What do we do if the British leave?

Lorcan26

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You don't think the majority of the UK should decide? A bit crappy for the tens of millions of people who put their hand in their pocket every year to fund NI.

well if they want a referendum on that let them have it, but ultimately its up to the people who reside in NI.

A Dub in Glasgo

If you think that is ultimately the case, why bother with a referendum of the UK at all

true

Dub in Glasgow, Lorcan said that ultimately its up to the people who reside in N. I.
In this context, your question does not make sense. One third of Catholics in Northern Ireland want to stay in the UK - some of them even vote for unionist parties in case you did'nt know - and 99% of Protestants in N. Ireland want to stay in the U.K.
A majority of the Chinese and other immigrant communities also wish to stay part of the UK. Even if Catholics outnumber Protestants in 30 years time in N. Ireland, the unionist majority will probably still outnumber the republican minority.
So, Dub in Glasgow, it is not expected that there will be a "united Ireland" in our lifetime. I think it is not so relevant anyway, we are all becoming more and more part of a united states of Europe.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Dub in Glasgow, Lorcan said that ultimately its up to the people who reside in N. I.

Whilest ignoring the wishes of the tens of millions of people in the UK who are actually paying for NI

In this context, your question does not make sense.

In the context of the reply Lorcan gave to my initial question, it makes a lot of sense.

Lorcan26 but surely it isnt up to me or the people of the UK but the people of NI.

Me: You don't think the majority of the UK should decide? A bit crappy for the tens of millions of people who put their hand in their pocket every year to fund NI.

Lorcan26: well if they want a referendum on that let them have it, but ultimately its up to the people who reside in NI.

Me: If you think that is ultimately the case, why bother with a referendum of the UK at all?

true

Presumably Lorcan meant "a referendum IN the UK" instead of "a referendum OF the UK". Do not forget the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. It is subsidised by the British taxpayer, but because the population of Britain is so many times more than the Republic of Ireland the cost to the individual British taxpayer is only a tiny fraction of what it would cost the individual Irish taxpayer.

Were it not for the troubles and terrorism, the cost on the taxpayer would have been considerably less over the past 36 years. Any tourists who wanted to come to Ireland , went to the South ( and still do, to a greater extent ) than to the North , for example.

Your idea, Dub in Glasgow, of holding a referendum in Britain , on the future of another part of the UK, is interesting. I think it would be much fairer to hold the referendum in N. Ireland, as they are the people directly concerned. The majority of the population in N. I. are loyal citizens , have served the UK well in two world wars, and do not deserve to be abandoned. If they were abandoned , either there would be civil war, and a campaign for an independent N. I.

arcadegame2004

true wrote:

Presumably Lorcan meant "a referendum IN the UK" instead of "a referendum OF the UK". Do not forget the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. It is subsidised by the British taxpayer, but because the population of Britain is so many times more than the Republic of Ireland the cost to the individual British taxpayer is only a tiny fraction of what it would cost the individual Irish taxpayer.

Well something liek that happened before remember in France. In the 1960's the French held a referendum in France alone on independence for Algeria. 90% voted yes and they left, in spite of the Unionist-style threats or violence and civil war. After the French left, their 1 million colonists went to France. So much for threats. The NI Protestants are welcome to stay in a UI. However, if in a UI they cause trouble, they won't be able to count on international support, not least because Irish-America will not support them, and their influence in Congress will ensure the US doesn't help Unionist insurgents. Also, the British won't help, because British public-opinion would be outraged at the idea of returning to Ireland, a colony they hate ruling over and paying for.

Were it not for the troubles and terrorism, the cost on the taxpayer would have been considerably less over the past 36 years. Any tourists who wanted to come to Ireland , went to the South ( and still do, to a greater extent ) than to the North , for example.

As I understand it, 60% of NI workers are employed by the State (I heard this anyway). Is this true? Future British Governments would probably privatise some of those, bringing down the cost of a UI for a Southern Government to a small % of its former cost.

Your idea, Dub in Glasgow, of holding a referendum in Britain , on the future of another part of the UK, is interesting. I think it would be much fairer to hold the referendum in N. Ireland, as they are the people directly concerned. The majority of the population in N. I. are loyal citizens , have served the UK well in two world wars, and do not deserve to be abandoned. If they were abandoned , either there would be civil war, and a campaign for an independent N. I.

