Northernisation: the erosion of democracy and the need for repartition.

Flex

MT, answer me this: Regarding your repartition plan, where exactly woudl you draw the border? How much of NI would you give to the Republic? in particular, what would happen to Catholics living in places like Moyle District in North Antrim where Nationalists control the district assembly?

I asked this a few posts ago aswel.How much should of Ireland should the British be allowed to keep for all eternity?And indeed what about NE Antrim with its nationalist community?Would it become part of the republic and yet be surrounded by the new Unionist state?What if we had a situation where in the future Unionists blockaded that area, like the USSR did in Berlin?

While utterly desising the idea of repartition, I would concede that if it were to happen, it would have to transfer the Catholic part of North Antrim, all of the South Down, Newry and Armagh, and all of Fermanagh and Tyrone to the South. That leaves the question open about what to do about Belfast, where 47% are Catholic. How would you resolve this?

Dont forget about Derry.The city and most of the county would aswel.Im sure Unionists would be expecting to be allowed keep a far larger area than would be the reality of the case.

Flex

I think you said your great -grandparents who were Presbyterians were Republicans, is that not so ? If he got a civil service job, good for him. I can tell you extremely few other protestants got state or civil service jobs in the early / mid twentieth century. Perhaps his extreme republican views and background done him no harm there, or in getting his medal ?

Yes they were republicans.LOL.What makes ya think he was "extreme"?Did ya know him?Did ya ever speak with him?

I never said there was "the extreme climate of anti-Protestantism "you alledge I seem so certain existed. There was not an EXTREME climate of anti-Protestantism, but there was more than a little anti-Protestanism in some quarters.

Ya constantly bring up house burnings, shootings, intimidation,etc.Ya also seem to think down here was on a par with NI and the Stormont assembly.

It was also a cold house for other minorities eg the Jews, who were hunted / intimidated out of Limerick for example.

At least it wasnt publicly endorsed by the head of government.

true

shltter wrote:

that was not your original claim eamon de valera was not taoiseach

It was still Eamonn DeValera, and I have now provided you with the independent source link to show this.

Certainly : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_de_Valera

Also it says "In 1931, in a populist and controversial move, he backed Mayo County Council when they fired a Protestant head librarian on the grounds of religion, stating that "a county that is 98% Catholic is entitled to a Catholic head librarian."

shltter wrote:

it was in mayo not clare

There were cases in both counties

shltter wrote:

and the woman in question was not fired mayo county council refused to appoint her alledgedly because she could not speak Irish

she was appointed to a different library

Can you show me the link to this please?

Roisin Dubh

true wrote:

It was still Eamonn DeValera, and I have now provided you with the independent source link to show this.

Certainly : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_de_Valera

Also it says "In 1931, in a populist and controversial move, he backed Mayo County Council when they fired a Protestant head librarian on the grounds of religion, stating that "a county that is 98% Catholic is entitled to a Catholic head librarian."

1931? De Valera was then Leader of the Opposition. So that hardly constitutes "state-sponsored discrimination".

true

Flex wrote:

Yes they were republicans.LOL.What makes ya think he was "extreme"?Did ya know him?Did ya ever speak with him?.

You bragged about how they were " Republicans " on a much earlier post. For a prod. to get a job in the civil service in the early days of this state, he certainly must have been a great republican.

Flex wrote:

Ya constantly bring up house burnings, shootings, intimidation,etc.Ya also seem to think down here was on a par with NI and the Stormont assembly.
.

I never said that. The minority religions down here got much smaller in numbers, the minority religion up North did not.

Flex wrote:

At least it wasnt publicly endorsed by the head of government.

What wasnt publicly endorsed by the head of government? Some sectarian remarks were made by leading Irish politicians. What difference does that make?

Flex

Roisin Dubh wrote:

1931? De Valera was then Leader of the Opposition. So that hardly constitutes "state-sponsored discrimination".

Correct.Cummann na nGaedhael were in power til 1932, and they were more "sympathethic" to Protestants and Britain.Their Finance minister was an Ulster Protestant named Ernest Blythe and their leader, who Im sure needs no naming, in the Dail announced that he and his party believed the FS enjoyed more freedom and security inside the Commonwealth than if it were a seperate republic.

Roisin Dubh

true wrote:

.

I think you said your great -grandparents who were Presbyterians were Republicans, is that not so ? If he got a civil service job, good for him. I can tell you extremely few other protestants got state or civil service jobs in the early / mid twentieth century. Perhaps his extreme republican views and background done him no harm there, or in getting his medal ?

What about Ernest Blythe as Finance Minister? Countess Markievizc? Ivan Yates (Agriculture Minister under Bruton)? Name one Catholic that got into the Government of the Unionist majority ruled Orange state 1922-72?

I never said there was "the extreme climate of anti-Protestantism "you alledge I seem so certain existed. There was not an EXTREME climate of anti-Protestantism, but there was more than a little anti-Protestanism in some quarters. It was also a cold house for other minorities eg the Jews, who were hunted / intimidated out of Limerick for example. Extremely few Jewish refugees from Europe were let in , before during or after the second world war.

Would you say there was an extreme climate of anti-Catholicism in the North? I sure as hell would.

Flex

You bragged about how they were " Republicans " on a much earlier post. For a prod. to get a job in the civil service in the early days of this state, he certainly must have been a great republican.

"Bragged", I brought it up because I was making another comment about Protestants and wanted to let it be known I have Protestant ancestory, in case 'someone' tried posting I was a sectarian.Nice ambigous statement there, "great republican".

I never said that. The minority religions down here got much smaller in numbers, the minority religion up North did not.

INTERMARRIAGES(thats how Im a Catholic! ).The number of Catholics in the South also decreased right up until the 1960's because most people were emigrating, and ya have made it clear ya believe shootings and house burnings and intimidation were , in your opinion, a main cause in the decline of Protestantism in the south.Someone else also pointed out how it was the Vatican who passed the Ne Temerre, not the Dail.Westminster was busy passing Penal Laws and other repressive laws which were enforced as government policy and civic duty.

What wasnt publicly endorsed by the head of government?

Discriminating the Jewish.And theres a book out which details the abuse of the Jewish in Limerick and the lack of government will to stop it, however, it was in 1904 and at that time Westminster called the shots around here.

Some sectarian remarks were made by leading Irish politicians. What difference does that make?

Apart from suggesting that a library in Mayo give a job to a Catholic aver a Protestant(which is uder dispute here) ,he didnt do what the likes of Brooke did, whose qoutes have already been posted.

true

Flex wrote:

"Bragged", I brought it up because I was making another comment about Protestants and wanted to let it be known I have Protestant ancestory, in case 'someone' tried posting I was a sectarian.Nice ambigous statement there, "great republican".
.

You specified your great-grandparents were all Republicans. The point remains unchanged. At the time it was virtually unheard of for a protestant to get a job in the Irish civil service, but I am sure a "Republican" background done no harm..

Flex wrote:

The number of Catholics in the South also decreased right up until the 1960's because most people were emigrating,
.

But not to a fraction of the same extent the protestant population was decimated.

Flex wrote:

and ya have made it clear ya believe shootings and house burnings and intimidation were , in your opinion, a main cause in the decline of Protestantism in the south.
.

Are you attempting to airbrush this part of the early 20th century out of history ? I never said they were a main cause, just one of the factors.

Flex wrote:

Someone else also pointed out how it was the Vatican who passed the Ne Temerre, not the Dail.Westminster was busy passing Penal Laws and other repressive laws which were enforced as government policy and civic duty.
.

