experience of higher education and living on a subsistence salary or unemployed and resident in a council estate. The middle class in NI are increasingly Nationalist and Catholic, with a University education and a career and/or profession, not a mere 'job'. The Nationalist community believes in higher education are becoming increasingly upwardly socially mobile, whilst working class Protestants still have an antipathetic attitude towards higher education. Working class Protestants are getting left behind and are in a position of social, economic and cultural inferiority. They are Ulster's second class citizens with little to no effective political representation at Stormont.
Co-education aka 'integrated education' in NI is however happening and is the way forward. Unionists need to be taught the value of education, and how to look at Irish history through the eyes of the Catholic Nationalist, and Nationalists need to be encouraged to view historical events from the perspective of the Unionist Protestant. That way we can develop mutual empathy which shall consequently ameliorate hostilities and break down centuries old barriers.
But this is wishful thinking, look at what is actually happening. Miraculously, the politicians in NI are still working together, both Republicans and Unionists, but on the ground the divisions are as stark as ever. Most Protestants and Catholics still live in segregated areas, and although there is intercommunal mixing via cross community projects, the "us and them" syndrome is still very prevalent, and I for one am not going to be foolish enough to attempt to offer a solution on how to overcome this.http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile7/Profile,7,Education,Ethnicity,and,Irish,Traveller,entire,doc.pdf
It seems to be holding steady for the last number of years at around 3%.
It's worth noting that the Catholic population is in decline.
I shall give this document a perusal when I get time.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »The idea will still be there, the idea will never die and doubtless there will still be token volunteers but every year that goes by and unification doesn't happen more and more people will get disillusioned and the idea will become irrelevant. There will still be shouts for unification but the shouts will be getting quieter every year. It's happening already. Remember that poll from the BBC that showed the majority, and 25% of SF supporters do not favour unification.
There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. I wouldn't be so foolish as to rely upon the accuracy of restricted sample opinion polls and the stability of related statistics.That's not going to happen, as per the points the poster above me made. Ireland is a sovereign country we can't give the UK a constitutional position to interfere in the running of our country. And it would give the thugs an excuse to continue their violence.
If the British government do not have the right to intervene in the case of covert state sponsored discrimination, or the right to intervene and with a joint collaborative effort with the Irish government, swiftly rectify a situation whereby the Unionist minority are experiencing increasingly widespread persecution and discrimination on an individual ad hoc basis, then that is not a united Ireland which I could lend support to.
We need to ease our way into a UI, just as we are learning to ease our way into a peaceful, egalitarian NI. If Catholics were again to begin experiencing discrimination next week, they too would expect the Irish government to do something about it, and in collaboration with the British government; both signatories to the Belfast Agreement.Definition of nationality: "A people having common origins or traditions and often constituting a nation."
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationality
Nationality consists of culture, ethnicity and a shared ancestry. Ulster Scots have all of those things different from the Irish. Therefore they are a separate nationality occupying a demarcated territory therefore NI is a separate nation to the rest of Ireland.
This is a circular argument and going nowhere. To nip it in the bud, please post a link to anywhere on the internet which specifically states that Northern Ireland is a separate and distinct "Ulster-Scots" nation.Because it's the truth, why work for anything when you can get it for free.
You misunderstand the nature of Socialism.What's we?
We, the Northern Irish population.Unionist? You aren't one anymore.
That's correct. Not sure if I ever was ideologically, but I was born into that tradition.British? You aren't that either.
I have clearly stated my nationality as "British-Irish", or alternatively, "An Irish person of British ancestry". That's being truthful and comprehensive.Ulster Scot? When I pointed out Ulster Scots would make up only 15% of
the population of a UI you told me to use Unionists as a whole.
Protestant? That's a lot more then 2% of the UK population.
In the UK unionists are a majority. In NI unionists are a majority. In a UI unionists will be a meek minority with no power. You'll have to do what the nationalists tell you because you'll be voted down on every issue and all political power will be stripped from you. Imagine the DUP in the Dáil, no Irish party would touch them, they'll be in power again. No unionists politician will.
You can break down and analyse the situation by individually looking at "Ulster-scots", "Unionists", "Protestants", "Loyalists" et al. if you wish, but it just makes things a little more complicated.
As regards being "voted down" in the Dail, we currently have a 2% population of the UK representation at Westminster. You don't think we already get "voted down"?Unionists know what side their bread is buttered on. You don't seem to.
I know exactly what "side my bread is buttered on". I am a Protestant and believe in an independent 32 county Irish Republic, where Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter can live as Irishmen, and in peace and harmony.
Wolfe Tone, the greatest Irish Republican who ever lived had similar ideas, was also a Protestant, and was descended from the colonial British. But I'm not going to be so foolhardy as to feign the ability to fill that man's shoes.0 -
One day a united Ireland may be possible and I would support one its the realpolitik of us in the south signing up to and supporting the GFA it could happen one day. But it can only happen if everyone wants it and its peaceful it cant be forced upon anyone or rushed why not consolidate the peace for now and continue building bridges. Leave it to the future generations to sort out unification if thats what they want right now I think putting the past to bed and building stronger ties with both communities should be the focus.
