Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2013 13:14:19 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. A friend and I last night were joking that Larkhall might end up as the Scottish Transnistria post-UK.  Seriously though, I'm not sure that giving special status to the Borders in the context of the independence referendum is really a viable option. As I'm sure you're aware, the area covered by the Scottish Borders Council was invented in 1975 as an amalgamation of Berwickshire, Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire, Peeblesshire and part of Midlothian, and has only been a unitary authority since 1996. It doesn't incorporate the full extent on what has historically been seen as the Scottish Borders, and (for what it's worth) it bisects a major dialect boundary. Can the present boundaries of the Scottish Borders (or Dumfries & Galloway for that matter) reasonably be taken as a coherent unit in this instance? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 23, 2013 16:20:58 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. All true, but the lines were drawn to grab as big an area as possible whilst keeping a Protestant majority for the foreseeable future. Undoubtedly it would be unjust to force rural County Antrim into an Irish state its population really do not want. But it was just as unjust to put the western half of Derry into a state its inhabitants did not support. It wasn't about protecting the unionist population in the north. It was about protecting their political hegemony. I don't back reunification or a border poll, because it's pointless to fight the wars of a century ago when all the evidence suggests you'd get just the same clusterfuck. But there's no point pretending there was anything resembling honour or principle in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Feb 23, 2013 17:33:23 GMT
All true, but the lines were drawn to grab as big an area as possible whilst keeping a Protestant majority for the foreseeable future. Undoubtedly it would be unjust to force rural County Antrim into an Irish state its population really do not want. But it was just as unjust to put the western half of Derry into a state its inhabitants did not support. It wasn't about protecting the unionist population in the north. It was about protecting their political hegemony. Except it wasn't, really, was it? If it was about a Unionist ascendancy in Northern Ireland preserving its privileges and a supposed hegemony, then (if we're looking at it from a 2013 perspective) they would have just excluded Cos. Fermanagh and Tyrone and parts of Cos. Armagh and Down and of Co. Londonderry, as you say. In the current demographic set-up, it would have saved a lot of bother for any British 'hegemonists' to have a tightly-drawn province which even now would have been 75-80% Protestant/Unionist and where there would have been no issue about it remaining part of the UK. But at the time even Co. Fermanagh, as far as anyone really knew, was majority Unionist and there would have been no desire to move any county that was majority Unionist into Dev's 'Catholic theme park' (as someone memorably described pre-1939 Free State to me, but to my mind which would serve as a good epithet for the pre-Celtic Tiger Republic). The drawing of the 1920 border, even if it may look odd today, looks more like a genuine attempt to preserve those who wanted to be in the UK in the UK, than it looks like some dastardly plot to suppress as many Irish Catholics as possible under a barely majority British province. If they had wanted that at the time the entire province of Ulster could have been made Northern Ireland. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 23, 2013 18:39:52 GMT
All true, but the lines were drawn to grab as big an area as possible whilst keeping a Protestant majority for the foreseeable future. Undoubtedly it would be unjust to force rural County Antrim into an Irish state its population really do not want. But it was just as unjust to put the western half of Derry into a state its inhabitants did not support. It wasn't about protecting the unionist population in the north. It was about protecting their political hegemony. The original proposed partition predated the Stormont proposal. The six counties were chosen in 1914 for exclusion from Home Rule as a starting point, on the basis that these were the ones still returning Unionist MPs, and it was expected that the bounday would subsequently be refined. This was harder to achieve in practice to the satisfaction of all parties and brought down the Buckingham Palace conference in 1914. But the idea didn't go away and the final settlement of 1921-2 came with plans for a Boundary Commission to tidy things up once everything else had settled down. However this was a classic case of each side having a different view of what it signed up to and in the end the various governments settled for the status quo with all its messes. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 23, 2013 19:16:54 GMT
