The Irish protocol.

Gerry Adams?

Man you full of it, it is right there in the post I quoted. You mentioned migrants from 4 centuries ago, which is slap bang in the Ulster Plantation. Undoubtedly you will try and wiggle your way out of that statement now. If you didn't mean the Ulster plantation, why did you say 4 centuries? Oh yeah, I checked because I was pretty sure your were telling porkies, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland was founded in 1610 according to their own history, and that the majority of Scottish settlers were Presbyterians who came to Ireland during the Ulster Plantation.

Nobody has ever said there were not settlers in the NE from Scotland before the plantation. They were concentrated in modern day Antrim and Down, some were Catholic, some were Protestant, That doesn't change the fact that the area that makes up the 6 counties was mostly Irish, and Ulster considered the most Gaelic part of Ireland, thus the reason why the Crown wanted to change that with the Ulster Plantation, which as I said in modern terms would be considered ethnic cleansing. Taking land of natives and giving it to settlers in an effort to eradicate them is not simple migration. That might not suit your viewpoint, but thems the facts.

Yeah, as I figured more silly attempts at avoiding the facts.

You were the one who claimed your Presbyterian ancestors came to Ireland way before any plantation. Considering that the Presbyterian church in Ireland was founded in 1610 after the Ulster Plantation had already started, that would seem highly unlikely. Not my problem if your claims don't match the reality.

If you don't know what the Plantation of Ulster was, I suggest you google it. Definitely nothing to do with Irish Kings selling off their lands to Scottish settlers. If you think that is the case, I am sure you will be able to provide some evidence to back that claim as opposed to what any official version of plantation explains.

Nobody is looking to send anyone home, you were the one who compared settlers from 4 centuries ago i.e Ulster Plantation to modern day migrants, which is nonsense and you are being called out on your nonsense.

Whilst your at it, maybe you could explain why Presbyterians celebrate the 12th of July, when it was that event that led to the introduction of the penal laws in Ireland which along with Catholics persecuted Presbyterians also and led to many of them leaving Ireland to travel to the US and also to the founding of the first Irish Republican movement which in Ulster was mainly composed of Presbyterians. Seems strange to celebrate an event that would lead to your own persecution does it not. Also were you ancestors Republicans as so many Presbyterians from from Belfast, Antrim and Down were?

I do know a bit of this already, but still interesting. I hate to break it to you Downcow, but that is still a plantation, it might not be the official Ulster plantation, but it was still a private plantation. If someone gains possession of land(in this case through plotting/scheming and not by happily selling it as you wrote) brings people from another country to settle those lands, it is a plantation. What happened to the locals? your link says the land was laid to waste in the battles with the Crown, but I see little mention of what became of the people who lived there. It is an Ulster Scots site so it doesn't surprise me there is little mention given to the locals.

You make statements, but leave enough wiggle room to then backtrack. So when you say many of our people, it reads like you are talking about Protestants in Ulster, but it is actually some Presbyterians in areas of Antrim and Down specifically. Not the same thing. Also 1606 is not way before 1610.

I already know why the Presbyterians switched sides, it is the same idea that has always underpinned Unionist thinking to this day. The Catholics are going to wipe them out. Any people who have gained at the expense of the native population, especially a much larger native population will always have an inbred fear of the natives claiming revenge. The Indians in North America, the various civilizations around the World under Empires, Israel, South Africa, the list goes on, especially anywhere where fear was used to keep the natives under foot,

The 1798 rebellion scared the crap out of the ruling Anglican class, because the United Irish men ideal of equality for all was a real threat to their privileged position in society. They realised they needed to get the dissenters on to their side, so they used propaganda to convince the Presbyterians etc that the Catholics were going to wipe them out. It was propaganda at its finest and it worked a treat. You can still see it in the thinking of Unionists including yourself.

I can't recall exactly how this works but afaik if Ireland and Scotland were to temporarily reform the ancient kingdom of Dál Riada it would grant Scotland immediate membership of the EU.

It would subsequently dissolve and Scotland would become a member of the EU on it's own. Something like that.

Are you Jamie Bryson?

He trades in the same type of eejitry.

Your language is not as overblown and self-regrading as his but you do have moments.

I'm off out to meet up with my local provo cell.

You won't hear from me again. Forget we ever spoke.

Imagine if a Nationalist organisation had retweeted this bigotry, there would be war as you know how senistive unionists can be.

There is no inherent contradiction in saying that there was movement back and forth between Ireland and Scotland for centuries before and that without the plantation, Scots would not have moved across due to famine; while accusing others of black and white/simplistic viewing of the situation, you're doing the very same and ignoring a huge factor; scale.

It would at least be a logically sound argument that the pre-plantation level of migration wasn't significant enough alone to create the sort of critical mass necessary to generate the pull factor to attract the further significant numbers during the Scottish famine.

Now I haven't studied enough about the migration of Scots to Ireland during the 1690s to comment on whether the statement is ACCURATE, I'm just pointing out that it isn't inherently contradictory.

That's just basic manners in any discussion, no?

I don't think, 'don't argue with people about points they didn't make' is a particularly high bar to set.

I find it both bizarre and futile that the conversation is getting dragged towards the legitimacy of people ancestral claims dating back 400 years - Really, it's of no relevance now. I do notice that every time someone makes a specific, detailed post that challenges DC on the actual fallacies in the Anti-protocol stance (mainly Peregrinus) he seems to ignore it and instead very quickly trigger a petty argument about nationalists vs unionists/prejudice/etc.

And of course there are plenty of posters on here who oblige and allow him to avoid the hard questions by misspelling an Irish name or calling people "Southerners". I would say these posters are being masterfully played.

The simple fact is that plantation, migration, persecution aside Unionists today are as valid residents on this island as non-unionists. Their point of view is as legitimate, whether it's reasonable or not. Unionists who are less extreme than Downcow and the ones who are more extreme will all need to be invested in deciding what being Irish will mean in the future - because they absolutely are Irish. Any Nationalist or republican or "Southern" ideology that does not account for this is a failing one and will not lead to peace on this island.

So i would suggest that re-litigating the historical context for the Unionists stance is of extremely limited use when looking at the complexities of the current Northern Ireland Protocol, and really just lets Downcow off the hook from answering the hard questions when they are address to him.

On the constant segues the thread takes into interpreting history and symbols of Irish/British identity (flags, emblems, language, what team you support etc etc) maybe it can't be helped or avoided. In fairness, Downcow (like most of us) is probably a politically engaged person to some extent. I get distinct impression (as an outsider) that this is just what the politics in NI mostly consists of. Everything boils back down to what tribe you are in, what your ancestors were doing in the 17th C. and insoluble rows about identity in the end. Brexit/opinion of the NI protocol etc. is now just another minor totem for those identifying strongly with one tribe or another, wrapped up into the rest of the whole mess.