I never knew Penal laws and other repressive laws were part of the twentieth century or part of the Republic of Ireland. How did penal laws affect population numbers negatively in the twentieth century ?

Flex wrote:

Discriminating the Jewish.And theres a book out which details the abuse of the Jewish in Limerick and the lack of government will to stop it, however, it was in 1904 and at that time Westminster called the shots around here..

Link please to this book. It was the Redemptorists who were responsible for hounding the Jews out of Limerick. The govt of the day done their best to stop intimidation, but as we all know it it difficult to stop that. The British govt have a history of at least accepting some Jewish refugees before WW2

Flex wrote:

Apart from suggesting that a library in Mayo give a job to a Catholic aver a Protestant(which is uder dispute here) ,he didnt do what the likes of Brooke did, whose qoutes have already been posted.

I provided you with the link that said:
"In 1931, in a populist and controversial move, DeValera backed Mayo County Council when they fired a Protestant head librarian on the grounds of religion, stating that "a county that is 98% Catholic is entitled to a Catholic head librarian." Is that not clear enough. How much descrimination was there that you know nothing about because nothing was publicly said by DeValera?

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

What about Ernest Blythe as Finance Minister? Countess Markievizc? Ivan Yates (Agriculture Minister under Bruton)?

Ernest Blythe was a IRB member who was in and out of jail in the early years of last century. He joined Sinn Fein and was a "strong" Republican.

Countess Markievizc likewise was a great Republican in the same era.

Ivan Yates was not a politican in the era you mention 1922-1972. We are talking about the early and mid twentieth century. Nobody said there is such descrimination in recent decades or modern times.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Would you say there was an extreme climate of anti-Catholicism in the North? I sure as hell would.

There was also some anti-Catholicism in the North , but many Catholics I know up there would not call it "an extreme climate". There are some ( admittedly not a high percentage ) Catholics who vote for Paisley, for example. Look at Rathlin island, Paisley gets votes from the catholic inhabitants there. If the climate of sectarianism towards a minority in N. Ireland was "extreme" as you say, how would you describe the climate towards minorities in Nazi Germany for example ? Extremely extreme ?
Better keep some perspective. Many Northern Catholics were happy to join UK forces in WW2. Gerry Fitt( SDLP ) joined the British merchant navy. One catholic from west Belfast joined the British army, won a VC , and when he returned to west Belfast after the war some local thugs there intimidated him out. The percentage of catholics in N. Ireland has risen remarkably since partition.

Roisin Dubh

true wrote:

Ernest Blythe was a IRB member who was in and out of jail in the early years of last century. He joined Sinn Fein and was a "strong" Republican.

Countess Markievizc likewise was a great Republican in the same era.

Ivan Yates was not a politican in the era you mention 1922-1972. We are talking about the early and mid twentieth century. Nobody said there is such descrimination in recent decades or modern times.



There was also some anti-Catholicism in the North , but many Catholics I know up there would not call it "an extreme climate". There are some ( admittedly not a high percentage ) Catholics who vote for Paisley, for example. Look at Rathlin island, Paisley gets votes from the catholic inhabitants there. If the climate of sectarianism towards a minority in N. Ireland was "extreme" as you say, how would you describe the climate towards minorities in Nazi Germany for example ? Extremely extreme ?
Better keep some perspective. Many Northern Catholics were happy to join UK forces in WW2. Gerry Fitt( SDLP ) joined the British merchant navy. One catholic from west Belfast joined the British army, won a VC , and when he returned to west Belfast after the war some local thugs there intimidated him out. The percentage of catholics in N. Ireland has risen remarkably since partition.

I'd go as far as to say that from 1922-72, NI was an Orange State, which persecuted Catholics in a manner similar to the US Deep South's persecution of blacks. The Unionists stubbornly rejected one-man-one-vote. They gave businesses - mostly Unionist - 7 votes each in local-elections. Terence O'Neill was thrown out by his party for considering one-man-one-vote, because his party wanted to exclude Catholics from government. The Unionists set up the Ulster Defence Regiment - which was disbanded when the UK Govt accepted Irish Govt evidence that it was a front for Loyalist paramilitaries. They banned people who lived with their parents from voting in local-elections. Since Unionist local-authorities were preferring Protestants to Catholics in local-authority housing, this worked to the Unionist advantage. A particularly disgraceful example is how Catholic families were put further down the list than single Protestants with no families. Scandalous!

In the Orange State, parades were rammed down Catholic roads - including when the parades were initially banned. Do you condone the behaviour of the OO and the Unionists in 1996 with respect to Drumcree?

Flex

You specified your great-grandparents were all Republicans. The point remains unchanged. At the time it was virtually unheard of for a protestant to get a job in the Irish civil service, but I am sure a "Republican" background done no harm..

I didnt try to change that point.

But not to a fraction of the same extent the protestant population was decimated.

What do ya used the term decimated for?

Are you attempting to airbrush this part of the early 20th century out of history ? I never said they were a main cause, just one of the factors.

While relations wernt rosy, the south was far better for Protestants than NI was for Catholics.As someone rightly pointed out alot of anti Protestant attacks carried out throughout the FS were by the anti Treaty IRA and werent all just random attacks on ordinary people, but were aimed at southern Unionist politicians and intermarriage was another key fact,because outside of Dublin and the border area, Protestants were so few in number they had to intermarry.Our history contains some overtures of friendship and reconciliation towards Unionists, while the only time they ever attempted anything like that resulted in Captain Terence O'Neill being ousted.Arthur Griffith used his power as President of the Executive council to appoint 15 southern Unionists(25% of seats) as senators,our first President was a Protestant and another one has been elected since,the constitution recognised the "special" position of the RC Church but also recognised the position of the Protestant church and so on.

I never knew Penal laws and other repressive laws were part of the twentieth century or part of the Republic of Ireland. How did penal laws affect population numbers negatively in the twentieth century ?

Well I was referring to the Penal laws of centuries previous.However the laws which made the importation of food to Ireland "difficult" created a trend which helped decimate the popultion right up to the 1960's, if that counts.Also, the Act of Union deprived ireland of a Home parliament which could have more "adequately" dealt with the Famine(although any government could have if it had wanted to) and saved over 1,500,000 people from starving to death and God knows how many more on those "coffin ships".

Link please to this book.

Its on sale in Easons and Books Unlimited in the Blanchardstown Shopping Centre.

I provided you with the link that said:
"In 1931, in a populist and controversial move, DeValera backed Mayo County Council when they fired a Protestant head librarian on the grounds of religion, stating that "a county that is 98% Catholic is entitled to a Catholic head librarian." Is that not clear enough.

He wasnt head of government.While it was still bad what he said, it is hugely different to NI ministers.

How much descrimination was there that you know nothing about because nothing was publicly said by DeValera?

Are ya getting all this info on DeV's discrimination off more Loyalist websites?

shltter

true wrote:

It was still Eamonn DeValera, and I have now provided you with the independent source link to show this.

Certainly : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_de_Valera

Also it says "In 1931, in a populist and controversial move, he backed Mayo County Council when they fired a Protestant head librarian on the grounds of religion, stating that "a county that is 98% Catholic is entitled to a Catholic head librarian."


