|
|
Post by stepney on Feb 22, 2013 16:02:12 GMT
Might we do away with polemic, appeals to supposed wrongs in the long-buried past, and mawkish mistruths about Northern Ireland? Well that would be a welcome change given recent Tory bed-wetting about Farrell's comments and various other Tory comments with deep memories that crop up regularly on here whenever Ireland or the Sinners are mentioned... I really have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Someone putting it on the record he wished a Prime Minister dead is perfectly legitimate to bring up during an election in which that person is standing. By contrast, making out that an integral part of the UK where the majority of the people want to remain part of the UK should be handed over to another country, by virtue of things that happened in the 1920s, is a load of old horse-dust. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 16:42:15 GMT
Im quite happy with the North deciding its own constitutional future either way. I wouldn't dream of attempting to stop them leaving, but nor would I push them the other way. My issue with SF isn't one with Irish unity, just the violence, petty behaviour and general loutish behaviour. I wouldn't say the same about the SDLP for example. I wouldn't pay a subvention though. I am glad to hear that regarding the constitutional issue. Throughout your party's life some of its members have not felt the same way in ignoring democratic mandates and supporting gunrunning, the likes of Bonar Law and Birkenhead for example. I would add that violence, petty and loutish behaviour is/was not confined to just one side of the community indeed it encompasses the role of loyalists, the UDR, B Specials, the old RUC and many elements of the British Army. Regarding my second point. As a UK taxpayer you do pay part of a subvention to the North on an annual basis; £5,000m. Hence my point about ceasing to pay it if you did not occupy the North. I am well aware we do, that's probably why so many catholics would vote for staying in the uk if the option in a referendum was offered. I do agree about the violence being two-sided and it isn't acceptable either way. I wouldn't say that we *occupy* the North though. No more than we *occupy* Leicestershire, its a very partisan word. Its very clear at the moment from polling that if put to a referendum the nationalists would win. I think exactly the same about Scotland and Wales, although I think again that the Scots will vote to say in by more than 2 to 1. Possibly even 3 to 1. I would rather not give the 5bn and then ask the question. It would be off the put and shut up variety, take part on the agreement to stop it being an ongoing issue. |
|
|
|
Post by irish observer on Feb 22, 2013 18:43:23 GMT
Well that would be a welcome change given recent Tory bed-wetting about Farrell's comments and various other Tory comments with deep memories that crop up regularly on here whenever Ireland or the Sinners are mentioned... I really have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Someone putting it on the record he wished a Prime Minister dead is perfectly legitimate to bring up during an election in which that person is standing. By contrast, making out that an integral part of the UK where the majority of the people want to remain part of the UK should be handed over to another country, by virtue of things that happened in the 1920s, is a load of old horse-dust.If you can inform me where I uttered any such phrase I would like to hear it. Throughout the 19th century, after fenians were actually allowed vote, they expressed a majority preference for Home Rule from Britain once the old Nationalist Party was established. Later, after the population was driven to extremes by Britain there was a rising and the population turned to physical force nationalism and would vote for full independence in 1918. This was too denied. There was then a War of Independence. If you want to argue the toss hear I can. I am a constitutional republican by the way, and have always been thus. Incidentally this does not mean one is a Shinner. I am a member of Fianna Fáil for my sins. Horse manure is a better turn of phrase I find by the way. You referred to "supposed wrongs in the long-buried past, and mawkish mistruths" that I mentioned about your own party and the North. I didn't notice any. I advise you to do some historical research on the subject if you so desire. I can begin by citing a number of books from British, European and American historians before you darken the doors of the Irish troglodyte historians. I don't know if you share the opinion of Sir Jeremy Heywood, for example, regarding just one dark example of the Troubles concerning the state-sanctioned assassination of Belfast solicitor, Pat Finucane. Cameron has backtracked on promises he made to the family when in opposition regarding an inquiry something which Gordon Brown had consented to. Presumably Cameron was told by the spooks who actually ordered the hit and which cans of worms would be opened to spooks, civil servants and politicians. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21283169 |
|
|
|
Post by irish observer on Feb 22, 2013 19:04:25 GMT
I am glad to hear that regarding the constitutional issue. Throughout your party's life some of its members have not felt the same way in ignoring democratic mandates and supporting gunrunning, the likes of Bonar Law and Birkenhead for example. I would add that violence, petty and loutish behaviour is/was not confined to just one side of the community indeed it encompasses the role of loyalists, the UDR, B Specials, the old RUC and many elements of the British Army. Regarding my second point. As a UK taxpayer you do pay part of a subvention to the North on an annual basis; £5,000m. Hence my point about ceasing to pay it if you did not occupy the North. I am well aware we do, that's probably why so many catholics would vote for staying in the uk if the option in a referendum was offered. I do agree about the violence being two-sided and it isn't acceptable either way. I wouldn't say that we *occupy* the North though. No more than we *occupy* Leicestershire, its a very partisan word. Its very clear at the moment from polling that if put to a referendum the nationalists would win. I think exactly the same about Scotland and Wales, although I think again that the Scots will vote to say in by more than 2 to 1. Possibly even 3 to 1. I would rather not give the 5bn and then ask the question. It would be off the put and shut up variety, take part on the agreement to stop it being an ongoing issue. My use of the term occupy was a rejoinder to your initial use of the term "nutters." As I said above I do agree that a border poll would be defeated but its very prospect causes the Unionists extreme apoplexy and angst. It would let the jack out of the box and start a conversation of the issue they do not want to have. As a republican, and from a young age going through manned checkpoints and seeing army patrols in various areas, this had an affect on us. Some of my family more than others, especially my Northern relatives some of whom had very bad experiences. We are all of the constitutional bent, however. I will happily return my sword to its scabbard. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 20:36:21 GMT
Sorry - since when has creating a made-up majority 'province' out of carved up counties to defy the democratic will of the majority of a population something that a democrat would want to applaud? Anybody with even an ounce of knowledge of the history of the island of Ireland would know that there was no such province as Northern Ireland before the enforced partition of the island by those who lost the democratic vote.
Where we are is where we are but to pretend that the truth behind the gerrymandered creation we now call Northern Ireland is somehow to be dismissed as 'old horse-dust' is political cant of the worst kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Feb 22, 2013 20:49:32 GMT
Sorry - since when has creating a made-up majority 'province' out of carved up counties to defy the democratic will of the majority of a population something that a democrat would want to applaud? Anybody with even an ounce of knowledge of the history of the island of Ireland would know that there was no such province as Northern Ireland before the enforced partition of the island by those who lost the democratic vote. Where we are is where we are but to pretend that the truth behind the gerrymandered creation we now call Northern Ireland is somehow to be dismissed as 'old horse-dust' is political cant of the worst kind. Come on then, you tell us the alternative. There is a majority (and certainly was in 1912/14/20) within what is now Northern Ireland for remaining part of the UK and not becoming part of an independent Ireland. Why should that majority be shunted out of the country they want to be part of and into one they don't? Simply adding them to the other 26 counties and declaring "Therefore, there's an Ireland-wide majority for independence" would have been a far more pernicious form of gerrymandering than creating the Province in the first place. And, a century on, whinging about Trevelyan's corn and what Bonar Law might have said to the Larne gun-runners and trying to use that as some sort of justification for supporting the Northern Irish pro-UK majority being moved into a different country is even worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 22, 2013 21:03:37 GMT
Sorry - since when has creating a made-up majority 'province' out of carved up counties to defy the democratic will of the majority of a population something that a democrat would want to applaud? In what way is it different to: 1) Notice that a majority of people in the north-east of Ireland disagree with being governed as part of a state covering the whole of Ireland, and therefore move to exclude them from such a state. 2) Notice that a majority of people in one of the mainly Anglo-Saxon and Celtic populated islands off the north-west of Europe disagree with being governed as part of a state covering all such islands, and therefore move to exclude them from such a state. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 21:11:18 GMT
Sorry - since when has creating a made-up majority 'province' out of carved up counties to defy the democratic will of the majority of a population something that a democrat would want to applaud? Anybody with even an ounce of knowledge of the history of the island of Ireland would know that there was no such province as Northern Ireland before the enforced partition of the island by those who lost the democratic vote. Where we are is where we are but to pretend that the truth behind the gerrymandered creation we now call Northern Ireland is somehow to be dismissed as 'old horse-dust' is political cant of the worst kind. Its called a right to self-determination. It might not have its origins in this principle, but its continuation should be based on this. The above republican freely admits that the nationalists would lose in a poll, therefore your argument kind of violates the current population the right to choose. I could equally say that Ireland was previously in the UK and that any votes on the whole of it leaving should have been voted for across the UK. Any people should vote on there own future, and there is a real community / religious community in the north that deserves respect and a voice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 21:13:49 GMT
Apologies, David has beaten me to the obvious argument and rather more eloquently put.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 22, 2013 21:14:54 GMT
I am a member of Fianna Fáil for my sins. Horse manure is a better turn of phrase I find by the way. You're right on one thing then |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 21:18:28 GMT
