Englishman asks "Who won the Bloody War, anyway?"

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do the Scots all believe that the interventions of UK politicians and UK owned banks where fair? That is all I asked.

UK politicians? Like Alex Salmond?
UK owned banks?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do the Scots all believe that the interventions of UK politicians and UK owned banks where fair? That is all I asked.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that there should be censorship? That only those comments that Scottish independence campaigners believe are fair should be allowed? All comment and opinion is fair, that is the essence of a free democratic society.

UK politicians could give their opinion. So could the Spanish Prime Minister or the President of the European Commission. Do you have a problem with that? Really? Seriously?

Is the mask slipping?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Wait a minute. Are you saying that there should be censorship? That only those comments that Scottish independence campaigners believe are fair should be allowed? All comment and opinion is fair, that is the essence of a free democratic society.

UK politicians could give their opinion. So could the Spanish Prime Minister or the President of the European Commission. Do you have a problem with that? Really? Seriously?

Is the mask slipping?

UK politicians did more than offer opinion, they made a vow on devolution in an attempt to influence the outcome.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

UK politicians did more than offer opinion, they made a vow on devolution in an attempt to influence the outcome.

I think you'll find that that was a commitment from party leaders. Parties that were perfectly entitled to, and who have Scottish members, operate within Scotland as well as England. You're of the opinion that Scottish political parties should have been excluded from the debate, or proposing an alternative to the SNP plan?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

UK politicians did more than offer opinion, they made a vow on devolution in an attempt to influence the outcome.

You haven't answered the question. Are they allowed comment or not? Do you support free speech or only speech you agree with?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You haven't answered the question. Are they allowed comment or not? Do you support free speech or only speech you agree with?

Absolutely support free speech, stop being silly.
They made a vow on devolution, they had a chance to offer that when it came to drafting the referendum.

In the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012, Cameron vetoed any attempt to include so-called devo max on the ballot paper, making a firm commitment not to discuss any further constitutional change ahead of the referendum, because that would only cloud the issue of separation. It was all or nothing.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/09/david-cameron-yes-vote-choice

To put it on the table when it looked like the swing was going against him, was not a fair intervention.
You can attach any level of sinister to that you wish, to vow on something like that was despicable politics imo. But fairly typical.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely support free speech, stop being silly.
They made a vow on devolution, they had a chance to offer that when it came to drafting the referendum.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/09/david-cameron-yes-vote-choice

To put it on the table when it looked like the swing was going against him, was not a fair intervention.
You can attach any level of sinister to that you wish, to vow on something like that was despicable politics imo. But fairly typical.

There's nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement that disbars anyone from making offers or commitments that support either of the options in the referendum polling paper. Here's the actual text of the agreement:

Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland.

The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.

The governments have agreed that the referendum should:

:: have a clear legal base;

:: be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament:

:: be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people; and

:: deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.

The governments have agreed to promote an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments to allow a single question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014. The Order will put beyond doubt that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for the referendum.

It will then be for the Scottish Government to promote legislation in the Scottish Parliament for a referendum on independence. The governments are agreed that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice. The referendum legislation will set out:

:: the date of the referendum;

:: the franchise;

:: the wording of the question;

:: rules on campaign financing; and

:: other rules for the conduct of the referendum.

The details of the agreement between the governments are set out in the following memorandum and draft Order, which forms part of this agreement.

SIGNED

The Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP Prime Minister

The Rt. Hon. Alex Salmond MSP First Minister of Scotland

The Rt. Hon. Michael Moore MP Secretary of State for Scotland

Nicola Sturgeon MSP Deputy First Minister of Scotland

Edinburgh, 15 October 2012

And, once again - the commitment was made by leaders of political parties with a Scottish membership and franchise. Not The UK.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely support free speech, stop being silly.
They made a vow on devolution, they had a chance to offer that when it came to drafting the referendum.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/09/david-cameron-yes-vote-choice

To put it on the table when it looked like the swing was going against him, was not a fair intervention.
You can attach any level of sinister to that you wish, to vow on something like that was despicable politics imo. But fairly typical.

So Cameron was perfectly entitled to say what he wanted to say.

And you and Alex Salmond are perfectly entitled to dispute the content of what he said.

