Messages

I'm not sure that the process being hoped for here has anything to do with the DUP. To my mind, the original £62 million is sitting there for this stadium and I'm assuming the GAA will stump up their £15 million. The planning approval is in place.

The extra money is never going to come from Stormont but possibly from another body who are pushing for the Euro bid.

What is it you think the DUP could object to? The release of the £62 million?

Sorry if subsequent posts have addressed this, but when the Maze Stadium was pulled (by the bean counters at Stormont, btw), they reallocated the money to the three sporting bodies, to build their own Regional Stadia, as follows.
Ulster Rugby was granted £20m, which they used to rebuild Ravenhill.
While it having been agreed (effectively between Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness) that soccer and GAA would get equal shares, this worked out at £62.5m each.
The IFA decided to spend £26m on rebuilding Windsor, with the remaining £36.5m going towards sub-Regional stadia throughout NI, plus a national training centre.
While the GAA opted to spend all its allocation, along with £15m from its own resources, on a (then) 38k rebuild of Casement.

Now that the estimated cost of Casement has spiralled to £120m(?), no-one is sure where the extra £40-50m is going to come from. Stormont, with whom the original £145m was ring-fenced) doesn't have it without raiding other budgets, which is unlikely to get past Nationalist ministers with responsibility for schools, hospitals and housing etc, never mind Unionist ministers.

It may be that Westminster might come up with some extra dosh, in order to make it a truly UK and ROI-wide event. Which is why the IFA and GAA are united in pushing Casement - it's in both their mutual interests.

But the problem there is that if the extra money went solely to GAA without some further allocation to soccer and rugby etc, then you would effectively be "punishing" the IFA and Ulster Rugby for their competence in building Windsor and Ravenhill basically on time and within budget, while at the same time "rewarding" the GAA for their incompetence in failing even to get the first spade in the ground after a decade.

Though a newspaper report from July 2021 quoted unnamed sources at the IFA in saying that they would accept it if they (IFA) in turn got half the extra sum which the GAA  are seeking. (Pragmatism, I'd guess).

Anyhow, that's it from me for now - back sometime later - if you can contain your excitement! 

Some strange stadium choices for the Euro bid
Croke Park is bigger than the AvivaCasement doesn't existOld Trafford is bigger than EtihadNew Everton stadium doesn't exist

I think its reasonable enough. London's the only city with two stadiums and its about 10 times bigger than Dublin. Croker isnt a good experience for a Soccer game at all either, the pitch is far too big. The assumption is that Croker will get Casement's games if Casement isn't built in time.

Old Trafford is likely to be getting redeveloped in 2028. Everton's planned stadium looks great and Liverpool as a city was always going to get games, and half of Anfield is very behind the times. That Everton stadium is already half complete

Sorry, only just seen this reply to 'dec' now.
Agree with all of it, except your assunption that Croke is on standby for Casement. Afaik, UEFA doesn't like one city hosting two different groups in two different stadia, so I think Croke has been ruled out (not certain, mind).
London is an exception since as well as Tottenham - arguably the "best" stadium in Europe - they also have the 90k Wembley for the Final and semi-Finals etc.

Some strange stadium choices for the Euro bid

Croke Park is bigger than the Aviva
Casement doesn't exist
Old Trafford is bigger than Etihad
New Everton stadium doesn't exist

Evening all.

Only just logged on to this thread - yes, what an exciting life I lead on a Friday evening lol - and first up on this.
1. The FAI part-own the Aviva, and so don't want to pay rent for Croke, which in any case is not ideal for soccer (far too far from the pitch etc, while standing is not permitted at internationals);
2. Agreed, but that's really a sop to the IFA/Belfast - if Casement should not get built in time, they can easily substitute another existing stadium eg Sunderland;
3. Man Utd could not guarantee that OT would be available during that period (redevelopment plans of their own);
4. Everton is already half built and is set to open in time for the 2024/25 season. (Anfield's pitch is not big enough to satisfy UEFA's minimum dimensions, and cannot be enlarged without knocking down a couple of stands, which in turn cannot be replaced on such a cramped site).

More to follow.

EG's theory in a nutshell:

A person can only ever become more resolved towards Unionism, never less.  Once a unionist, always a unionist, regardless of circumstance.

No, I'm not saying that.

What I am saying is that Sinn Fein will not persuade Unionists to become Nationalists, whether by bullet or ballot. On the contrary, the more successful SF become in persuading people within their own community, the less likely Unionists are to be persuaded by them, not more.

