[Article] Quarter of NI Catholics back British status

MT

Quarter of NI Catholics back British status
Liam Clarke

NEARLY a quarter of Catholics in Northern Ireland would rather keep the link with Britain than live in a united Ireland, according to new research.

By comparison, only 5% of Protestants surveyed by Queen’s University and the University of Ulster said they favoured Irish unity.

The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey was conducted for Ark, the Northern Ireland Social and Political Archive, a joint project by the province’s two universities, between October last year and February this year. Some 1,800 people were interviewed in their homes.

The poll showed increasing optimism about community relations and the economic future, despite a long-running political impasse. It suggests that racial discrimination is now viewed as more of a problem than religious bias in the workplace.

Professor Gillian Robinson, the director of Ark, said that the findings on Catholics wanting to remain in the UK seemed to represent a long-term preference.

Reg Empey, one of the leadership contenders for the Ulster Unionist party, said: “We have been aware for a long time that there is a large group of people who describe themselves as Catholic but are not wholly nationalist. There are shades of orange and shades of green blending into each other at the margins.We have got to get out and market our core principle of unionism to new audiences.”

The survey suggests that group or sectarian loyalty is still a strong factor in Northern Ireland. Some 85% of people said they belonged to a church but only 67% (83% of Catholics and 63% of Protestants) considered themselves to be Christians. Only 64% believed there was a God who cared about individual people.

A very high proportion of married respondents, 89%, said their spouse was the same religion as they were. Nearly as many, 82%, felt that “religion will always make a difference to the way people feel about each other in Northern Ireland”.

Only 7% of people felt that relations between Catholics and Protestants had worsened in the past five years, while most (56%) felt that they had improved. Similarly, a majority believed that Catholic/Protestant relations would be even better in five years’ time and 61% said they would prefer to send their children to a mixed-religion school. Despite a history of intimidation, 80% said they would prefer to live in a mixed area than one where people were all of their own religion. In the case of housing, Catholics were marginally more enthusiastic about integration (83%) than Protestants (76%).

The take on the support of political parties differs markedly from the recent election results. It makes the UUP the largest party at 21% but it got only 17.5% of the recent vote. The survey puts the DUP on 16%, whereas it got 33.7% on polling day. The SDLP’s support was broadly accurate at 17% but Sinn Fein, which got 24.3% in the election, was given only 9% in the survey.

A number of factors may explain the discrepancy. Robinson points out that people are generally reluctant to admit to a stranger who they vote for. She added: “Other areas where a proportion of people may not answer accurately are sexual orientation and income.”

The survey covered the views of people who did not vote as well as those who did.

Within the figures, support for Sinn Fein was far higher (20%) in the 18 to 24 age group, a worrying trend for the SDLP, which was supported by just 12% of young people.

On the whole, those polled felt disempowered, with 61% believing that “people like me have no say in what the government does”, and 57% feeling “there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor”.

This cynicism continued when it came to the question of a South African-style Truth and Reconciliation commission to examine the killings in the Troubles, with only 6% of people saying it would get at the truth.

The survey showed Northern Ireland people to be relatively conservative when it comes to sexual matters, with 63% believing that homosexual relations between adults were wrong and 42% feeling that sex before marriage was wrong.

Only 1% said they were homosexual and none admitted to being lesbian.

This is from the Sunday Times, a week ago. I found the results reported here interesting for a number of reasons but most of all the figures relating to the constitutional question.

MT

It seems from these that the prospect of a united Ireland is very distant and unlikely to ever materialise. A clear majority there wish to see the North remain within the UK. Now, as there is a near mind numbing consensus amongst the political class in the Republic that a UI is a desirable objective these figures have likely induced a feeling of gloom. Indeed, throughout the electorate as a whole such news would likely be greeted with a measure of despair as again a UI is seen not merely as a good thing but also as some sort of national objective.

Indeed, the atmosphere as a whole in Irish politics often strikes me as one that’s labouring under a sort of lack of national fulfilment. That the very nation the parties desire to govern will only ever be some sort of half finished, stop-gap measure until the great day of Irish unity arrives. Or in the words of one Republican I once spoke to, ‘…we are and we’ll remain nothing more than a pathetic bunch until the national goal is achieved and we get the north.’ This is obviously why Sinn Fein feels it can frequently upbraid the ‘sell-outs’ in the Dail for not doing enough to ‘get the north.’