Agreed, and without losing hope or sight of the ultimate goal.The part I have bolded you would really need to revise as thats a non starter. Think about what you have typed that is something people in the south will not sign up to nor agree too. Not only because it gives a foreign government a say in our country, enshrined in our constitution, but I would think people would find it offensive that such a clause insinuates there might be a witch hunt against a certain section of society. People are protected by law Irish and European. The Irish constitution will never contain a clause giving the British the ability to pull rank if they deem it so thats just a non-starter. Its good that this is being talked about as one day it could happen. It needs to be thought out further though and I think it needs a lot more time for it to become a peaceful reality.
I've answered this in a previous post, and shall quote here:
"If the British government do not have the right to intervene in the case of covert state sponsored discrimination, or the right to intervene and with a joint collaborative effort with the Irish government, swiftly rectify a situation whereby the Unionist minority are experiencing increasingly widespread persecution and discrimination on an individual ad hoc basis, then that is not a united Ireland which I could lend support to.
We need to ease our way into a UI, just as we are learning to ease our way into a peaceful, egalitarian NI. If Catholics were again to begin experiencing discrimination next week, they too would expect the Irish government to do something about it, and in collaboration with the British government; both signatories to the Belfast Agreement."0 -
Exactly, who needs numbers when you know you're right. If the numbers contradict this then the numbers must be wrong.Bertie Woot wrote: »There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. I wouldn't be so foolish as to rely upon the accuracy of restricted sample opinion polls and the stability of related statistics.
I wouldn't be willing to support this and I'm not even nationalist. SF would never agree to it.If the British government do not have the right to intervene in the case of covert state sponsored discrimination, or the right to intervene and with a joint collaborative effort with the Irish government, swiftly rectify a situation whereby the Unionist minority are experiencing increasingly widespread persecution and discrimination on an individual ad hoc basis, then that is not a united Ireland which I could lend support to.
We need to ease our way into a UI, just as we are learning to ease our way into a peaceful, egalitarian NI. If Catholics were again to begin experiencing discrimination next week, they too would expect the Irish government to do something about it, and in collaboration with the British government; both signatories to the Belfast Agreement.
I did I gave you the definition of nationality and showed you why Ulster Scots fit that definition.This is a circular argument and going nowhere. To nip it in the bud, please post a link to anywhere on the internet which specifically states that Northern Ireland is a separate and distinct "Ulster-Scots" nation.
Do I? Please do explain.You misunderstand the nature of Socialism.
Will not exist in a UI. The nationalist part of that will be absorbed the Irish and unionists will be left like oil in water.We, the Northern Irish population.
That looks like you're dodging the question. Who is the we you mean when you say you'll have 20% of the vote?You can break down and analyse the situation by individually looking at "Ulster-scots", "Unionists", "Protestants", "Loyalists" et al. if you wish, but it just makes things a little more complicated.
Unionists make up at least 90% of the UK parliament. You're by far in the majority.As regards being "voted down" in the Dail, we currently have a 2% population of the UK representation at Westminster. You don't think we already get "voted down"?
Where you will be a minority and subject to the whims of Dublin instead of being happy were you are with your majority. I hope you're certain about the nature of Irish people.I know exactly what "side my bread is buttered on". I am a Protestant and believe in an independent 32 county Irish Republic, where Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter can live as Irishmen, and in peace and harmony.
Wolfe Tone, the greatest Irish Republican who ever lived had similar ideas, was also a Protestant, and was descended from the colonial British.[/QUOTE]0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »Agreed, and without losing hope or sight of the ultimate goal.
I've answered this in a previous post, and shall quote here:
"If the British government do not have the right to intervene in the case of covert state sponsored discrimination, or the right to intervene and with a joint collaborative effort with the Irish government, swiftly rectify a situation whereby the Unionist minority are experiencing increasingly widespread persecution and discrimination on an individual ad hoc basis, then that is not a united Ireland which I could lend support to.
We need to ease our way into a UI, just as we are learning to ease our way into a peaceful, egalitarian NI. If Catholics were again to begin experiencing discrimination next week, they too would expect the Irish government to do something about it, and in collaboration with the British government; both signatories to the Belfast Agreement."
This is just so off the wall. The interference by the British Government in any future Irish state is just a non- runner, and for you to even suggest it actually shows you have no real understanding on a nationalist mindset. And furthermore might I suggest there may be even a slight hint of post colonial racism .
I gather you are very sincere but notions such as this are just clueless.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »If the British government do not have the right to intervene in the case of covert state sponsored discrimination, or the right to intervene and with a joint collaborative effort with the Irish government, swiftly rectify a situation whereby the Unionist minority are experiencing increasingly widespread persecution and discrimination on an individual ad hoc basis, then that is not a united Ireland which I could lend support to.