Nationalists, however, are capable of become non-nationalists (or at the very least agnostic about the subject) at the drop of a crown hat.

Which is utter nonsense.

It is not "noinsense", rather as very opinion poll this century has shown, it is demonstrable fact.

For it didn't take the "droip of a hat", regal or otherwise, rather it took the end of The Troubles, the implementation of the GFA and the relative peace of the last 30-odd years to elicit change in some Nationalist thinking in NI.

Which is not to say that they are any "less Nationalist" in terms of identity and aspiration etc, nor in their voting habits in ordinary elections.

But now that the GFA has guaranteed their right to express ad uphold their Irish identity in all the different ways which that entails (culture, language, sport, arts etc), there has undeniably emerged a small but significant strand within Nationalism in NI which is no longer desperate to achieve a UI.

Meaning that if it ever came to a referendum, some Nationalists aren't likely to vote at all, while some might even vote to remain. And even if were only talking about a few, for any vote for a UI to succeed, then it would take 100% of Nationalists to turn out and vote for it.

And then for a proportion of Unionists to vote for it as well.

And even if the former could be achieved (highly unlikely, imo), then thisUnionist considers that the latter is further away than ever.

All of which explains why, with every electoral success, SF are still not demanding a referendum. Which in turn reflects that their political leaders understand how these things work rather better thsn their supporters.

Unsurprising though, as the political leaders of Unionism display a similar head in the sand attitude to the changes occurring in front of their eyes.

This Unionist, at least, is under no illusions as to the mess that the DUP, and TUV etc, have got themselves into.

Nor am I under any illusions as to the harm that that is causing for the lives of people in NI etc.

But as I keep repeating, whatever happens in local elections etc has no little or bearing on how people would vote in a referendum. And to take this right back on topic, whatever the recent manoeuverings of SF etc, I saw nothing in the events of the last couple of weeks to persuade me that Unionists are any less committed to the Union than before.

If anything, those scenes from Westminster and the reaction to them in NI suggest to me that the bond is as strong as ever.

That entire post reminds me of James Molyneaux proclaiming that "a prolonged IRA ceasefire could be the most destabilising thing to happen to unionism since partition".

Would that be the same James Molyneux who ceased to be politicalyl relevant sometime before the end of the last century?

Your post absolutely screams of your discomfort at the positive reaction SF have been getting from the 'middle of the roaders' over the last week. SF won't have lost any support from it's base over the course of the last few days - they've been greeting royal visitors here for a decade after all (and I remember the jibes from opponents predicting that it meant SF were about to take their seats in Westminster back then too ).

What you infer and what I imply, never mind state, are two very different things.

For I am not at all "discomforted" by the sight of SF having to move away from everything that they used to hold dear, if anything I am somewhat amused by it. (Nor btw did I predict eg that they will take their seats at Westminster, rather I suggested that they might as well.)

So while they won't have lot support, they will however have gained a degree of support from the middle of the road. The same people you no doubt know are key to a border poll.

And then to cap the post off with the claim that Irish Republicanism is dying, at a time when SF's is now the largest party north and south, and still growing?? You're some ostrich.

They won't have lost support. Indeed they most likely have gained support.

But the point is that such shifts are entirely within the Nationalist spectrum, meaning that if eg I were an SDLP supporter, I could well be discomforted etc, but as a Unionist, I am not moved, either literally or figuratively..

Ditto the emergence of SF as a force in ROI. For if anything, that trend only makes a UI vote in a referendum LESS likely not more, on the basis that while  some moderate Unionists might be persuadable that in principle at least, a UI could be good for them, Hell will freezr over before we will trust our fate to a UI where SF has the whip hand.

As for you "midlle of the road" manoeuvering, where you're going wrong is in imagining that there is only one road in NI, with one middle. Whereas the reality is that there are two roads, a Nationalist one and a Unionist one. And while SF may have made gains in the middle lane of theirs, unless or until Nationalism can persuade a sizeable proportion of Unionists that we should all be "On the One Road", then they have no hope of gaining a majority in any referendum.

Which is why I am not at all disacomforted by the events of the last few days, since as well as movement by and within Nationalism etc, this Ostrich has also observed the other lesson to be drawn, namely that support for the Union within Unionism, whether party political or cultural, is as strong as ever.

And unless or until that latter changes, there simply won't be a UI.

Which I am entirely comfortable with.