Well the French-speaking colons in Algeria would also have claimed to be "loyal" to France, but that didn't stop the French pulling out. Regarding this sense of "deserving" not to be "abandoned", my response is that if a majority in NI votes for a UI in the long term, say decades from now when the Catholics are a majority, then surely those Catholic votes are equally "deserving" of recognition? They are. If you think otherwise and that somehow the Unionist vote is worth more then I condemn that sentiment because it is unacceptable to any fair minded democrat who believes that discrimination on the basis of religion is simply not on.

I notice you neglect to mention the tens of thousands of Southerners who fought in WW1 and WW2 (more than the number of Northerners actually). Thank you very much!

true

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well something liek that happened before remember in France. In the 1960's the French held a referendum in France alone on independence for Algeria. 90% voted yes and they left, in spite of the Unionist-style threats or violence and civil war. After the French left, their 1 million colonists went to France. So much for threats.

Algeria is a different continent, a different language, a different religion, a different culture to France. There is no similarity with the situation in the UK.


The NI Protestants are welcome to stay in a UI.

Oh, thanks a lot. The last time the Brits pulled out of Ireland, what happened? Many Prods were burnt out , boycotted, emotionally blackmailed etc to the extent that the Prod. minority, like that of other religous minorities like Jews ( who were chased out of Limerick for example ) dwindled.


of returning to Ireland, a colony they hate ruling over and paying for.

N. Ireland is not a colony and it is insulting and patronising of you to say so.


As I understand it, 60% of NI workers are employed by the State (I heard this anyway). Is this true? Future British Governments would probably privatise some of those, bringing down the cost of a UI for a Southern Government to a small % of its former cost.

Rubbish, your 60% figure is not true. Privatisation has little or nothing to do with reducing the cost of running N.I. Nobody would buy the bulk of the jobs currently provided by the state in N.I.


Well the French-speaking colons in Algeria would also have claimed to be "loyal" to France, but that didn't stop the French pulling out. Regarding this sense of "deserving" not to be "abandoned", my response is that if a majority in NI votes for a UI in the long term, say decades from now when the Catholics are a majority, then surely those Catholic votes are equally "deserving" of recognition?

Of course they are, and everyone including the British agree that. However, Catholic voters also sometimes vote for unionist parties - I personally know some who do , and do not forget that the polls show that one third of Northern Catholics want to stay in the UK. You would be a long time waiting for a majority who want to leave the UK for a united Ireland.


I notice you neglect to mention the tens of thousands of Southerners who fought in WW1 and WW2 (more than the number of Northerners actually). Thank you very much!

I did not mention the southeners who fought in WW! and WW" because we were talking about N. Ireland and the people of N. Ireland. I made the point before in some other post about the tens of thousands of Irish people ( from counties south of the border ) who joined up and served in British uniforms. The number of people who did so far exceeded the brave "volunteers" of 1916, who were actually booed and spat upon by most of the people of Dublin as they came out and surrendered. In schools up and down our little state all that has been taught is about our nationalist heroes - who technically were traitors. There has not been due recognition for those who joined British forces in WW1 and WW2. No wonder so many Northeners from both traditions do not want to join us.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

The number of people who did so far exceeded the brave "volunteers" of 1916, who were actually booed and spat upon by most of the people of Dublin as they came out and surrendered.

Yep the people are certainly fickle. Booed and spat upon one year whilest a couple of years later, the majority of people on this island voted for the parties that wanted to leave the UK.

Would you have fallen into the category above or would you have continued to boo and spit? Judging by how you view the whole break away from the UK, I suspect the latter. You appear to still regard the nationalists as traitors.

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Yep the people are certainly fickle. Booed and spat upon one year whilest a couple of years later, the majority of people on this island voted for the parties that wanted to leave the UK.

Would you have fallen into the category above or would you have continued to boo and spit? Judging by how you view the whole break away from the UK, I suspect the latter. You appear to still regard the nationalists as traitors.