Covert state sponsored discrimination? as if we are just waiting for the British to pull out so we can go lynch the lot of you thats just ridiculous to even think such a thing and if Im honest I find that line of thought a little offensive. Southern Ireland does not have a policy of discriminating against any folk of any creed and is a completely different place socially to the north of Ireland we have our problems but we all live together no matter what you are Irish, British, Polish, European, South American whatever. When Unionists fear reprisals in a hypothetical united Ireland I always ask myself why? it wouldnt be because they themselves treated the indigenous Irish people like sh1te and second class citizens for centuries and fear being treated the same being ruled from Dublin. We would never do that unionists are people like the rest of us and have nothing to fear on that score, if a united Ireland does ever come about we will all live together in peace and as equals its the way it should be and the only way it will work.
Im sry but no nation has the "right" to intervene in another nations affairs. Ireland and Britain are friends and neighbours but believing we would agree and amend our constitution to give Britain a right to intervene in our affairs is just fantasy and will never happen.0 -
Covert state sponsored discrimination? as if we are just waiting for the British to pull out so we can go lynch the lot of you thats just ridiculous to even think such a thing and if Im honest I find that line of thought a little offensive. Southern Ireland does not have a policy of discriminating against any folk of any creed and is a completely different place socially to the north of Ireland we have our problems but we all live together no matter what you are Irish, British, Polish, European, South American whatever. When Unionists fear reprisals in a hypothetical united Ireland I always ask myself why? it wouldnt be because they themselves treated the indigenous Irish people like sh1te and second class citizens for centuries and fear being treated the same being ruled from Dublin. We would never do that unionists are people like the rest of us and have nothing to fear on that score, if a united Ireland does ever come about we will all live together in peace and as equals its the way it should be and the only way it will work.
Im sry but no nation has the "right" to intervene in another nations affairs. Ireland and Britain are friends and neighbours but believing we would agree and amend our constitution to give Britain a right to intervene in our affairs is just fantasy and will never happen.
So what gives The Irish government the right to meddle in our affairs?0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Exactly, who needs numbers when you know you're right. If the numbers contradict this then the numbers must be wrong.
You said that, not me.I wouldn't be willing to support this and I'm not even nationalist. SF would never agree to it.
SF and the IRA's aim was to smash the Northern Irish state and re-unite Ireland via forceful full separation and independence from Britain. Today they are in a coalition government administering British rule in Northern Ireland, they laid wreaths at the Belfast City Hall's cenotaph in tribute to fallen British war dead post agreement, and Martin McGuinness recently shook hands with the Queen of England; all viewed as acts of treachery by dissident Irish Republicans, but viewed by Unionists as practical and sensible steps toward building better relations between British and Irish in NI and solidifying the peace. Perspective is everything.
SF shall change their stance to gain reunification, just as the IRA decommissioned its weapons to provide SF with a place in government. They have proven themselves very flexible in the past; from "not an inch, not an ounce", to full decommissioning and practical surrender. You don't think they shall be flexible in the future?I did I gave you the definition of nationality and showed you why Ulster Scots fit that definition.
No, what you have done is repeat the same misconception tautologically. Unless you can provide a reliable source which clearly states that Northern Ireland is a separate and distinct "Ulster-Scots" nation, you don't have an argument, and for reasons which I have clearly stated several times and you have consisitently failed to grasp.Do I? Please do explain.
Socialism is a system of society whereby the means and the instruments required for producing and distributing wealth are owned and controlled by and in the interest of the whole community, and not a minority elite of capitalist parasites as is the current situation. Socialism is not about everyone living in poverty or in a system of free hand-outs, it's about eliminating a source of social inequality, poverty and deprivation generated by an unfair and unethical system (capitalism), and replacing it with one which delivers for all of a country's citizens, not just the extravagantly wealthy elite.Will not exist in a UI. The nationalist part of that will be absorbed the Irish and unionists will be left like oil in water.
And that's your argument.That looks like you're dodging the question. Who is the we you mean when you say you'll have 20% of the vote?
I'm not dodging any questions. I said approximately 20%, and by "we" I refer to the citizens of the country which used to exist and was known as "Northern Ireland".
.Unionists make up at least 90% of the UK parliament. You're by far in the majority
I was referring to Ulster Unionists. Duh. :rolleyes:Where you will be a minority and subject to the whims of Dublin instead of being happy were you are with your majority. I hope you're certain about the nature of Irish people.
I'm certain about nothing. Please, tell me more about the "nature of Irish people", of which I am one. Do we all have shared personality characteristics?0 -
Some steps are steps too far. If even I won't agree to it then no chance will the Shinners. They want an independent Ireland. What you propose goes against that.Bertie Woot wrote: »SF and the IRA's aim was to smash the Northern Irish state and re-unite Ireland via forceful full separation and independence from Britain. Today they are in a coalition government administering British rule in Northern Ireland, they laid wreaths at the Belfast City Hall's cenotaph in tribute to fallen British war dead post agreement, and Martin McGuinness recently shook hands with the Queen of England; all viewed as acts of treachery by dissident Irish Republicans, but viewed by Unionists as practical and sensible steps toward building better relations between British and Irish in NI and solidifying the peace. Perspective is everything.
SF shall change their stance to gain reunification, just as the IRA decommissioned its weapons to provide SF with a place in government. They have proven themselves very flexible in the past; from "not an inch, not an ounce", to full decommissioning and practical surrender. You don't think they shall be flexible in the future?