But you have no right to try and censor him, silence him or castigate him for offering his opinion.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

There's nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement that disbars anyone from making offers or commitments that support either of the options in the referendum polling paper. Here's the actual text of the agreement:



And, once again - the commitment was made by leaders of political parties with a Scottish membership and franchise. Not The UK.

What?
Cameron denied calls for the devo max option to be on the paper, then introduced it as an option with days to go in the campaign when it looked that opinion was swinging to a Yes vote.
I am not concerned with the legalities...was it fair? Do all Scots think it was 'fair'...that is what you where asked before you put on the pro-union hat again.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

So Cameron was perfectly entitled to say what he wanted to say.

And you and Alex Salmond are perfectly entitled to dispute the content of what he said.

But you have no right to try and censor him, silence him or castigate him for offering his opinion.

Who is trying to silence or censor?
You where asked was it a fair intervention and do all Scots think it was fair?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

What?
Cameron denied calls for the devo max option to be on the paper, then introduced it as an option with days to go in the campaign when it looked that opinion was swinging to a Yes vote.
I am not concerned with the legalities...was it fair? Do all Scots think it was 'fair'...that is what you where asked before you put on the pro-union hat again.

Clearly you're not concerned with the legalities, or any sort of accuracy.
The Edinburgh Agreement was a mutually agreed (UK and Scottish parliaments) approach to the referendum wording and terms. That's it there - signed off on by Salmond et all. Nothing in there about the campaign commitments of either side, the limits on what either side could offer, who can comment on either side's proposals.

Was it fair that the party leaders opposed to independence maximised the appeal of their platform? Of course it was.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who is trying to silence or censor?
You where asked was it a fair intervention and do all Scots think it was fair?

Since when is politics full of "fair" interventions?


http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/27756


Have a read of that link. It calls itself fair but it is anything but. It is a pile of lies and made-up economic claptrap. But do you know, they are entitled to their opinion, and they are entitled to put their lies forward.

I don't know what the Scottish people thought of Cameron's intervention. Maybe they thought it was fair that they knew the consequences of a "Yes" vote. Maybe they thought it was fair that they knew what he would do in the event of a "No" vote. I am certain that Alex Salmond and Happyman thought it wasn't fair but Alex Salmond and Happyman aren't the Scottish people.

If I am to offer an opinion, it would be along the lines that the Scottish people heard what Cameron had to say, they then came out and voted the way he would have preferred them to vote. The indication from that vote is that they did think his intervention was fair because if they thought it was unfair they would have voted the other way. But hey, my opinion is based on the way the Scottish people voted and assumes they are all adults and able to understand what Cameron was saying.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Clearly you're not concerned with the legalities, or any sort of accuracy.
The Edinburgh Agreement was a mutually agreed (UK and Scottish parliaments) approach to the referendum wording and terms. That's it there - signed off on by Salmond et all. Nothing in there about the campaign commitments of either side, the limits on what either side could offer, who can comment on either side's proposals.

Was it fair that the party leaders opposed to independence maximised the appeal of their platform? Of course it was.

Godge wrote: »

Since when is politics full of "fair" interventions?


http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/27756


Have a read of that link. It calls itself fair but it is anything but. It is a pile of lies and made-up economic claptrap. But do you know, they are entitled to their opinion, and they are entitled to put their lies forward.

I don't know what the Scottish people thought of Cameron's intervention. Maybe they thought it was fair that they knew the consequences of a "Yes" vote. Maybe they thought it was fair that they knew what he would do in the event of a "No" vote. I am certain that Alex Salmond and Happyman thought it wasn't fair but Alex Salmond and Happyman aren't the Scottish people.

If I am to offer an opinion, it would be along the lines that the Scottish people heard what Cameron had to say, they then came out and voted the way he would have preferred them to vote. The indication from that vote is that they did think his intervention was fair because if they thought it was unfair they would have voted the other way. But hey, my opinion is based on the way the Scottish people voted and assumes they are all adults and able to understand what Cameron was saying.

IMO if you introduce something you where wary of allowing to begin with in a last ditch effort to win over then that is not playing fair. He wanted a yes - no poll and chickened out at the last minute. No posting of the agreement or whataboutery about other parties will diminish or change that.
And an awful lot of people in Scotland think it was unfair and underhand too.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

IMO if you introduce something you where wary of allowing to begin with in a last ditch effort to win over then that is not playing fair. He wanted a yes - no poll and chickened out at the last minute. No posting of the agreement or whataboutery about other parties will diminish or change that.
And an awful lot of people in Scotland think it was unfair and underhand too.