I am not old enough to have been around to vote at the foundation of this state. I am happy enough to live in this state ( Rep. of Ireland ) , pay my taxes and I think it is a great country. I would have emigrated years ago otherwise. I am happy to go by the wishes of the majority as long as the rights of minorities are protected. The democratic nationalists in the North of Ireland are not traitors, and if a day came when the majority in N. I. wanted to join the rest of Ireland then fair enough I say.

To answer your specific question about traitors , no I do not regard modern IRA people / republican terrorists born on the island of Ireland as traitors. I can think of many other words for them yes, but not traitors. People born in N.I. as you well know are entitled to an Irish passport or a UK passport.

But as you say, people are fickle and easily misled. I remember once being at the side of the road in Dublin during a H-Block march, and the marchers were shouting " whoos a Brittt ? Gerrry Fittt. " Not that long before they were voting for this SDLP man.

Incidentally, Dub in Glasgow, as you have not mentioned my other points I take it you do not disagree with them . Good.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Incidentally, Dub in Glasgow, as you have not mentioned my other points I take it you do not disagree with them . Good.

You know very well that you cannot take the absence of debate as an implicit agreement with your points. I have raised one issue from your reply to aradegame2004, I will leave argadegame2004 to deal with all of your post. There are aspects which I agree with and aspects which I disagree with.

monument

true wrote:

of returning to Ireland, a colony they hate ruling over and paying for.

N. Ireland is not a colony and it is insulting and patronising of you to say so.

Your use of the English language is insulting and patronising.

colony
noun [C]
1 a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful and often distant country:
Australia and New Zealand are former British colonies.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=15001&dict=CALD

col•o•ny
A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
a. A territory thus settled.
2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.
- dictionary.com/

Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, are all still technically colonies. The real difference is Scotland, and to a lesser extent, Wales have devolved governments in place.

Some like to gloss things over a bit more and call them "dependences", or "territories".

Calling an area a colony makes no reference to the wishes of the people occupying such land.
But since colonialism became such an evil word, no democracy could be colonialist (never!), the people would never accept this!
The act is/was ignored more as long as the word wasn’t used, for instance when the British colonies in America gained their freedom and started colonizing North America and beyond {vie buying land and other means}, people weren’t happy that they were becoming what they once hated, so pretty much all that changed was the use of language. [Actually later the means of control changed, but that’s another story.])

Redleslie2

true wrote:

I made the point before in some other post about the tens of thousands of Irish people ( from counties south of the border ) who joined up and served in British uniforms. The number of people who did so far exceeded the brave "volunteers" of 1916, who were actually booed and spat upon by most of the people of Dublin as they came out and surrendered. In schools up and down our little state all that has been taught is about our nationalist heroes - who technically were traitors. There has not been due recognition for those who joined British forces in WW1 and WW2. No wonder so many Northeners from both traditions do not want to join us.

You haven't a clue. The Irish Volunteers were formed in response to the formation of the UVF who wanted to use the threat of force to prevent home rule. When WW1 came along John Redmond told the volunteers that fighting for Britain would guarantee them home rule which had been passd in the commons. Other leaders disagreed and so a split developed. Most of the volunteers joined the army, Eoin McNeill took control of what was left and Pearse ballsed up the rising. And there were plenty of IRA men who had served in the British army during WW1, Tom Barry for one. This is primary school stuff.

true

"This is primary school stuff". I am afraid you too have been brainwashed by the republican propoganda taught in too many schools in our land. There were many reasons soldiers joined the British army in WW1. To read your post you would think everyone wanted independence from Britain. However, at that time, quite a sizeable section of the Irish population did not want to break from Britain and did not have a hatred of Britain. A generation later, look at the tens of thousands of Irishmen who joined the British armed forces, and many more went to work helping her war effort.
I know there have been some - not many - IRA men to come out of the British army, but they are traitors and liars, and few and far between. If you pick any large army anywhere in the world, you will get all sorts of people : subversives, murderers, thiefs, conmen etc. So what? Tom Barry proves nothing.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

"This is primary school stuff". I am afraid you too have been brainwashed by the republican propoganda taught in too many schools in our land. There were many reasons soldiers joined the British army in WW1. To read your post you would think everyone wanted independence from Britain. However, at that time, quite a sizeable section of the Irish population did not want to break from Britain and did not have a hatred of Britain. A generation later, look at the tens of thousands of Irishmen who joined the British armed forces, and many more went to work helping her war effort.
I know there have been some - not many - IRA men to come out of the British army, but they are traitors and liars, and few and far between. If you pick any large army anywhere in the world, you will get all sorts of people : subversives, murderers, thiefs, conmen etc. So what? Tom Barry proves nothing.

lol

Do you deny that the majority of people on this island wanted independence from the UK a couple of years later?