The original proposed partition predated the Stormont proposal. The six counties were chosen in 1914 for exclusion from Home Rule as a starting point, on the basis that these were the ones still returning Unionist MPs, and it was expected that the bounday would subsequently be refined. This was harder to achieve in practice to the satisfaction of all parties and brought down the Buckingham Palace conference in 1914. But the idea didn't go away and the final settlement of 1921-2 came with plans for a Boundary Commission to tidy things up once everything else had settled down. However this was a classic case of each side having a different view of what it signed up to and in the end the various governments settled for the status quo with all its messes. That rather elides the story of the Boundary Commission which is a fascinating story of British government naivety, Ulster Unionist obstructionism, Irish nationalist misplaced optimism, and some remarkably successful strategic leaking and manipulation. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 24, 2013 0:13:59 GMT
All true, but the lines were drawn to grab as big an area as possible whilst keeping a Protestant majority for the foreseeable future. Undoubtedly it would be unjust to force rural County Antrim into an Irish state its population really do not want. But it was just as unjust to put the western half of Derry into a state its inhabitants did not support. It wasn't about protecting the unionist population in the north. It was about protecting their political hegemony. Except it wasn't, really, was it? If it was about a Unionist ascendancy in Northern Ireland preserving its privileges and a supposed hegemony, then (if we're looking at it from a 2013 perspective) they would have just excluded Cos. Fermanagh and Tyrone and parts of Cos. Armagh and Down and of Co. Londonderry, as you say. In the current demographic set-up, it would have saved a lot of bother for any British 'hegemonists' to have a tightly-drawn province which even now would have been 75-80% Protestant/Unionist and where there would have been no issue about it remaining part of the UK. But at the time even Co. Fermanagh, as far as anyone really knew, was majority Unionist and there would have been no desire to move any county that was majority Unionist into Dev's 'Catholic theme park' (as someone memorably described pre-1939 Free State to me, but to my mind which would serve as a good epithet for the pre-Celtic Tiger Republic). The drawing of the 1920 border, even if it may look odd today, looks more like a genuine attempt to preserve those who wanted to be in the UK in the UK, than it looks like some dastardly plot to suppress as many Irish Catholics as possible under a barely majority British province. If they had wanted that at the time the entire province of Ulster could have been made Northern Ireland. Yes, it was. If it was about separation, there would have been separation, and you would have got a 75-80% Protestant state (granted, they tried to create that in the 1920s, but the situation had fundamentally changed then). The aim was to get the largest possible state that would remain safely majority Protestant. To protect as much authority as possible. There would have been no point making a power grab for something that couldn't be held. Protecting the Protestant population of Fermanagh and respecting its wishes is fine. But there was exactly zero effort to protect or respect the wishes of the Catholic population of Fermanagh (even then, a very substantial minority). You cannot preach the virtues of self-determination whilst ignoring that self-determination was offered only to certain groups under certain criteria. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 0:21:54 GMT
Why cant we have a border referendum on which states want to leave NI? Seems sensible to me.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,806 
|
Post by john07 on Feb 24, 2013 0:41:33 GMT
That rather elides the story of the Boundary Commission which is a fascinating story of British government naivety, Ulster Unionist obstructionism, Irish nationalist misplaced optimism, and some remarkably successful strategic leaking and manipulation. Many on the Nationalist side assumed (wrongly) that the Boundary Commission would remove so much terratory from Northern Ireland that the rump would be unsustainable and would soon come into the Free State. The split in the Republican camp and the subsequent civil war was more to do with signing the oath of loyalty than partition |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 24, 2013 0:57:24 GMT
Why cant we have a border referendum on which states want to leave NI? Seems sensible to me. Because Northern Ireland doesn't have 'states'. Are you proposing that counties are used? District council areas? Constituencies? Whatever the units, the answer is that you won't necessarily end up with workable contiguous units. West Belfast isn't exactly conveniently located for those purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 24, 2013 1:14:21 GMT
