Get ready to wave them flegs - Lily Windsor's coming

[AQMP]

You wont ever want to 'get it'  - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.

Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?

yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!

Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy"  is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?

The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.

Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.

Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. 

I'm joining this bit of the debate a bit late in the day but I've always thought that support or otherwise for a United Ireland has little to do with money.  As EG said when the Free State economy was on the up and NI's was the basket case it's always been and always will be support and opposition to an UI didn't change much.  I don't see that changing much now that the South is in terminal decline and the UK is only a couple of laps behind.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

You wont ever want to 'get it'  - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.

Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?

yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!

Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy"  is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?

The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.

Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.

Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. 

I'm joining this bit of the debate a bit late in the day but I've always thought that support or otherwise for a United Ireland has little to do with money.  As EG said when the Free State economy was on the up and NI's was the basket case it's always been and always will be support and opposition to an UI didn't change much.  I don't see that changing much now that the South is in terminal decline and the UK is only a couple of laps behind.

From my experience of friends from the North, middle class and third level educated Northern Unionists seem almost open minded to the concept of a United Ireland especially after a few beers. Middle class and third level educated Northern Nationalists appear to be willing to accept the status quo.

[trueblue1234]

And the winner is Muppet.

+1

-1

BM wins on points. Please god no rematch.

[AQMP]

You wont ever want to 'get it'  - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.

Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?

yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!

Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy"  is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?

The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.

Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.

Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. 

I'm joining this bit of the debate a bit late in the day but I've always thought that support or otherwise for a United Ireland has little to do with money.  As EG said when the Free State economy was on the up and NI's was the basket case it's always been and always will be support and opposition to an UI didn't change much.  I don't see that changing much now that the South is in terminal decline and the UK is only a couple of laps behind.

From my experience of friends from the North, middle class and third level educated Northern Unionists seem almost open minded to the concept of a United Ireland especially after a few beers. Middle class and third level educated Northern Nationalists appear to be willing to accept the status quo.

What beer is that MGHU...it must be rocket fuel!!

[Tyrones own]

i didn't have an opportunity to respond directly, i was too busy dealing with your lies, which incidentially is taking up a lot of fruitless time as you just won't listen

Admit it - I did not say I opposed Obama as you claim, admit it's lies and we can move on - you still can't show exactly where I said i opposed the visit of ObamaIt's total lies and you can't prove it - you are still trying to deflect and dive into other areas, i'm not allowing myself to be taken down another cul-de-sac of shite you are typoing, admit i did not oppose Obama - you are totally in the wrong

Just catching up to this now, don't know how I missed it.
Some things just don't change Muppet..them black crows are still white I see 
Ever think of becoming a politician?

[muppet]

i didn't have an opportunity to respond directly, i was too busy dealing with your lies, which incidentially is taking up a lot of fruitless time as you just won't listen

Admit it - I did not say I opposed Obama as you claim, admit it's lies and we can move on - you still can't show exactly where I said i opposed the visit of ObamaIt's total lies and you can't prove it - you are still trying to deflect and dive into other areas, i'm not allowing myself to be taken down another cul-de-sac of shite you are typoing, admit i did not oppose Obama - you are totally in the wrong

Just catching up to this now, don't know how I missed it.
Some things just don't change Muppet..them black crows are still white I see 
Ever think of becoming a politician?

Cool a Tyrone's Own endorsement.

Second only to Brian Lenihan.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

You wont ever want to 'get it'  - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.

Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?

yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!

Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy"  is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?

The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.

Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.

Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. 

I'm joining this bit of the debate a bit late in the day but I've always thought that support or otherwise for a United Ireland has little to do with money.  As EG said when the Free State economy was on the up and NI's was the basket case it's always been and always will be support and opposition to an UI didn't change much.  I don't see that changing much now that the South is in terminal decline and the UK is only a couple of laps behind.

From my experience of friends from the North, middle class and third level educated Northern Unionists seem almost open minded to the concept of a United Ireland especially after a few beers. Middle class and third level educated Northern Nationalists appear to be willing to accept the status quo.

What beer is that MGHU...it must be rocket fuel!!

Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA.

[AQMP]

Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA

That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968...you'd be surprised how people reacted.

[Evil Genius]

Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA

That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968...you'd be surprised how people reacted.

You really need to study History before coming up with bilge like that.

For the settlement of 1921 was originally only designed to be temporary, prior to an (assumed) United Ireland at some future stage.

Plus the War of Independence spilled over into NI in the following years.

The IRA were active both in NI and GB during WWII, in their alliance with the Nazis.

And there was a further Border Campaign between 1956 and 1962.

And all the while this was going on, the Free State/Eire/Republic was claiming jurisdiction over NI, whilst their friends in eg Irish-America and the British Labour Party etc were agitating for a United Ireland.

None of which may excuse discrimination etc against Nationalists in NI, but it does go some way towards explaining it.

