HOW WOULD YOU VOTE IN A BORDER POLL?

[Evil Genius]

I mean people have tried to come up with narratives to say the US Civil War was not about slavery, they do this all the time actually

And strictly speaking they're correct - at least to start with. For the war commenced in April 1861 when the Southern states seceded from the Union to form a Confederacy.

The terms were important, since the South wanted control over what they saw as their own (state) affairs, including but not excusively, Slavery. And although Lincoln had been elected on a manifesto which opposed Slavery, he was consistent throughout in prosecuting the war in order to preserve the Union, see eg the lyrics of The Battle Cry of Freedom:

"The Union forever!  Hurrah, boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitor, up with the star;
While we rally round the flag, boys, rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!"
(Note the use of the word "traitor")

While Lincoln didn't make the Proclamation abolishing Slavery throughout all the states until September 1862. This was as much from expediency as principle, since the Union was losing the war at that stage and he knew that the Proclamation would both encourage Black recruitment to the Union army, at the same time as encouraging Southern slaves to escape and travel North, where many would also join up, whilst simultaneously hurting the Southern economy.

Partition did not cause the Civil War and that's the central fact you seem to struggle with

It certainly seems to have caused a civil war on this board, that's for sure! 

Anyhow, the question must be whether the Anti-Treaty forces would still have fought had there been no Oath. My own guess is that some of them would certainly have wanted to do so (esp those from the North, obviously), but might have been deterred had they thought their numbers too few to have a chance of winning.

[sid waddell]

If a republican grouping goes back to killing because the loyalists are doing it then they'll have achieved what they want. Game over. No poll or no votes going towards it.

The thirst for killing is gone. You can blood and thunder all you want but committing crimes will be severely dealt with. Regardless of no RUC the ability to catch people is so much better. Up the prison sentences and lick them away for life. No parole.

Let's see how they'll square that

Locking people up will increase the desire of others in their community for violence

This goes for both Irish nationalist and British nationalist

It would act as a rallying call

Did internment teach you nothing

Did the H-Blocks teach you nothing

The only way you can stop this is to quell the crazy nationalist sentiments which lead to people getting locked up in the first place

Nationalisms are what lead to thirst for killing

What is so crazy about a nationalistic outlook, it's a perfectly legitimate aspiration. Without it, empires would have flourished as imperialism took hold as bigger nations plundered and persecuted the native people. Or should the natives nod obediently say nothing and learn to serve their masters. The Irish state was founded on the same  'crazy nationalism' that seems to irk you. But yet you reckon it is the desire to break free from historical oppression and subservience that is the problem rather than the oppressors themselves, that is certainly an alternative outlook.       

Empires were all based on nationalism

Nationalism eats all before it

Nationalism and hatred of the other are indivisible

Nationalism taken to its logical conclusion leads to mass murder and genocide

Personally I think there's a decent case that every national flag in the world should be burned

I certainly think every Union Jack and Tricolour on this island and especially in NI should be burned

Flags in NI are used purely to antagonise the other and most of this board is made up of fleggers

Nationalism was bolstered and grew out of  those very empires. The problem was those empires themselves where the few attempted to impose their will and laws to rule over millions of natives often in far distant lands with entirely different cultures. Yet you perceive the problem as being those same nation states in wanting the right to self determination.

Do you think Ireland was correct to strike out for independence in the early 20th century then, since what was that only borne out of nationalism and a strike against a foreign ruler?

The issue of flags is a separate issue and I'm no great supporter of flags, they are most often used simply as a way of marking out territory. I don't get the obsession with them even if I can understand others living in interface areas and why they do it.

1916 wasn't only borne out of nationalism

James Connolly and the Citizen Army weren't nationalists

They saw an independent Ireland as the best avenue to a socialist society, the lot of workers, of people, regardless of background, was what they cared about

In order to achieve this, they made an alliance with the rest of the 1916 rebels who were nationalist

Pearse was a fanatical nationalist, like really f**king fanatical, his speech at the O'Donovan Rossa funeral is totally bonkers

I'm ambivalent enough about the concept of Irish independence, Do I think it's better we're independent now? Yes, probably, because the UK is a fairly rotten polity largely controlled by a cabal of southern English conservatives, and the British Empire was even more rotten

And I would prefer not to be part of that

But that said, independent Ireland was a pretty rotten place for most of the 20th century, probably much more rotten than the UK was in that time