I, on the other hand, at odds with the national aspiration to be more than a bit of a country in search of a fourth green field, see such a survey as a cause for celebration and not sorrow. If a clear majority in Northern Ireland’s failed and undemocratic society wishes not to pollute the successful Irish Republic with its warped values, I would tend to breath a sigh of relief and not moan along with some Republicans about British imperialism and false consciousness. Keeping the North at bay will help shield Ireland’s only functioning democracy. If northerners are prepared to acquiesce in their own quarantine from the rest of the island, all well and good.

But there’s another reason why I welcome these results. And that’s the profound damage to democracy and good governance a lack of constitutional stability can have. We’ve all read how wars over border disputes and tribal overlap have so retarded economic development and the prospects of good governance in Africa. Russia’s backwardness over many centuries was also attributed to a tsarist fear of disintegration of the distant empire. Their answer was endless centralisation and rule by absolutist tyranny resulting in stagnation and poverty. In contrast, nations with stable boundaries and constitutional security have for the most part allowed good governance and economic progress to flourish without restraint. Indeed, is there any country that has achieved and maintained a high standard of living for its people without the security of a stable nation state?

In this vein I also believe that the goal of island wide unity in Irish politics does nothing but harm. In what other successful country does the need to extend the national territory vie in importance amongst the political class with the needs of the nation as it already exists. Can you imagine if Australians elected governments not merely to govern Oz but to get New Zealand as well? And then, if they did bring them the Kiwis, poor governance would be over looked. Because, funnily enough, that’s the rather weird path Ireland’s democracy has chosen to take. I doubt the collapse of the health service in the run up to the next election would keep Bertie Ahern out of office if voters genuinely thought he could achieve a united Ireland in a third term.

There are many other areas where this national goal of constitutional change creates a somewhat surreal and corrosive political climate. It allows certain elements in Irish society to deride the state as little more than an unloved compromise falling far short of the promised land. Like my aforementioned Republican, the ‘Free State’ seems to conjure up feelings of disgust not respect. Would a Frenchman castigate the French state until it gets Belgian as De Gaule once mused. Surely an essential ingredient that encourages good governance is a respect for the integrity of the nation as it is. Not on some vague and idealised republic of the distant future.

I’ve always wondered if the strong desire for unity with the north on the part of Ireland’s politicians may have facilitated an atmosphere where corruption could take route. It might sound ludicrous but could an almost subconscious dissatisfaction with the ‘Free State’ have fostered a disrespect for its institutions thereby rationalising their abuse. Charles Haughey is a case in point. He was so obsessed with ‘getting the North’ that he once offered to hand over control of the ports to the British in exchange for the ‘hallowed’ territory – a damning example of potentially terrible governance in pursuit of the national goal. But did failure to attain an all-Ireland nirvana foster in the former Taoiseach a contempt for the offices and institutions of a country that he must surely have viewed as merely second to his vision of what Ireland should be. It could be a long shot, but would a fixation on another, imagined Ireland have allowed Haughey to behave with utter contempt towards the one he was actually elected to govern.

Then there’s the damage done to the standing of the Irish Republic, without and within, by attempting to forever pander to the sensibilities of unionists in the hope that they might have a change of heart. Does no one find this beneath the status of what should be a proud and confident democracy? I’ve always assumed this is why so little is made of the country’s achievement of independence. Wouldn’t do to upset the Brits and the Unionist’s and commemorate an event most other countries take for granted. No, no, hush the whole thing up or they’ll never concede to unity. Then there’s the North’s Republicans and the ones down south that couldn’t give a fig about the ‘Free State’. A celebration of the south’s independence would infuriate them, after all it’s only a partitionist’s rump in their eyes, hence the offence in years past at political parties in the Dail making use of the tricolour. So to keep them happy, Easter week gets major billing instead, thus reinforcing the idea that the Irish Republic is still only a crappy compromise in the eyes of many.

Then there’s the utter distraction of successive governments expending an extraordinary amount of valuable energy attempting to appease both child-like factions in the North. True enough, this has in part been to facilitate the noble aims of peace and harmony but there must also be some element of the old national goal niggling away too. A thought in the back of a Taoiseach or foreign minister’s mind that if we’re nice enough and can get the tribes to agree, maybe they’ll accept a united Ireland. I think such logic is hogwash. Why unearth should the political class of an advanced nation fret over the wims and future intentions of rabid unionists. Indeed, if both the North’s communities were told where to shove their squabbles wouldn’t a large part of the problem solve itself? Unionists could drop the insecure raving about a slippery slop to some deluded image of a Vatican controlled all-Ireland state. Republican’s would no longer be able to chastise the leader of one of Europe’s most successful countries for ‘not doing enough for unity’. Might the two feuding sects compromise a great deal more if they realised they’d be stuck with each other in the North indefinitely?