What's more even in the impossible scenario the Shinners did agree to it the dissidents never would. You'd give them an excuse to continue their campaign.
What I have done is taken the definition of nation. Applied it to an ethnic group and concluded that that ethnic group was a nation.No, what you have done is repeat the same misconception tautologically. Unless you can provide a reliable source which clearly states that Northern Ireland is a separate and distinct "Ulster-Scots" nation, you don't have an argument, and for reasons which I have clearly stated several times and you have consisitently failed to grasp.
Socialism removes the incentive for advancement. What we need is a strong capitalist society with high social mobility. If you work hard you get to the top and get to reap the benefits. If you don't then you don't. But all socialism will ever do is create an inefficient economy and a lazy, dependent population.Socialism is a system of society whereby the means and the instruments required for producing and distributing wealth are owned and controlled by and in the interest of the whole community, and not a minority elite of capitalist parasites as is the current situation. Socialism is not about everyone living in poverty or in a system of free hand-outs, it's about eliminating a source of social inequality, poverty and deprivation generated by an unfair and unethical system (capitalism), and replacing it with one which delivers for all of a country's citizens, not just the extravagantly wealthy elite.
How can we be a group that no longer exists? There's one for the philosophers.I'm not dodging any questions. I said approximately 20%, and by "we" I refer to the citizens of the country which used to exist and was known as "Northern Ireland".
You can't use we as a term for the population of NI because you're so divided you have nothing in common.
Why make a distinction?I was referring to Ulster Unionists. Duh. :rolleyes:
We treat our minorities like shít, ask the travellers or the Roma.I'm certain about nothing. Please, tell me more about the "nature of Irish people", of which I am one. Do we all have shared personality characteristics?0 -
Advertisement
-
This is just so off the wall. The interference by the British Government in any future Irish state is just a non- runner, and for you to even suggest it actually shows you have no real understanding on a nationalist mindset. And furthermore might I suggest there may be even a slight hint of post colonial racism .
I gather you are very sincere but notions such as this are just clueless.
This has nothing to do with "race". It's about securing a future for Protestant-Unionist people in a reunified 32 county Irish Republic, where they can live free of recrimination, discrimination and persecution.
If I had said 16 years ago that the IRA would surrender their weaponry and their political representatives would participate in the governance of Northern Ireland whilst NI remained a part of the UK you would have called me bat-sh*t insane.
The understating I have on Nationalism, Republicanism in particular, is that they are vulnerable to changing strategy, and I am absolutely certain whatever Unionists demand from them to provide consent to a united Ireland they shall provide.
The Irish government dropped articles 2 and 3 from the Irish constitution prior to the GFA. You don't think that was anything less than momentous and other equally momentous events shall not occur in the future?Covert state sponsored discrimination? as if we are just waiting for the British to pull out so we can go lynch the lot of you thats just ridiculous to even think such a thing and if Im honest I find that line of thought a little offensive. Southern Ireland does not have a policy of discriminating against any folk of any creed and is a completely different place socially to the north of Ireland we have our problems but we all live together no matter what you are Irish, British, Polish, European, South American whatever. When Unionists fear reprisals in a hypothetical united Ireland I always ask myself why? it wouldnt be because they themselves treated the indigenous Irish people like sh1te and second class citizens for centuries and fear being treated the same being ruled from Dublin. We would never do that unionists are people like the rest of us and have nothing to fear on that score, if a united Ireland does ever come about we will all live together in peace and as equals its the way it should be and the only way it will work.
Im sry but no nation has the "right" to intervene in another nations affairs. Ireland and Britain are friends and neighbours but believing we would agree and amend our constitution to give Britain a right to intervene in our affairs is just fantasy and will never happen.
The reunification of Ireland shall come about by the democratic mandate of the people of NI, and indeed the ROI. It shall be a joint Irish and British project. I wish to see a smooth and peaceful transition, and the best way to ease the Unionists into a UI is to provide a conditional reunification agreement and a re-working or complete overhaul of the current Irish constitution, so as to provide Unionists with the assurances, guarantees and sense of security which they shall require to make the project work, and to provide full allegiance to their new country.
I understand that Nationalists shall have some difficulty with this, as it looks like Unionists don't trust Republicans and Nationalists and indeed the Irish government. Well, here's no news at all: they don't, never have, and are very unlikely to in the future unless such provisions as already outlined are made to accommodate them in a reunified Ireland. I've condemned the Unionist government at stormont 1921-72 for what it perpetrated upon the Nationalist people in NI, so no need to do it all again here. If we do not learn from the past we are doomed to watch history repeat itself in a reunified Ireland, and I shall not be voting for any reunification agreement in a referendum unless there are unequivocal assurances, guarantees and practical measures to provide for British governmental intervention should institutionalized discrimination against the Unionist people occur, and joint British and Irish intervention should discrimination and persecution on the ground occur, and in contravention to what is written in a reunification agreement and the new Irish constitution.