Having thought a lot about this in recent years, I'm neither proud nor ashamed to be Irish, and by Irish I mean somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and a citizen of an independent Irish state, it's an accident of birth and an accident of birth on the part of everybody else who was born into it

Ireland is decent enough now because we started to look outward rather than inward, it has changed a lot, it's far from the worst place, far from perfect but overall there are few places I'd rather live

Were it possible for Ireland to be a fair and just society as part of the United Kingdom, independence wouldn't really have mattered, why would it, who cares what flag flies

It probably wasn't possible though

Is it possible for Northern Ireland to be a fair and just society as part of the UK or as part of an independent Irish state? I don't know, but that's what yis should be focussing on, not on what state NI is part of

As Joe Brolly says, whichever flag flies above Stormont isn't going to matter - the question of a united Ireland is basically irrelevant

Flegs don't put bread and ice cream on the table

It's how the politicians and the people in NI behave that will determine what sort of society NI has

As long as yis divide yerselves into usuns and themuns it'll continue be a shithole  - whether part of the UK or an independent Irish state

The Irish Citizen Army were not the main protagonists behind independence and to think otherwise is simply to rewrite history. The driving force was a nationalism in the same way as many failed rebellions of the past.

Had others shown your same ambivalence towards gaining their independence 100 years ago, then you would still be a part of the British state led by English Tories and for which you have suggested is a rotten state. That's where a 'sit on your hands' approach gets you instead of trying to improve things for society from within.

Where do you draw the line in preventing people's aspiration to having a common identity with a shared common goal then. Without it the focus would be entirely on the individual and taken away from the collective. Would we even have a GAA without club or county boundaries where identity is everything.

It won't be an easy problem to solve in the north but try and erode the blatant sectarianism and you go a long way to solving the problem. Rather than divide people from the cradle, educate them together and that is a starting point. If that works then gradually introduce shared living spaces and work forward in incremental steps. In another generation or two you could be in a different space but it requires creative thinking not a 'do nothing' approach.

As for Joe Brolly, he wrote an article in the Sunday Independent only a week previously stating it was time for a United Ireland so I wouldn't pass much remarks on Joe. He'd probably have another different opinion again today if you asked him.       

If you don't think the Citizen Army and Connolly were "one of the main protagonists" for independence you're wrong

Before 1916 there was very little appetite for a Republic at all, Home Rule was the main goal

The Citizen Army and Connolly were the reason the proclamation called for a socialist Republic, had they not been involved the proclamation would not have called for such

I've no doubt if Connolly believed a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland was possible, that would have been his preferred outcome

That line about a socialist Republic endured

But most of the people who were fighting for independence from 1919 on didn't believe in a socialist Republic, they were mostly ethnonationalists and theocrats

I'm all for integrated education, I'm all for integrated living

Unfortunately most people in the North are dead against it despite claiming to be for it

That's because the central plank that divides Northern society is the failed ideology of usuns and themmuns, too many of yis hate each other

Maybe along with the burning of every Union Jack and Tricolour, the school system should be revolutionised and every religious denominated school abolished

That wouldn't wash either though

Eroding sectarianism should be the goal of everybody - but constant agitation for a border poll will only increase it

If Ireland was still a part of the UK, maybe the UK would be a much different state these days, who knows, maybe it wouldn't have been

[Rossfan]

My idea is a Confederation of 2 "home rule" areas run by slimmed down Dáil and Stormont.
The "Confederacy" to be in charge of major items, foreign affairs etc.
GFA provisions re dual Nationality, passports etc to continue in the 6 Co area.

What's the point then?  Particularly, if as you say, Nationalsists can live with the current situation.

All Ireland and its people would be a sovereign State, no foreign Country would rule any part of it (maybe let Westminster have Larne ), the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Ireland would be adhered to, the wishes of the majority of the people of the 6 Cos would be adhered to.
Nobody in London would be making decisions about the 6 Cos.
Assuming a yes vote in the 2 Referenda of course.

[sid waddell]

My idea is a Confederation of 2 "home rule" areas run by slimmed down Dáil and Stormont.
The "Confederacy" to be in charge of major items, foreign affairs etc.
GFA provisions re dual Nationality, passports etc to continue in the 6 Co area.

What's the point then?  Particularly, if as you say, Nationalsists can live with the current situation.