There were cases in both counties



Can you show me the link to this please?

as usual you got it all wrong

the woman in question answered an advertisement for a job as a librarian the ad specified that the successful applicant would need Irish

Miss Letitia Dunbar Harrison was recommended for the post however she did not have any irish mayo county council refused to appoint her to the position
although they were legally obliged

the minister for enviroment dissolved mayo county council after they again refused his order to appoint her

there was some suspicion that the real reason that mayo county council did not appoint her was because she was a protestant and graduate of trinity college

however the official reason was that she did not have a knowledge of the irish language as specified in the advertisement for the job

eamon de valera backed the decision of mayo county council

the women was transfereed to another post she appears here as the librarian in the department of the defence


http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0050/D.0050.193311290023.html

here are some more links that refer to the case
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/special/1999/eyeon20/1930f.htm
http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=12566701&p=yz567zyx&n=12567263
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0039/D.0039.193106170023.html

so not as you claimed the taoiseach ordering the sacking of a protestant

and i can find no mention of another case in clare as you allege can you link to that

shltter

true wrote:

There was also some anti-Catholicism in the North , but many Catholics I know up there would not call it "an extreme climate". There are some ( admittedly not a high percentage ) Catholics who vote for Paisley, for example. Look at Rathlin island, Paisley gets votes from the catholic inhabitants there. If the climate of sectarianism towards a minority in N. Ireland was "extreme" as you say, how would you describe the climate towards minorities in Nazi Germany for example ? Extremely extreme ?
Better keep some perspective. Many Northern Catholics were happy to join UK forces in WW2. Gerry Fitt( SDLP ) joined the British merchant navy. One catholic from west Belfast joined the British army, won a VC , and when he returned to west Belfast after the war some local thugs there intimidated him out. The percentage of catholics in N. Ireland has risen remarkably since partition.

to deny that there was widespread anti catholic feeling in the north is unbelieveable

from this link http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=12566701&p=yz567zyx&n=12567263

"
Even when things were at their worst in the Twenty-six Counties, we have never witnessed anything like the sectarianism of Unionist leaders in the North. For instance, in March 1934 Sir Basil Brooke (who later became the longest serving Prime Minister of Northern Ireland as Lord Brookborough), not only bragged "I have not a Roman Catholic about my own place," but he publicly recommended "those people who are loyalists not to employ Roman Catholics, 99% of whom are disloyal".

Next day, the Prime Minister of the time, Lord Craigavon, pointedly refused to repudiate Brook's remarks. "There is not one of my colleagues who does not entirely agree with him," Craigavon said, "and I would not ask him to withdraw one word he said." Sir John Andrews, who succeeded Craigavon, once denounced a rumour that 28 of the 31 porters at Stormont were Catholic.

"I have investigated and I have found that there are 30 Protestants and only one Roman Catholic, there only temporarily," he said. Such were the sectarian foundations on which Northern Ireland was built.
"

Roisin Dubh

True, I suggest strongly that you read the following sources that show the incredibly overt sectarianism and oppression of Catholics in NI - especially the downright Nazi-like remarks of Source 4. The majority of the sources can be found on http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/quotes.htm:

Source 1: Lord Brookeborough - 2nd PM of NI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Brooke

In 1929 he was elected to the Northern Ireland House of Commons as Ulster Unionist Party MP for the Lisnaskea division of County Fermanagh. In 1933 he was appointed Minister for Agriculture. He quickly dismissed all Catholic workers on his estates to set an example for other landowners. In 1941 he became Minister for Commerce. In 1943 he succeeded John M. Andrews as Prime Minister. During his twenty years as head of government he never had any dealings with trade unions and he made many incendiary quotes about Roman Catholics. During his premiership he also tried to strengthen the link between the Orange Order and the government.

One of those incendiary remarks was:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/quotes.htm

There was a great number of Protestants and Orangemen who employed Roman Catholics. He felt he could speak freely on this subject as he had not a Roman Catholic about his own place (Cheers). He appreciated the great difficulty experienced by some of them in procuring suitable Protestant labour, but he would point out that the Roman Catholics were endeavouring to get in everywhere and were out with all their force and might to destroy the power and constitution of Ulster. ... He would appeal to loyalists, therefore, wherever possible to employ good Protestant lads and lassies.'[/QUOTE0

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/quotes.htm

When I made that declaration last ‘twelfth’ I did so after careful consideration. What I said was Justified. I recommended people not to employ Roman Catholics, who were 99 per cent disloyal."
Sir Basil Brooke, Unionist Party, then Minister of Agriculture, March 1934

Source 2: John M.Andrews- Unionist Party, Minister of Labour, Stormont, 1933, later 3rd PM of NI
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/quotes.htm

Another allegation made against the Government and which was untrue, was that, of 31 porters at Stormont, 28 were Roman Catholics. I have investigated the matter, and I find that there are 30 Protestants, and only one Roman Catholic there temporarily.

Source 3: Sir James Craig - 1st PM of NI

all I boast is that we are a Protestant Parliament and Protestant State.

Source 3:

At a meeting in Derry to select candidates for the Corporation Mr. H. McLaughlin said that for the past forty-eight years since the foundation of his firm there had been only one Roman Catholic employed - and that was a case of mistaken identity

Source 4:E.C. Ferguson, Unionist Party, then Stormont MP, April 1948

The Nationalist majority in the county, i.e., Fermanagh, notwithstanding a reduction of 336 in the year, stands at 3,684. We must ultimately reduce and liquidate that majority. This county, I think it can be safely said, is a Unionist county. The atmosphere is Unionist. The Boards and properties are nearly all controlled by Unionists. But there is still this millstone [the Nationalist majority] around our necks.

Source 5:

"When it is remembered that the first Minister [of Home Affairs], Sir Dawson Bates, held that post for 22 years and had such a prejudice against Catholics that he made it clear to his Permanent Secretary that he did not want his most juvenile clerk, or typist, if a Papist, assigned for duty to his Ministry, what could one expect when it came to filling posts in the Judiciary, Clerkships of the Crown and Peace and Crown Solicitors?"
Mr. G.C. Duggan, Comptroller and Auditor-General in Northern Ireland (1945-49)

Source 6:Cameron Report, Paragraph 138, 1969

We are satisfied that all these Unionist controlled councils have used and use their power to make appointments in a way which benefited Protestants. In the figures available for October 1968 only thirty per cent of Londonderry Corporations administrative, clerical and technical employees were Catholics. Out of the ten best-paid posts only one was held by a Catholic. In Dungannon Urban District none of the Council’s administrative, clerical and technical employees was a Catholic. In County Fermanagh no senior council posts (and relatively few others) were held by Catholics: this was rationalised by reference to ‘proven loyalty’ as a necessary test for local authority appointments. In that County, among about seventy-five drivers of school buses, at most seven were Catholics. This would appear to be a very clear case of sectarian and political discrimination. Armagh Urban District employed very few Catholics in its salaried posts, but did not appear to discriminate at lower levels. Omagh Urban District showed no clearcut pattern of discrimination, though we have seen what would appear to be undoubted evidence of employment discrimination by Tyrone County Council.

I hope that satisfies you that NI was by far the most sectarian of the two states on this island.

MT

Flex wrote:

What I meant was I wouldnt suggest anyone should take their right to vote from them in a UI(ie.forbid them from voting in elections etc.).My attitude is that I know the majority dont want a UI now, but in 3 or 4 generations there will be an Irish majority who will accept a UI and then democracy can prevail.

So you find the current situation acceptable? I don’t. By holding out for a UI that might never come you condemn northern nationalists to a wait of at least decades for the statehood they have desired for most of the past century. Furthermore, how can you be certain there will be a majority for unity in tree or four generations?

Flex wrote:

No I dont see the Welsh as compatriots, however Ulster is not foreign to Ireland.