Anyhow, MayoGodHelpUs has hit upon a very pertinent point, which is that if people (all sides) do not feel coerced, they will generally be open to reason.

Which is actually at the very root of the conundrum facing Irish Republicanism i.e. the more they attempt to pressurise Unionists towards a UI, whether by political or (esp) paramilitary means, the more Unionists are liable to resist.

Indeed, if a United Ireland is the logical and natural outcome for the island, leading towards peace and prosperity for all, then the best thing Republicans could do would be just to keepm quiet and let Unionists figure it out for themselves.

Of course, the flaw in that particular argument will be if a United Ireland isn't, in fact, the best outcome for all - for Unionists, at least.

On which point, I would be interested to hear from the Republicans on this Board just exactly what it is they think there is about a UI which should appeal to Unionists?

For as a Unionist who is not totally averse to the idea in principle, neither can I see anything especially positive in it for me.

[Applesisapples]

... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.

However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).

I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.

In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.

Guys if you look at the history of Scotland you will discover that the Scots culture and Gaelic Language was brought to Scotland by the Irish when they invaded. Thats why the language, traditions and music are so similar. Ulster Scotts is an invention by Loyalists to avoid classifying themselves as Irish...but we are really one big extended family.

[Applesisapples]

You wont ever want to 'get it'  - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.

Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?

yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!

Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy"  is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?

The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.

Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.

Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. 

I'm joining this bit of the debate a bit late in the day but I've always thought that support or otherwise for a United Ireland has little to do with money.  As EG said when the Free State economy was on the up and NI's was the basket case it's always been and always will be support and opposition to an UI didn't change much.  I don't see that changing much now that the South is in terminal decline and the UK is only a couple of laps behind.

From my experience of friends from the North, middle class and third level educated Northern Unionists seem almost open minded to the concept of a United Ireland especially after a few beers. Middle class and third level educated Northern Nationalists appear to be willing to accept the status quo.

Reunification when it happens will be a slow inexorable process and the last stage will be political  reunification. There are many stages yet to go through and it will take at least another generation. But in the mean time look on the bright side we have two international soccer teams, one for them and one for us.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.

However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).

I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.

In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.

Guys if you look at the history of Scotland you will discover that the Scots culture and Gaelic Language was brought to Scotland by the Irish when they invaded. Thats why the language, traditions and music are so similar. Ulster Scotts is an invention by Loyalists to avoid classifying themselves as Irish...but we are really one big extended family.

No no no no no no, this is not true. Ireland was the original Scotia. The Scots were/are a tribe of Irish Gaels. These Gaels colonised Western Scotland and the Isles successfully, they and their decendents managed to briefly control the remaining Picts to the East and the Cumbrics (Britons/North Welsh - St.Partrick's people). The even briefly had the upperhand against the Angles/Anglish/Lowlanders in the South East.

The Lowlanders/Angles/Anglish orginiated in Germany, they had their own Proto-English language (now known as Lallans or *****). They were offshoots or closely related to the Northumbrians.

The Gaels and Angles worked simultaneously to take control of what we now understand to be Scotland. It is unclear if they were working together. The Gaels attempted to conquer Northumbria but were stopped. Their decendents (Gaelic/Irish Speaking) did form the Kingdom of Scotland (basically East-Ireland) to replace the Kingdom of Pictland. The Cumbrics and Lowlanders/Angles were subservant. Much later the Lowlanders gained the upperhand, as this process took place Gaelic/Irish spoken in Scotland went from being Scots to being Gaelic while Anglish became known as Scots. That is were the confusion lies.

1. Ireland was Scotia, then both Ireland and Scotland were Scotia, then Ireland was no longer known by this name except to the French and Scotland was Scotia, then the French stopped calling Ireland Scotia. Scotia eventually became known as Scotland.

2. Irish/Gaelic was Scots and Anglish/Lallens was not, then later much later Irish/Gaelic was no longer known as Scots, instead Anglish/Lallens took up the mantle.

The Scots who colonised Scotland from Ireland were mostly Gaels, the Scots who colonised Ireland from Scotland were mostly Germanic Angles.

Another group the Norse fell into the mix somewhere in the middle, but those on the Shetlands and Orkney stayed mostly lowal to Scandinavian Kings for a long time.
The Outer Hebridies Norse got Gaelicised and switched their loyalty to the Irish/Gaels, intermarrying with them.

(***** above is just because I didn't want to say Scots that early in the explanation)

[Farrandeelin]

... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.

However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).

I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.

In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.

Guys if you look at the history of Scotland you will discover that the Scots culture and Gaelic Language was brought to Scotland by the Irish when they invaded. Thats why the language, traditions and music are so similar. Ulster Scotts is an invention by Loyalists to avoid classifying themselves as Irish...but we are really one big extended family.

