Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

on the river

the best option is have a vote in each county so they can declare a poistion .

K-9

Mod:

We've the exact same discussion about numbers going on in two threads, I don't see the point in duplicating the discussion, so keep this thread on topic please and keep the other posts to the Drive-by shootings thread please.

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Your right nobody is bothered about the murder of us prods, bur sure we where just collateral damage, weren't we?

I'm pretty sure Willie Frazer & his cronies never shut the hell up about it.

timthumbni

junder wrote: »

Your right nobody is bothered about the murder of us prods, bur sure we where just collateral damage, weren't we?

The one thing that you can take from these boards is that there are a number of vocal republicans who are/were supportive of the iras murderous campaign whilst there are few if any unionists who try to justify the loyalist paramiltaries actions.

The fact that most of the posters on here who appear to justify the actions of the ira are not from Northern Ireland speaks volumes. The closest most of them got to Norn Iron was sitting in their armchair singing along to the Wolfe tones, whilst drinking cans of beer in their tricolour boxer shorts.

It's telling that the mods on here have now created a separate Northern Ireland politics section on the boards. Lol. A bit of a slap in the face to one island republicans on here. I understand why they did though as every single thread about Northern Ireland diverges the same way. There is no point in individual threads in fact. They should just merge them all into one huge clusterf&ck. ;-)

Regarding your post you are correct in that it appears some on here don't consider protestant/unionists as victims at all. Someone even was breaking down the figures of those killed into those who carried out contract work in security bases (plastering, brickies etc) I'm not sure if this was in some way justifying their murder but it is bizarre.

The ira killed as many human beings as all of the others combined. Take from that what you will.

timthumbni

Regarding the thread I can't see it happening. (Although I doubt many unionists would be sad to see somewhere like south armagh shoved into the republic)

The could then try sort out the laundered fuel rackets that have in no way any connection to republicans at all. Oh no. ;-)


Regarding Norn irons future I've said before that I can see some form of joint authority happening in the far off future. Let dublin foot half the bill if they wish and it will give them a taster of what they are in for.

I genuinely don't see a united Ireland (in republican terms) happening due to the problems it would doubtless cause. It's certainly not going to happen in my lifetime nor anyone else's that posts on here.

A lot of people now consider themselves Northern Irish and I can only see this number growing.

Conchur

timthumbni wrote: »

Regarding the thread I can't see it happening. (Although I doubt many unionists would be sad to see somewhere like south armagh shoved into the republic)

The could then try sort out the laundered fuel rackets that have in no way any connection to republicans at all. Oh no. ;-)


Regarding Norn irons future I've said before that I can see some form of joint authority happening in the far off future. Let dublin foot half the bill if they wish and it will give them a taster of what they are in for.

I genuinely don't see a united Ireland (in republican terms) happening due to the problems it would doubtless cause. It's certainly not going to happen in my lifetime nor anyone else's that posts on here.

A lot of people now consider themselves Northern Irish and I can only see this number growing.

If I'm not mistaken, since the 2011 Census this percentage has actually dropped and, believe it or not, the number of people seeing themselves as Northern Irish has been pretty stable since the 90s. I am not postulating that this NI identity is illegitimate (if you identify with Northern Ireland, more power to you), but I do get the impression that those who see themselves as Northern Irish in the North are making a point of implying that those who see themselves are Irish/British should not.

on the river

Conchur wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken, since the 2011 Census this percentage has actually dropped and, believe it or not, the number of people seeing themselves as Northern Irish has been pretty stable since the 90s. I am not postulating that this NI identity is illegitimate (if you identify with Northern Ireland, more power to you), but I do get the impression that those who see themselves as Northern Irish in the North are making a point of implying that those who see themselves are Irish/British should not.

a LOAD OF RUBBISH. your either irish or english .

its like saying : a tomoto is a vegatable

ancapailldorcha

on the river wrote: »

a LOAD OF RUBBISH. your either irish or english .

its like saying : a tomoto is a vegatable

Seriously?

Conchur

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seriously?

Well strictly speaking "Northern Irish" isn't a nationality, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Then again, neither is "English". British is, though.

The Corinthian

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes, I believe he is being serious.