First off - the commitment was from a number of party leaders - not just Cameron. When did they have any input into negotiations over the terms of the referendum wording?

Secondly - the agreed question for the referendum, was a simple yes or no to a break with the union. That was signed off by both parliaments - no point in crying about it after the fact.

Thirdly - no-one muddied the waters with any third option or commitment - the question remained the same on the ballot sheet.

Finally - again - the intervention was not by the UK, but by parties with Scottish members, franchise, and who had every right to make commitments, at any point of the campaign.

Your claim that this amounts to 'UK interference' in a free and fair vote simply doesn't stand. No whataboutery needed.

I'll ask again: Are you suggesting that Scottish political parties should have been excluded from the debate, or proposing an alternative to the SNP plan?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

IMO if you introduce something you where wary of allowing to begin with in a last ditch effort to win over then that is not playing fair. He wanted a yes - no poll and chickened out at the last minute. No posting of the agreement or whataboutery about other parties will diminish or change that.
And an awful lot of people in Scotland think it was unfair and underhand too.

If the majority of people in Scotland thought it was unfair and underhand they would have voted for independence to spite him.

It is amazing the way you ascribe motivations and thoughts to people when all of the evidence is otherwise.

This is similar to you suggests that 5% of people wanting a united Ireland tomorrow means we need a referendum.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

First off - the commitment was from a number of party leaders - not just Cameron. When did they have any input into negotiations over the terms of the referendum wording?

Secondly - the agreed question for the referendum, was a simple yes or no to a break with the union. That was signed off by both parliaments - no point in crying about it after the fact.

Thirdly - no-one muddied the waters with any third option or commitment - the question remained the same on the ballot sheet.

Finally - again - the intervention was not by the UK, but by parties with Scottish members, franchise, and who had every right to make commitments, at any point of the campaign.

Your claim that this amounts to 'UK interference' in a free and fair vote simply doesn't stand. No whataboutery needed.

I'll ask again: Are you suggesting that Scottish political parties should have been excluded from the debate, or proposing an alternative to the SNP plan?

No...I am suggesting that the PM should not have gotten involved in making vows or pledges (he might not be able to keep) on the eve of a referendum when he had previously vetoed the opportunity.
That was unfair and underhand and it remains to be seen if they can even be delivered.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

If the majority of people in Scotland thought it was unfair .

Who said anything about a 'majority'?
You need to read what is actually being said and stop inventing stuff.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

No...I am suggesting that the PM should not have gotten involved in making vows or pledges (he might not be able to keep) on the eve of a referendum when he had previously vetoed the opportunity.
That was unfair and underhand and it remains to be seen if they can even be delivered.

The PM didn't get involved. Cameron as leader of the Tories did. The Tories, who are the third largest political party in Scotland. And why should there have been an opportunity for devolution in a vote on membership of the union? The issue was a referendum on independence, not devolution.

The political parties were perfectly entitled to make commitments at any point of the campaign, and it had nothing to do with 'UK interference' as you claimed. Absolute red herring.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The PM didn't get involved. Cameron as leader of the Tories did. The Tories,

And if the Queen had gotten involved you'd be telling us it was a Mrs Winsdor.

gallag

The republican mindset at its finest here.....

whaaaa whaaaa that island should be divided, it's not fair it's United. ..

whaaaa whaaaa this island should be United, it's not fair it's divided. ..

self determination for Ireland.

no self determination for the Falklands

etc etc

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

And if the Queen had gotten involved you'd be telling us it was a Mrs Winsdor.

Mrs Windsor doesn't lead the third largest political party in Scotland, and therefore doesn't have the same impetus to provide leadership on the biggest political question of the day. You're suggesting that it's unfair that he just did his job as leader. Bizarre.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

The republican mindset at its finest here.....

whaaaa whaaaa that island should be divided, it's not fair it's United. ..

whaaaa whaaaa this island should be United, it's not fair it's divided. ..

self determination for Ireland.

no self determination for the Falklands

etc etc

Are you saying that the all situations/histories you mentioned are exactly the same??