Poker_Peter

true wrote:

"This is primary school stuff". I am afraid you too have been brainwashed by the republican propoganda taught in too many schools in our land. There were many reasons soldiers joined the British army in WW1. To read your post you would think everyone wanted independence from Britain. However, at that time, quite a sizeable section of the Irish population did not want to break from Britain and did not have a hatred of Britain. A generation later, look at the tens of thousands of Irishmen who joined the British armed forces, and many more went to work helping her war effort.
I know there have been some - not many - IRA men to come out of the British army, but they are traitors and liars, and few and far between. If you pick any large army anywhere in the world, you will get all sorts of people : subversives, murderers, thiefs, conmen etc. So what? Tom Barry proves nothing.

I think those who voted for the Home Rule Party did so as a step towards independence rather than seeking an alternative to independence in the long run. That is my firm belief. I don't blame Irish people for fighting for independence and if you are a Southerner I really think your patriotic credentials are seriously called into question by you referring to those who liberated the South from the UK in 1919-21 as "traitors" or "terrorists". To an imperial power like the UK, Russia and others, those of a distinct ethnic iidentity who use force to attain independence are always demonised as "terrorists".

Was George Washington a terrorist? Heard of the Armritsar massacre in Indian in the 1800's? Was that "terrorism" or does your definition of that term apply only to actions other than those committed by a government? If so then I adamantly reject your definition of terrorism. Probably 80% of the countries on the globe e.g. Latin America, Indonesia, Africa, etc would then have been founded by "terrorists" from your point of view. Ask people in these countries if they regard their liberators as "terrorists".

Terrorism should be defined according to what is being done, not according to whether the aims of those committing an action are independence or not. If armed actions against a government's army constitues terrorism, then George Washington was a terrorist. Ask Americans how they feel about that characterisation and see what response you'll get! Such is my response to your assertion that the men of 1916 and 1919-21 are terrorists.

true

People who dress in civilian clothes, who shoot and bomb and melt back in to the civilian population, and who have the approval of only a minority of the population, are called terrorists. Most of the people of Dublin did not support them in 1916 and looked on them as terrorists who kicked Britain in the kidneys when it was busy fighting the real war of 1914-1918 against the Germans. You may not have being brought up to think of them as that, but that is what they were. The option was there to vote, like Ghandi, but the IRA did not. Later on , when people did vote on it, we did get "independence", which some could well claim proved to be a backward step in many ways.

As regards George Washington, the American war of Independence was completely different to the situation in Ireland. It was a legitimate war. Regarding African countries etc, each case is different. Generally the european contribution was not as
bad as you may have been led to believe : the European countries generally build structures, a basic infrastructure etc. Were these countries much better since independence ? Do not blame Britain for it : Italy , Spain, Portugal etc etc all had colonies around the world.

The majority of the people in N. I. consider themselves British. They have been there longer than white man has been in Australia or America. In answer to the post question "what do we do when the British leave ", I think you will find that over a million people are staying.

How would you like it if in the UK someone asked " what will we do when the Irish leave " ? I think someone would complain its racist.

sceptre

Poker_Peter wrote:

Terrorism should be defined according to what is being done, not according to whether the aims of those committing an action are independence or not.

Of course.

If armed actions against a government's army constitues terrorism,

They don't unless their purpose is to terrorise (specifically the terror part). That's the important distinction to keep in mind when anyone's throwing around the word "terrorist" like cheap confetti. Quite often it's easy to tell the difference.

then George Washington was a terrorist.

See above

As I've said before, putting a bomb in a shopping centre is a terrorist act. Driving a truck containing into a bomb into a military barracks is a military action. As a general rule, that holds as a rule of whether an action is an act of terrorism or not. That's regardless of whether the bombers are a group of secessionists or a maths whizz kid with a grudge against society as a whole.

sceptre

monument wrote:

Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, are all still technically colonies.