Apparently, Either you have to be Irish or English. Where this leaves the Scottish and Welsh is uncertain. It might explain Scots-Irish, as they didn't want to be seen as Scots-English, which I can totally understand.

Still it was a very erudite and well thought out pronouncement there.

timthumbni

Conchur wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken, since the 2011 Census this percentage has actually dropped and, believe it or not, the number of people seeing themselves as Northern Irish has been pretty stable since the 90s. I am not postulating that this NI identity is illegitimate (if you identify with Northern Ireland, more power to you), but I do get the impression that those who see themselves as Northern Irish in the North are making a point of implying that those who see themselves are Irish/British should not.

I don't think that those who consider themselves Northern Irish are trying to imply anything on others who see themselves as British or Irish.

You can of course be Northern Irish and British (or Irish for that matter)

I would always refer to being Northern Irish when on holidays and someone asks where I'm from. No one has ever questioned this aside from a drunk Scotsman (who was wearing an Irish footie top for some reason) he looked and sounded like groundskeeper willie from the Simpsons.

What surprised me in the census was the relatively low number who considered themselves Irish only. Sinn Fein detest the term Northern Ireland and its funny watching them tongue tieing themselves sometimes to use any term whatsoever as long as it's not Northern Ireland. It's a bit like kryptonite to them and spontaneous human combustion may occur if they ever did say it.

on the river

Conchur wrote: »

Well strictly speaking "Northern Irish" isn't a nationality, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Then again, neither is "English". British is, though.

Northern Ireland citizens can either claim a british passport or irish one .


i am not floating any boat. this is the law so abide by it MATE!.

So DONT start more daft sugestions GOT IT

Conchur

on the river wrote: »

Northern Ireland citizens can either claim a british passport or irish one .


i am not floating any boat. this is the law so abide by it MATE!.

So DONT start more daft sugestions GOT IT

How stupid are you? You think I don't know this?

I am not your mate, and I don't need you telling me what I must "abide by".

If you were semi-literate and read the post, I was actually backing you up to a degree.

But I suppose it's baby steps with a weshty.

on the river

Conchur wrote: »

How stupid are you? You think I don't know this?

I am not your mate, and I don't need you telling me what I must "abide by".

If you were semi-literate and read the post, I was actually backing you up to a degree.

But I suppose it's baby steps with a weshty.

its great to see you finally agreed with my point of view . secondly read over your posts before you post them ( spelling errors)

finally boards is a place for debate so if you cant deal with that get out

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

secondly read over your posts before you post them ( spelling errors)

Says Mr "your either irish or english". Three grammatical and one factual error in five words. Impressive.

ancapailldorcha

Conchur wrote: »

Well strictly speaking "Northern Irish" isn't a nationality, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Then again, neither is "English". British is, though.

Well, Northern Ireland is a sovereign state which exists within the UK. It has it's own government, football team, etc... Northern Irish is every bit as much a nationality as Irish, English, Scottish, etc...

Conchur

on the river wrote: »

its great to see you finally agreed with my point of view . secondly read over your posts before you post them ( spelling errors)

finally boards is a place for debate so if you cant deal with that get out

Not sure if troll or...?

It is a place for debate, yet after I made a legitimate point you jumped right down my throat.

Feel free to point out any of my spelling errors and I'll be happy to correct them. Just don't ask me to look over your posts or we'll be here all night.

Conchur

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, Northern Ireland is a sovereign state which exists within the UK. It has it's own government, football team, etc... Northern Irish is every bit as much a nationality as Irish, English, Scottish, etc...

Well I can't argue with that. One small nitpick - it isn't a sovereign state, as the government of Northern Ireland exists only as long as Westminster sees fit, and is answerable to the powers that be in London. A sovereign state is defined as one which is officially not dependent on any supreme power (e.g. Germany or the UK).

ancapailldorcha

Conchur wrote: »

Well I can't argue with that. One small nitpick - it isn't a sovereign state, as the government of Northern Ireland exists only as long as Westminster sees fit, and is answerable to the powers that be in London. A sovereign state is defined as one which is officially not dependent on any supreme power (e.g. Germany or the UK).

Fair enough but I still maintain that it's a completely legitimate nationality.