All Ireland and its people would be a sovereign State, no foreign Country would rule any part of it (maybe let Westminster have Larne ), the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Ireland would be adhered to, the wishes of the majority of the people of the 6 Cos would be adhered to.
Nobody in London would be making decisions about the 6 Cos.
Assuming a yes vote in the 2 Referenda of course.

Sweet Home Cullyhanna would be the new national anthem of this Confederacy

The Stars 'N' Bars would be the new national flag - that's the stars from the Starry Plough surrounded by pictures of Ireland's greatest contribution to world culture - pubs

[Lar Naparka]

I mean people have tried to come up with narratives to say the US Civil War was not about slavery, they do this all the time actually

And strictly speaking they're correct - at least to start with. For the war commenced in April 1861 when the Southern states seceded from the Union to form a Confederacy.

The terms were important, since the South wanted control over what they saw as their own (state) affairs, including but not excusively, Slavery. And although Lincoln had been elected on a manifesto which opposed Slavery, he was consistent throughout in prosecuting the war in order to preserve the Union, see eg the lyrics of The Battle Cry of Freedom:

"The Union forever!  Hurrah, boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitor, up with the star;
While we rally round the flag, boys, rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!"
(Note the use of the word "traitor")

While Lincoln didn't make the Proclamation abolishing Slavery throughout all the states until September 1862. This was as much from expediency as principle, since the Union was losing the war at that stage and he knew that the Proclamation would both encourage Black recruitment to the Union army, at the same time as encouraging Southern slaves to escape and travel North, where many would also join up, whilst simultaneously hurting the Southern economy.

Partition did not cause the Civil War and that's the central fact you seem to struggle with

It certainly seems to have caused a civil war on this board, that's for sure! 

Anyhow, the question must be whether the Anti-Treaty forces would still have fought had there been no Oath. My own guess is that some of them would certainly have wanted to do so (esp those from the North, obviously), but might have been deterred had they thought their numbers too few to have a chance of winning.

Well, I quoted JC Beckett on this subject for sid's enlightenment but I think if I stuck in an excerpt from the Kama Sutra he wouldn't have noticed.
Beckett had claimed that the anti-Treaty faction had actively considered prolonging the struggle in Northern Ireland  but, in the end, decided against it. Collins, having foreseen the likelihood of this happening, had come to an understanding with Craig and, presumably, let it be known that the Nationalists were not going to get involved.
So a combination of circumstances led  to Dev et al abandoning their plans.
Incidentally, have you heard or read anywhere that the Oath of Allegiance led to the Civil War?*

*Any other omniscient, knowall expert other than our Sid! 

[Evil Genius]

The Stars 'N' Bars would be the new national flag - that's the stars from the Starry Plough surrounded by pictures of Ireland's greatest contribution to world culture - pubs

Are you sure?

"Ale was a native British drink before the arrival of the Roman Empire in the 1st century, but it was with the construction of the Roman road network that the first pubs, called tabernae, began to appear. The word eventually became corrupted into tavern.
After the departure of Roman authority in the 5th century and the fall of the Romano-British kingdoms, the Anglo-Saxons established alehouses that may have grown out of domestic dwellings, first attested in the 10th century. These alehouses quickly evolved into meeting houses for folk to socially congregate, gossip and arrange mutual help within their communities. The Wantage law code of Æthelred the Unready proscribes fines for breaching the peace at meetings held in alehouses."
https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-Great-British-Pub/

Though the Irish might have invented bar fights... 

[Evil Genius]

Anyhow, the question must be whether the Anti-Treaty forces would still have fought had there been no Oath. My own guess is that some of them would certainly have wanted to do so (esp those from the North, obviously), but might have been deterred had they thought their numbers too few to have a chance of winning.

Incidentally, have you heard or read anywhere that the Oath of Allegiance led to the Civil War?

The Oath (or more accurately, the counter-demand for a Republic) will have been a factor, and the major one for many participants. But it was by no means the only one, with Partition being arguably more important.

While there will also have been many other factors of the sort which usually colour these things. One of these will have been simple war weariness, allied to the very real fear that if the Treaty wasn't accepted, the British would return with a big enough army to impose it come-what-may.

While there was also the question of who would wield real power after the Anglo-Irish War was over, the Army or the Dáil. As is so often the case in such conflicts, there was a clear sense of entitlement from many combatants who felt they had done the 'heavy lifting' during the fighting, versus those politicians who felt that fighting was just the means to the end, that end being the political settlement. Indeed this "entitlement" was further fuelled by those combatants who were disgruntled at not having received pay due to them from their war service.