But currently it is. Northern Ireland is as foreign to the rest of the island as Wales. You may not wish this to be the case but that doesn’t make the reality any less real. The idea that I propose allows for the people of NI that should never have been separated from the rest of the island’s inhabitants to join the Irish Republic as of now. But why force the others in NI who do see you as foreign into a state they consider alien? How is forcing northern unionists to live in an all island state any more acceptable than current arrangement? Nationalists do not want to live in the UK: unionists do not want to live in the Irish Republic. A solution is needed to meet both needs – not one or the other.

Flex wrote:

In fact most people from Britain I know (mainly Scots and English) would regard NI as foreign to them despite the fact its in the UK, because its not a part of Britain(geographically!!).

What have the views of the inhabitants of Britain got to do with the propriety of northern unionist’s desires for self-determination?

Flex wrote:

You support aspiration of Irish nationalists who seek a UI, yet dont want to thread on unionists who want a divided Ireland.

I certainly do not support the aspirations of Irish nationalists for a UI. I am an Irish republican not a geographic imperialist. What I support is the desire of northern nationalists to have themselves and their areas join the Irish republic. I believe in giving them their long overdue self-determination. That’s a far cry from doing the exact opposite to northern unionists and forcing them against their will into a state they wish to remain apart from.

You see, as someone with universal republican ideals and not just for my fellow Irishmen, I believe all the people of this earth are entitled to self-determination and democracy. That goes as much for unionists as it does for nationalists, the Basques, the Chechens, the Quebecois, the Kurds, the Catalonians, the Scottish, the Welsh, the Tibetans and all those peoples who some would have denied the basic human rights enshrined in the tenets of republicanism. Imperialists seeking to deny northern unionists their aspirations for a separate homeland on this island are no better than those who sought to hold Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh for the union. Such mindsets are the complete antithesis of republicanism.

Flex wrote:

Not that I would accept repartition in the first place, but how much territory do you think each should get?Should it be proportional(ie. 53%-Protestant land/44%-Catholic land) or by counties or towns or wards?

The specific arrangements involved in partitioning the north would require extensive research and an authoritative body to make recommendations to the governments. To best ensure the acceptance and validity of its conclusions membership would have to be drawn from across the political spectrum as well as the two nations involved. Believe me I have no illusions as to how difficult, not to mention controversial, such a task would be. However, as far as I can see partition is the option that offers all involved in this age old dispute more of what they aspire to than the alternatives currently under consideration.

The status quo denies northern nationalists their self-determination: in a UI unionists would be equally disadvantaged.

I can only speculate as to outcome of such investigations but there’d most likely be a two thirds, one third split of NI’s current area. The larger share passing into the Irish Republic – the smaller remaining apart. Those left residing outside their state of choice would have to be offered the most generous resettlement packages imaginable. There’d be no force involved, it would certainly not be ‘like the plantations again’.

But, having said all this, it must be reiterated that this is simply a proposal. One that would require deep and wide ranging inquiry before even being considered. A pertinent question in need of investigation would be the likely hood of the voluntary resettlement of those living beyond where the new border could possibly weave. What would they need in order not to feel disadvantaged by a move to another part of the island? The statehood they’d always aspired to, a job as good or better than their current occupation, a new home of equal or greater value than their current residence and so on and so forth. Too large a number might reject such a plan making the idea of partition unfeasible. But until such consultations/investigations are carried out we’ll never know whether a golden opportunity to solve the most ancient of territorial disputes was actually possible as opposed to the existing and foreseeable stalemate.

As fanciful as the whole idea is, it’s still a more worthy consideration than allowing the undemocratic status quo to stand. And equally superior to the idea of hoping against the odds for the morally unjust bonfire of republican values that forced unity of the island would represent.

Flex wrote:

Protestants were the ones who founded Irish republicanism in 1798 and created the Home Government Association in 1872or'73

What happened then is about as relevant to the north’s current plight as the plantations or the wars of Brian Boru. The fact of the matter is that unionists in the north east have consistently argued for a separate homeland for the large part of the past two centuries. That, not previous incarnations, should be foremost in our minds when assigning a historical precedent for their cause. The aspirations and the times in which we live have long since changed from the 18th century.

Since 1798 there have been protestants on the other side. However, those prominent in the campaign for Irish nationhood in the latter part of the 19th century were for the most part from southern Ireland. They were as detached from northern unionists as southern Catholics. Next you’ll be telling me David Trimble and Martin Mansergh are ideological soul mates. Both are protestants, but there the cultural/political outlooks end. Does the Catholic Sir John Gorman’s membership of the Ulster Unionist party indicate a broader trend amongst his co religionists on this island? Of course not, like Parnell he’s the exception that proves the rule.

Hoping that unionists will undergo a road to Damascus conversation and return to the days of 1798 when an entirely different climate existed to today’s is as naïve as it is intellectually corrupt. It is no more morally defensible than the claims of many unionists that northern nationalists will in time forget their goals and resign themselves to life in the UK forever. Such views ignore the sincere wish of both peoples to attain their desired statehood. Hoping that nationalists or unionists will forget who they really are when faced with constitutional dislocation is no better than the deluded theories of false consciousness.

Flex wrote:

if British in Ireland get a partitioned statelet to allow them to maintain a link to Britain should the Irish in Britain not be offered the same,

Yes. A true republican must believe in self-determination for all those groups that feel distinct and separate. Provided such a state could function then I see no problem with areas of England or Scotland voting themselves out of the UK and into the Irish Republic. The question is, however, would they be accepted? If the areas choosing to join the Republic were greater in numbers than the state’s current population the existing citizens would most likely reject their inclusion. Would you be happy if a majority in the Irish Republic lived beyond this island?

The Taiwanese no longer aspire to take back the ‘main land’ as they fear domination by the numbers living on the larger land mass. In the case of Ireland these fears might best be assuaged by invoking the second of my proposals – resettlement. If people here feel – quite possibly irrationally – that the Irish across the water might have divided loyalties then maybe they could be relocated here voluntarily. This might be the solution to the issue you raise. But certainly, real republican principles point to allowing those areas with willing inhabitants - wherever they are – to join the nation of their choosing.

Flex wrote:

I think if a majority of 80% of the people voted consistently for independence it should be allowed and that it shouldnt be subverted,distorted and held to ransom by minorities because they use the threat of violence.That makes a mockery of self-determination and democracy.

I think you’ve misinterpreted my point. What I had alluded to was that tying Scotland and Wales to England against the wishes of their inhabitants would equal a denial of the right to self-determination for northern unionists. Unionists, the Scottish and the Welsh should be granted the right of sovereignty if it is the wish of their people. Why should these distinct groups be bound to the other inhabitants of their respective islands? Have the English an inalienable right to rule the Scots? If not, then why should the Irish Republic be given control over Unionists?

MT

previous post continued

Flex wrote:

Yes why have the ideals of democracy and self-determination for so long been absent from these shores.

The ideals have always been here in my view. The problem is that one large group – northern nationalists – have foregone such rights for most of the past century. And furthermore, a large body of northern unionists would be denied these rights in future if geographic imperialists such as yourself and Sinn Fein had their way.

Flex wrote:

Basically even if the idea of repartition & resettlement was put to a referendum it would fail in my opinion….

I disagree. If the case were properly made alongside the present and possible undemocratic alternatives then it would carry the day. Once people could juxtapose this fair settlement with the tyranny of forcing either aspiring Irish citizens or Unionists into an alien state the choice would be obvious. Clearly, I have a higher opinion of the Irish people than you do. Given the option of granting all on this island self-determination and democracy I’m convinced they would not hesitate in demonstrating their true republican credentials. Not for them the rhetoric of false republicanism espoused by the geographic imperialists of Sinn Fein.

Roisin Dubh

MT I understand what you are saying. However...