Dr.Tank Adams

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, Northern Ireland is a sovereign state which exists within the UK. It has it's own government, football team, etc... Northern Irish is every bit as much a nationality as Irish, English, Scottish, etc...

Actually it's a "province of the UK", so certainly not a nationality, in any sense of the word.

ancapailldorcha

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Actually it's a "province of the UK", so certainly not a nationality, in any sense of the word.

So you'd say there's no such nationality as English, Scottish or Welsh then?

Conchur

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Actually it's a "province of the UK", so certainly not a nationality, in any sense of the word.

There is one aspect of the Northern Ireland identity that I cannot get my head around, and that sets it apart from the Scottish/Welsh/Kurdish/English/etc. identities. Nations are normally accepted as being groups of people who share a common culture and customs. Based on that definition, what exactly is Northern Irish culture? What makes it so different to Irish - or, for that matter, English - culture? How are the differences (if any) significant enough to afford it any more legitimacy than a regional identity (e.g. in England, a northerner is still English, but of course is a little different to someone from, say, Plymouth)? To me, Northern Ireland has not existed for long enough - and, indeed, has never existed united enough - to forge its own distinct character and customs.

I come from the so-called "CNR" community, and grew up playing sports with the GAA (albeit badly, as I was the gay child :rolleyes:), learning to play the fiddle, watching the Late Late Toy Show etc. Apart from my dad paying taxes to HMRC rather than Revenue (and me doing GCSEs and A-Levels rather than the Junior Cert and Leaving Cert), how am I culturally different to someone from Donegal?

On the other hand, my dad - a Scot - grew up in inner-city Glasgow, uses Glaswegian vernacular, fondly recalls his many games of "fitbaw" on a Saturday morning and has shared these very uniquely Glaswegian (and uniquely Scottish) experiences with many others. There is something genuine and sincere about him calling himself Scottish, and although I can see he is different to a working class fella from a similar background who grew up in Edinburgh, these differences are, from the outside looking in, relatively subtle. In the same way, I feel that the differences between two Catholic/nationalist working class guys from Belfast and Dublin respectively are comparatively subtle.

While I can see the rationale for Ulster Unionists - who probably did not play hurling or watch RTÉ as kids - forging their own identity (I think they usually see themselves as "Ulster people" or Ulster Scots), I really don't get this "shared", "let's all get along", fence-sitting "Northern Irish" wildcard. It feels like a badly coordinated, post-Good Friday Agreement makey-uppey label of convenience, handy when you don't want to seem controversial.

I can just imagine thousands of people ticking "Northern Irish" on the census forms because it was an option which they felt avoided the stigma of calling oneself "Irish" or "British" in the six (i.e. sounding like a bitter armchair politician). If you asked any of these people what it means to be Northern Irish - or what's so unique about Northern Ireland that warrants it having a separate identity to the rest of the island - I highly doubt they'd have an answer.

I'm proud to be a Nordie and an Ulsterman, sure, but it's somewhat similar to someone from Newcastle being proud to be a Geordie - they still recognise and accept that they are English.

Dr.Tank Adams

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you'd say there's no such nationality as English, Scottish or Welsh then?

Legally no, although they are at least defined as states within the UK and have thousands of years of history, culture and distinct identity behind them, so even if they aren't technically a nationality (well Scotland may be very soon) I would take someone saying they are English or Scottish a hell of a lot more seriously than someone saying they are Northern Irish:rolleyes:.

Dr.Tank Adams

Conchur wrote: »

There is one aspect of the Northern Ireland identity that I cannot get my head around, and that sets it apart from the Scottish/Welsh/Kurdish/English/etc. identities. Nations are normally accepted as being groups of people who share a common culture and customs. Based on that definition, what exactly is Northern Irish culture? What makes it so different to Irish - or, for that matter, English - culture? How are the differences (if any) significant enough to afford it any more legitimacy than a regional identity (e.g. in England, a northerner is still English, but of course is a little different to someone from, say, Plymouth)? To me, Northern Ireland has not existed for long enough - and, indeed, has never existed united enough - to forge its own distinct character and customs.