A fine example of the 'complex thought paterns' of a certain type of Unionist mindset.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Mrs Windsor doesn't lead the third largest political party in Scotland, and therefore doesn't have the same impetus to provide leadership on the biggest political question of the day. You're suggesting that it's unfair that he just did his job as leader. Bizarre.

Mrs Winsdor does not use her position to get politically involved.
Many Scots believe it was also immoral and unfair of the PM to intervene. Something which you have been asked but refuse to countenance.

Back to the original point, the British have, by dint of an internationally binding agreement promised not to interfere or intervene here.

'recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone........................without external impediment'

They see themselves now as being 'external'. That is the bottom line here that Unionists still have to publicly come to terms with and to deal with in an honest and progressive way.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying that the all situations/histories you mentioned are exactly the same??

A fine example of the 'complex thought paterns' of a certain type of Unionist mindset.

Haha, but I am not hypocritical! I believe in self determination for all! If you were being honest your hate for the British drives your hypocritical views, you got giddy at the prospect of the break up of the U.K and are now desperately trying to avoid the realisation that most people in Scotland don't share your views.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Haha, but I am not hypocritical! I believe in self determination for all!

That's nice for you...pity Unionists didn't have that mindset from the beginning isn't it, they might now have a secure place in the Union.

I don't 'hate' anybody, but I do believe the 'British' brand has been toxic for most of the places it has been. Those currently being bombed into acceptance of her gifts would tend to agree, I'd imagine.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Mrs Winsdor does not use her position to get politically involved.

Sure - but the leader of the third largest political party in Scotland did - what a surprise!

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Back to the original point, the British have, by dint of an internationally binding agreement promised not to interfere or intervene here.




They see themselves now as being 'external'. That is the bottom line here that Unionists still have to publicly come to terms with and to deal with in an honest and progressive way.

It's no different to the UK's hand's off approach to the Scottish referendum. It doesn't mean they see themselves as 'being external' to Scotland, just external to the vote. Same applies to NI - 100% integral to, and part of the union, with an internal vote that is only applicable to NI voters. There's nothing there for unionist to come to terms with. It's a construct of your imagination.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's nice for you...pity Unionists didn't have that mindset from the beginning isn't it, they might now have a secure place in the Union.

I don't 'hate' anybody, but I do believe the 'British' brand has been toxic for most of the places it has been. Those currently being bombed into acceptance of her gifts would tend to agree, I'd imagine.

But we do have a safe place in the union! unless % 50+1 choose otherwise. why do you not believe in self determination?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who said anything about a 'majority'?
You need to read what is actually being said and stop inventing stuff.

You are correct, you didn't say a majority. It was "all".

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do the Scots all believe that the interventions of UK politicians and UK owned banks where fair? That is all I asked.

P.S. there will always be a small minority who think everything is unfair.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

And if the Queen had gotten involved you'd be telling us it was a Mrs Winsdor.

I thought you were in favour of free speech.

If the Queen wanted to say something on it, why couldn't she? Free speech only applies to those you agree with.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's no different to the UK's hand's off approach to the Scottish referendum. It doesn't mean they see themselves as 'being external' to Scotland, just external to the vote. Same applies to NI - 100% integral to, and part of the union, with an internal vote that is only applicable to NI voters. There's nothing there for unionist to come to terms with. It's a construct of your imagination.

You don't believe the UK intervened unfairly, I and a lot of Scots believe they did.
I'll agree to disagree here, it is not relevant to debate that here. All i sought was an admission that a lot of Scots felt it was unfair.
Do I believe they will similarly intervene here?...no, I don't, because they have clearly said that it has nothing to do with them, they are external to the decision.
By allowing that statement they are underlining to Unionists that they have no interest (beyond the will of the people) in maintaining their (Unionists) place in the Union.

gallag wrote: »

But we do have a safe place in the union!

For now. That is all you can conclusively say I'm afraid. That is fact.
We have no idea yet what the vow to bring devo max to Scotland (unachievable imo) will do to the rest of the Union and what it will mean for NI. It's safety isn't assured yet.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

You don't believe the UK intervened unfairly, I and a lot of Scots believe they did.
I'll agree to disagree here, it is not relevant to debate that here. All i sought was an admission that a lot of Scots felt it was unfair.
Do I believe they will similarly intervene here?...no, I don't, because they have clearly said that it has nothing to do with them, they are external to the decision.
By allowing that statement they are underlining to Unionists that they have no interest (beyond the will of the people) in maintaining their (Unionists) place in the Union.