I don't care one jot if this offends and won't negotiate on it. I believe in conditional Irish reunification, and have no intention of sitting back and watching the Unionist people walk into a UI without a full suit of protective body armour, of that you can rest assured.0 -
This is clueless stuff Bertie
It will not be up to N.I. Unionists or Nationalists or S.F. but Southern Nationalists of all stripes and they will never accept any involvement of GB in any form of United Ireland , even if this meant not having a united Ireland. It is simply a non-runner.
And it shows your knowledge of the Republic to be seriously deficient if you believe there would be any threat to a unionist minority.
And it does contain a hint of racism.0 -
-
This is clueless stuff Bertie
It will not be up to N.I. Unionists or Nationalists or S.F. but Southern Nationalists of all stripes and they will never accept any involvement of GB in any form of United Ireland , even if this meant not having a united Ireland. It is simply a non-runner.
And it shows your knowledge of the Republic to be seriously deficient if you believe there would be any threat to a unionist minority.
And it does contain a hint of racism.
It's not about creating a situation where the British government can just walk into a UI and begin dictating to the Irish government on how to run its own country. It's about transforming Ireland via transition from a colonial past to a free and independent future by creating a milieu where the Unionist-Protestant people can feel that their nationality, religion and culture is protected, and in a state where they are free from any threat of persecution.
Post partition the Protestant minority in the ROI was greatly reduced, and many commentators have speculated that this was due to discrimination. I have never lived in the ROI so can't comment from personal experience, but I have been discriminated in employment in NI by a Nationalist, and I will not allow that to happen again.
PS. I am not a racist. This is about nationality, territory, national allegiance, trust, and to some extent, civil and religious liberty.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »The reunification of Ireland shall come about by the democratic mandate of the people of NI, and indeed the ROI. It shall be a joint Irish and British project. I wish to see a smooth and peaceful transition, and the best way to ease the Unionists into a UI is to provide a conditional reunification agreement and a re-working or complete overhaul of the current Irish constitution, so as to provide Unionists with the assurances, guarantees and sense of security which they shall require to make the project work, and to provide full allegiance to their new country.
I understand that Nationalists shall have some difficulty with this, as it looks like Unionists don't trust Republicans and Nationalists and indeed the Irish government. Well, here's no news at all: they don't, never have, and are very unlikely to in the future unless such provisions as already outlined are made to accommodate them in a reunified Ireland. I've condemned the Unionist government at stormont 1921-72 for what it perpetrated upon the Nationalist people in NI, so no need to do it all again here. If we do not learn from the past we are doomed to watch history repeat itself in a reunified Ireland, and I shall not be voting for any reunification agreement in a referendum unless there are unequivocal assurances, guarantees and practical measures to provide for British governmental intervention should institutionalized discrimination against the Unionist people occur, and joint British and Irish intervention should discrimination and persecution on the ground occur, and in contravention to what is written in a reunification agreement and the new Irish constitution.
I don't care one jot if this offends and won't negotiate on it. I believe in conditional Irish reunification, and have no intention of sitting back and watching the Unionist people walk into a UI without a full suit of protective body armour, of that you can rest assured.
Looks like you will be voting no then Bertie
For the most part what you have put forward has been reasoned, knowledgeable, well thought out and coherent. Then you come out with this..."conditional reunification agreement and a re-working or complete overhaul of the current Irish constitution" -- "guarantees and practical measures to provide for British governmental intervention should institutionalized discrimination against the Unionist people occur"
This is an unreasonable position to take or put forward it wouldnt be on the table not now not ever I would hope unionism would never assume such a zerosum position that isnt even a starter should unification realistically be on the table. What does intervention even mean??... are you talking military, economic, subversion? what does intervention even mean it could mean anything. Governments talk all the time both governments would be in constant contact no need to amend our constitution and give Britain such a legally covered power over us. It isnt going to happen.
As you seem like an intelligent person Im struggling to see how you havent thought out this particular, momentous request, with the same level of thought you have given the rest of your ideas.
Inserting a clause like the one you suggest is a threat to our national & strategic interests and would weaken both our hand & position in the geopolitical arena. Its against and a potential threat to our national interest to accede to such a request I cant see how you fail to see this yourself it would be an outrageous thing to demand and would be given the dueful short shrift it deserves.
If a united Ireland is possible in a peaceful all inclusive type way then I would support one. Neither the people of Northern Ireland nor the British goverment will dictate the terms though, on what basis and shape the island is to be unified and in turn rule of law and life administered. This would be done by an all inclusive Irish goverment without the help of outside interference administered from the capital, Dublin This thread is interesting and makes a change from the usual threads about the north I think its good that people are talking about issues and potential happenings though it needs to be based in the real world and start out as it means to continue. 0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »It's not about creating a situation where the British government can just walk into a UI and begin dictating to the Irish government on how to run its own country. It's about transforming Ireland via transition from a colonial past to a free and independent future by creating a milieu where the Unionist-Protestant people can feel that their nationality, religion and culture is protected, and in a state where they are free from any threat of persecution.
Post partition the Protestant minority in the ROI was greatly reduced, and many commentators have speculated that this was due to discrimination. I have never lived in the ROI so can't comment from personal experience, but I have been discriminated in employment in NI by a Nationalist, and I will not allow that to happen again.