I come from the so-called "CNR" community, and grew up playing sports with the GAA (albeit badly, as I was the gay child :rolleyes:), learning to play the fiddle, watching the Late Late Toy Show etc. Apart from my dad paying taxes to HMRC rather than Revenue (and me doing GCSEs and A-Levels rather than the Junior Cert and Leaving Cert), how am I culturally different to someone from Donegal?

On the other hand, my dad - a Scot - grew up in inner-city Glasgow, uses Glaswegian vernacular, fondly recalls his many games of "fitbaw" on a Saturday morning and has shared these very uniquely Glaswegian (and uniquely Scottish) experiences with many others. There is something genuine and sincere about him calling himself Scottish, and although I can see he is different to a working class fella from a similar background who grew up in Edinburgh, these differences are, from the outside looking in, relatively subtle. In the same way, I feel that the differences between two Catholic/nationalist working class guys from Belfast and Dublin respectively are comparatively subtle.

While I can see the rationale for Ulster Unionists - who probably did not play hurling or watch RTÉ as kids - forging their own identity (I think they usually see themselves as "Ulster people" or Ulster Scots), I really don't get this "shared", "let's all get along", fence-sitting "Northern Irish" wildcard. It feels like a badly coordinated, post-Good Friday Agreement makey-uppey label of convenience, handy when you don't want to seem controversial.

I can just imagine thousands of people ticking "Northern Irish" on the census forms because it was an option which they felt avoided the stigma of calling oneself "Irish" or "British" in the six (i.e. sounding like a bitter armchair politician). If you asked any of these people what it means to be Northern Irish - or what's so unique about Northern Ireland that warrants it having a separate identity to the rest of the island - I highly doubt they'd have an answer.

I'm proud to be a Nordie and an Ulsterman, sure, but it's somewhat similar to someone from Newcastle being proud to be a Geordie - they still recognise and accept that they are English.

Exactly my thoughts on the subject, I think this whole "Northern Irish" identity is completely fabricated and has been hijacked by the Government etc. as an easy solution to their problems because they are to lazy to promote genuine respect between Irish and British peoples in the north. That would be a real solution but they can't be ars*d to do it as it would require so much work.

The really tragic thing is that, as you say, it's almost gotten to the point where it's frowned upon, seen as too extreme, to identify as Irish or British alone, and people are instead having this neutral, airy-fairy "Northern Irish" drivel forced upon them. Irish, British or even Irish-British are the legitimate identities in the north, "Northern Irish" is a manufactured cop-out.

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Legally no, although they are at least defined as states within the UK and have thousands of years of history, culture and distinct identity behind them, so even if they aren't technically a nationality (well Scotland may be very soon) I would take someone saying they are English or Scottish a hell of a lot more seriously than someone saying they are Northern Irish:rolleyes:.

Well, if we're using legal status as the measure of one's nationality, then the Northern Irish are clearly British. Or is this where you change your argument?

Or is your argument that one needs thousands of years of history to possess a nationality? What does that make Americans? After all, the first colonies there took place a year after the first Ulster plantations.

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, if we're using legal status as the measure of one's nationality, then the Northern Irish are clearly British. Or is this where you change your argument?

Or is your argument that one needs thousands of years of history to possess a nationality? What does that make Americans? After all, the first colonies there took place a year after the first Ulster plantations.

Sorry what? Yes people born in Northern Ireland can either have British, Irish or British and Irish nationality, where did I ever say that wasn't the case?

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Sorry what? Yes people born in Northern Ireland can either have British, Irish or British and Irish nationality, where did I ever say that wasn't the case?

And the bit questioning your claim about "thousands of years of history, culture and distinct identity behind them" being something required for nationhood?

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

And the bit questioning your claim about "thousands of years of history, culture and distinct identity behind them" being something required for nationhood?

Is that a separate question? If so you still haven't explained what the first one was about.. And thousands of years is not required for nationhood, we weren't talking about nationhood (which the north doesn't have anyway) we were talking about a collective identity, of which "Northern Irish" has about 10 years of government pedaling and 0% originality/distinctiveness to it's name. Northern Irishness is, at best, a chunk of Britishness and a sprinkling of Irishness, with a big, "I don't want to offend anyone" smile on it's face. That doesn't seem worthy of being referred to as an identity to me.