In my view there are countless other reasons to forget about the North, not least the peculiar relationship it fosters between Ireland and Britain or the fetish for a federal Europe, but that’s for a later post. However, the fundamental question posed by Ireland’s constitutional issue, in my mind at least, is whether a nation should be content and secure within the borders it has, seeking to govern that space as well as it possibly can, or should it maintain an illusive quest for an idealised future played out in a different, supposedly greater form? Should Ireland govern for the reality or a distant dream? Oh, and if you doubt the later still holds sway, just ask yourself how well any major party would do in the forthcoming election if they announced a major policy change on NI – that unity would no longer be a goal of office.

gurramok

Surveys up there indicate nothing realistic and can be wide of the mark.
The article even mentions their survey results of political allegiances which are way off the mark with the actual electoral results.

Only realistic indication of the views of the people are elections and referendums.IMHO

gurramok

gurramok wrote:

Surveys up there indicate nothing realistic and can be wide of the mark.
The article even mentions their survey results of political allegiances which are way off the mark with the actual electoral results.

Only realistic indication of the views of the people are elections and referendums.IMHO

I'd agree, polls in the North are notoriously bad for being either inaccurate usually or skewed.

No lesbians in NI-pffttt who'd believe that

Sand

Reg Empey, one of the leadership contenders for the Ulster Unionist party, said: “We have been aware for a long time that there is a large group of people who describe themselves as Catholic but are not wholly nationalist. There are shades of orange and shades of green blending into each other at the margins.We have got to get out and market our core principle of unionism to new audiences.”

I think thats a pretty good summing up - we do know that a good chunk of the Catholic population are content within the UK once their concerns are addressed - and the majority have been. We also know that the Protestant population almost totally remains unconvinced of their happiness within a United Ireland by SFIRAs gentle persuasion and reasoned debate over the past 30 odd years.

The poll obviously cant tell us exact percentages, but it bears out generally what was already known/suspected. There was another survey done recently "Through Irish Eyes" which dealt with the Irish and British view of each other - it was again encouraging that a United Ireland or Northern Ireland wasnt important to young people as far as I remember. With a bit of luck, in 20 years time it wont even be mentioned.

The one thing thats encouraging from Reg Empeys comments is that hes not under any illusion that the UUP can win back its dominance through being the uber-DUP. If the UUP can somehow encourage Catholic voters to come out and support them in "unionist" constituencies over the DUP, then there might be a way back for them. Obviously, thats a long term project given the historical baggage associated with the UUP and the difficulty voters seem to have crossing the sectarian divide in their voting, but its something that has to be aimed for if the North is ever to know peace. The sectarian nature of the institutions as they stand cant be viewed as long term.

And its one place where the moderates hold an advantage over the DUP and SFIRA - especially after SFIRAs denouncement of the SDLP for winning protestant votes; the traitors! - who will likely never be able to present themselves as a non-sectarian group, whatever about the token prod or the token papist.

The article even mentions their survey results of political allegiances which are way off the mark with the actual electoral results.

We have to allow that voting for SFIRA is a shameful to admit in public.

ISAW

gurramok wrote:

Surveys up there indicate nothing realistic and can be wide of the mark.

So say you. I happen to think they are valid.

The article even mentions their survey results of political allegiances which are way off the mark with the actual electoral results.

Only realistic indication of the views of the people are elections and referendums.IMHO

So we should have no advertising industry, no attitude surveys, no public opinion, no politics board since only one opinion matters i.e. those who get a majority in an election? The minority and any of the majority who dont accept the rule of the majority of that majority can stuff themselves? Sort of "A larger party of a majority of the 40 odd percent turnout in the majority of Ulster counties says NO!" Isn't that what caused the problem?


From the 2004 survey[numbers are percentages]:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2004/Political_Attitudes/FUTURE1.html
If the majority of people in Northern Ireland ever voted to become part of a United Ireland do you think you …

...would find this almost impossible to accept 11
...would not like it, but could live with it if you had to 46
Or, would happily accept the wishes of the majority? 40
(Don't know) 3

Thats 86 per cent happy to go along with a United Ireland.