PS. I am not a racist. This is about nationality, territory, national allegiance, trust, and to some extent, civil and religious liberty.
The Republic has already been transformed, it is not the 1920's Bertie. What you are proposing is based on notions that wer'nt even valid in the Republic 80 years ago never mind now.
Just because one side put the boot in north of the border dos'nt mean that it will happen in a united Ireland, and the fact the you think it might just shows you hav'nt moved on as much as you think you have.
And the racism I am referring to , veiled though it is, is the notion that Britain would step in to curb the excesses of the Paddies is just a variation of the old ''white man's burden'' theme . Talk about not learning from the past and thus having to repeat it !
And on top of everything else , as a southern nationalist (with a small n)
I am sick of the condescension from both communities north of the border. We already have a functioning democracy and if and when a united Ireland does come about we will have the majority say in who when what it will consist of ,thank you very much.
Rant over.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »I was banned for 3 days for providing a brief and pertinent historical review pertaining to the Gaels arrival in Ireland, and you have provided a similar and related historical review of early Ulster and Scottish tribes, and been allowed to remain. That would strongly suggest a lack of impartiality and as already suggested, 'over-moderation' on Boards.ie.
I wondered why you didn't reply!Bertie Woot wrote: »One thing's for certain: the Anglo-Norman arrival in Ireland which led to the subsequent British invasion began with an invitation by one King Dermot McMurrough of Leinster, who requested the assistance of the English King Henry II in regaining his throne. Thats right, the Brits were invited to Ireland. Not only that, for their help they were rewarded with colonies in Ireland and the hand of McMurrough's daughter's hand in marriage.
It is crucial in attempting to understand the present situation to understand how the English arrived in Ireland, and it is very relevant to this discussion on projected reunification.
True.
Unfortunately, the colonies they went on to claim weren't McMurroughs to give - and therein lies the root of the problem.Bertie Woot wrote: »That might change with reunification and the introduction of approximately 1 million people who are vociferously and unapologetically British into the country.
1: Why would it change? There are plenty of British people living in the Republic. We know they're here. For that matter, there are a very significant number of families in Donegal who have Scots relatives - Protestant and Catholic, who visit on a regular basis.
No-one bats an eyelid! Equally, every 12th July, there is an exodus from Northern Ireland into Donegal, both Protestant and Catholic. There's no problem. So, I don't forsee any problems in the Republic, unless some agitators choose to create problems (and I suspect those agitators would come from Northern Ireland - without being racist - the Republic has had decades more time to mellow, is all)- which is why I would like to see a revised history syllabus- and time for the peace process to work.Bertie Woot wrote: »Sounds like fair and reasonable treatment, and the granting of civil and religious liberties as enshrined in the values and beliefs of the Irish Republicanism of Tone and the United Irishmen.
My sentiments exactly. Wolfe Tone was an amazing man.Bertie Woot wrote: »That's what Northern Protestants fear; an Irish constitution that protects against state sponsored discrimination and persecution, but it actually being carried out by individuals and groups within a UI who harbour a desire for revenge. You cannot dismiss Unionist concerns as mere paranoia or as being unrealistic. Bigotry and resentment has worked both ways in this country, as has vengeance, and until they are 100% satisfied that persecution shall not occur, Unionism shall not even contemplate the national question.
What Unionists in the North experience is very different to the experience in the South though. Having said that, I acknowledge that that fear exists for some Unionists.
I acknowledge it, because it is noticeable that the majority of Northern Protestants who visit Donegal tend to stay in Protestant communities.
Some few choose to stay in majority Catholic areas - but most don't!
Northern Catholics, on the other hand, tend to be more widely dispersed.
I can only see two possible reasons for that.
One is fear. Which is actually illogical, if you think about it, because staff working in the area may be either Protestant or Catholic. And the people living in the surrounding areas are overwhelmingly Catholic, and probably the majority of them could be considered Nationalist, to varying degrees. So, if there were some wish to harm particular Protestants/Unionists, for example, it wouldn't be at all difficult for Nationalists to find out exactly where any chosen "target" was, at any time. There haven't been any targets - hence the direct experience, often from many years visiting the area, would contradict that there is any reason for fear - yet that fear still exists. Now, I would personally hesitate to call it paranoia - but I wouldn't call it reasoned thought, either.
The other possibility is bigotry - and I'll very hastily add that I don't believe that's the motive for the majority of people - but it needs to be acknowledged that it does exist.
As you say, bigotry has existed on both sides of the political divide for generations.
Again, however - it's illogical.
For example. I could name some regular visitors to the area who will only eat in Protestant owned restaurants, or drink in Protestants owned pubs. Thankfully, there are only a couple.
The irony, of course, is that in their efforts to studiously avoid Catholics, they forget that Catholics also frequent these establishments, work in them, and generally provide the local produce advertised on the menu.
I personally suspect that, in either of these situations, whereas either motivation certainly has an influence - it's more a lack of understanding of the depth of difference in attitudes here, compared to the North, coupled with habits acquired over a lifetime of living in a conflict zone.
