Border Poll discussion

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

From the circular I linked from the NI Policing Board.



“This is to inform you there will be no increase in the contribution rate to your pension for the period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2019. The contribution rate will depend on which scheme you are in (1988 scheme or 2006 scheme), and on your basic annual salary. This is set out in the table below.


Your employer will pay an increased rate of 25.1% on your behalf.”





You are making a lot of assumptions here. The difference is that if that was a Private Company, they would have to put the 25.1% in a separate account for their employee. Since its a British Government undertaking, they don't have to hand the cash over to a separate pension trust.

Yes, I saw that, and went back to the full document to explain to you what it meant.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Ah here now. I was thinking more in the last 600 or 700 years, not a couple of 1000 years ago! And while we may have common D&A with the Welsh and Scots (Celts), I don't think we shared much D&N with the Anglo-Saxons.

Here is an interesting alternate view on that:

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/celts-ireland-4199945-Aug2018/


And another:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html

What unites us may be bigger than what divides us.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, I saw that, and went back to the full document to explain to you what it meant.

If it is as you claim it is, why did the British Government accept its EU pension liability without a protest?

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

If it is as you claim it is, why did the British Government accept its EU pension liability without a protest?

Quite simple I would propose - they knew they were liable for them as they were the sole beneficiaries of the services given by the employees.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Here is an interesting alternate view on that:

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/celts-ireland-4199945-Aug2018/

And another:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html

What unites us may be bigger than what divides us.

Conditioning is a factor. Religion would make us different. Different tribal systems (Irish tribal leaders were elected, in England tribal leader took charge by force).

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

https://owlcation.com/stem/Irish-Blood-Genetic-Identity

"Today, people living the north of Spain in the region known as the Basque Country share many DNA traits with the Irish. However, the Irish also share their DNA to a large extent with the people of Britain, especially the Scottish and Welsh."

"However, more recent studies confirm that when a complex picture is taken of Irish DNA, including both male and female lines of descent, the closest similarities are between the Irish and people living in Western Britain."

One of the biggest arguments against nationalism as an ideology is that there really is no national identity any more.

Have you told the Unionists this?
People in certain geographical regions share DNA, so what?
Where many go wrong on this is the idea that nationalism is defined and stuck in time or from one pure gene pool, if there ever was such a nonsense. National identity is ever evolving and personal. The British royals are of German decent yet quintessentially 'English'.
FYI: the majority of people in Northern Ireland would have more Irish DNA than anything else, so now what? Silly argument.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Have you told the Unionists this?
People in certain geographical regions share DNA, so what?
Where many go wrong on this is the idea that nationalism is defined and stuck in time or from one pure gene pool, if there ever was such a nonsense. National identity is ever evolving and personal. The British royals are of German decent yet quintessentially 'English'.
FYI: the majority of people in Northern Ireland would have more Irish DNA than anything else, so now what? Silly argument.

Clearly the poster didn't think through the full implication of what he was saying. It is just more of the need to diminish anything Irish as something inferior. Our desire to be an all island state, our language, now it is our identity itself.

oscarBravo

jm08 wrote: »

Those who have British ancestry benefited at a cost to the indigenous people of Ireland.

I'd love you to explain how having an English grandmother benefited me, what the cost to the indigenous people was, and where the hell you get off telling me I'm not indigenous.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Clearly the poster didn't think through the full implication of what he was saying. It is just more of the need to diminish anything Irish as something inferior. Our desire to be an all island state, our language, now it is our identity itself.

That's not what was said. No more disingenuous arguments please.

jm08

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd love you to explain how having an English grandmother benefited me, what the cost to the indigenous people was, and where the hell you get off telling me I'm not indigenous.

I'd need to know when your grandmother was born and whether she is part of the British governing classes.

oscarBravo

jm08 wrote: »

I'd need to know when your grandmother was born and whether she is part of the British governing classes.