All I can do is once again point out that the UK did not interfere in the free and fair vote in Scotland, and that, as was the case in the Scottish vote, the UK's commitment is to not impede the internal vote in NI - which is not a proxy for saying they 'believe themselves to be external' to either Scotland or NI. They most definitely do not, and unionists recognise that reality.

Now - if you can produce evidence of the UK impeding the vote in Scotland, do so. Otherwise your point is academic.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I thought you were in favour of free speech.

If the Queen wanted to say something on it, why couldn't she? Free speech only applies to those you agree with.

You'll need to ask Mrs Winsdor about that one.
Whether she is constitutionally barred from speaking or choose not to from a moral stand point, I think it would have been wrong and unfair of her to get involved too.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

You don't believe the UK intervened unfairly, I and a lot of Scots believe they did.
I'll agree to disagree here, it is not relevant to debate that here. All i sought was an admission that a lot of Scots felt it was unfair.
Do I believe they will similarly intervene here?...no, I don't, because they have clearly said that it has nothing to do with them, they are external to the decision.
By allowing that statement they are underlining to Unionists that they have no interest (beyond the will of the people) in maintaining their (Unionists) place in the Union.

They didn't interfere in Scotland and they won't interfere in Northern Ireland. But, if a referendum ever happens on this island, the people, both North and South will want to know what is the bill for a united Ireland, how much will we need to subsidise them and what it means for our taxes. When they explain that it will cost the South a lot of money, watch the support drain away on both sides of the border.

As for what Scots thought was unfair or not, that doesn't matter. Find me something that everyone thinks is fair. There are always nutters or extremists who have a problem with the smallest thing.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You'll need to ask Mrs Winsdor about that one.
Whether she is constitutionally barred from speaking or choose not to from a moral stand point, I think it would have been wrong and unfair of her to get involved too.

If she had wanted to speak out on the issue, would you have supported her right to free speech?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

All I can do is once again point out that the UK did not interfere in the free and fair vote in Scotland,

And all I can do is point out that a lot of Scots (the important opinion here) do not agree with you. You are entitled to your view and defend once again if you wish, doesn't alter that fact.

and that, as was the case in the Scottish vote, the UK's commitment is to not impede the internal vote in NI - which is not a proxy for saying they 'believe themselves to be external' to either Scotland or NI. They most definitely do not, and unionists recognise that reality.

They have vowed not to impede as outsiders. Can't get a clearer impression of how they view themselves and what they are telling Unionists here. 'You are Irish, not British, you must sort this out among yourselves.'.
I think come the time they will actually be actively encouraging Irish unity, as will American interests.
Both of them where key in getting this agreement signed off in the first place.
Can I see David Cameron as leader of the conservatives or as PM making impassioned pleas and offering dubious prizes in the event of a referendum here? Absolutely no, I can't.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

And all I can do is point out that a lot of Scots (the important opinion here) do not agree with you. You are entitled to your view and defend once again if you wish, doesn't alter that fact.

That's an opinion, not a fact. If you have any facts to support your contention, then don't be shy...

Happyman42 wrote: »

They have vowed not to impede as outsiders.

No they have not. They've committed to not impede those with a franchise for that particular vote. That doesn't make them 'outsiders' by any stretch of the imagination.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Can't get a clearer impression of how they view themselves and what they are telling Unionists here. 'You are Irish, not British, you must sort this out among yourselves.'.

Aside from confirming their British status, you mean? :rolleyes:

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think come the time they will actually be actively encouraging Irish unity, as will American interests.

You think a lot of unfounded, and frankly bizarre things. So?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Both of them where key in getting this agreement signed off in the first place.
Can I see David Cameron as leader of the conservatives or as PM making impassioned pleas and offering dubious prizes in the event of a referendum here? Absolutely no, I can't.

There's that wilful blindness again.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

They didn't interfere in Scotland and they won't interfere in Northern Ireland.