Tensions are not that far below the surface in Northern Ireland, even yet, though the progress has been incredible. Nevertheless, ingrained habits (however necessary for the last 30 years) - don't disappear overnight, and are bound to affect peoples worldview.
In the Republic, if someone asks your name, it's because they quite innocently want to know. In Northern Ireland, even yet, you can never be quite certain what the motivation may be for the same question - but you can be fairly sure that you will be labelled by your name, in most cases.
Therein lies the difference. And it's all been brought about by time.Bertie Woot wrote: »I'll go one further and say that if you had safeguards, assurances and guarantees about discrimination being written in the blood of an Irish administration, and promised Unionists higher wages, raised living standards and the proverbial life of Reilly, they would still reject any move towards a united country, as they are still psychologically and emotionally attached to the motherland; Great Britain, and still deeply distrust all things Nationalist and Republican.
This I will never understand, no matter how I try.
I can understand people defining themselves as Anglo-Irish. I've no problem with that. Ulster-Scots, or British, I struggle with, because I can't understand how someone whose family have lived here for 400 years can say they are not at least part Irish. If Scots or English ancestry can be recognised from 400 years ago - why can't it also be recognised that both Irish and British people have common ancestors?Bertie Woot wrote: »As I've stated before, if the majority in NI voted in favour of reunification tomorrow, the Unionists who voted against shall resist all practical steps to implement the democratic wishes of the people. I'm speaking as someone who grew up within Unionism but who is sympathetic towards Irish Nationalism, and and who knows the depth of fierce and unrelenting opposition to a UI that lies within the Protestant community to this day.
I'm inclined to think you're right. I suppose the question is, what is the motivation for such opposition?Bertie Woot wrote: »Until British-Unionist-Protestants and Irish-Nationalist-Catholics learn to live with and respect one another's nationality, religion and culture within NI, a united Ireland will not work. What you shall have are the same divisions in a different context and the same potential for civil disorder and all out conflict. In that sense I can understand why many people in the ROI are opposed to Irish reunification.
I agree 100% with the bolded bit.
On the other hand, I don't believe in allowing fear to rule my life, or what I believe to be right. So, if conflict were to erupt in the morning, it wouldn't change my opinion that Ireland would be better united. However, a United Ireland should not be forced on people, just because I think it's the best solution.
Furthermore, forcing people to do something against their will only generates more resistance.
Therefore, I'm content to be patient, and wait for the peace process to work - whilst always aspiring to a United Ireland.Bertie Woot wrote: »We need to be realistic and pragmatic about this. Most people want to see an end to "the situation" and divisions in this country as a whole, but especially in my region - Northern Ireland. Now, we can either (very unrealistically) begin a process of repatriation for the one million descendants of Scottish and English ie. British colonial settlers that came across to Ulster before, during and after the plantations, or we attempt to reach a compromise and an accommodation whereby indigenous Irish and descendants of British colonial settlers, who after 400 years on this island can also be safely and legitimately regarded as "Irish", can share the same piece of land and peacefully co-exist.
I wouldn't agree with the idea of repatriation at all.
I've no respect ( to put it mildly) for Cromwells repatriation to Connacht theory, and I'd be equally appalled at such a "solution":eek: being applied to Northern Unionists.
As I see it, compromise is the only game in town. Making hardliners on either side see that is the problem.
As I alluded to earlier, I tend to view Unionists as Anglo-Irish. I'm fairly certain that some Unionists would be deeply offended at the notion - and yet, before the idea of a United Ireland can become remotely acceptable - Unionists must first recognise their shared links with the Irish people - which is precisely what the most hardline Loyalists refuse point blank to even consider.Bertie Woot wrote: »As you might have noticed, hitherto this has not been happening. Instead we've quite literally been at eachother's throats, and the NI conflict is one about territory, nationality, national allegiance and to some lesser but related extent, religious differences. The British colonial supremacism of the past is now deceased, past tense, and deserves to be, as it served no positive function. Some Orangemen may still cling onto this anachronistic and outdated concept of Protestant supremacy in 6 county Ulster, but the reality is very different. Your average Orangeman is a working class Protestant-Unionist with no experience of higher education and living on a subsistence salary or unemployed and resident in a council estate. The middle class in NI are increasingly Nationalist and Catholic, with a University education and a career and/or profession, not a mere 'job'. The Nationalist community believes in higher education are becoming increasingly upwardly socially mobile, whilst working class Protestants still have an antipathetic attitude towards higher education. Working class Protestants are getting left behind and are in a position of social, economic and cultural inferiority. They are Ulster's second class citizens with little to no effective political representation at Stormont.
Interesting observation, and one I wasn't aware of, since I only visit the North. I'm not sure what the solution is, since you can't force people into higher education.Bertie Woot wrote: »Co-education aka 'integrated education' in NI is however happening and is the way forward. Unionists need to be taught the value of education, and how to look at Irish history through the eyes of the Catholic Nationalist, and Nationalists need to be encouraged to view historical events from the perspective of the Unionist Protestant. That way we can develop mutual empathy which shall consequently ameliorate hostilities and break down centuries old barriers.