Karl Stein

timthumbni wrote: »

The one thing that you can take from these boards is that there are a number of vocal republicans who are/were supportive of the iras murderous campaign whilst there are few if any unionists who try to justify the loyalist paramiltaries actions.

And there are plenty of Unionist posters who like to pretend that the RUC/UDR/BA were not up to their necks in blood and misery through collusion with the degenerate loyalist murder gangs.

There's also a inability to accept the blame for trying to maintain a sectarian shit-hole at all costs up to, and including, living with a nasty conflict.

You couldn't find it in you to condemn the sectarian witch hunt against a 25 year old teacher who happened to be a SF councillor and was a child when the GFA was signed. You play the unionist moderate very badly and are anything but moderate.

Conchur

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Exactly my thoughts on the subject, I think this whole "Northern Irish" identity is completely fabricated and has been hijacked by the Government etc. as an easy solution to their problems because they are to lazy to promote genuine respect between Irish and British peoples in the north. That would be a real solution but they can't be ars*d to do it as it would require so much work.

The really tragic thing is that, as you say, it's almost gotten to the point where it's frowned upon, seen as too extreme, to identify as Irish or British alone, and people are instead having this neutral, airy-fairy "Northern Irish" drivel forced upon them. Irish, British or even Irish-British are the legitimate identities in the north, "Northern Irish" is a manufactured cop-out.

If anything, the very existence of this thread goes to show just how fickle the Northern Ireland state/identity is, even if the OP's suggestion isn't totally serious. It says a lot about the frivolousness of the Northern state if those unionists who proposed repartition are prepared to haemorrhage large parts of the six just to maintain a majority. When it comes down to it, for unionists Northern Ireland is a "British" enclave in Ireland which must be defended at all costs - including, in a "doomsday scenario", redrawing the borders of the state at a moment's notice to maintain a majority (as Carson reluctantly did).

Of course, there will always be those who just want to get on with things and if, in their view, that means embracing the existence of the North in its current form then that is their prerogative and I am happy for them. Still, it bears repeating that there is something quite saddening about the move away from our true identities (be those Irish or British) for fear of causing a stir or, dare I say it, actually standing for what we believe in.

RoyalCelt

Conchur wrote: »

If anything, the very existence of this thread goes to show just how fickle the Northern Ireland state/identity is, even if the OP's suggestion isn't totally serious. It says a lot about the frivolousness of the Northern state if those unionists who proposed repartition are prepared to haemorrhage large parts of the six just to maintain a majority. When it comes down to it, for unionists Northern Ireland is a "British" enclave in Ireland which must be defended at all costs - including, in a "doomsday scenario", redrawing the borders of the state at a moment's notice to maintain a majority (as Carson reluctantly did).

Of course, there will always be those who just want to get on with things and if, in their view, that means embracing the existence of the North in its current form then that is their prerogative and I am happy for them. Still, it bears repeating that there is something quite saddening about the move away from our true identities (be those Irish or British) for fear of causing a stir or, dare I say it, actually standing for what we believe in.

Great post but let me just say my opening post was 100% serious and this is not the first time I've said that on here. Really enjoying this discussion but due to work commitments don't have time to get stuck into this but as I said I'm enjoying reading through it when I get a chance.

K-9

Mod:

on the river wrote: »

Northern Ireland citizens can either claim a british passport or irish one .


i am not floating any boat. this is the law so abide by it MATE!.

So DONT start more daft sugestions GOT IT

Plenty of people identify themselves as Northern Irish, it isn't illegal and there's nothing wrong with it if that's how a large section of the population choose to identify themselves as.

Conchur wrote: »

How stupid are you? You think I don't know this?

I am not your mate, and I don't need you telling me what I must "abide by".

If you were semi-literate and read the post, I was actually backing you up to a degree.

But I suppose it's baby steps with a weshty.

on the river wrote: »

its great to see you finally agreed with my point of view . secondly read over your posts before you post them ( spelling errors)

finally boards is a place for debate so if you cant deal with that get out

The Corinthian wrote: »

Says Mr "your either irish or english". Three grammatical and one factual error in five words. Impressive.