No no no no no no, this is not true. Ireland was the original Scotia. The Scots were/are a tribe of Irish Gaels. These Gaels colonised Western Scotland and the Isles successfully, they and their decendents managed to briefly control the remaining Picts to the East and the Cumbrics (Britons/North Welsh - St.Partrick's people). The even briefly had the upperhand against the Angles/Anglish/Lowlanders in the South East.

The Lowlanders/Angles/Anglish orginiated in Germany, they had their own Proto-English language (now known as Lallans or *****). They were offshoots or closely related to the Northumbrians.

The Gaels and Angles worked simultaneously to take control of what we now understand to be Scotland. It is unclear if they were working together. The Gaels attempted to conquer Northumbria but were stopped. Their decendents (Gaelic/Irish Speaking) did form the Kingdom of Scotland (basically East-Ireland) to replace the Kingdom of Pictland. The Cumbrics and Lowlanders/Angles were subservant. Much later the Lowlanders gained the upperhand, as this process took place Gaelic/Irish spoken in Scotland went from being Scots to being Gaelic while Anglish became known as Scots. That is were the confusion lies.

1. Ireland was Scotia, then both Ireland and Scotland were Scotia, then Ireland was no longer known by this name except to the French and Scotland was Scotia, then the French stopped calling Ireland Scotia. Scotia eventually became known as Scotland.

2. Irish/Gaelic was Scots and Anglish/Lallens was not, then later much later Irish/Gaelic was no longer known as Scots, instead Anglish/Lallens took up the mantle.

The Scots who colonised Scotland from Ireland were mostly Gaels, the Scots who colonised Ireland from Scotland were mostly Germanic Angles.

Another group the Norse fell into the mix somewhere in the middle, but those on the Shetlands and Orkney stayed mostly lowal to Scandinavian Kings for a long time.
The Outer Hebridies Norse got Gaelicised and switched their loyalty to the Irish/Gaels, intermarrying with them.

(***** above is just because I didn't want to say Scots that early in the explanation)

Thanks for clearing it all up. You must have a Doctorate in History to understand it all!!!

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.

However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).

I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.

In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.

Guys if you look at the history of Scotland you will discover that the Scots culture and Gaelic Language was brought to Scotland by the Irish when they invaded. Thats why the language, traditions and music are so similar. Ulster Scotts is an invention by Loyalists to avoid classifying themselves as Irish...but we are really one big extended family.

No no no no no no, this is not true. Ireland was the original Scotia. The Scots were/are a tribe of Irish Gaels. These Gaels colonised Western Scotland and the Isles successfully, they and their decendents managed to briefly control the remaining Picts to the East and the Cumbrics (Britons/North Welsh - St.Partrick's people). The even briefly had the upperhand against the Angles/Anglish/Lowlanders in the South East.

The Lowlanders/Angles/Anglish orginiated in Germany, they had their own Proto-English language (now known as Lallans or *****). They were offshoots or closely related to the Northumbrians.

The Gaels and Angles worked simultaneously to take control of what we now understand to be Scotland. It is unclear if they were working together. The Gaels attempted to conquer Northumbria but were stopped. Their decendents (Gaelic/Irish Speaking) did form the Kingdom of Scotland (basically East-Ireland) to replace the Kingdom of Pictland. The Cumbrics and Lowlanders/Angles were subservant. Much later the Lowlanders gained the upperhand, as this process took place Gaelic/Irish spoken in Scotland went from being Scots to being Gaelic while Anglish became known as Scots. That is were the confusion lies.

1. Ireland was Scotia, then both Ireland and Scotland were Scotia, then Ireland was no longer known by this name except to the French and Scotland was Scotia, then the French stopped calling Ireland Scotia. Scotia eventually became known as Scotland.

2. Irish/Gaelic was Scots and Anglish/Lallens was not, then later much later Irish/Gaelic was no longer known as Scots, instead Anglish/Lallens took up the mantle.

The Scots who colonised Scotland from Ireland were mostly Gaels, the Scots who colonised Ireland from Scotland were mostly Germanic Angles.

Another group the Norse fell into the mix somewhere in the middle, but those on the Shetlands and Orkney stayed mostly lowal to Scandinavian Kings for a long time.
The Outer Hebridies Norse got Gaelicised and switched their loyalty to the Irish/Gaels, intermarrying with them.

(***** above is just because I didn't want to say Scots that early in the explanation)

Thanks for clearing it all up. You must have a Doctorate in History to understand it all!!!

O I am sure I left loads out. I'm also sure most of you knew most of that. But there are a few who seem happy to ignore large chunks of it. I do apologise if I came across arrogant there, its just an unfortunate result of me being a complete arse tbh. The grammar and spelling alone must be shocking.

[armaghniac]

But there are a few who seem happy to ignore large chunks of it

People with gaelic names, who are probably descended from picts, for instance?

The grammar and spelling alone must be shocking.

Don't be slagging off Ulster Scots.