And while I'm unsure how far it went, the support by the Catholic church for the Free State government must have influenced at least some people.

Finally there was the question of Personality. And with the two chief personalities, Collins and De Valera, having come to hate each other, with neither willing to share power, then Dev was always going to strike out against Collins.

Of course we don't know whether Collins would have accepted the result of the election had the pro-treaty vote been in the minority (I suspect he might), but such was Dev's overwheening lust for power that we can be sure he was never going to accept mere leadership of a minority opposition in the Dáil without a fight.

[charlieTully]

My idea is a Confederation of 2 "home rule" areas run by slimmed down Dáil and Stormont.
The "Confederacy" to be in charge of major items, foreign affairs etc.
GFA provisions re dual Nationality, passports etc to continue in the 6 Co area.

What's the point then?  Particularly, if as you say, Nationalsists can live with the current situation.

All Ireland and its people would be a sovereign State, no foreign Country would rule any part of it (maybe let Westminster have Larne ), the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Ireland would be adhered to, the wishes of the majority of the people of the 6 Cos would be adhered to.
Nobody in London would be making decisions about the 6 Cos.
Assuming a yes vote in the 2 Referenda of course.

Sweet Home Cullyhanna would be the new national anthem of this Confederacy

The Stars 'N' Bars would be the new national flag - that's the stars from the Starry Plough surrounded by pictures of Ireland's greatest contribution to world culture - pubs

I have to confess Sid this made me lol

[Lar Naparka]

Anyhow, the question must be whether the Anti-Treaty forces would still have fought had there been no Oath. My own guess is that some of them would certainly have wanted to do so (esp those from the North, obviously), but might have been deterred had they thought their numbers too few to have a chance of winning.

Incidentally, have you heard or read anywhere that the Oath of Allegiance led to the Civil War?

The Oath (or more accurately, the counter-demand for a Republic) will have been a factor, and the major one for many participants. But it was by no means the only one, with Partition being arguably more important.

While there will also have been many other factors of the sort which usually colour these things. One of these will have been simple war weariness, allied to the very real fear that if the Treaty wasn't accepted, the British would return with a big enough army to impose it come-what-may.

While there was also the question of who would wield real power after the Anglo-Irish War was over, the Army or the Dáil. As is so often the case in such conflicts, there was a clear sense of entitlement from many combatants who felt they had done the 'heavy lifting' during the fighting, versus those politicians who felt that fighting was just the means to the end, that end being the political settlement. Indeed this "entitlement" was further fuelled by those combatants who were disgruntled at not having received pay due to them from their war service.

And while I'm unsure how far it went, the support by the Catholic church for the Free State government must have influenced at least some people.

Finally there was the question of Personality. And with the two chief personalities, Collins and De Valera, having come to hate each other, with neither willing to share power, then Dev was always going to strike out against Collins.

Of course we don't know whether Collins would have accepted the result of the election had the pro-treaty vote been in the minority (I suspect he might), but such was Dev's overwheening lust for power that we can be sure he was never going to accept mere leadership of a minority opposition in the Dáil without a fight.

Of course we don't know whether Collins would have accepted the result of the election had the pro-treaty vote been in the minority (I suspect he might), but such was Dev's overwheening lust for power that we can be sure he was never going to accept mere leadership of a minority opposition in the Dáil without a fight.
[/quote]

I think iit's is reasonable to assume that Partition was at the forefront of the reasons that led to the civil war. Unless it became obvious that partition was on the cards, there would have been little cause to swear anything to the king.
Partition was undoubtedly the principal issue that separated the factions. If Dev had had more support, he'd have continued the fight in the North but with Collins' tacit understanding with Craig, the Long fella knew he'd get nowhere without the support of the Big Fella.
Incidentally, have you ever come across a suggestion that a 26 county republic might be formed which would do away with the necessity to swear anything?
No other know all expert apart from sid has ever brought this up to my knowledge.
The Church split along class lines- as it had been doing since the time of the famine if not before.
Bishops and upper echelons supported the status quo with rare exceptions. In my home diocese of Achonry, the bishop told his flock that anyone taking up arms against the Crown forces would be excommunicated and forbidden the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist.
Some of the local clergy, n the other hand, said it was business as usual and to hell with the bishop. This was the situation was to be repeated throughout the south.
This also applied to the civil war.
The hierarchy were pro- Treaty and many, though not all,, of the clergy backed the irregulars.