Teahnically they haven't been for quite a long time as they're not distinct political entities. One could argue that the establishment of a parliament in Scotland with the ability, amongst other things, to raise taxes, puts it back in the colony category but this would rather be putting th cart before the horse and asking the horse to drag it.

In the same way, places like Reunion and French Guiana aren't technically colonies (though they have been) as they're French departements in pretty much the same league as Corsica (though as overseas departements there is an actual distinction). Reunion elected to remain part of France when the rest of the Comoros took the independence route. Jersey and Guernsey are both colonies (officially Colonies of the Crown) whereas there are few apart from those who practise their "Brits Out!" mantra after putting on their pajamas who would maintain that Northern Ireland is an actual colony. You might notice that it's missing the "distant" factor that exists three times in the definition as provided. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man are missing the distant factor too but they're colonies specifically as that's how they're legally defined (as well as none of these territories actually being part of the UK (or the EU, though they're within the customs union)).

I don't see the distinction as that important, though it becomes so when people use it while trying to make a ten minute statement in a single word. So it's only important to consider because the other bloke is making a point of using the word (and in the evil dirty sense at that).

monument

true wrote:

People who dress in civilian clothes, who shoot and bomb and melt back in to the civilian population, and who have the approval of only a minority of the population, are called terrorists. Most of the people of Dublin did not support them in 1916 and looked on them as terrorists who kicked Britain in the kidneys when it was busy fighting the real war of 1914-1918 against the Germans. You may not have being brought up to think of them as that, but that is what they were. The option was there to vote, like Ghandi, but the IRA did not. Later on , when people did vote on it, we did get "independence", which some could well claim proved to be a backward step in many ways.

Like Ghandi? Tell me so, did Ghandi draw differences between army’s who have/had the “approval of only a minority of the population”, and armies of empires? No?

Using Ghandi’s name it discredit one side is strange since he did not approve of any violence, whether or not a majority or not approved of such.

Poker_Peter

true wrote:

People who dress in civilian clothes, who shoot and bomb and melt back in to the civilian population, and who have the approval of only a minority of the population, are called terrorists.

Yes I agree they are terrorists but why is civilian clothes an issue? Why not also apply the term to those in uniform who intentionally kill innocent civilians. This is state terrorism and stands on equally low moral ground to terrorism in civilian clothes as far as I am concerned. I find it disturbing that you seem to draw this distinction based on what someone is wearing.

Most of the people of Dublin did not support them in 1916 and looked on them as terrorists who kicked Britain in the kidneys when it was busy fighting the real war of 1914-1918 against the Germans. You may not have being brought up to think of them as that, but that is what they were.

I don't see what Ireland should have been seen as owing anything to Britain. What did Britain ever do for Ireland when we were part of the UK? They stole the land and gave it to their nobles. They disenfranchised Catholics and banned them from passing their property onto their children, unless one was Protestant, in which case he got everything. They blocked US aid ships from landing in Ireland during the Famine. They forced Irish people who were not Protestant to pay taxes to the Anglican Church (tithes). Oh and did I forget Cromwell massacring 1/3rd of the Irish population (300,000 people butchered)? So don't talk to me about owing something to Britain! The WW1 situation was much more of a conventional war with far less of the black and white right-vs-wrong situation pertaining in WW2. The Germans were not commiting genocide in WW1 so the situation is different.

Irish people's initial reaction against 1916 was not due to some loyalty to Britain. It was because people had hoped that joining the Brirish army and fighting in WW! would cause Britain to look more favourably on the anti-partition and pro-Home Rule side of the argument as opposed to the pro-partition and Unionist one. Thus, people felt that the rebels of 1916 had wrecked the chances of avoiding partition. They were not seen as terrorists. Then Britain executed the rebels and people decided we were not going to tolerate such a brutal foreign occupation any longer. The 1916 rebels were NOT terrorists. Their only mistake was timing.

The option was there to vote, like Ghandi, but the IRA did not. Later on , when people did vote on it, we did get "independence", which some could well claim proved to be a backward step in many ways.

Why is it backward? Ireland now has a higher average wage and GDP per capita than the UK. I doubt Britain would have tolerated an Irish Corporation tax rate of 12%. And on the issue of voting, we did vote for 40 years for Home Rule and Britain said no, so the time for peaceful protest had passed.

sceptre

Poker_Peter wrote:

The 1916 rebels were NOT terrorists.