The above posts aren't debate, they are just petty sniping and digs at grammar and spelling. Cut it out please.

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

And thousands of years is not required for nationhood, we weren't talking about nationhood (which the north doesn't have anyway) we were talking about a collective identity, of which "Northern Irish" has about 10 years of government pedaling and 0% originality/distinctiveness to it's name. Northern Irishness is, at best, a chunk of Britishness and a sprinkling of Irishness, with a big, "I don't want to offend anyone" smile on it's face. That doesn't seem worthy of being referred to as an identity to me.

That really is the biggest load of horse manure I've heard in a while.

What you're trying to do here is impose some form of criteria for what constitutes a national identity (collective identity, if you prefer) or not that will support your own agenda.

First you cite legal status, as some sort of measure of nationhood, then rapidly deny that you ever meant what you were saying to mean this (which begs the question why you were bringing it up in the first place).

Then you cite history, for example, despite that Northern Ireland's current history is as old as the USA's, then you backtrack on history when this is pointed out and suddenly just turn to dismiss it as a recent invention not "worthy of being referred to as an identity".

I've no idea how popular is the notion of NI 'national identity' is. Could be a passing fad and could also be more a community spirit, much like being a Dubliner is. But I am not so quick to dismiss that it could be something more, simply because my ideology cannot stomach the possibility that it might exist to put a spanner in my agenda's works.

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

That really is the biggest load of horse manure I've heard in a while.

What you're trying to do here is impose some form of criteria for what constitutes a national identity (collective identity, if you prefer) or not that will support your own agenda.

First you cite legal status, as some sort of measure of nationhood, then rapidly deny that you ever meant what you were saying to mean this (which begs the question why you were bringing it up in the first place).

Then you cite history, for example, despite that Northern Ireland's current history is as old as the USA's, then you backtrack on history when this is pointed out and suddenly just turn to dismiss it as a recent invention not "worthy of being referred to as an identity".

I've no idea how popular is the notion of NI 'national identity' is. Could be a passing fad and could also be more a community spirit, much like being a Dubliner is. But I am not so quick to dismiss that it could be something more, simply because my ideology cannot stomach the possibility that it might exist to put a spanner in my agenda's works.

you can reference whatever you like . yet the reality is without the consent of the citizens the six counties will remain as they were since 1920 .

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

you can reference whatever you like . yet the reality is without the consent of the citizens the six counties will remain as they were since 1920 .

What on Earth has that got to do with what I posted?

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

What on Earth has that got to do with what I posted?

i am only stating the facts . sorry if you took it badly:)

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

i am only stating the facts . sorry if you took it badly:)

Badly? No, more perplexed as you posted a non sequitur which has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Random and irrelevant facts don't upset me, but perhaps if you're going to post some more random and irrelevant facts in future, you might make them more entertaining.

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

Badly? No, more perplexed as you posted a non sequitur which has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Random and irrelevant facts don't upset me, but perhaps if you're going to post some more random and irrelevant facts in future, you might make them more entertaining.

I am stating the facts. ireland act 1920 is not random. I am here to engage with debate . the subject of northern ireland is not entertaining.

can we please proceed with the topic . thank you

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

I am stating the facts. ireland act 1920 is not random. I am here to engage with debate . the subject of northern ireland is not entertaining.

can we please proceed with the topic . thank you

Sorry, but you were the one who went off topic; who responded to a discussion regarding the legitimacy of a Northern Irish national identity with "reality is without the consent of the citizens the six counties will remain as they were since 1920".

Yet, that has nothing to do with what was being discussed. No one at any stage has disputed that, or for that matter even mentioned it. We were discussing what constitutes a national identity - different topic. In fact, I'm not even sure if you were even posting it in relation to anything that I had posted.

Now, I'm not certain if you did this because you were trying to put forward a relevant point related to the discussion, but failed to explain yourself, or if you intentionally decided you wanted to hijack and change the discussion, but either way you posted a non sequitur, no more relevant than if we were discussing NI tourism and you then decided to discuss the treaty that led to partition.

Quite random and quite bizarre, TBH.