[it's coming]

Unionism is really struggling to process the normalisation of SF by everyone other than them and the straw clutching will go on.

Correction: party political Unionism may be struggling etc, but so what?

For as well as manadating a place for Nationalism in any devolved government in NI, the GFA also mandated a place for Unionism. And since one cannot proceed without the other, then nothing is changed whether the FM be SF and the DFM is DUP, or vice versa.

In the meantime the battle for the middle ground in NI goes on as it is they who will decide the constitutional question when it comes and it's coming.

Which one are you?

It's a mad world we live in these days when Unionists berate SF for not being Republican enough. 🤷‍♂️

A sure sign that Sinn Fein are finally on the right track.

Except that I wasnt berating them, I was analysing their current political stance, from a Unionist perspective.

My point being that of course I prefer that they are now playing politics rather than paramilitarism etc, but either way, I genuinely don't see how their current strategy is any more likely to bring about a UI than their previous one.

SF doing the decent thing is shocking and scary. You'll never change the hardliners on both sides from being upset at them doing that, but everyone else thinks they've played a blinder. Keep this up and the moderate unionists won't be so frightened of what a UI might look like.

This (moderate) Unionist is neither "shocked" nor "scared".

While not being frightened of something is not the same as being positively enthusiastic for it.

And if Irish Nationalism is to have any hope of achieving a majority for a UI in a referendum, they need to persuade a sizeable proportion of  the Unionist population to become enthusiastic Nationalists.

And whatever the events of the last 11 days have told us about SF etc, it has also told us that the Unionist/British identity in NI is as strong as ever.

[it's abundantly clear why they did it.]

Just to throw in my penny's worth as a SF voter...

And here's mine as a Unonist (though not a DUPer).

Anyhow, I was chatting earlier this evening to another Unionist (but no hardliner) and we both agreed, what must eg the mother of a dead hunger striker, or a volunteer who was shot on an operation etc, think upon seeing the recent activities oif SF?

I mean, just what the fcuk was the "armed struggle" for? So  Michelle O'Neill could fly over to Westminster to be seen shaking hands with the Royal Family etc, surrounded by British servicemen and women in unifoirm?

Before flying back and berating the DUP for not joining in helping them both administer British Rule in Ireland?

It will never be comfortable watching SF politicians shaking hands with British monarchs while we remain partitioned, but that being said, it's abundantly clear why they did it.

"Never comfortable" is it?

I'm surprised any self-respecting Republican - the clue's in the name btw - could keep from throwing up at the very sight, but no matter.

And as for "why they did it", that's bloody obvious - they're just playing politics. Which in itself might be fine - after all they're politicians these days - but to what political end?

To put one over the DUP/TUV etc, while stealing the SDLP's clothes etc and to maximise the Nationalist vote at the next election, yeah, I can see all that. But to borrow a soccer analogy, that's all just fannying about outside the penalty area, playing neat tiki-taka to entertain the fans in the stand, without ever getting a shot on target, never mind scoring a goal, the "target" being a United Ireland.

Or so I thought.

They have been getting lauded from (almost) all directions for how they've handled the last few days - most notably from middle grounders who are the very people that need to be brought on board for what is now an inevitable border poll and like all SF does - it's geared towards a successful border poll.

Christ! Do you really believe that?

Were I a Shinner, positively the last thing I'd want would be a border poll. I mean, why suffer the humiliation of losing?

For if anything, this week's activities have made a UI vote further away, not closer, on two counts.

1. "Normalising" politics in NI does nothing for Republicanism, since the closer NI gets to normality, the less pressing the need of Nationalists for a UI.

2. And even if they can maximise their share of the Nationalist/Republican vote, as I've said on here before,  a referendum is a very different proposition from an election (see eg Scotland, Brexit). And for SF to get over the 42-43% level at which Nationalism has plateaued in every election this century, they need to start persuading a significant section of the Unionist community to cease to be Unionists, reject their life-long identity and vote for something they've opposed for the last, well, forever.

And on that score, the DUP/TUV hardliners are (predictably enough) spitting feathers, while the moderates remain unmoved, seeing it all for what it actually is i.e. shameless, cynical politicking. But either way, it doesn't make any of them less of a Unionist.

As I say, I take no pleasure seeing them greet monarchs, but the reality is that it's nothing new nowadays. No existing SF voters are going to get too annoyed today at Michelle O'Neill for shaking a royal's hand. Why would they? She didn't break any new ground. SF politicians, Michelle included, have been meeting british royals for the last ten years ever since Martin McGuinness took the step first back and shook Lizzie's hand in 2012.