Same question 2002:
Would find this almost impossible to accept 19
Would not like it, but could live with it 35
Or, would happily accept the wishes of the majority 42
(Don't know) 5

Thats 77 percent! A whole lot more people could live with a United Ireland!

Here is another from 2002
At any time in the next 20 years, do you think it is likely or unlikely that there will be a United Ireland?

Very likely 7
Quite likely 24
Quite unlikely 21
Very unlikely 31
(Even chance) 7
(Don't know) 10
and 2004?
Among the Unionists it would seem the older ones are the hard liners whereas the Republicans seem to have recruited new young blood.

(age groups) 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
[mumbers are percentages of that age group]
...to remain part of the United Kingdom 47 52 57 57 63 71
Or, to reunify with the rest of Ireland? 21 18 23 26 23 18
(Independent state) 22 20 11 6 6 3
Other (specify) 0 3 2 4 3 1
(Don't know) 9 7 7 7 5 7
So while 71 percent of Unionists over sixty five want to stay in the UK only 47 per cent of the teen/twenty somethings do! The older hard liners are going to die before the younger ones who are not now growing up with constant killings.

This has changed since 2002 with more people shifting from don't knows to committed positions.

CaptainPeacock

The survey was conducted in institutions (2 Universities - Oh the diversity!) only, and could be expected to be skewed.

An MRBI poll a few months ago put the % of Catholics against unity higher than the % of Protestants for unity. I forget by how much; maybe 10% or something.

ISAW

CaptainPeacock wrote:

The survey was conducted in institutions (2 Universities - Oh the diversity!) only, and could be expected to be skewed.

Lol! It was conducted by universities not based on the people who work and study there as you claim. I think you should back up your claim as to where the skewing is. Care to do so? As I see it the survey is statistically valid and used sound procedures.

As to diversity:
Age of respondent (in age categories)
%
18-24 15
25-34 12
35-44 20
45-54 18
55-64 18
65+ 18
Marital status of respondent %

Single (never married) 26
Married 56
Living as married 5
Separated 4
Divorced 3
Widowed 7


Now if you like you can go off and attempt to show me how that does not fit with the demographic pattern in the N Ireland Census and is not representative of the population it is attempting to measure. I think you will find that it is representative. I believe academics usually check these things but if you think there is some "skewing" I would love you to point it out. If you dont produce any evidence to support you "skewing" opinion then will you accept that the survey is valid?

There are 48 other indicators as to the background of the respondents you can find them here:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2004/Background/index.html

Skewed? I think not!

An MRBI poll a few months ago put the % of Catholics against unity higher than the % of Protestants for unity. I forget by how much; maybe 10% or something.

Then please go off to to MRBI and find out or dont post it! If you do I will ask you "how do you know"? Oh I just did!:)
Anyway even supposing your above claim is correct so what if there was 1% of Protestants for Unity and 11% of Catholics happy with the status quo?

m1ke

I find it very good news that so many people that are just lumped in as nationalists because they're Catholic actually see the benefit of participation in the UK. The UK can offer them just as much as a UI can. Either way, there's going to be no UI so they're just being sensible and choosing to work with what they have rather then resist it.

Villain

Just because someone is Catholic doesn't mean their a nationalist and vice versa with protestants and Unionists.

Sinn Fein, which got 24.3% in the election, was given only 9% in the survey

Seems a very big difference between the survey and the last election.

Only 1% said they were homosexual and none admitted to being lesbian.

:eek:

I would take these results with a pinch of salt, a big pinch.

ISAW

CaptainPeacock wrote:

The survey was conducted in institutions (2 Universities - Oh the diversity!) only, and could be expected to be skewed.

I cant find the reply I thought I sent yesterday but...


No it was not! It was conducted by them not in them. there are about 50 demographic indicators. You can look them up and show how they differ from the census breakdown for example.
If you can show which one was skewed then please do so. If you can poet any evidence of your expectations then please do so.

An MRBI poll a few months ago put the % of Catholics against unity higher than the % of Protestants for unity. I forget by how much; maybe 10% or something.

What MRBI poll? where is it?

ISAW

irish1 wrote:

Just because someone is Catholic doesn't mean their a nationalist and vice versa with protestants and Unionists.

It does correlate to a high degree however.

Seems a very big difference between the survey and the last election.

A reference to SF getting 9% in the survey and over 23 in the last election.