Agreed.Bertie Woot wrote: »But this is wishful thinking, look at what is actually happening. Miraculously, the politicians in NI are still working together, both Republicans and Unionists, but on the ground the divisions are as stark as ever. Most Protestants and Catholics still live in segregated areas, and although there is intercommunal mixing via cross community projects, the "us and them" syndrome is still very prevalent, and I for one am not going to be foolish enough to attempt to offer a solution on how to overcome this.
I don't think it is wishful thinking.
I remember an elderly Protestant lady being afraid to speak to me 20 years ago, when she heard I was from Donegal. I'm a very non-threatening five-foot nothing, but this poor woman thought i would attack her.:eek:
She also kept looking over her shoulder at a housing estate, and was clearly afraid to be seen speaking to me.
That's changed, in the last 10 years. Fair enough, things can be noticeably tense, depending on the current situation, but I'm certainly less wary of speaking to people - and people are certainly not afraid of me, just because I'm Irish.
That's progress that I didn't expect to see in such a short period of time.
Segregated housing only compounds the issues, and needs to change, imo.
As to the "peace walls" - I find the artwork on them offensive - and I'm referring to both political persuasions. I don't think constant reminders of paramilitarism are helpful, or do anything except cause mistrust.
I'd personally love to see them torn down, asap.
Equally, co-education, when possible, is to be encouraged (though not forced!).
When people grow up together, and recognise their common humanity, then respect and trust can grow faster. It's far easier to hate/mistrust "them" in the other school, or the other side of the wall, than it is to hate/mistrust the lad you played football with at lunchtime.0 -
Some very interesting & informative posts on this thread, Thanks.0
-
Serious question - to both sides of the argument ... why on earth would ANYONE WANT to join our little (Banana) Republic?
We've had "Independence" for not even 100 years and the first thing we did was sell the country off to the Catholic Church who held the place back for decades and abused and scarred generations of people.
Then when we finally got back at the reins we sold it off to the EEC/EU who are doing the same thing - albeit through 1's and 0's on the financial markets.
In between this we've elected generations of teachers, publicans and lawyers who've done very little except line their own pockets, look after themselves and their mates, and then rode off into the sunset on ridiculous pensions... only to be voted in again a few years later! Let's not forget the hero's funeral one CJH received despite his "chequered past" - sure we LOVE the "cute hoor's" don't we?
Because yes, the real problem here is the average Irish man and woman. People whose attitude to civic responsibility is "can't someone else do it?" Who have gone from "keeping up with the Joneses" to wondering what they are getting away with that they themselves aren't, and who vote the aforementioned clowns in time after time based on nothing more than "they fixed de road", "mammy and daddy always voted for them" and "they got my planning application through".
These people were not ready to govern themselves and have time and again shown this to be the case through endless scandals, corruption and incompetence - for which no one is held accountable of course! - and THIS is the country you want to persuade the people of Northern Ireland to join??!
The only way Irish Unification should happen IMO is if the Republic gives up this notion of Independence and rejoins the UK - not as a subjugated nation, but as a partner with limited direct access to the controls.
Ask yourself, what would really change from the current situation where the major decisions are made in the halls of the ECB and IMF, or the German Parliament or Corporate Boardrooms. We've ALREADY handed over the keys to institutions and governments who we have (culturally and historically) very little in common with.
If we rejoined the UK sure the TV would still be the same, everyone could still support Liverpool and Man United, and shopping would go on in Tesco and Argos. That'd keep most of "the people" happy anyway! BUT we would also benefit from a system that (while not perfect either) at least is better than the mess we made of it - considering most of our laws and institutions are based on UK ones that we generally twist and butcher presumably just to be different.
It's something I think this country really should consider at this point, but of course the "800 years" nonsense (forgetting of course that both sides were as bad, and that historical context of the time was that reign by force and subjugation was considered acceptable statescraft in those days) means that any rational objective debate is about as likely to happen as Cowen and Ahern being hauled before the courts to account for their part in the mess of the last decade (and I don't mean the oh-so-Irish "Tribunals" which cost the taxpayer a fortune and still no one is held accountable to).0 -
Advertisement
-
I acknowledge it, because it is noticeable that the majority of Northern Protestants who visit Donegal tend to stay in Protestant communities.
Some few choose to stay in majority Catholic areas - but most don't!
Northern Catholics, on the other hand, tend to be more widely dispersed.
For example. I could name some regular visitors to the area who will only eat in Protestant owned restaurants, or drink in Protestants owned pubs. Thankfully, there are only a couple.
The irony, of course, is that in their efforts to studiously avoid Catholics, they forget that Catholics also frequent these establishments, work in them, and generally provide the local produce advertised on the menu. What Unionists in the North experience is very different to the experience in the South though. Having said that, I acknowledge that that fear exists for some Unionists.
I acknowledge it, because it is noticeable that the majority of Northern Protestants who visit Donegal tend to stay in Protestant communities.
Some few choose to stay in majority Catholic areas - but most don't!
Northern Catholics, on the other hand, tend to be more widely dispersed.
Noreen where in Donegal are these 'Protestant communities'?0
Advertisement