Any British state on this island is wrong because of centuries of oppression. Our ancestors would be ashamed of us if we agreed to repartition.

After centuries of extremely brutal oppression, the just outcome is the re-establishment of all-Ireland parliamentary jurisdiction.

The Unionists need to escape the brainwashing of the Orange Order and its hateful ranting. Then they may in time see the light.

If not, I still prefer an Algerian solution, as described earlier.

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Any British state on this island is wrong because of centuries of oppression.

Yeah? What did white man do in America or Australia ? I suppose you will say the land should be given back to the native american indians / aboroginies? And was it really centuries of oppression ? Why were the rebels boood and shouted at for starting the rebellion in Dublin in 1916, when 200,000 Irishmen volunteered and were serving the "oppressors"

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Our ancestors would be ashamed of us if we agreed to repartition.

Would they really? Far more Irish people served in the UK forces than fought against them.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

After centuries of extremely brutal oppression, the just outcome is the re-establishment of all-Ireland parliamentary jurisdiction.

LOL

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The Unionists need to escape the brainwashing of the Orange Order and its hateful ranting. Then they may in time see the light.

I suppose you think the other side is not brainwashed at all ?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

If not, I still prefer an Algerian solution, as described earlier.

Oh , you think Algeria is great? Have you ever been there? Seen the human rights violations ? Looked at their lack of democracy ? Looked at their economy ? And you think the British oppressed us ! LOL. Live in Algeria so.

If we say that the proportion of Protestants in the Republic of Ireland fell from ten percent in 1922 to three percent today, and the proportion of Catholics in Northern Ireland rose from 28 percent in 1922 to 44 percent today. Now which of those figures, in your opinion, offers stronger evidence of ‘religious discrimination’?”

Please answer honestly this time.

true

shltter wrote:

to deny that there was widespread anti catholic feeling in the north is unbelieveable

from this link http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=12566701&p=yz567zyx&n=12567263

"
Even when things were at their worst in the Twenty-six Counties, we have never witnessed anything like the sectarianism of Unionist leaders in the North. For instance, in March 1934 Sir Basil Brooke (who later became the longest serving Prime Minister of Northern Ireland as Lord Brookborough), not only bragged "I have not a Roman Catholic about my own place," but he publicly recommended "those people who are loyalists not to employ Roman Catholics, 99% of whom are disloyal".

Next day, the Prime Minister of the time, Lord Craigavon, pointedly refused to repudiate Brook's remarks. "There is not one of my colleagues who does not entirely agree with him," Craigavon said, "and I would not ask him to withdraw one word he said." Sir John Andrews, who succeeded Craigavon, once denounced a rumour that 28 of the 31 porters at Stormont were Catholic.

"I have investigated and I have found that there are 30 Protestants and only one Roman Catholic, there only temporarily," he said. Such were the sectarian foundations on which Northern Ireland was built.
"

Yes, I do read the examiner on occassion, it is a nationalist newspaper.

No, I did not deny there was some descrimination in the North - everyone knows there was - but many of the catholics I know there would not give as extreme a view as the posters on this board do. How many ordinary protestant civil servants were there in the early and mid twentieth century in the Republic? Was there an incident like the Fethard-on-Sea incident in N. Ireland ? Not all was rosy for everyone in the Republic either.

shltter

true wrote:

Yes, I do read the examiner on occassion, it is a nationalist newspaper.

No, I did not deny there was some descrimination in the North - everyone knows there was - but many of the catholics I know there would not give as extreme a view as the posters on this board do. How many ordinary protestant civil servants were there in the early and mid twentieth century in the Republic? Was there an incident like the Fethard-on-Sea incident in N. Ireland ? Not all was rosy for everyone in the Republic either.

i see selective eyesight as regards my posts

deal with the post on the mayo case you raised

MT

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Any British state on this island is wrong because of centuries of oppression.

I’m sorry but that’s preposterous. Such reasoning places culpability for the actions of past generations upon those alive today. In the 21st century, Unionists in the north bear no responsibility for the plantations whatsoever. And as for the actions of the British government, when has it ever been dominated by unionist representatives from the north. Moreover, prior to the advent of democracy and universal suffrage the actions of the British/English government were beyond the influence of all but a privileged few: a select group that certainly didn’t have poor protestant farmers from Ulster amongst their number.

But even if every single instance of British oppression had been instigated by previous generations of protestants in the north of Ireland, should their descendants born long after the events had passed be penalised? Surely this would amount to a gross act of retrospective retribution imposed upon those with no involvement whatsoever in the happenings of times long past. If an ancestor of yours had committed a crime should you, your children and your children’s children be punished?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Our ancestors would be ashamed of us if we agreed to repartition.

So? Again, your reasoning for solutions to problems in the present depends upon the actions or sentiments of long dead ancestors. How we decide to resolve disputes in the 21st century should not depend upon those who were last alive in a bygone age. Remember, the further back you go the greater the moral climate of the past will differ from the present. Just think of the vast array of beliefs and social mores we have today that would be completely alien to our ancestors. Many in today’s world are atheists – they’d be confused by and ashamed of that; women are deemed to be equal with men – they’d be horrified by that; as for gay rights - they’d be lost for words. There is a near endless list of values held dear in this age that are far removed from those of antiquity.

We cannot be guided exclusively by long extinct sensibilities – their role is limited to that of comparison or a reminder of what we once were. Instead, it is incumbent upon all of us to reach conclusions that are just by today’s standards, not those of the middle ages.

In this age of democracy and republican values – even in ‘constitutional monarchies’ – there is only one just and universal way to grant statehood: self-determination. It was wrong of Britain to deny the Irish people this fundamental right for so long. And it would be equally wrong – never mind woefully hypocritical – for the Irish Republic to withhold that same inalienable human right from northern unionists.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

After centuries of extremely brutal oppression, the just outcome is the re-establishment of all-Ireland parliamentary jurisdiction.

Such a jurisdiction would be a travesty of justice. As a republican I could never support the denial of democracy and self-determination that such a tyranny would involve.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The Unionists need to escape the brainwashing of the Orange Order and its hateful ranting. Then they may in time see the light.

In this day and age the Orange Order is a much reduced influence in the unionist areas of NI. The thing is the unionist identity still appears to be strong in leafy middle class areas where inhabitants would run a mile from the OO. In my view, OO or not, the separate identity of those northerners is real; it should be respected and it isn’t going to disappear. Whether it be unionists on this island, Basques on the Iberian peninsula, Scots or the Welsh in Britain, there will come a time when geographic imperialists have to accept that such minorities have identities that are as real and as irrepressible as their own.

Just think for a moment what you’ve written here. It’s exactly the same sort of sentiment as those expressed by fusty old champions of the British empire in Victorian times when dismissing the Irish quest for home rule. Just replace ‘Unionists’ and the ‘Orange Order’ with the words Irish and Fenians in that sentence above and you’ll see what I mean. As for the second comment, where do I begin? Have you any idea how important identity is – its sense of permanence. Is your Irishness only transient? If not, how can you dismiss the equally valid self-awareness of unionists? As far as they’re concerned – as is the case with every ethnicity – they long ago saw ‘the light’. They are who they are: not a contrived thing of false consciousness. Would you ever ‘see the light’ and lose your Irish identity? I’d certainly hope not.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

If not, I still prefer an Algerian solution, as described earlier.

What? You’d have the entire northern unionist population removed from the island by the threat of force? What you’ve proposed there amounts to nothing less than wholesale ethnic cleansing, or to quote a certain poster, it really would be ‘like the plantations again’. If I were you, having typed such an outrageous statement, I’d think long and hard before again throwing stones at other’s democrat credentials. Geographic imperialism is bad enough but throw in ethnic cleansing to boot and you’re about as far removed from the spirit of republicanism as the long unlamented Genghis Khan.