I am well aware we do, that's probably why so many catholics would vote for staying in the uk if the option in a referendum was offered. I do agree about the violence being two-sided and it isn't acceptable either way. I wouldn't say that we *occupy* the North though. No more than we *occupy* Leicestershire, its a very partisan word. Its very clear at the moment from polling that if put to a referendum the nationalists would win. I think exactly the same about Scotland and Wales, although I think again that the Scots will vote to say in by more than 2 to 1. Possibly even 3 to 1. I would rather not give the 5bn and then ask the question. It would be off the put and shut up variety, take part on the agreement to stop it being an ongoing issue. My use of the term occupy was a rejoinder to your initial use of the term "nutters." As I said above I do agree that a border poll would be defeated but its very prospect causes the Unionists extreme apoplexy and angst. It would let the jack out of the box and start a conversation of the issue they do not want to have. As a republican, and from a young age going through manned checkpoints and seeing army patrols in various areas, this had an affect on us. Some of my family more than others, especially my Northern relatives some of whom had very bad experiences. We are all of the constitutional bent, however. I will happily return my sword to its scabbard. The term nutters wasn't meant to apply to any nationalist. Far from it, very far from it. Rather those who associate themselves with those who have committed violence and murder (and applies to both sides, through ignorance in NI politics I just don't know how true that is with DUP) Like I say, its not my country, not my position to declare a constitutional preference, however, calling a party lead by ex-war criminals as nutters is IMHO fair enough. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 21:18:39 GMT
I am not saying that there can be any change to the situation today except with the support of the majority of the people in Northern ireland, my point was to challenge the historical inaccuracies. The point is that a reality was invented 'on the ground' which included creating an Ulster which isn't actually Ulster (excluded Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan).
If the majority of people living in Dumfriesshire, Berwicks, Kirkcudbright and Roxburgh voted against Independence whilst the rest of Scotland voted for it (unlikely as that is), could they set up a Southern Scotland province remaining as an integral part of the United Kingdom? Of course not as it flies in the face of Scottish Nationhood, which is exactly what happened in the case of Northern Ireland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 21:21:32 GMT
As it happens, I am not a republican - at least in the Irish sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 21:27:16 GMT
I am not saying that there can be any change to the situation today except with the support of the majority of the people in Northern ireland, my point was to challenge the historical inaccuracies. The point is that a reality was invented 'on the ground' which included creating an Ulster which isn't actually Ulster (excluded Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan). If the majority of people living in Dumfriesshire, Berwicks, Kirkcudbright and Roxburgh voted against Independence whilst the rest of Scotland voted for it (unlikely as that is), coud they set up a Southern Scotland province remaining as an integral part of the United Kingdom? Of course not as it flies in the face of Scottish Nationhood, which is exactly what happened in the case of Northern Ireland. One could argue thats only fair enough. Obviously one needs to have a dividing line on which constitutes a sufficiently large body to decide its own fate as a group, and it seems only fair enough base this on the presence of a large scale distinct community. There, An obviously distinct ethnoreligious minority in the north of ireland, wheras the south of scotland does not have such a status. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 21:45:39 GMT
I am not saying that there can be any change to the situation today except with the support of the majority of the people in Northern ireland, my point was to challenge the historical inaccuracies. The point is that a reality was invented 'on the ground' which included creating an Ulster which isn't actually Ulster (excluded Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan). If the majority of people living in Dumfriesshire, Berwicks, Kirkcudbright and Roxburgh voted against Independence whilst the rest of Scotland voted for it (unlikely as that is), coud they set up a Southern Scotland province remaining as an integral part of the United Kingdom? Of course not as it flies in the face of Scottish Nationhood, which is exactly what happened in the case of Northern Ireland. One could argue thats only fair enough. Obviously one needs to have a dividing line on which constitutes a sufficiently large body to decide its own fate as a group, and it seems only fair enough base this on the presence of a large scale distinct community. There, An obviously distinct ethnoreligious minority in the north of ireland, wheras the south of scotland does not have such a status. I suppose, theoretically, the obvious historical equivalent would be the wider Glasgow area where a majority Catholic population could vote against Scottish Independence and then the fairly understandable complaint would be that the 'Irish' had stopped part of Scotland being Independent but there your would have your 'obviously distinct ethnoreligious minority' which, like those in the North of Ireland, were descended from immigrants. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 22:08:38 GMT
One could argue thats only fair enough. Obviously one needs to have a dividing line on which constitutes a sufficiently large body to decide its own fate as a group, and it seems only fair enough base this on the presence of a large scale distinct community. There, An obviously distinct ethnoreligious minority in the north of ireland, wheras the south of scotland does not have such a status. I suppose, theoretically, the obvious historical equivalent would be the wider Glasgow area where a majority Catholic population could vote against Scottish Independence and then the fairly understandable complaint would be that the 'Irish' had stopped part of Scotland being Independent but there your would have your 'obviously distinct ethnoreligious minority' which, like those in the North of Ireland, were descended from immigrants. Why would the Irish be *more* likely to support the link with England??? |
|
Dan
Animal Welfare Party
Believes we need more localism in our politics
Posts: 813
|
Post by Dan on Feb 22, 2013 22:42:35 GMT
It's quite depressing that almost any discussion of anything to do with Northern Ireland seems most focused on looking backwards to events of 100 years ago than it is to looking forwards to making the future a better one.