So you're rowing back on your offensive sweeping generalisation? That's a start, I suppose.

downcow

Matt Barrett wrote: »

FYI: the majority of people in Northern Ireland would have more Irish DNA than anything else, so now what? Silly argument.

Now where is your evidence for this?

downcow

Segarox, to get back to your original question which was certainly not the same old same old

"what if the north was to vote to rejoin ireland but in name only; establish yourselves as a separate state with your own government, your own police force (technically you have that already; Stormont and the PSNI) and your own currency.

could have the benefits of staying in the EU and not have the unpleasant taste of irish in your mouths. or am i talking rubbish? please, i'd to hear what you have to say"

I as a unionist could seriously consider an option like this. Remember I am Northern Irish, so Irish is not a bad taste to me. NI means far more to me than UK. Yes I enjoy being part of the UK and feel when i am on the mainland that i am among my friends / country people. Yes I feel different in the ROI but 20 years on from the troubles the old antagonism has gone. I enjoy visiting ROI and feel they are good neighbours getting better all the time (Brexit stuff hasn't helped but hopefully thats a blip).

I can't see what Irish republicans would get from your suggestion though - i don't think they'd be too happy. I don't think their new ireland has any genuine regard for my people.

I appreciate the positive nature of your question

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Segarox, to get back to your original question which was certainly not the same old same old

"what if the north was to vote to rejoin ireland but in name only; establish yourselves as a separate state with your own government, your own police force (technically you have that already; Stormont and the PSNI) and your own currency.

could have the benefits of staying in the EU and not have the unpleasant taste of irish in your mouths. or am i talking rubbish? please, i'd to hear what you have to say"

I as a unionist could seriously consider an option like this. Remember I am Northern Irish, so Irish is not a bad taste to me. NI means far more to me than UK. Yes I enjoy being part of the UK and feel when i am on the mainland that i am among my friends / country people. Yes I feel different in the ROI but 20 years on from the troubles the old antagonism has gone. I enjoy visiting ROI and feel they are good neighbours getting better all the time (Brexit stuff hasn't helped but hopefully thats a blip).

I can't see what Irish republicans would get from your suggestion though - i don't think they'd be too happy. I don't think their new ireland has any genuine regard for my people.

I appreciate the positive nature of your question

Why would you expect an 'Irish Republican' to be happy with that? An Irish republican wants an Irish republic.

If northern Ireland cannot survive with a reputed 9-10-11-12 Billion subvention, how would it expect to survive as independent? It cannot govern itself because of the absurd divisions partition caused, surely the last 100 years have proved that.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would you expect an 'Irish Republican' to be happy with that? An Irish republican wants an Irish republic.

If northern Ireland cannot survive with a reputed 9-10-11-12 Billion subvention, how would it expect to survive as independent? It cannot govern itself because of the absurd divisions partition caused, surely the last 100 years have proved that.

Yeah my thoughts exactly Francie - Can't see how a republican would be happy with that.

Your point about subvention is also fair but maybe that subvention could continue after NI independence but not grow with inflation so UK and NI are winners.

Unfortunately the divisions are difficult but I think we can work with them (100 years of learning) but dump us into an ROI and those divisions will be stared up all sorts of ways and no doubt another 100 years for us to all learn ho to deal with them.

What you think?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Yeah my thoughts exactly Francie - Can't see how a republican would be happy with that.

Your point about subvention is also fair but maybe that subvention could continue after NI independence but not grow with inflation so UK and NI are winners.

Unfortunately the divisions are difficult but I think we can work with them (100 years of learning) but dump us into an ROI and those divisions will be stared up all sorts of ways and no doubt another 100 years for us to all learn ho to deal with them.

What you think?

The emphasis for me is fixing the ongoing effects of an absurd partition. The only way to do that imo is to remove the cause (partition). Your people had their chance to build a state and frankly it abjectly failed.

I don't believe for a second there would be a hostile environment in a unified Ireland for any political persuasion. If you are fit to fight your corner there would be parity of opportunity and esteem.

James Brown

downcow wrote: »

Now where is your evidence for this?