First one would have to look at whether SF got as high in the Euro westminster Assembly elections.

Given that their vote was high one could look at that question:


Which Northern Ireland political party would you support?
%
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) 21
Social Democratic & Labour Party (SDLP) 17
Democratic Unionist Party (DUO) 16
Alliance Party 5
Sinn Fein 9
Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) 0
Women's Coalition 1
Other party (specify) 1
(None) 26
Other answer (specify) 3
(Don't know) 1

I would take these results with a pinch of salt, a big pinch.

they are valid. Do not forget they were taken in 2004. DUP and SF did get somewhat of a surge. But I admit the disparty is not explained with that. But look at the 26 per cent who do not support any party. Remember this survey too results from all the electorate (actually? also from underage who cant legally vote) and not just those who vote. It is possible that many of the "dont care/wont vote" went out and voted for SF. this suggests SF attracted new votes. Well that was borne out in the southern elections also. SF have pulled some non traditional middle class votes.

the survey is still valid!

county

well made point but political landscape as changed so much in the last two years,not for the better in my opinion

Villain

ISAW wrote:

It does correlate to a high degree however.

But how high?

ISAW wrote:

A reference to SF getting 9% in the survey and over 23 in the last election.

First one would have to look at whether SF got as high in the Euro westminster Assembly elections.

Given that their vote was high one could look at that question:


they are valid. Do not forget they were taken in 2004. DUP and SF did get somewhat of a surge. But I admit the disparty is not explained with that. But look at the 26 per cent who do not support any party. Remember this survey too results from all the electorate (actually? also from underage who cant legally vote) and not just those who vote. It is possible that many of the "dont care/wont vote" went out and voted for SF. this suggests SF attracted new votes. Well that was borne out in the southern elections also. SF have pulled some non traditional middle class votes.

the survey is still valid!

In relation to your point about underage people, the results by age brackets start at 18????

As for, it is possible that the "dont care/wont vote" went out and voted for SF, well that is possible but I'd say it's more possible than the survey is flawed.

ISAW

Originally Posted by ISAW
It does correlate to a high degree however.

irish1 wrote:

But how high?

more than two standard deviations? High enough to be significant at the five percent level and at the 3 percent and even one percent?

Put it this way go and look at the N ireland census figures and compare the religious affiliations to the map here:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/

Indeed skip the actual data and compare it with this map:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/maps/map12.htm

In relation to your point about underage people, the results by age brackets start at 18????

thats why I put in the question mark. It seems I did not support that enough. So, I withdraw the counter claim in relation to under eighteens. are you going to withdraw anything you didnt support?

As for, it is possible that the "dont care/wont vote" went out and voted for SF, well that is possible but I'd say it's more possible than the survey is flawed.

No it isn't! you haven't shown a single flaw inthe survey. It is done every two years. I have posted the references to it. Go and look at it and if and when you find a flaw come back and post it here. Otherwise do not claim that it must be wrong when you can not support your claim.

Mighty_Mouse

Sinn Fein's mandate is the one which is supported in the north by the majority of catholics.
Its a situation which is not likely to change in the near future. Therefore the majority of nationalists are support the ideal of a united ireland

ISAW

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Sinn Fein's mandate is the one which is supported in the north by the majority of catholics.
Its a situation which is not likely to change in the near future. Therefore the majority of nationalists are support the ideal of a united ireland

This is a bit of a self defeating argument. If "nationalist" means wanting one 32 county nation and if only a majority of nationalists are "nationalist" it would tend to suggest a shift away from nationalism. I would add that SF are now a significant political group. When they spouted in the past about a "mandate" they had scarcely 5 per cent of the vote nationally. Now they may be close to 8 or 9 per cent. The questions really then are:
"If Ireland had a referendum in the South tomorrow on a United Ireland would there be a YES vote.?"

"ditto for the North"

To question one I think that in spite of SF asking people to vote NO to almost everything the result would be a big YES.

To question two, I suggest it would be a NO but not by much. The question then is whether Unionists would change their mind (most probably not) or where else will the votes come from the make it a YES. The traditional answer is that Unionists die off and Nationalists have larger families but this thread suggests it is not so simple.
I suggest that while the proportion of the vote for extremists has increased, so has the dissaffected.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

I suggest that while the proportion of the vote for extremists has increased, so has the dissaffected.