Unionists have a long history of 'interfering' in NI elections, Gerrymandering, property owners rights etc etc. all with the blessing of Westminster.
What has been achieved by republicans is; an end to that Unionist interference and veto. And cateorical admission from the UK that it will no longer impede or interfere in the determinations of the Irish people.

As for what Scots thought was unfair or not, that doesn't matter. Find me something that everyone thinks is fair. There are always nutters or extremists who have a problem with the smallest thing.

Doesn't matter? Funny that, I don't see you on here cheerleading the PSNI when they forcibly stop a few extremist Orange men marching where they are not wanted and have been told not to march.
And I get called hypocritical.

If she had wanted to speak out on the issue, would you have supported her right to free speech?

Why is it that you two think that semantics is going to achieve anything in a debate?:rolleyes:

I fully support freedom of speech. You are confusing my words yet again. Criticising what somebody has said or done is not censoring them.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Unionists have a long history of 'interfering' in NI elections, Gerrymandering, property owners rights etc etc. all with the blessing of Westminster.
What has been achieved by republicans is; an end to that Unionist interference and veto.

Rubbish. Unionist gerrymandering was ended by the UK - not any republicans.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

That's an opinion, not a fact. If you have any facts to support your contention, then don't be shy...

Look at the reactions when he made his 'vows or pledge'. Look at the reactions when the compromised, no longer independent BBC got involved. Look at the reactions when an 80% UK owned bank ot involved. It's not rocket science to assume or have the opinion that a lot of people thought those interventions by the PM and UK institutions where unfair.
I am not at all interested in your opinion of how right or wrong they where btw, as previously stated.

No they have not. They've committed to not impede those with a franchise for that particular vote. That doesn't make them 'outsiders' by any stretch of the imagination.

A wet week ago, in historical terms, the UK looked the other way as Unionists operated gerrymandering and a sectarian government. They where complicit in it and the conflict that eventually and inevitably came.
To et them to admit that they are now neutral and that it is a matter for ALL Irish people equally and that they won't impede the outcome is a major victory.

Aside from confirming their British status, you mean? :rolleyes:

You forgot to add 'for now'...as you always do. Attitudes and demographics are changing.

You think a lot of unfounded, and frankly bizarre things. So?

My Dad would have thought the prospect of 'The Chuckle Brothers' and Martin shaking hands with Mrs W, bizarre too. Times, they are a changing.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Look at the reactions when he made his 'vows or pledge'. Look at the reactions when the compromised, no longer independent BBC got involved. Look at the reactions when an 80% UK owned bank ot involved. It's not rocket science to assume or have the opinion that a lot of people thought those interventions by the PM and UK institutions where unfair.
I am not at all interested in your opinion of how right or wrong they where btw, as previously stated.

I'm equally uninterested in some notional public opinion you've drummed up, that has nothing to do with UK interference.

Happyman42 wrote: »

A wet week ago, in historical terms, the UK looked the other way as Unionists operated gerrymandering and a sectarian government. They where complicit in it and the conflict that eventually and inevitably came.

You're of course referring to the thirty years of murder waged by republicans after the UK had ended gerrymandering. 30 years of murder is a 'wet day'?

Happyman42 wrote: »

You forgot to add 'for now'...as you always do. Attitudes and demographics are changing.

Sure they are. 5.6% Unionists are sleeping easy.

Happyman42 wrote: »

My Dad would have thought the prospect of 'The Chuckle Brothers' and Martin shaking hands with Mrs W, bizarre too. Times, they are a changing.

5.6%

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'm equally uninterested in some notional public opinion you've drummed up, that has nothing to do with UK interference.

Notional? Yeh right.

You're of course referring to the thirty years of murder waged by republicans after the UK had ended gerrymandering. 30 years of murder is a 'wet day'?

What? On a politics forum you can suggest that republicans where the only ones waging a war and expect to be taken seriously? Now that is bizarre.

Sure they are. 5.6% Unionists are sleeping easy.

What was the question people where asked in that survey?

5.6%

See above.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

What? On a politics forum you can suggest that republicans where the only ones waging a war and expect to be taken seriously? Now that is bizarre.