It's easy to find fault with what went on in the past, but it's hard (at least for me) to see that the constitutional settlement was anything but the least worst option that could've been chosen. I'm unpersuaded that any other solution would've been better for everyone concerned, in the long run.
It's also becoming increasingly irrelevant (and lazy) to use declared religions as an indication of voting preference. The 'Catholic' percentage is certainly enhanced by an increase in immigration, especially from eastern Europe. How they would vote in any border poll is something worth debating, and not at all clear.
My gut feeling is that the share of the population self-declaring themselves to be 'British' or 'Irish' will continue to decrease, and the percentage declaring themselves 'Northern Irish' will increase. Perhaps therein lies the best hope for the future for the place, and the direction where I would argue the Ulster Unionist Party should be headed.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 22, 2013 23:31:39 GMT
Sorry - since when has creating a made-up majority 'province' out of carved up counties to defy the democratic will of the majority of a population something that a democrat would want to applaud? Anybody with even an ounce of knowledge of the history of the island of Ireland would know that there was no such province as Northern Ireland before the enforced partition of the island by those who lost the democratic vote. Where we are is where we are but to pretend that the truth behind the gerrymandered creation we now call Northern Ireland is somehow to be dismissed as 'old horse-dust' is political cant of the worst kind. David has said some of what I'd have said so I'll just add this. The idea of partition was originally about finding a way to exclude parts of Ireland that frankly would be impossible to govern under an immediate imposition of Home Rule. It's often forgotten that the creation of the Stormont Parliament was actually considered a concession to Nationalists as part of a way to get the ungovernable into an all Irish run entity. Partitioning territories with ethnic divides and allowing individual areas to choose which neighbouing state they were part of regardless of the territory-wide majority was far from unusual in this era. You don't hear much complaint today about the contemporary partition of Schleswig and the way the referendums were conducted on much the same principle. (It was divided in three and each section would get to vote on whether to be in Denmark or Germany, providing there was a continuous territory. The north voted for Denmark, then the centre for Germany. The south didn't get a vote but would likely have gone for Germany, as probably would a Schleswig-wide vote.) Self-determination is a great concept until you have to work out who gets to determine who gets to self-determine. In a divided community one side cannot unilaterally impose its determination of nationhood and expect all on the other to accept it and the consequences that flow from it. I suppose, theoretically, the obvious historical equivalent would be the wider Glasgow area where a majority Catholic population could vote against Scottish Independence and then the fairly understandable complaint would be that the 'Irish' had stopped part of Scotland being Independent but there your would have your 'obviously distinct ethnoreligious minority' which, like those in the North of Ireland, were descended from immigrants. Why would the Irish be *more* likely to support the link with England??? It would be more in the context of rejecting an independent Scotland on the basis of just who might be running things. Things have shifted a bit but there was a period when Glasgow Catholics and the SNP didn't really overlap. One doorstept slogan in use was "SNP = Soon No Pope". |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Feb 23, 2013 0:06:34 GMT
If the Scottish Marches(or Orkney/Shetland for that matter) voted against independence, there should be an option to leave that state prior to it being formed. I have doubts that the border areas would take up that option. In the case of the northern isles the repercussions would have to be carefully discussed and on balance I think they wouldn't but that is a bit more open. It would not be a viable question if Perth voted no. Creating San Marino is not a viable answer.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,800 
|
Post by john07 on Feb 23, 2013 0:09:10 GMT
Why would the Irish be *more* likely to support the link with England??? It would be more in the context of rejecting an independent Scotland on the basis of just who might be running things. Things have shifted a bit but there was a period when Glasgow Catholics and the SNP didn't really overlap. One doorstept slogan in use was "SNP = Soon No Pope". West Coast politics in Scotland are often counter intuitive. The same people who will wave Tricolours at Parkhead will usually vote Labour and vote for retention of the UK. Similarly the Union Flag waving Rangers fans will be more likely to vote SNP. Things are very different in the East. |
|