Here is something fromthe same site as the survey which goes some way to answering that question:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/sol/surveys/community_relations/time_series/CRencyidentity.htm#table1
It outlines:
% describing themselves as British
% describing themselves as Irish
% describing themselves as Ulster
% describing themselves as Northern Irish
% think of self as unionist
% think of self as nationalist
% think of self as neither unionist nor nationalist
% who feel 'not at all' British
% who feel 'not at all' Irish
% who feel 'not at all' Northern Irish
% who feel 'not at all' Ulster
% feeling 'very close' to people living in Scotland
% feeling 'very close' to people living in England
% feeling 'very close' to people living in the Republic of Ireland
% feeling 'very close' to Europeans in general
% who would say they were' Irish' (when in Spain)
% who would say they were 'Irish' (when in England)
% who would say they were 'Irish' (when in the Republic of Ireland)

What a great site! Their CAIN archive is great as well. I have used their database of deaths before to point to the high degree of secterianism among loyalist paramilitaries whereas the IRA do not discriminate on religion to such an extent. Excluding British military who I would think are mostly Protestant one might expect the IRA targeted Protestants. But they death rate is close to fifty fifty as compared to a very percentage of Catholics targeted by the Loyalists. I think this is important because the reasons for violence are different which in turn requires different strategies in removing those reasons.

Villain

ISAW wrote:

thats why I put in the question mark. It seems I did not support that enough. So, I withdraw the counter claim in relation to under eighteens. are you going to withdraw anything you didnt support?

No it isn't! you haven't shown a single flaw inthe survey. It is done every two years. I have posted the references to it. Go and look at it and if and when you find a flaw come back and post it here. Otherwise do not claim that it must be wrong when you can not support your claim.

All I have done is offer an opinion based on the stats available, the survey was carried out between October 2004 and February 2005 with 1800 surveys completed and the results state that Sinn Fein was supported by 9% of the 1800 people surveyed now compare that with the 23.2% of votes that SF got in the Local elections with 63.5% turnout only 3 months after this survey had finished. Also look at percentage of people who were homosexual, less than 1%, .055% to be exact! I think that would be well below the average in any country, but i don't have time to start digging up facts but feel free to show otherwise.

murphaph

It's great news to me. I actually believe sectarianism in Western Scotland might be around long after it's gone (or greatly diminished) in the north. The reason is simple-NI experienced ~3000 deaths due to it. Western Scotland has suffered only a handful.

I wouldn't be so sure that a referendum on a UI would pass with flying colours (though it would still pass) down here. I'd vote no to a UI.

It'd likely cost an arm and a leg to fund the services that NI citizens are used to. They'd probably vote NO up there when they really thought hard about how much there is to lose (nearly all those government jobs would be gone).

It's handy having Newry for the UK prices too. Sainsbury's is well cheap and B&Q is as well.

Flex

Once again MT, excellent post.

If 25% of catholics supported the union, along with nearly all protestants, then unionist parties would win 65% or so of the seats in elections, which they do not.They usually win 50-55% of the seat, which is fairly accurate since protestants only account for 53% of NI. Im anti partitionist-want a UI(which so many people seem to take issue with ), however if a majority of the irish people in NI chose to remain in the UK Id accept there wish, i never see that happening though. In a few more generations catholics will more than likely outnumber protestants, and given the fact most catholics are nationalists......

axtradub12

MT wrote:

This is from the Sunday Times, a week ago. I found the results reported here interesting for a number of reasons but most of all the figures relating to the constitutional question.

The Sunday Times is a British newspaper.They would say that

rsynnott

Flex wrote:

Once again MT, excellent post.

If 25% of catholics supported the union, along with nearly all protestants, then unionist parties would win 65% or so of the seats in elections, which they do not.They usually win 50-55% of the seat, which is fairly accurate since protestants only account for 53% of NI. Im anti partitionist-want a UI(which so many people seem to take issue with ), however if a majority of the irish people in NI chose to remain in the UK Id accept there wish, i never see that happening though. In a few more generations catholics will more than likely outnumber protestants, and given the fact most catholics are nationalists......

A lot of catholics might be unwilling to vote for the unionists simply because of the negative associations, and instead go for one of the moderates.

When the majority of Northern Irish citizens want to be part of the Republic, that's fine. For the moment, they don't seem to.

axtradub12

rsynnott wrote:

A lot of catholics might be unwilling to vote for the unionists simply because of the negative associations, and instead go for one of the moderates.