I would put a lot of weight in the majority of people geographically located in an area, being from that area DNA wise. Unless they all moved over? I know some came from Scotland, but how far back are we going with this ruse, Viking era?

Partition is the anomaly here. it's in the name, Northern Ireland.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The emphasis for me is fixing the ongoing effects of an absurd partition. The only way to do that imo is to remove the cause (partition). Your people had their chance to build a state and frankly it abjectly failed.

I don't believe for a second there would be a hostile environment in a unified Ireland for any political persuasion. If you are fit to fight your corner there would be parity of opportunity and esteem.

Francie, we have naval gazed in NI for years over what we got wrong. There was gerry mandering, catholics were discriminated against, and the security forces in very tricky sensitive situations got some stuff wrong and yes, people died.
The Catholic population though grew from about 30% to near 50%

On the other hand in ROI Protestants were discriminated against and the population dropped from 10% to 3%
Would you say that was success in building an ROI?

What does this evidence tell you. Who were the least accommodating of difference? and would it be different in a UI?

downcow

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would put a lot of weight in the majority of people geographically located in an area, being from that area DNA wise. Unless they all moved over? I know some came from Scotland, but how far back are we going with this ruse, Viking era?

Partition is the anomaly here. it's in the name, Northern Ireland.

Just checking, If Scotland got independence would you have a problem with partition on that island??

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie, we have naval gazed in NI for years over what we got wrong. There was gerry mandering, catholics were discriminated against, and the security forces in very tricky sensitive situations got some stuff wrong and yes, people died.
The Catholic population though grew from about 30% to near 50%

On the other hand in ROI Protestants were discriminated against and the population dropped from 10% to 3%
Would you say that was success in building an ROI?

What does this evidence tell you. Who were the least accommodating of difference? and would it be different in a UI?

You are not looking at a RC dominated country anymore. I know of very few instances were Protestants were discriminated against, my wife is one and sees no affinity with that view.
I know of countless cases were Catholics were in the north, and it is the main reason that entity eventually failed.

I am of no religion and feel a fully fledged citizen of a modern European country. There are still many people in the north who cannot say that because basic rights enjoyed by all the people of these islands are denied them.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are not looking at a RC dominated country anymore. I know of very few instances were Protestants were discriminated against, my wife is one and sees no affinity with that view.
I know of countless cases were Catholics were in the north, and it is the main reason that entity eventually failed.

I am of no religion and feel a fully fledged citizen of a modern European country. There are still many people in the north who cannot say that because basic rights enjoyed by all the people of these islands are denied them.

My father was part of a family of 11 living in donegal. He had to go to a catholic school and had Irish hammered into him. He want to serve his community by joining the guards but couldn't as he had no Irish exams.
All 11 moved north (or rather west). It was the only way they could have a future. There must now be 100+ decendants of his brothers and sisters all living in the North but all having a deep regard for their roots in Donegal (and indeed scotland before that)

He loved Donegal but hated the discrimination against his community. He died loving Donegal with a Donegal song played at his funeral.

So don't suggest protestants were welcome in the South (unless of course they agreed to accept the majority culture)

This is the challenge for any new ireland

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

My father was part of a family of 11 living in donegal. He had to go to a catholic school and had Irish hammered into him. He want to serve his community by joining the guards but couldn't as he had no Irish exams.
All 11 moved north (or rather west). It was the only way they could have a future. There must now be 100+ decendants of his brothers and sisters all living in the North but all having a deep regard for their roots in Donegal (and indeed scotland before that)

He loved Donegal but hated the discrimination against his community. He died loving Donegal with a Donegal song played at his funeral.

So don't suggest protestants were welcome in the South (unless of course they agreed to accept the majority culture)

This is the challenge for any new ireland

I had Irish hammered into me in the 70's and 80's. I think most Irish people of all creeds would have that memory. I couldn't join the Gardai either, had I wanted to.

We have had Protestant Taoisaigh, Presidents, and literary giants. Protestants have gotten to the top of our biggest sporting organisation. They are fully accepted and integrated in our society.