Roisin Dubh

MT wrote:

I’m sorry but that’s preposterous. Such reasoning places culpability for the actions of past generations upon those alive today. In the 21st century, Unionists in the north bear no responsibility for the plantations whatsoever. And as for the actions of the British government, when has it ever been dominated by unionist representatives from the north. Moreover, prior to the advent of democracy and universal suffrage the actions of the British/English government were beyond the influence of all but a privileged few: a select group that certainly didn’t have poor protestant farmers from Ulster amongst their number.

No. It places responsibility on the British state to right the wrongs it has committed, to the greatest extent reasonable possible. A state is constant whereas people are not.

But even if every single instance of British oppression had been instigated by previous generations of protestants in the north of Ireland, should their descendants born long after the events had passed be penalised? Surely this would amount to a gross act of retrospective retribution imposed upon those with no involvement whatsoever in the happenings of times long past. If an ancestor of yours had committed a crime should you, your children and your children’s children be punished?[/QIPTE]

No but I don't necessarily think that a United Ireland would be "penalising" them. They might be better off economically in it in the long run, and might end up eventually thanking us.

So? Again, your reasoning for solutions to problems in the present depends upon the actions or sentiments of long dead ancestors. How we decide to resolve disputes in the 21st century should not depend upon those who were last alive in a bygone age. Remember, the further back you go the greater the moral climate of the past will differ from the present. Just think of the vast array of beliefs and social mores we have today that would be completely alien to our ancestors. Many in today’s world are atheists – they’d be confused by and ashamed of that; women are deemed to be equal with men – they’d be horrified by that; as for gay rights - they’d be lost for words. There is a near endless list of values held dear in this age that are far removed from those of antiquity.

We cannot be guided exclusively by long extinct sensibilities – their role is limited to that of comparison or a reminder of what we once were. Instead, it is incumbent upon all of us to reach conclusions that are just by today’s standards, not those of the middle ages.

In this age of democracy and republican values – even in ‘constitutional monarchies’ – there is only one just and universal way to grant statehood: self-determination. It was wrong of Britain to deny the Irish people this fundamental right for so long. And it would be equally wrong – never mind woefully hypocritical – for the Irish Republic to withhold that same inalienable human right from northern unionists.

I feel that the Unionists are Irish/Anglo-Irish/Scots-Irish (I was intrigued that Dr.Paisley of all ppl called himself "Scots-Irish" on RTE Radio 1 a few days ago in an interview with Tommy Gorman), rather than "British", although racially they might be mostly British (though some are also descended from Catholics who converted to escape the vile Penal Laws and who even changed their surnames from Gaelic to English-sounding form.

Such a jurisdiction would be a travesty of justice. As a republican I could never support the denial of democracy and self-determination that such a tyranny would involve.

In this day and age the Orange Order is a much reduced influence in the unionist areas of NI. The thing is the unionist identity still appears to be strong in leafy middle class areas where inhabitants would run a mile from the OO. In my view, OO or not, the separate identity of those northerners is real; it should be respected and it isn’t going to disappear. Whether it be unionists on this island, Basques on the Iberian peninsula, Scots or the Welsh in Britain, there will come a time when geographic imperialists have to accept that such minorities have identities that are as real and as irrepressible as their own.

Just think for a moment what you’ve written here. It’s exactly the same sort of sentiment as those expressed by fusty old champions of the British empire in Victorian times when dismissing the Irish quest for home rule. Just replace ‘Unionists’ and the ‘Orange Order’ with the words Irish and Fenians in that sentence above and you’ll see what I mean. As for the second comment, where do I begin? Have you any idea how important identity is – its sense of permanence. Is your Irishness only transient? If not, how can you dismiss the equally valid self-awareness of unionists? As far as they’re concerned – as is the case with every ethnicity – they long ago saw ‘the light’. They are who they are: not a contrived thing of false consciousness. Would you ever ‘see the light’ and lose your Irish identity? I’d certainly hope not.

What? You’d have the entire northern unionist population removed from the island by the threat of force? What you’ve proposed there amounts to nothing less than wholesale ethnic cleansing, or to quote a certain poster, it really would be ‘like the plantations again’. If I were you, having typed such an outrageous statement, I’d think long and hard before again throwing stones at other’s democrat credentials. Geographic imperialism is bad enough but throw in ethnic cleansing to boot and you’re about as far removed from the spirit of republicanism as the long unlamented Genghis Khan.

So if a majority in NI say in 30 years voted for a UI, would you still feel that repartition, rather than a UI, should happen?

true

shltter wrote:

i see selective eyesight as regards my posts

LOL. Good joke, from you of all people.

shltter wrote:

deal with the post on the mayo case you raised

I certainly will provide you with more information, yes.

When a Protestant woman was appointed to a library job in Co.Mayo in 1931, the Bishops protested at "a Protestant being allowed choose what Catholics would read". W.T. Cosgrove initially opposed the bigotry, but then did a deal to transfer her to another library job. Eamonn DeValera supported the bigots.

Source : The Cosgrave Legacy, Stephen Collins, Dublin, 1996.

The lady in question was the centre of a lot of controversy at the time, as she was university educated in Dublin , could speak English and Irish, and DeValera called for her dismissal because she was a Protestant.


Happy ?

Flex

So you find the current situation acceptable? I don’t. By holding out for a UI that might never come you condemn northern nationalists to a wait of at least decades for the statehood they have desired for most of the past century. Furthermore, how can you be certain there will be a majority for unity in tree or four generations?

No i dont find it acceptable.Demographics will provide for a united Ireland if time is allowed.In the event of a majority of NI supporting a UI, what would you then think?

The idea that I propose allows for the people of NI that should never have been separated from the rest of the island’s inhabitants to join the Irish Republic as of now. But why force the others in NI who do see you as foreign into a state they consider alien? How is forcing northern unionists to live in an all island state any more acceptable than current arrangement?

The reason they should live under an Irish government is because they live in Ireland; the land of the Irish.You (correct me if Im wrong) seem to regard this as 2 Irish peoples seeking their own parts of Ireland.Its not.In this divide there are the Irish;who want Ireland to be sovereign,without any outside influence,be its own master and achieve its maximum potential as a free nation of the world; AND there are the British;who want Ireland to be subjecated to Britain,be mastered from London,hold Ireland as a province and keep it from being a nation, and naturally so because theyre British and have more fidelity to that island and that nationality than this island and its people.What you suggest (while I in know way doubt is noble and can admit is more righteous than any other posters opinion) is to allow the British to forever own a piece of this island which I find totally unacceptable , regardless of who lives where.

Nationalists do not want to live in the UK: unionists do not want to live in the Irish Republic. A solution is needed to meet both needs – not one or the other.

Once again Ill point out your argument is very noble, righteous and in a perfect world a perfect solution to a great many problems, yet unfortunately there are people like me, who while agreeing your proposition is good, simply cant come around to that way of thinking because of sentimental attachments to "land", and there are loads like me.Iregard all Ireland as my homeland, I dont know why but I do and everyone I speak to says the same.

What have the views of the inhabitants of Britain got to do with the propriety of northern unionist’s desires for self-determination?

Pointing out the irony or whatever it should be called.

I certainly do not support the aspirations of Irish nationalists for a UI. I am an Irish republican not a geographic imperialist. What I support is the desire of northern nationalists to have themselves and their areas join the Irish republic. I believe in giving them their long overdue self-determination. That’s a far cry from doing the exact opposite to northern unionists and forcing them against their will into a state they wish to remain apart from.