When the majority of Northern Irish citizens want to be part of the Republic, that's fine. For the moment, they don't seem to.

Does Ulster still Say NO

dermo88

Guys

Get your heads out of the sand now, and stop dreaming of a United Ireland.

Northern Ireland is a failed sad decrepit economic disaster zone, with 70% of its GDP dependent on state expenditure by the British Government.

Its an artificial land, a false economy, run by an older generation of apparatchiks permanently looking at the past, permanently looking at the glories of 1690 and 1916. Permanently feeling victimised by the evils of Bloody Sunday and Enniskillen.

When they have stopped hating each other, they'll have to find someone else to hate. Such as the chinese community or the faggots coming out of the Kremlin in Belfast (Don't worry, I apologise for the use of that word, but its there for dramatic effect).

There is a solution. Its a mad idea, but it might just work

Turn the place into one big tax haven. Zero taxes on Booze, Fags, Clothes, and whatever else you can think of. Any other idea. Its got nothing else economically to offer just yet.

Give it a few years. Cut the subsidies. Cut state expenditure. Money will flow in.

They'll be too busy working 60 hour weeks to cope with the cost of living.

They'll be all on the enterprise smuggling booze and fags down south.

They'll be too busy then to deal with any bloody extortion and protection rackets then. Oh, and it will be great for laundering money, but we won't say much about that. At least they'll be banking, not ****.

Cork

If 25% of catholics supported the union, along with nearly all protestants, then unionist parties would win 65% or so of the seats in elections.

Why, would you have to be a nationalist to vote SDLP?

The SDLP are above dumb tribal politics.

All partys up there support the consent principle & support the NI state.

Northern Ireland is a failed sad decrepit economic disaster zone, with 70% of its GDP dependent on state expenditure by the British Government.

Yes it is. It is kept going by handouts from the British taxpayer.

If you were a CEO of a multinational - you could not blame them for not setting up there. But this will change when the IRA become a bad memory but I surpose tribal politics will continue.

rsynnott

dermo88 wrote:

When they have stopped hating each other, they'll have to find someone else to hate. Such as the chinese community or the faggots coming out of the Kremlin in Belfast (Don't worry, I apologise for the use of that word, but its there for dramatic effect).
.

No, I don't really see much excuse for using that word. Just try "gay people". It isn't that hard to type, is it? Would you have used "****" to talk about black people? You didn't use any of the many ethnic slurs to talk about chinese people, did you? So why "****"? And why do you think your ridiculous "apologise" in any way makes it acceptable to use slurs?

But yes, if it's admitted it would be frighteningly expensive. Possibly a tax on all Sinn Fein members to pay for it? (j/k)

axer

murphaph wrote:

I'd vote no to a UI.

The catholics/republicans up north have always been fúcked over by those already in the free state. They have been forgotten by the free state for years and left to deal with the problem of discrimination and human rights violations themselves.
I dont think people should be against it for economic reasons - thats like saying "our wealth is our wealth - so fúck off!"

rsynnott

As I said in another post, both countries should withdraw all claims to the place, provide bilatera peacekeeping and electoral monitoring for a year or so, then leave. The terrorists can hardly blow people up in Dublin and London to be let into the respective countries, can they?

axer

axer wrote:

The catholics/republicans up north have always been fúcked over by those already in the free state. They have been forgotten by the free state for years and left to deal with the problem of discrimination and human rights violations themselves.

Didn't Jack Lynch have plans to invade - he wasn't doing nothing.
Of course bombing and shooting and tit for tat became the order of the day after that shoving the moral high ground well away from where it should have been.

I dont think people should be against it for economic reasons - thats like saying "our wealth is our wealth - so fúck off!"

People will though as people are selfish, thats why most of them vote for conservative as opposed to socialist parties, they realise the latter will hit them taxation wise in the pocket.

axer

Earthman wrote:

Didn't Jack Lynch have plans to invade - he wasn't doing nothing.

But nothing was actually done. The north was forgotten by the republic and the catholics were left to look after themselves.

Earthman wrote:

Of course bombing and shooting and tit for tat became the order of the day after that shoving the moral high ground well away from where it should have been.

True, but it was enevitable when one side attacks another that the other side would fight back.

Earthman wrote:

People will though as people are selfish, thats why most of them vote for conservative as opposed to socialist parties, they realise the latter will hit them taxation wise in the pocket.

Exactly people are selfish. They shouldnt use it as a reason but I guess realistically...