Not quite. You claimed that republicans ended gerrymandering and a unionist veto. They didn't - the UK government did, and those republicans continued to murder for another 30 years. I never mentioned anything about them 'solely waging war'.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Not quite. You claimed that republicans ended gerrymandering and a unionist veto. They didn't - the UK government did, and those republicans continued to murder for another 30 years. I never mentioned anything about them 'solely waging war'.

Not quite, it took 30 tragic years of conflict to force Unionists and the UK government (who forced Unionists) to sit down as equals and negotiate a deal that almost everybody could sign up to. The GFA.
Again, in your by now transparent defence and support of all things UK, you attempt to give the impression that republicans where the only ones engaged in 'murder' or killings. That is completely contrary to what was actually happening.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not quite, it took 30 tragic years of conflict to force Unionists and the UK government (who forced Unionists) to sit down as equals and negotiate a deal that almost everybody could sign up to. The GFA.
Again, in your by now transparent defence and support of all things UK, you attempt to give the impression that republicans where the only ones engaged in 'murder' or killings. That is completely contrary to what was actually happening.

You referenced republicans as ending gerrymandering and the unionist veto, not me. I'm simply pointing out that not only did they not (that was the UK's doing), but that they went on to murder for another 30 years. Pretty much a record of disaster.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

You referenced republicans as ending gerrymandering and the unionist veto, not me. I'm simply pointing out that not only did they not (that was the UK's doing), but that they went on to murder for another 30 years. Pretty much a record of disaster.

The UK finally ended gerrymandering in 1972, 3 years after conflict was renewed. (i.e. they finally responded to demands and pressure created by both nationalists and republicans)
They had stood idly by from 1921 when gerrymandering of constituencies and flagrant abuses of 'democracy' took place. Pretty much what caused the 'disaster'.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The UK finally ended gerrymandering in 1972, 3 years after conflict was renewed. (i.e. they finally responded to demands and pressure created by both nationalists and republicans)
They had stood idly by from 1921 when gerrymandering of constituencies and flagrant abuses of 'democracy' took place. Pretty much what caused the 'disaster'.

The UK ended gerrymandering and the unionist veto, not republicans. Stormont was shut down, not because of anything the IRA were doing, but because of the unionists not being prepared to relinquish their control over policing.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The UK ended gerrymandering and the unionist veto, not republicans. Stormont was shut down, not because of anything the IRA were doing, but because of the unionists not being prepared to relinquish their control over policing.

As a result of democratic abuses (mentioned above) like internment, and a call from Faulkner to allow him to re-arm the RUC and B-Specials (I wonder how they would have been deployed) London requested that control of the police pass to them (knowing that their deployment would probably spark an all out civil war, no doubt) Faulkner refused and Stormont was shut down by Edward Heath PM

Previously to this pressure was mounting for an end to gerrymandering and the introduction of 'one man, one vote', the disbanding and restructuring of the RUC and the disbanding of the B-Specials.
Harold Wilson PM, responding to unrest and the realisation that anarchy was imminent, had ordered that all the above be done previously.
Gerrymandering was got rid of because of unrest and pressure but that can never obscure the fact that nothing was done about these things by a UK government since their introduction in 1921. By the time they did react, it was too late, as we all know to our cost.
Ending the Unionist veto, discrimination and disbanding the RUC took longer, tragically.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Gerrymandering was got rid of because of unrest

No it wasn't. It was got rid of because the UK shut down Stormont, and they shut down Stormont, not because of unrest, but because of unionist intransigence.
They re-opened Stormont, still in an environment of 'unrest' (a campaign of violence) when that unionist parliamentary intransigence was removed.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Unionist veto and discrimination took longer, tragically.

The unionist veto ended with Stormont. Discrimination will always be with us.

Lucy and Harry

The South is free so we won

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

No it wasn't. It was got rid of because the UK shut down Stormont, and they shut down Stormont, not because of unrest, but because of unionist intransigence.

Why would you suggest they got rid of it when they had done nothing about it for the previous 60 years? :rolleyes:
Edit: Scratch the question above...Why can't you bring yourself to credit Nationalist/Republicans for achieving anything in NI, are you aware how curious that stance is?

The unionist veto ended with Stormont. Discrimination will always be with us.

The 'fleg' stamping of feet is one of the last vestiges of Unionists trying to enforce their veto.
It took a long time to break it down in actuality and the job isn't finished yet.