You see, as someone with universal republican ideals and not just for my fellow Irishmen, I believe all the people of this earth are entitled to self-determination and democracy. That goes as much for unionists as it does for nationalists, the Basques, the Chechens, the Quebecois, the Kurds, the Catalonians, the Scottish, the Welsh, the Tibetans and all those peoples who some would have denied the basic human rights enshrined in the tenets of republicanism. Imperialists seeking to deny northern unionists their aspirations for a separate homeland on this island are no better than those who sought to hold Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh for the union. Such mindsets are the complete antithesis of republicanism.

The specific arrangements involved in partitioning the north would require extensive research and an authoritative body to make recommendations to the governments. To best ensure the acceptance and validity of its conclusions membership would have to be drawn from across the political spectrum as well as the two nations involved. Believe me I have no illusions as to how difficult, not to mention controversial, such a task would be. However, as far as I can see partition is the option that offers all involved in this age old dispute more of what they aspire to than the alternatives currently under consideration.

What if no arrangement is accepted upon and we keep going and come to the point were nationalists form a majority, what then?What if unionists reject repartition and a situation arises in the future where Unionists are a minority and nationalists refuse repartition.

The status quo denies northern nationalists their self-determination: in a UI unionists would be equally disadvantaged.

But they dont share any affinity with Ireland, they cherish the fact there ancestors came from Britain to the point they regard themselves aas being just as British.They cant have it both ways, being British (aka from Britain) and wanting to allow Britains borders to spill over into Ireland.Is allowing Britain to own part of Ireland not imperialism.Your proposed ideas could be invoked by peoples throughout the world every 1 or 2 generations, that being the right of all people of a specific race to live under a government composed of other members of their race.It could lead to wars and immense unrest.For example, lets say repartition occurs and a border is drawn.Then 2 generations later a Unionist majority has imerged in the border area of the new RoI (or indeed vice-versa with nationalists in the new UI).They would have the right to demand repartition to expand "their "countrys"" borders to include them.Imagine this happening in places like Germany with borders against lots of other countrys and other races.And the idea of homelands for everyone in the same sense as the Unionists would no doubt experience similar unrest.It would cause havoc.

I can only speculate as to outcome of such investigations but there’d most likely be a two thirds, one third split of NI’s current area. The larger share passing into the Irish Republic – the smaller remaining apart.

Thats what I expected myself, however I think many Unionists with their "not an inch" thoughts would contest that.

There’d be no force involved, it would certainly not be ‘like the plantations again’.

Glad to hear it

As fanciful as the whole idea is, it’s still a more worthy consideration than allowing the undemocratic status quo to stand. And equally superior to the idea of hoping against the odds for the morally unjust bonfire of republican values that forced unity of the island would represent.

The fact of the matter is that unionists in the north east have consistently argued for a separate homeland for the large part of the past two centuries.

Not so, they were quite content to keep the whole island in the UK.Edward Carson ,UUP leader, regarded partition as a defeat because it allowed the south to leave the UK.

The aspirations and the times in which we live have long since changed from the 18th century.

Yes sadly it is.I find it perplexing to think about though.2 centuries ago Protestants and Catholics could set aside religion at a time when religion was extremely important/influential, yet we never could achieve it since.

Yes. A true republican must believe in self-determination for all those groups that feel distinct and separate. Provided such a state could function then I see no problem with areas of England or Scotland voting themselves out of the UK and into the Irish Republic. The question is, however, would they be accepted? If the areas choosing to join the Republic were greater in numbers than the state’s current population the existing citizens would most likely reject their inclusion. Would you be happy if a majority in the Irish Republic lived beyond this island?

Actually youve caught me totally by surprise with that statement.I was saying it to try flaw your idea.However, since you asked, I wouldnt see a problem with a majortiy of the Irish Republic living outside Ireland, but I wouldnt go through with it because partitioning one country to accomadate your own would lead to bad relations.However, the simple fact it would give Britain a taste of what its like to be partitioned is tempting :rolleyes:

The Taiwanese no longer aspire to take back the ‘main land’ as they fear domination by the numbers living on the larger land mass. In the case of Ireland these fears might best be assuaged by invoking the second of my proposals – resettlement. If people here feel – quite possibly irrationally – that the Irish across the water might have divided loyalties then maybe they could be relocated here voluntarily. This might be the solution to the issue you raise. But certainly, real republican principles point to allowing those areas with willing inhabitants - wherever they are – to join the nation of their choosing.

Relocation is another good suggestion.The Unionists regard themselves aas British, but mainly Scots.So....why not relocate these Scots in Scotland?The Scottish parliament would probably be delighted because as of late the Scottish population has ceased growing, so an influx of 950,000 ethnic Scots could be a major boost to Scotland, allow Ireland to be united, allow Britain to leave peacefully and allow the Unionists to be British and never fear an Irish nation.

Sand

Dreams of people in NI voting themselves into a state that cant economically support them to the same extent as the British treasury, that people in the Republic would vote for far higher taxation and the prospect of loyalists "doing an IRA" and bombing their way to the negotiation table for repartition, dreams that nations are defined by geography rather than by cultural groups sense of themselves, relocation to solve the loyalist problem.

Jesus H Christ - the ban on SF/IRA being interviewed has led to an insularity that actually brought about bat**** crazy looney pipedreams being discussed seriously by SF/IRA fanbois!!!

sceptre

Flex wrote:

How about an equally nasty comment from me.

How about you (as well as everyone else) leave out the nasty comments totally, report the post if you reckon it's over the line of personal abuse or else keep schtum rather than adding muck to the rock before throwing it back? Hmm? Replies to this post from me may be made by private message to me. Keep in mind that the moderators don't care who reckoned who started it. Report it (solely) or lose your right to complain about it.

shltter

true wrote:

LOL. Good joke, from you of all people.



I certainly will provide you with more information, yes.

When a Protestant woman was appointed to a library job in Co.Mayo in 1931, the Bishops protested at "a Protestant being allowed choose what Catholics would read". W.T. Cosgrove initially opposed the bigotry, but then did a deal to transfer her to another library job. Eamonn DeValera supported the bigots.

Source : The Cosgrave Legacy, Stephen Collins, Dublin, 1996.

The lady in question was the centre of a lot of controversy at the time, as she was university educated in Dublin , could speak English and Irish, and DeValera called for her dismissal because she was a Protestant.


Happy ?

as much as i hate to disagree with you none of your answer corresponds with your original allegation

can you back up your claim that the woman could speak irish i have copied and pasted from dail debates which took place only months after the event
also dev and the bishops only got involved after the council had refused to appoint the woman not before it

dev never called for her dismissal because she was a protestant



http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0039/D.0039.193106170023.html

A certain advertisement was issued by the Local Appointments Commissioners. I am speaking from recollection, as I have not the necessary data at hand, but I am sure that the Minister will be in a position to put me right. The advertisement stipulated that a competent knowledge of Irish was necessary for the position. The resolution refusing to appoint Miss Dunbar as librarian was passed first by the Library Committee. It dealt only with her knowledge of Irish. That resolution subsequently came before the County Council, and was ratified by that body. The resolution dealt with one question only, and that was that Miss Dunbar did not possess a competent knowledge of Irish.

422

In this matter it is well that I should try to anticipate the Minister. I am aware that at a certain stage a query was sent down to the executive officer of the Mayo Co. Council, namely the Secretary, and that query was: “Do you consider that a competent knowledge of Irish is necessary?” The Secretary's answer to that question was “No.” .....................................................................................