[Lar Naparka]

I think it's very telling that the news that an inquest into the Ballymurphy massacre will be held, later this month, 47 years later,  and the public reaction has been minimal. Furthermore, Ch4's new documentary on the killings seems to have gone largely unnoticed.
Maybe news media in Northern Ireland  may have touched on the subject in the light of the upcoming inquest and tv documentary, but nothing was mentioned, ASAIK  south of the border...sweet fa...zero
I genuinely feel sorry for posters on the board  who feel that the southern  partitionist, Free State bastards didn't come to their aid in times gone by and show no remorse for their inaction etc etc but the harsh fact is that even in Republican strongholds in the Wee Six, no reaction to the re-awakening of interest in those premeditated murders has been evident.
It's as if the human mind has an anti-overload mechanism that shuts consciousness down when the reality is too terrible to face.. I don't recall any fuss being made to commemorate the victims of Kitson's thugs when anniversaries came around and judging by his subsequent career,  his actions were approved by his superiors. Can't recall much international reaction either - certainly not at government level.
I recall  being in Newry about 20 years ago on the anniversary of the Ballymurphy murders and there wasn't a banner insight- never mind a good wall mural or two.
I guess that what I am getting at is that expecting sympathy from any quarter for the wrongs done to anybody during the troubles is a wasted exercise.
I don't expect any southern poster to disagree with me when I say that very few south of the border, and many too north of it, won't pay a blind bit of notice to anyone griping about past wrongs. This isn't pleasant news for many with genuine grievances but it can't be helped.

Trying to change public opinion is like trying to get a puppy's tail to wag a St. Bernard Dog.

[sid waddell]

The C4 documentary about Ballymurphy was three years ago?

Unless there's another new one upcoming?

I seem to remember it attracted quite a bit of attention at the time

[Lar Naparka]

The C4 documentary about Ballymurphy was three years ago?

Unless there's another new one upcoming?

I seem to remember it attracted quite a bit of attention at the time

I'm going by the current thread that attracted a total of 14 posts.
It attracted 8 posts when it was first posted and Angelo resurrected it this week to announce that the findings were due in May. That, in turn led to an additional 5 posts, two of which were by Angelo. I'm saying hat the population north and south don't appear to be too interested in what happend in Ballymurphy in 1971.

[Angelo]

Going by the commentary and we'll solely focus on the O6 at present.

Most people accept the DUP/UUP/TUV cannot be engaged with on this, their political leaders are not willing to entertain discussion. These parties play up to the gallery of the voters of rabid unionism and sectarianism, that's what they are about. They got 42.5% of the vote last time out. But it's a dwindling vote in terms of demographics. They are being outbred steadily over year and years. They don't want to be engaged, they can't be engaged - forget about it.

SF make up about 28% of the vote in the last election, let's just say for augment sake - all pro United Ireland. Now don't forget there's also a sizable dissident groupings up north who never vote, who never engage electorally who will come out for this vote. They don't seem to recognised in this regard yet but it's important not to forget them.

Now it's probably on to the most important area that middle ground.

It's hard to know how the SDLP will go, it's a very watery version of nationalism. Their voting base is a mixture of an older generation vote and affluent areas like South Belfast, they might like the status quo.

Alliance is another very iffy area. Some people would regard them as moderate unionist but I think they are more of a moderate grouping of all sorts of leanings. If you look at some of their candidates from nationalist areas last time around they have a number of candidates you would say could very well be from nationalist backgrounds. The default position that the Alliance is a unionist party is not something I necessarily agree with myself. I don't really see a huge difference to them and the watery version of nationalism you get with the SDLP.

Noreen Campbell - Fermanagh/South Tyrone
Stephen Donnelly - West Tyrone
Colm Cavanagh - Foyle

I think a lot of these votes are best up for grabs and it's best let the DUP/UUP/TUV dinosaurs make their mind up for them.

Greens/PBP etc might be more engaged by the prospect of an All Ireland basis.

The next assembly elections will be interesting to see if there has been a more notable shift in demographics

[seafoid]

The middle ground tends to be interested in facts. Things like standard of living and likely chaos.
And demographics don't change overnight.

[Angelo]

The middle ground tends to be interested in facts. Things like standard of living and likely chaos.
And demographics don't change overnight.

Moderate unionism represents about 5% of unionism.

You simply have no idea what you are dealing with.