Why cant we have a border referendum on which states want to leave NI? Seems sensible to me. "Roll up! Roll up! Come and book your place at the Unionist Border Camp! All expenses paid! Voter registration forms provided! Prizes for the pitch with the most voters in it! Special entertainment provided: Daily Orange Order parades in front of every pitch! See the Ulster Resistance re-enactments! Special tannoy music: Willie McCrea gospel singing! Plus special bonus: Ian Paisley sermons!" And that would probably be one of the best case scenarios. There's a poor history of border polls and headcounting commissions whereby activists on each side try to pack in their side and "encourage" the other side to relocate - the writing literally on the wall - before the formal count takes place. Do you think the Loyalist culture could easily stomach the potential loss of Derry and Enniskillen? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 1:14:36 GMT
Why cant we have a border referendum on which states want to leave NI? Seems sensible to me. Because Northern Ireland doesn't have 'states'. Are you proposing that counties are used? District council areas? Constituencies? Whatever the units, the answer is that you won't necessarily end up with workable contiguous units. West Belfast isn't exactly conveniently located for those purposes. Sorry I meant counties. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 24, 2013 1:20:09 GMT
Why cant we have a border referendum on which states want to leave NI? Seems sensible to me. "Roll up! Roll up! Come and book your place at the Unionist Border Camp! All expenses paid! Voter registration forms provided! Prizes for the pitch with the most voters in it! Special entertainment provided: Daily Orange Order parades in front of every pitch! See the Ulster Resistance re-enactments! Special tannoy music: Willie McCrea gospel singing! Plus special bonus: Ian Paisley sermons!" And that would probably be one of the best case scenarios. There's a poor history of border polls and headcounting commissions whereby activists on each side try to pack in their side and "encourage" the other side to relocate - the writing literally on the wall - before the formal count takes place. Do you think the Loyalist culture could easily stomach the potential loss of Derry and Enniskillen? Surely you meant Londonderry. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 24, 2013 1:25:24 GMT
Has anyone had a word with the Apprentice Boys about their name?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 24, 2013 1:30:34 GMT
Because Northern Ireland doesn't have 'states'. Are you proposing that counties are used? District council areas? Constituencies? Whatever the units, the answer is that you won't necessarily end up with workable contiguous units. West Belfast isn't exactly conveniently located for those purposes. Sorry I meant counties. In that particular case, the answer is that counties aren't really used as administrative units any more. |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Feb 24, 2013 16:53:10 GMT
I think the Unionists would probably survive Derry leaving. Screaming but privately admitting that it helped them. I am less sure what the precise breakdown is in Fermanagh. Personally I don't feel that it has to be whole areas if they can secede tidily. Ergo West Belfast can't but I think chunks of S Armagh and S Down could. I believe that Newry and Mourne is fairly Nat dominated but that chunjs of County Tyrone are rather mixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 24, 2013 16:57:18 GMT
There's also the issue that a lot of those areas are very rural, and that patterns of service provision won't necessarily match where a border could sensibly be drawn. That's not to say it necessarily does now - Lifford is very clearly a suburb of Strabane, for example, and has been for a century - but it'd be difficult to do it without a great deal of upheaval on the everyday as well as the political level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 24, 2013 17:55:40 GMT
I think the Unionists would probably survive Derry leaving. Screaming but privately admitting that it helped them. I am less sure what the precise breakdown is in Fermanagh. Personally I don't feel that it has to be whole areas if they can secede tidily. Ergo West Belfast can't but I think chunks of S Armagh and S Down could. I believe that Newry and Mourne is fairly Nat dominated but that chunjs of County Tyrone are rather mixed. Fermanagh only ever had a Unionist majority in the towns; Lisnaskea is now majority Nationalist, but Enniskillen is still Unionist. |
|
|
|
Post by irish observer on Feb 24, 2013 17:57:39 GMT