...............................................
Deputy Davis, I think, is not correct in stating that a competent knowledge of Irish was essential. As far as I recollect it was stated in the advertisement that a substantial preference would be given to a person with a knowledge of Irish. The parties responsible for making this appointment, and the Minister himself at any rate, were aware that Mayo was scheduled as a Gaeltacht county. The Minister knew that it was impossible for any librarian to conduct the business properly as librarian in Mayo unless he or she had a competent knowledge of Irish. He knew that in Mayo there was a number of people [425] who were Irish speakers. He knew that the librarian would have to transact a considerable part of the business in Irish, and that he or she would have to deal with communications in Irish, and yet the person appointed was a person who had not that knowledge. Still, we find the Mayo County Council abolished because they would not appoint a person without a knowledge of Irish.

true

shltter wrote:

as much as i hate to disagree with you none of your answer corresponds with your original allegation

can you back up your claim that the woman could speak irish i have copied and pasted from dail debates which took place only months after the event
also dev and the bishops only got involved after the council had refused to appoint the woman not before it

dev never called for her dismissal because she was a protestant

Certainly. There are hundreds of pages of controversy on it, but following are some interesting extracts. She was Trinity college educated with leaving cert ( only ) Irish.
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0039/D.0039.193106170023.html
Dáil Éireann - Volume 39 - 17 June, 1931

Orders of the Day. - Local Government Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

General Mulcahy General Mulcahy



Nobody [515] can defend the Mayo appointment.


Mr. de Valera: If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle, introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I would vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so. So does the Minister for Local Government, and so does every Catholic Deputy in this House. They know, if they have been instructed in the matter at all, that the guardianship of education has been jealously looked after, so far as Catholics are concerned.

If they are raising it, it is because everybody knows that at the moment of death Catholics are particularly anxious that their people should be attended by Catholic doctors. I say that if I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic. Let us be clear and let us know where we are.

518
I say the people of Mayo, in a county where, I think—I forget the figures—over 98 per cent. of the population is Catholic, are justified in insisting upon a Catholic librarian. That is what the system of Local Appointment Commission brings about. It brings about a situation like that in which the Minister will put up his hands and say, “What can I do? The law is there and I have got to enforce it.” That is not an excuse, because the Minister, and the Ministry, voted against the principle of allowing these appointments to be made by the people at large, by the people who have the best right to make them, the people who are going to be served by the officers appointed.

I hope that every Deputy in the House knows how we stand in regard to this matter. We stand for the recognition of the right of the Catholic majority to have the doctors they require—doctors of their own faith—at the moment of death, at childbirth, or on other occasions. It is a fundamental teaching, a fundamental matter for Catholics. Every Catholic Deputy in the House knows I am speaking the truth, and that there can be no suggestion whatever that this was introduced at this particular time simply to discriminate against the minority or to inflict any hardship on them. I, for one, have no hesitation in saying that I definitely believe that the people of Mayo have a right to resist [520] this as an unjust and unfair law against them on a vital matter.


It was also said in the dail by anoher deputy ( quote ):
There is no use shirking the issue and trying to get behind the doors. The most deplorable parts of the debate to-day were the speeches of Deputies Ruttledge, Walsh, Clery and O'Kelly. There is plenty of material to damn the Minister, and to crucify him fifteen times over, without introducing any other aspect. It is a deplorable fact that we had it stated by Deputy Clery that the Government should give a National and a Catholic lead; by Deputy O'Kelly that a Catholic should be appointed; while Deputy Walsh went on in an ominous strain that I did not like. Probably I find myself in disagreement with all the members on the opposite side of the House. I have experience of the working of a county library committee much larger and—if I may say so with some pride—one that is run more efficiently, than any scheme in any other part of this State. We found that the question as to whether a librarian was a Protestant, [525] a Catholic, an Atheist or a Jew did not enter into the matter at all. When Deputy Ruttledge stated that the religious views of the librarian might be reflected in the books circulated he was absolutely misinformed in regard to the actual working of a county library committee.

There is no reason why the religious aspect should enter into the matter at all. There is no reason why Miss Dunbar should not be appointed librarian in Mayo, or in any other county in this State. As was proved last week in Cork county committees have absolute power, and if a librarian of a different religious persuasion to the majority of the people in a county takes service there, there is no reason why the county committee could not do as they did in Cork, where a member objected to a book that was in circulation and had the matter remedied at once. If a librarian were of a different religious persuasion to the majority, from a purely materialistic point of view that librarian would do nothing that would come into conflict with the views of the majority. I think it is deplorable that this issue has been introduced, and it is deplorable that there should be any question of an appointment being made purely and simply because of that fact. I heard to-day—and it is a regrettable thing—the most deplorable playing to the gallery that I ever heard in any debate in this House, except on the Liquor Bill. Deputies have quoted statements ad lib that had nothing to do with the matter, and played up to the statements made by different clergymen in the area. Whether I am alone or not, I speak the truth when I say it, that were it not for the other factors in the appointment of Miss Dunbar I would congratulate the Department of Local Government on achieving one thing. If it were not for the other matter, they certainly did achieve one thing which aroused my admiration, of which I make public profession, and that is whether for a good reason or a bad reason, idealistic, materialistic or political, they stood up to a conspiracy and beat it.

Mr. O'Kelly: These ecclesiastical authorities in County Mayo, responsible men who know what they are speaking about, decided that the position of librarian is an educational position, and that decision having been come to, they were decidedly in their rights in demanding that a Catholic be appointed to that position. As Dean D'Alton said in his speech proposing the resolution against the adoption of the Minister's orders:

482

“We are not appointing a washerwoman or a mechanic, but an educated girl who ought to know what books to put in the hands of Catholic boys and girls of this county. The views of Catholics and Protestants [482] of late years on such subjects as birth control and divorce are at variance.... Supposing there were books attacking these fundamental truths of Catholicity, is it safe to entrust a girl who is not a Catholic and is not in sympathy with Catholic views with their handling? Is it fair to put that girl in charge of the county library? It is true that we have a library committee, but it is absurd to expect that we can attend all the meetings, and even if we could we could not possibly exercise an adequate supervision over the selection of books. Most of that work must be done by the librarian. There are 15,000 books here."

I have heard more than one person say in connection with this discussion about the appointment of a county librarian in Mayo that the duty of selecting the books and the responsibility for the books rested with the committee. That is so. It is the committee's responsibility finally, but, as the Archdeacon says here, the library committee cannot take upon themselves the duty of reading every book that is to go into any one of the 112 libraries all over the County Mayo. And it is only natural that they should get to work to get an official who is a whole-time officer and who would relieve them, to a certain extent, of their responsibility in that matter. That aspect of the matter was dealt with by the Right Rev. Chancellor Hegarty in his speech where he said that:

“The capability of the library committee was limited by time and other circumstances, and they would be compelled to rely absolutely upon the librarian's judgment for information as to the character of many books. If they ask her about a particular book: `Is that a proper book to place in the hands of the people of Mayo?' she, acting in all good faith, might recommend it as an excellent book though it was against the tenets of their beliefs. In making, or endeavouring to make, this appointment, the Minister was not acting for the good of the community."

483

That is the considered opinion of two [483] responsible men who probably have not sat on a library committee for the first time, who have some experience, and it is the opinion of men above all, so far as I know—I do not know anything about the Right Rev. Chancellor Hegarty, but I do about Monsignor D'Alton, and I have reason to believe that he is a loyal supporter of the Free State and not one who would rise up in the fashion that he has done against this appointment in the County Mayo without very good reason.