Obviously not as their actions didn't seek to terrorise. Rebels, yes, terrorists, no. I agreed with your earlier point on terrorism as it made logical sense. But... in the same way you can't apply the term "terrorism" even by bunging "state" before it to every and any killing of a civilian, innocent or otherwise by an army, British or otherwise, merely because you're annoyed about it. In some cases it was, in other cases it wasn't. Lest you be hoisted by your own petard it might be fair to toss around the phrase "state terrorism" with a narrower brush rather than lashing away with a big dirty wall-painting broom.

Poker_Peter wrote:

What did Britain ever do for Ireland when we were part of the UK?
<snip>Oh and did I forget Cromwell...

Hmmm. Or for the unaware

And dropping in Cromwell into a discussion is the Irish equivalent of Godwin's Law in a discussion about Ireland. There's already a Sceptre's Law[1] (given time, all Irish politics threads tend to turn into a discussion on Sinn Fein) so I propose we call that the Sceptre's Second Ripoff of Mike Godwins's law Law. Corollary 1: the famine will also be brought up.
Corollary 2: the Penal laws will be dropped into the equation as may comments about foreign devils taking our language from us

I'm making a simple point here which basically comes down to the idea that most people don't see Cromwell's national rock music and beheadings tour of Ireland (McEwan's sponsored I hear) as being all that relevant to a discussion on today, or even 1916, even ignoring the fact that, especially before the Clarendon Code, the penal laws were much more restrictive in England than they were here (would you rather sell your horse for a fiver or be hanged, drawn and quartered after?). And that they also affected any presbyterians in the country (I gather there's a small group of them up north somewhere) in the same way that it affected the catholics. Going back to 1916 is pushing it but might be just about relevant. Going back to the middle ages (the law of praemunire dates from there) is so far into wackiness that it's almost funny.

Incidentally (I may as well educate while berating), the figure of 300,000 is not the number of Irish people supposedly killed by Cromwell's men. The figure is nowhere near that. Students of Irish history may be aware that the 300,000 figure is the upper estimate of the number of Ulster Protestants killed in the "Popish Rebellion" of 1641 by Irish Catholics[1] just before the outbreak of the first proper English civil war. Yup, Prods killed by Taigues. Not Irish killed by Cromwell. You might squeeze 25,000 out of that one, though quite a few of those would be garrison members and/or Royalist soldiers. Which doesn't make it right or nice but it doesn't make it 300,000 Cromwell-killed Irish either. You're not the first to make that mistake on these boards. If you'd like to discuss Cromwell or learn more about him, please start another thread, don't use this one. I may appear condescending on this but anyone who uses the 300,000 figure almost certainly doesn't know anything about that period of Irish (or English) history apart from the names of the Irish cities involved. Which is a pity as it's a fascinating period in UK history leading up to the later Glorious Revolution that also involves this island as an important part of the story.

[1]I'm just attention-seeking really
[2]Only about a decade before Cromwell visited so obviously over time we assumed it was us who were the 300,000 victims because either we got mixed up or because it sounds better if we had the bigger victim figure rather than having one a tenth of the size. Even adding in the Barbados deportees the figure doesn't come close

Poker_Peter

Students of Irish history may be aware that the 300,000 figure is the upper estimate of the number of Ulster Protestants killed in the "Popish Rebellion" of 1641 by Irish Catholics[1] just before the outbreak of the first proper English civil war. Yup, Prods killed by Taigues. Not Irish killed by Cromwell.

The slaughter of the colonial invaders who stole the land from the Irish was nowhere near 300,000. Remember that the Census showed that not until 1861 were Protestants a majority in Ulster. The main settlements were east of the Bann and were almost untouched by the rebellion. About 15,000 may have died but what goes around comes around. They were like the Jewish settlers, thinking they have some divine right to steal land from others and get away with it. The 300,000 claim was part of the Puritan propaganda in the English Parliament at the time.

What evidence have you that Cromwell didn't kill 300,000?

sceptre

Poker_Peter wrote:

The slaughter of the colonial invaders who stole the land from the Irish was nowhere near 300,000.