"They" as you put it were maintained under British rule by a partitionist settlement, a significant proportion of them against their will instead of forming part of all-Ireland parliament which had been voted for democratically on several occasions, either for home rule or full independence from Britain. It was chiefly the burghers of your own party that denied these democratic mandates and then drew new lines on the map of Ireland much in the same way as they drew lines on the maps of areas of Africa and Asia where partitioned states developed with the resulting ethno-religious strife. In the recent census 40% subscribed to British identity, 25% to Irish identity and 21% to Northern Irish identity. The Catholic population now amounts to 45% while the combined Protestant population amounts to 48% with the rest ascribing to other. There is a Catholic majority in 4 out of 6 counties of the North and, from the Census, apparently a Catholic majority in Belfast which will have implications for the next local and Westminster elections. Younger Protestants continue to study in places like Scotland and then remain there and not return while Catholics make up a majority of the student population on all campuses. A border poll would likely be lost but Unionists are frankly scared shitless at even having a conversation on the subject as they would have to let the jack out of the box. factually, I would largely agree with all of that . I don't know how many nationalist voters are actually small u unionist, but its some and I don't know how much of the RoI establishment would actively oppose a United Ireland buts it some. That's for the future. In any conflict resolution, it is helpful to learn more about the others sides version of history than your own. I think it would help nationalists if they understood the trauma of WWI, visited chiefly on two significant groups, the public schools of England and the Scots of Ulster. It was virtually impossible for the former to countenance betraying the latter in n1920. Successive British governments since have quietly wished NI would go away. This is the result of the most recent IPSOS/MRBI poll taken on ROI citizens views of unity. It has declined overtime, influenced by the Troubles, but is still supported by a majority. Politically many in Labour, especially the former Stickies, and the Redmondite/John Bruton wing of Fine Gael would be among the most partitionist but all parties would have these elements. www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1127/1224327144275.htmlOn your first point picking figures from thin air I would say c.55-60% of current SDLP voters and c.20-25% of current SF voters would vote to retain the status quo if asked in a vote. I have heard your second point before, indeed in negotiations with de Valera during the 1950s Churchill said he couldn't "betray his friends in Ulster." Of course his own family had changed their views on Ulster several times before. In 1941 Churchill sent his "A Nation Once Again" telegram to de Valera, probably while drunk, encouraging him to abandon neutrality and throw in his lot with the allies (incl. now beligerent USA) in return for which Ireland would be united at the end of the war. De Valera rightly knew there was no guarantee the offer would be honoured and rejected it but it goes to show how "Loyal Ulster" could be traded away by Whitehall if they so desired. See Robert Fisk's In Time of War, Ireland, Ulster & The Price of Neutrality (first published 1983) for more details. There is some legitimacy to your argument but I think it is overplayed as selfish economic, political and defence arguments came into play in arriving at partition. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 24, 2013 18:01:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by irish observer on Feb 24, 2013 18:09:53 GMT
I think the Unionists would probably survive Derry leaving. Screaming but privately admitting that it helped them. I am less sure what the precise breakdown is in Fermanagh. Personally I don't feel that it has to be whole areas if they can secede tidily. Ergo West Belfast can't but I think chunks of S Armagh and S Down could. I believe that Newry and Mourne is fairly Nat dominated but that chunjs of County Tyrone are rather mixed. Fermanagh only ever had a Unionist majority in the towns; Lisnaskea is now majority Nationalist, but Enniskillen is still Unionist. That's correct. Fermanagh had a nationalist majority as far back as 1918 as did Tyrone and they continue to do so to this day. When their county councils declared allegiance to the Irish Free State in 1922, they had sworn allegiance to the Dáil in 1920, their offices were raided and their accounts seized by the RUC and they were abolished and new gerrymandered councils created in their stead. To deal with the point of Stepney the reason for Fermanagh's inclusion was on purely economic grounds as the Unionist Party felt, and persuaded British opinion, that the Northern state needed six counties to be sustainable. In the recent opinion poll commissioned for BBC Spotlight on Irish unity which saw a substantial majority against unity with ROI both those counties recorded a vote in favour. |
|