Seems to me that SF have had everything to gain and nothing really to lose this last week and that's how they've played it.

Nothing to lose bar their dignity and nothing to gain, full stop.

Seems to me that it wasn't just the Queen who died last week, but another little bit of Irish Republicanism.

But while we  Unionists can proclaim: "The Queen is dead, Long Live the King", what has SF got to offer next?

Taking their seats in Westminster?

Hell, why not - they've sold out on just about everything else!

WUM, yawn, move on

Wow! That's me told and no mistake!

Anyhow, thank you for that searing, insightful analysis, I see I have now to rethink everything I thought I knew about Irish politics.

[AFAIK once you hold one border poll then you start the clock on when the next one is held]

Friendly reminder that SF is an Irish republican party. Not a British republican party. It's no more of their business how the British run their country than it is any of the Brits' business how Ireland should be governed, north or south.

Er, it is entirely the business of "the Brits", which includes people like me btw, how one part of Ireland is governed.

Which, I should add, is not an excuse to do so in a manner which ignores the position of Nationalists in NI; however we have the GFA to guide us as to how the two traditions should be accommodated.

SF's actions over the last week have been entirely consistent with their Irish republican principles.

Which principles are those then?

The one which saw Michelle O'Neill shake the hand of the King?

Or the ones which saw their IRA comrades murder the King's 79 y.o. uncle, along with his 14 y.o. grandson, and a 15 y.o. Irish boy whom he had befriended on holiday?

As for a border poll, yeah there's not much chance of our ones winning one as soon as we "win" the census, but AFAIK once you hold one border poll then you start the clock on when the next one is held, ]and they keep on getting held until the appropriate outcome comes out. This is not like Scotland where a constitutional referendum only gets held whenever a British government feels like it, or is forced into it by parliamentary arithmetic.

That is not my understanding, which iirc is that once a referendum is held, then there shall not be another one in less than 7 years. Which is not the same as saying there must be another one after seven years.

As for Scotland, you're quite right that their situation is different, but not in the way you claim. For with NI, it is entirely within the gift of the SofS for NI to call a referendum, but only if he feels that there may be a majority for a UI.

And realistically speaking, there is no more prospect of such a majority than there has been at any time since the GFA (at least). Which explains why SF aren't calling for one, even at a time when their (party) political stock in Ireland, both parts, has never been higher.

The slope to a UI is a lot slippier than the slope to an independent Scotland.

Thats what Republicans have been saying for the last 100 years!

But what you don't seem to realise is that every slope goes up as well as down, and Republicans havie to climb this one, not ski down it! 

It's a mad world we live in these days when Unionists berate SF for not being Republican enough. 🤷‍♂️

Im not "beratinng" anyone bar, perhaps, those amongst my fellow Unionists who are too thick to see what's really happening.

Re SF, it is entirely up to them how they play things, but whatever the nuances etc, they are still up against the paradox that the more they bang the drum and wave the flag to get the Nationalist vote out, the more that unites Unionism in their determination to resist.

While being more conciliatory has no effect either way on Unionists, since whether youre a Foster or a Beattie, at the end of the day you're still a Unionist.

And unless/until a significant section of Unionists can be persuaded to become Nationalists, by which I mean at least 10%, though more realistically 20%, then there is no way SF can win a referendum.

Which explains why SF are not banging on the door of the Secretary of State every day to demand one - they at least are cute enough to know how things work, I'll give them that.

[it's abundantly clear why they did it.]

Just to throw in my penny's worth as a SF voter...

And here's mine as a Unonist (though not a DUPer).

Anyhow, I was chatting earlier this evening to another Unionist (but no hardliner) and we both agreed, what must eg the mother of a dead hunger striker, or a volunteer who was shot on an operation etc, think upon seeing the recent activities oif SF?

I mean, just what the fcuk was the "armed struggle" for? So  Michelle O'Neill could fly over to Westminster to be seen shaking hands with the Royal Family etc, surrounded by British servicemen and women in unifoirm?

Before flying back and berating the DUP for not joining in helping them both administer British Rule in Ireland?

It will never be comfortable watching SF politicians shaking hands with British monarchs while we remain partitioned, but that being said, it's abundantly clear why they did it.

"Never comfortable" is it?

I'm surprised any self-respecting Republican - the clue's in the name btw - could keep from throwing up at the very sight, but no matter.