I'm well aware of that. That's why I used the phrase "upper estimate". There weren't 300,000 Ulster Protestants at the time but I'm not discussing the validity of the figure, I'm discussing where the figure came from. Anthony Fletcher's The Outbreak of the English Civil War discusses the figure in depth. This figure is exaggerated (like crazy) but it is the upper estimate at or around the time whereas the Cromwell figure is just exaggerated.

What evidence have you that Cromwell didn't kill 300,000?

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. You support your own figures rather than throwing something out and getting someone else to knock them. Not that it's all that relevant these days but then I pointed that out above.

Isn't it odd that this thread started out with a question of what we all might do if the UK evacuated Northern Ireland and left it on its own or added it to the existing Republic and appears to have moved to a discussion on something that happaned 450 years ago as a basis for the argument? I'm only sorry that in part I contributed to the irrelevancy.

billy the squid

To be honest if the english hadn't invaded us it would have been somebody else, the spannish, the french, who knows. this was the reason the pope of the day backed william of orange back in the 1690s. he was having a bit of a tiff with the french. and this is why he helped king billy.

true

Yes, and if the British had not come over , we would not have had some of the first canals, railways, infrastructure in the world, but also some of the leading universities and institutions etc. Its a pity so many people in Ireland have been taught to hate our neighbour, instead of co-operating.

Redleslie2

true wrote:

"This is primary school stuff". I am afraid you too have been brainwashed by the republican propoganda taught in too many schools in our land. There were many reasons soldiers joined the British army in WW1. To read your post you would think everyone wanted independence from Britain. However, at that time, quite a sizeable section of the Irish population did not want to break from Britain and did not have a hatred of Britain. A generation later, look at the tens of thousands of Irishmen who joined the British armed forces, and many more went to work helping her war effort.
I know there have been some - not many - IRA men to come out of the British army, but they are traitors and liars, and few and far between. If you pick any large army anywhere in the world, you will get all sorts of people : subversives, murderers, thiefs, conmen etc. So what? Tom Barry proves nothing.

Have you any sources to back up any of this rubbish? Or are you just making it up and wasting everyone's time like I suspect you are.

true

What link do you want ? Just because you may disagrree with it does not entitle you to dismiss it as rubbish. For example, as I said , there are many reasons soldiers joined the British army in WW1. A previous poster wrote they only joined to get Irelands independence. This is not the full story. Some joined because they thought it would be a short war and they would be home for Christmas, some joined for the adventure, some joined for the money, some joined because they felt it was their duty "for king and country" and they felt part of the union with Britain, some joined to save little catholic Belgium,etc etc etc

The only figure I mentioned was "tens of thousands" of Irishmen who joined the British forces in WW2. This is well documented. I cannot remember the exact figure but I think it was 50 thousand from the 26 counties and 50 thousand from the six counties.
I read one source recently which said it was 70 thousand from the 26 counties : either way, I know the British are grateful to these brave men, the silent majority, and it is one of the reasons they will not "leave" N.I. to satisfy the likes of Sinn Fein / IRA.

As regards the canals, railways etc : look out your window when you are travelling sometime.

billy the squid

Have you any sources to back up any of this rubbish? Or are you just making it up and wasting everyone's time like I suspect you are.

the series of schoolbooks used in primary school produced by folens entitled "Living in the past" is a prime example of the hatred that was being taught in schools in the late eighties/early nineties.

true

I agree. Much of the Irish history taught in schools was very one sided - I suppose some teachers more slant on it - and I am sure that has swelled the ranks of Sinn Fein / IRA over the years. The propoganda only has to work with a few .....
Its a while since I done my Leaving cert so I do not know what goes on now.

Redleslie2

true wrote:

What link do you want ?

Any reputable historian or site like the BBC's will do.

Just because you may disagrree with it does not entitle you to dismiss it as rubbish.

I don't agree with you because you are wrong.

Here's some questions any 12 year old could answer. Have a go.

Why were the Irish Volunteers formed?
How many joined?
What was the Irish Parliamentary Party's goal?
How many seats did the party hold before the war?
Why wasn't conscription introduced in Ireland?
What was the story with the Home Rule bills?
The Curragh Mutiny - what was all that about then?