Charles Babbage

downcow wrote: »

My father was part of a family of 11 living in donegal. He had to go to a catholic school and had Irish hammered into him. He want to serve his community by joining the guards but couldn't as he had no Irish exams.

There you go, if he had made a bit of an effort in Irish he wouldn't have been hammered and could have joined the Guards. Laziness and political prejudice have a price.

Perifect

downcow wrote: »

My father was part of a family of 11 living in donegal. He had to go to a catholic school and had Irish hammered into him. He want to serve his community by joining the guards but couldn't as he had no Irish exams.
All 11 moved north (or rather west). It was the only way they could have a future. There must now be 100+ decendants of his brothers and sisters all living in the North but all having a deep regard for their roots in Donegal (and indeed scotland before that)

He loved Donegal but hated the discrimination against his community. He died loving Donegal with a Donegal song played at his funeral.

So don't suggest protestants were welcome in the South (unless of course they agreed to accept the majority culture)

This is the challenge for any new ireland

Protestants were very welcome in the south. They have and still get on very well here. Some of them got some very high level jobs. The Irish language is an Irish protestant language as well. Many used it and many still do. The protestant population fell in the south post partition but a large section of that was British military and public servants going back to Britain.
It's time to end the myth that we are very different people with little in common. Irish people, be they of any religion or from any region, have huge similarities. The only tangible difference between someone from Mayo, Antrim, Kerry or Wexford is their accents. We have little in common with those from Britain in comparison. There's no reason why we can't all get on and work together as one. It makes sense and it would work.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I had Irish hammered into me in the 70's and 80's. I think most Irish people of all creeds would have that memory. I couldn't join the Gardai either, had I wanted to.

We have had Protestant Taoisaigh, Presidents, and literary giants. Protestants have gotten to the top of our biggest sporting organisation. They are fully accepted and integrated in our society.

So why do you think the Protestant population was decimated in roi while the catholic population flourished in the north?

downcow

Perifect wrote: »

Protestants were very welcome in the south. They have and still get on very well here. Some of them got some very high level jobs. The Irish language is an Irish protestant language as well. Many used it and many still do. The protestant population fell in the south post partition but a large section of that was British military and public servants going back to Britain.
It's time to end the myth that we are very different people with little in common. Irish people, be they of any religion or from any region, have huge similarities. The only tangible difference between someone from Mayo, Antrim, Kerry or Wexford is their accents. We have little in common with those from Britain in comparison. There's no reason why we can't all get on and work together as one. It makes sense and it would work.

Thanks for the reply but I am at a loss where to start with it. You talk about myths and then suggest the massive decline in the Protestant population was mainly due to military returning to mainland. Did you read my post? The north has huge numbers of people who left the south due to discrimination.
I absolutely accept that nationalists up here have loads in common with southerners. But as a unionist I feel I have much more in common with Scots etc that I do with southerners.

Perifect

downcow wrote: »

Thanks for the reply but I am at a loss where to start with it. You talk about myths and then suggest the massive decline in the Protestant population was mainly due to military returning to mainland. Did you read my post? The north has huge numbers of people who left the south due to discrimination.
I absolutely accept that nationalists up here have loads in common with southerners. But as a unionist I feel I have much more in common with Scots etc that I do with southerners.

No, I said a large number of military personnel and public servants moved back to Britain.
This discrimination you speak of was a very small number. The main reasons for the population fall were the reasons I've stated above plus the large number of protestants who went to fight in World War 1. Also, James Craig offered protestants government jobs and housing if they moved north.
As I said, it's a myth you are perpetuating. I am friends with many northern protestants. We have far more in common than anyone from Britain.

McMurphy

downcow wrote: »

Francie, we have naval gazed in NI for years over what we got wrong. There was gerry mandering, catholics were discriminated against, and the security forces in very tricky sensitive situations got some stuff wrong and yes, people died.
The Catholic population though grew from about 30% to near 50%

On the other hand in ROI Protestants were discriminated against and the population dropped from 10% to 3%
Would you say that was success in building an ROI?