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, but you were the one who went off topic; who responded to a discussion regarding the legitimacy of a Northern Irish national identity with "reality is without the consent of the citizens the six counties will remain as they were since 1920".

Yet, that has nothing to do with what was being discussed. No one at any stage has disputed that, or for that matter even mentioned it. We were discussing what constitutes a national identity - different topic. In fact, I'm not even sure if you were even posting it in relation to anything that I had posted.

Now, I'm not certain if you did this because you were trying to put forward a relevant point related to the discussion, but failed to explain yourself, or if you intentionally decided you wanted to hijack and change the discussion, but either way you posted a non sequitur, no more relevant than if we were discussing NI tourism and you then decided to discuss the treaty that led to partition.

Quite random and quite bizarre, TBH.

can we please talk about the subject . stop with the personal attacks.

marienbad

on the river wrote: »

can we please talk about the subject . stop with the personal attacks.

Can you talk about the subject ??

K-9

on the river wrote: »

you can reference whatever you like . yet the reality is without the consent of the citizens the six counties will remain as they were since 1920 .

So basically the OP is a non runner, a 2 or 3 county N.I. just isn't going to happen.

on the river

K-9 wrote: »

So basically the OP is a non runner, a 2 or 3 county N.I. just isn't going to happen.

OP has a valid argument . yet without the consent of the citizens it wont happen,

yes if northern ireland lost 2 or counties it would not be viable .

the current state of the roi finances means we are hardly able to look after the 26 counties . the reality is a vote on n ireland may not happen for a long time

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

OP has a valid argument . yet without the consent of the citizens it wont happen,

All a moot point as apparently according to the GFA, the only options available to the good citizens of Northern Ireland will be union with London or union with Dublin; the independence option simply isn't on the table.

yes if northern ireland lost 2 or counties it would not be viable .

It's doubtful it's economically viable as it stands.

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

That really is the biggest load of horse manure I've heard in a while.

What you're trying to do here is impose some form of criteria for what constitutes a national identity (collective identity, if you prefer) or not that will support your own agenda.

First you cite legal status, as some sort of measure of nationhood, then rapidly deny that you ever meant what you were saying to mean this (which begs the question why you were bringing it up in the first place).

Then you cite history, for example, despite that Northern Ireland's current history is as old as the USA's, then you backtrack on history when this is pointed out and suddenly just turn to dismiss it as a recent invention not "worthy of being referred to as an identity".

I've no idea how popular is the notion of NI 'national identity' is. Could be a passing fad and could also be more a community spirit, much like being a Dubliner is. But I am not so quick to dismiss that it could be something more, simply because my ideology cannot stomach the possibility that it might exist to put a spanner in my agenda's works.

What agenda? I've clearly stated I have no problem with Unionists identifying as British or Nationalists identifying as Irish, I think they're both absolutely legitimate, but "Northern Irish" is a complete fallacy, and despite all of your whataboutery you have failed to offer any explanation as to what makes it a distinct identity. Even the America logic is flawed, America has been an independent country for 250 years and has a highly divergent culture, it also has thousands of years of native history behind it which you could include if you wanted. Northern Ireland is a 90 year old province, has no real culture of it's own and the idea of a Northern Irish identity only gained any credence about 10-15 years ago. I doesn't even hold a candle to America.

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

All a moot point as apparently according to the GFA, the only options available to the good citizens of Northern Ireland will be union with London or union with Dublin; the independence option simply isn't on the table.

It's doubtful it's economically viable as it stands.

Smaller, less developed places as survived comfortably. As long as it had Belfast the North would be able to survive. The English really have done an impeccable job at scaring you all into the belief that your worlds would simply implode without their financial aid line.

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

What agenda? I've clearly stated I have no problem with Unionists identifying as British or Nationalists identifying as Irish, I think they're both absolutely legitimate, but "Northern Irish" is a complete fallacy, and despite all of your whataboutery you have failed to offer any explanation as to what makes it a distinct identity.

I've not offered any explanation as to what makes it a distinct identity, beyond having earlier stated that such identities are effectibly inventions. Instead I've challenged you on a series of poorly thought-out criteria for what makes it a distinct identity, that can all be debunked with current and historical examples.