And as for "why they did it", that's bloody obvious - they're just playing politics. Which in itself might be fine - after all they're politicians these days - but to what political end?

To put one over the DUP/TUV etc, while stealing the SDLP's clothes etc and to maximise the Nationalist vote at the next election, yeah, I can see all that. But to borrow a soccer analogy, that's all just fannying about outside the penalty area, playing neat tiki-taka to entertain the fans in the stand, without ever getting a shot on target, never mind scoring a goal, the "target" being a United Ireland.

Or so I thought.

They have been getting lauded from (almost) all directions for how they've handled the last few days - most notably from middle grounders who are the very people that need to be brought on board for what is now an inevitable border poll and like all SF does - it's geared towards a successful border poll.

Christ! Do you really believe that?

Were I a Shinner, positively the last thing I'd want would be a border poll. I mean, why suffer the humiliation of losing?

For if anything, this week's activities have made a UI vote further away, not closer, on two counts.

1. "Normalising" politics in NI does nothing for Republicanism, since the closer NI gets to normality, the less pressing the need of Nationalists for a UI.

2. And even if they can maximise their share of the Nationalist/Republican vote, as I've said on here before,  a referendum is a very different proposition from an election (see eg Scotland, Brexit). And for SF to get over the 42-43% level at which Nationalism has plateaued in every election this century, they need to start persuading a significant section of the Unionist community to cease to be Unionists, reject their life-long identity and vote for something they've opposed for the last, well, forever.

And on that score, the DUP/TUV hardliners are (predictably enough) spitting feathers, while the moderates remain unmoved, seeing it all for what it actually is i.e. shameless, cynical politicking. But either way, it doesn't make any of them less of a Unionist.

As I say, I take no pleasure seeing them greet monarchs, but the reality is that it's nothing new nowadays. No existing SF voters are going to get too annoyed today at Michelle O'Neill for shaking a royal's hand. Why would they? She didn't break any new ground. SF politicians, Michelle included, have been meeting british royals for the last ten years ever since Martin McGuinness took the step first back and shook Lizzie's hand in 2012.

Seems to me that SF have had everything to gain and nothing really to lose this last week and that's how they've played it.

Nothing to lose bar their dignity and nothing to gain, full stop.

Seems to me that it wasn't just the Queen who died last week, but another little bit of Irish Republicanism.

But while we  Unionists can proclaim: "The Queen is dead, Long Live the King", what has SF got to offer next?

Taking their seats in Westminster?

Hell, why not - they've sold out on just about everything else!

You should tell all of this to some of your politicians who are being led by the hand by loyalists when it comes to the protocol. They don't want the 'other group' in the middle who might be persuaded either way to have a 'NI cake' and a 'UI cake'. They want the full fat Brexit cake complete with all of the warts.

Whether you're a Unionist who rages at the Protocol, or supports it, or merely despairs at the whole fiasco, it isn't going to change how you will vote in a referendum.

For as I keep saying, it is about Identity, not Issues.

You personally might welcome a border poll but for the vast majority of unionists it's fingers in the ear time and they won't even countenance mature debate on the issue.

Whether they want to countenance a poll or not is not relevant, the point being that they won't have to.

After all it must be for Nationalists to demonstrate why there should be one, yet they're not even campaigning for it.

And I don't consider eg the usual desultory and ritualised calls by SF at some tired old Republican commemoration to constitute a "plan", never mind a "campaign".

[The biggest asset to nationalism here is the DUP.]

...  a referendum wouldn't be won now or for a while because there is no great plan.

Why is there no great plan? I mean, Irish Nationalism has had 100 years to come up with one*, yet there is none in sight.

Or maybe you're waiting for Unionism to come up with one for you? 

* - Unless you consider the IRA's (failed/abandoned) attempts to bomb us into a UI somehow consitituted a "plan"....

Unfortunately the union isn't going away any time soon but the DUP have expedited the talk of the death of it by many many years. The biggest asset to nationalism here is the DUP.

No doubt.

Fortunately we've got an antidote.

https://www.sinnfein.ie/

[When the new All Ireland entity comes]

Last I heard there were loads of jobs in the *26 Cos and people get pensions here too.
*A record number at work according to the News today with up to 400,000 of the 2.5m in Public or semi State jobs.
Public health waiting lists are about the same pro rata in the 6 as the 26 - nothing for either area to be proud of.