What does this evidence tell you. Who were the least accommodating of difference? and would it be different in a UI?

In what way?

Any examples?

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

On the other hand in ROI Protestants were discriminated against and the population dropped from 10% to 3%
Would you say that was success in building an ROI?

While the protestant population in the republic did decline, it is a little lazy to suggest that this was as a result of discrimination. I am not going to claim that there was not a single incident but evidence of organised and ongoing discrimination by the Irish state is scanty at best, certainly nothing that would explain the extent of the decline in the protestant population.

There are a couple of points that explain the decline in the protestant population, firstly you have to understand the basis of the decline. We are talking about a decline that happened between the last census undertaken prior to independance in 1911, and the first census after independance in 1926. The Protestant population fell by around 105,000 over those years.

There were a number of factors that contributed to the Protestant decline in these years, firstly there was the First World War, which led to the death of about 5,000 Southern Irish Protestants. The protestant population at the time was also undergoing natural decline due to an ageing population, which accounts for a further reduction of 10,000. In other words there were 10,000 more natural deaths then births within the southern Irish protestant community during those years.

Then of course, perhaps most obviously, you have the withdrawal of the British state after independance, including the removal of the British Army and in a great many cases the families of the soldiers. Many of the Soldiers, police and civil servants living and working in Ireland prior to independance, who came from GB, were in the vast majority of cases Protestant and often chose to move to NI or back to GB after independance. This resulted in a further drop of 30,000 Protestants in the south.

That leaves us with roughly 60,000 protestants who left Ireland during those years whos departure needs to be explained. We could take it, as some have suggested over the years that the entirity of this group were in some way forced out through intimidation or discrimination. To make this claim, however, would ignore the likelyhood that a great many of them in reality left as economic migrants. We can show that this is likely because during the same years hundreds of thousands of catholics left Ireland as economic migrants and it would be somewhat unusual if a great many catholics felt the need to leave Ireland as economic migrants but if the same was not true of the Protestant fellow citizens.

We should also consider that at this time, the system of large Anglo-Irish estates, which underpined and were the patrons of Protestant communities in many parts of rural Ireland was being eroded away due to a process of land reform which began during the last few decades of British rule.

It is estimated that somewhere between 45,000 and 58,000 of the 60,000 protestants in question left Ireland as economic migrants, which leaves somewhere in the range of 2,000 to 15,000 protestants who may have left Ireland during those years as a result of intimidation and discrimination.

It's hard to quantify, certainly there are records of individuals who left Ireland because of intimidation, but there are two points that should be considered here. Firstly is the question of why some of these individuals faced intimidation? Was it because of their religion, or their politics? I suggest that you will find that in quite a few of the existing records of protestants who did indeed face intimidation, that those same protestants played an active role in supporting the British state during the war and the intimidation that they faced was as a reprisal for their actions, and not as a result of their personal background. The second thing to consider is that while there are undeniably some instances of intimidation and discrimination, there is a world of difference between the state of affairs faced by southern protestants and northern catholics at the time. There were no pogroms against protestants in the south and the Irish state in many cases went out of it's way to make specific provision for the protection of the portestant community.

*Figures above are based on work by Dr. Bielenberg, which can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/past/issue/218/1

downcow

Perifect wrote: »

No, I said a large number of military personnel and public servants moved back to Britain.
This discrimination you speak of was a very small number. The main reasons for the population fall were the reasons I've stated above plus the large number of protestants who went to fight in World War 1. Also, James Craig offered protestants government jobs and housing if they moved north.
As I said, it's a myth you are perpetuating. I am friends with many northern protestants. We have far more in common than anyone from Britain.

Well I’m sure you can provide evidence of what you are saying. But I can assure you I know loads of prods who moved out of roi and not a single one of them were offered jobs or houses in the north nor were they military or civil servants. So I am certainly not convinced by your denials of discrimination