As to your agenda, I'd imagine you are ideologically or statistically opposed to the idea of an independent NI. Unionism is on a decline, so if this alternative did gain popular support, I suspect it could end up derailing the nationalist campaign towards unification.

Even the America logic is flawed, America has been an independent country for 250 years and has a highly divergent culture, it also has thousands of years of native history behind it which you could include if you wanted.

That's an easily debunked argument, because however long the USA has been independent, 250 years ago it was not and had no history of independence. Did that make it less a nation when it sought independence?

Northern Ireland is a 90 year old province, has no real culture of it's own and the idea of a Northern Irish identity only gained any credence about 10-15 years ago. I doesn't even hold a candle to America.

This is where your argument starts to weaken; so because the Thirteen Colonies were organized in a certain way for 170 years you judge they had a national identity (despite the fact they were separate entities), yet after 90 years NI has none? What's your cut-off point then?

And does this mean that the history of NI prior to partition can be ignored, because you can't seriously claim that it was culturally and ethnically homogeneous with the rest of the Island, thanks to the plantations, can you? And Ironically, that history stretched back as long (actually one year longer) as the American colonial one, which somehow you feel did have enough of a national identity back in 1775 to consider itself a sovereign state, but NI not, even today, despite the same length of history.

Can you address these inconsistencies in your argument, rather than changing the subject again?

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Smaller, less developed places as survived comfortably. As long as it had Belfast the North would be able to survive. The English really have done an impeccable job at scaring you all into the belief that your worlds would simply implode without their financial aid line.

You haven't made a very convincing argument for the viability economy of NI there. Would you like to flesh out your argument, with a few facts, or shall we just put it down as read?

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've not offered any explanation as to what makes it a distinct identity, beyond having earlier stated that such identities are effectibly inventions. Instead I've challenged you on a series of poorly thought-out criteria for what makes it a distinct identity, that can all be debunked with current and historical examples.

As to your agenda, I'd imagine you are ideologically or statistically opposed to the idea of an independent NI. Unionism is on a decline, so if this alternative did gain popular support, I suspect it could end up derailing the nationalist campaign towards unification.

That's an easily debunked argument, because however long the USA has been independent, 250 years ago it was not and had no history of independence. Did that make it less a nation when it sought independence?

This is where your argument starts to weaken; so because the Thirteen Colonies were organized in a certain way for 170 years you judge they had a national identity (despite the fact they were separate entities), yet after 90 years NI has none? What's your cut-off point then?

And does this mean that the history of NI prior to partition can be ignored, because you can't seriously claim that it was culturally and ethnically homogeneous with the rest of the Island, thanks to the plantations, can you? And Ironically, that history stretched back as long (actually one year longer) as the American colonial one, which somehow you feel did have enough of a national identity back in 1775 to consider itself a sovereign state, but NI not, even today, despite the same length of history.

Can you address these inconsistencies in your argument, rather than changing the subject again?

You haven't made a very convincing argument for the viability economy of NI there. Would you like to flesh out your argument, with a few facts, or shall we just put it down as read?

I don't think you've debunked anything I've said, not even close, in fact the main thing that's been debunked is your America example. As for this "identities are imaginary", that's a fairly high road to take, at the end of the day using that logic almost every human emotion, thought and law also becomes imaginary and you get to point where everything we do is pointless and nothing has any purpose whatsoever. Now if that is your opinion, fair enough, but it poses the question as to why you are debating identities with me on the internet if you truly believe that it's all "imaginary" anyway? Usually people don't bother discussing things that they honestly believe are meaningless...

Examples of places smaller than or similar in size to the north that are economically viable, Andorra, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. I'm sure there are plenty more too.

on the river

flashjohn wrote: »

Why does anybody south of the border give a sh1te about those north of the border? Surely just be worried about your nearest and dearest? I never understand it. Its all romantic bull

well said so delicately put may i add.

Answer one thng

IF your nearest and dearest was taken

would you not want here back ?

on the river

flashjohn wrote: »

Sure would

so flash john you could put Ireland as a metaphor for this.

Some people are very passioate about a united Ireland and hold very strong views about it.

They like to 'flash' their opinion now and again to keep it alive.

so people do care about Ireland so i know you will respect their views and opinions .