My sons a teacher in the ROI. Pay and conditions considerably better than up here. This idea that the ROI is a worse country to live in than this artificial statelet that is being kept going through an unsustainable reliance on an inflated public sector is just absolute nonsense.

Nowhere have I denied the clear economic advantages which ROI has over NI. Rather my point was that if you're eg a middle class Nationalist in your 40's, with a secure Government/public sector job with indexed pension to match, (and maybe your spouse the same), 15 years still to go on your mortgage and a couple of kids soon to go to University etc, are you really going to risk all that for a UI which at best would struggle to subsidise the 6 counties and at worst could provoke another civil war?

When the new All Ireland entity comes residents of the 6 Cos will still enjoy the right to either Irish or British (or Anglo Welsh if the majority of  Scots realise Independence is nirmal) nationality.
12th July would of course be an All Ireland Bank Holiday  and the monument in Crossmaglen will have Arlene Foster, Johnson, Truss added to it.

A UI is going to come, sooner rather than later and if Unionists had any sense they'd be negotiating now, while they've got some degree of strength rather that after they've lost a referendum and have no bargaining tools

Re your bold, there is no sign even of a referendum, never mind a 'Yes' vote, no matter how much you wish for it. Which is just another reason why Unionists don't have to worry about it.

And as I think I've mentioned on here before, it's not just me who says that, but the likes of Professor Brendan O'Leary, a noted psephologist who has worked for both the British Labour Party and SF, no less. Indeed a few years back he disclosed that with the Nationalist vote in NI having plateaued at around the 42% mark at the beginning of the centrury, he could perceive no prospect of a United Ireland in the foreseeable future. Consequently while he characterised a UI as "desirable", he thought it by no means "inevitable".

The amusing thing being that he made this disclosure from the platform of a SF fundraiser in New York, much to the discomforture of the assembled company, including one Gerry Adams!

Of course the party's clean-up squad immediately sprung into action to remove all evidence of same, but not before (I think) an Irish Times reporter in attendance had taken notes! 

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~boleary/website/Welcome.html

[EG is] overselling it.  And by more than a little.

Firstly, the unionists that we'd be talking about are more than likely the Alliance voting type, whose unionist identity, whilst definitely relevant, is well down the pecking order in terms of things they hold dear.

On the contrary, Unionist voters who vote Alliance are just as likely to be entirely comfortable with their British identity as those who vote for overtly Unionsit parties, since they aren't "spooked" by the AP's efforts to ride both constitutional horses at once.

Or they are actively turned off by Unionist politicians, but living in predominantly Unionist areas, as the great majority do, means that they aren't persuaded to vote for an overtly Unionist party in order to keep SF/SDLP out.

Meaning that if you're looking to Allaince voters from a Unionist background/area to vote for a UI, then imo you're clutching at straws. And I say that as a (proudly British) Unionist who has never given the DUP so much as a 10th preference, but has voted Alliance, amongst others.

Secondly, to say they'd have to "abandon" their British identity in a UI is nonsense.  There are many nationalists currently living in the UK who have not abandoned anything.  If anything, confidence in their identity has only grown in the past couple of decades.  I'd suggest that any unionist who feels the need to abandon their identity in a hypothetical UI, wasn't that bothered about their identity to start with

How can you continue to be British and a Unionist, in a United Ireland i.e somewhere which is neither British nor part of the Union?

Were we ever to have a UI, then the game would be up for Unionism. And considering how that British/Unionist identity has resisted eg countless rebellions, Partition, decades of severe civil strife, two world wars and the rise of the Celtic Tiger etc, over hundreds of years, what makes you think they're any less attached to their history andi dentity than, say, Irish nationalists, who have also faced all those challenges from the other side of the fence?

And finally, with regard to his assertion that nationalists need to offer "reasons to join a UI" – there is some truth in this.  But with the current behaviour of the DUP over here and the British govt pumping turds into rivers and displaying ever more fascist, inward-looking and corrupt behaviours, the reasons offered to get the fcuk out of this mess don't need to be particularly compelling

Hang on.

Those examples of (negative) behaviour by the Brits/DUP etc are not the same as the (positive) inducements from Irish Nationalism needed to persuade Ulster Unionists to abandon their dearly held identity and throw their lot in with a UI.

Instead Unionists will just roll their eyes at the former, while still waiting for the latter, in the same way as Nationalists roll their eyes when their own representatives act the maggot, while ignoring the need to come up with the latter.

As you appear to do.