Well lads and lassies, I'm 10 hours away from facing the Australian Citizenship Office to convince them I am worthy of becoming an Aussie. Actually the only reason I am doing it is cos of my son, who's 9/16 Irish anyway. Among the responsibilities and privileges of note are the following:
- "defend Australia, should the need arise." In other words if the w**ker John Howard pisses off the Indonesian or if Rio Tinto keeps increasing the cost of Iron Ore for the Chinese, there is every likelihood I will be called upon to defend Australia. Hmmm, 7 years of Tae Kwon Do might not go very far I think.
So those of you out there who have or are contemplating getting dual citizenship, who among you would be prepared to give your life for another country?
Then there's the question of the oath to be taken at the ceremony...
"From this time forward, under God*
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people
whose democratic beliefs I share;
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey."
* A person may choose whether or not to use the words " under God".
I have chosen to omit the words "under God" as I feel only Mother Ireland deserves such loyalty.
maybe you could just mumble it...
whse yer mum the queen? good luck saluting the union flag even if its only the bit up in the corner.
Re. the flag. I have been on a bit of a mission doing my bit to "drag the rag from the flag". I have been discussing at length with the most red-necked of redneck Aussies the sputum in the corner of the current Aussie flag. Imagine their surprise when I informed them that they did not volunteer at Gallipoli or St.Quentin, or Le Quesnoi, or other tiny unrecognised corners of Europe during WW 1, but were ordered to go over on the threat of being shot by the English (not the Aussie) uberlords. "but it's part of our heritiage"...yeah right, think long and hard about it...long and hard.
I don't have to salute the flag thank fcuk. I am very much in favour of the alternative Australian flag designed by a fella from WA. If i knew how to post it I would.
And when asked what role the Queen had in most Aussies' lives, it is depressing that so few of them understand the corruption. Yet so few of them are prepared to take time out to try to understand the oppression suffered by the native population. I hate racism.
Quote from: Aerlik on May 22, 2007, 04:15:28 PM
Well lads and lassies, I'm 10 hours away from facing the Australian Citizenship Office to convince them I am worthy of becoming an Aussie.
Remind me, again, who's Australia's Head of State? ;)
Good Luck Cobber!
Yes, Lizzy the whore is the Head Of State, but as I said, I am doing it for my son, who already has Irish citizenship. The Australian Police are, I have been told by very reliable sources, about to drop the requirement to swear the oath to the tr**p too. EG, next thing you'll be telling us is that there is a clan in New South Wales that conducts all their Post Office documentation in Ulster Scots.
Can't wait for Australia to follow Canada's lead.
Ulster Scots, U/S... unserviceable.
QuoteCan't wait for Australia to follow Canada's lead.
the pledging allegiance to the Queen thing still occurs here
Quote from: Aerlik on May 22, 2007, 05:13:24 PM
Yes, Lizzy the whore is the Head Of State, but as I said, I am doing it for my son, who already has Irish citizenship. The Australian Police are, I have been told by very reliable sources, about to drop the requirement to swear the oath to the tr**p too. EG, next thing you'll be telling us is that there is a clan in New South Wales that conducts all their Post Office documentation in Ulster Scots.
Can't wait for Australia to follow Canada's lead.
Ulster Scots, U/S... unserviceable.
So you're selling your
son into the service of Her Majesty, eh? How very principled of you!
P.S. Whether the Oz Fuzz swears it or not won't change your/their Head of State.
P.P.S. What on earth is your obsession with Ulster-Scots, an obscure, little-known dialect (at best)? And what has it got to do with your decision to apply for Citizenship of a Nation which has Queen Elizabeth as their Head of State?
Sammy G I can imagine is busting his breaches at your incredulity. How dare you question the dignity of the official language of Northern Ireland. Yeah, shite. No, simply put, the days of the evil empire are ending and I want to have a finger in the pie whe the rest of yiz are chucked out.
My mini-me was born here; either here or Japan. Shou ga nai as the Japs would say
Quote from: Aerlik on May 22, 2007, 05:29:10 PM
Sammy G I can imagine is busting his breaches at your incredulity. How dare you question the dignity of the official language of Northern Ireland. Yeah, shite. No, simply put, the days of the evil empire are ending and I want to have a finger in the pie whe the rest of yiz are chucked out.
My mini-me was born here; either here or Japan. Shou ga nai as the Japs would say
I'm not Sammy G. I think this whole petty squabble whereby one tribe tries to pretend Irish is/should be a viable, working language in NI worthy of equal and official status alongside English, and the other responds with "Ulster-Scots" on a "Nah, Nah Ne Nah" basis to be pathetic.
Butno matter. I still fail to see how this justifies or explains an Irish Republican who decides that his Irish Citizenship is inadequate for his son*, so decides to take out an extra citizenship from a country which has Queen Eliabeth as Head of State.
* - A son born either in Australia or Japan? What, on the plane, somewhere over the Pacific?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 22, 2007, 05:40:31 PM
I'm not Sammy G. I think this whole petty squabble whereby one tribe tries to pretend Irish is/should be a viable, working language in NI worthy of equal and official status alongside English, and the other responds with "Ulster-Scots" on a "Nah, Nah Ne Nah" basis to be pathetic.
And there was me thinking that it was the EU that recognised Irish as an offical language!
EG, my son wasn't sold into anything but born in Australia to his Australian mother and Irish father. I have decided to take the option of citizenship to further job prospects and get the right to vote...especially vote for the not too far off Republic Of Australia.
The great position I'm in is that I have chosen to live here, realising Lizzy the hoor is head of state. The fact that she claims to be head of state (and let's face it, that's all it is) of the British-annexed northeastern 6 counties of Ireland is something that I do have a gripe about.
Opens up the old chestnut that most of us in Ireland, certainly over 30 years of age, can be accepted as Irish citizens based on the birth place of our grandparents, even if, ostensibly, we just happened to be born in north-eastern Ireland and are categorised as British 'subjects'.
Still, some OWCers don't often seem to recognise that fact.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 22, 2007, 10:07:47 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 22, 2007, 05:40:31 PM
I'm not Sammy G. I think this whole petty squabble whereby one tribe tries to pretend Irish is/should be a viable, working language in NI worthy of equal and official status alongside English, and the other responds with "Ulster-Scots" on a "Nah, Nah Ne Nah" basis to be pathetic.
And there was me thinking that it was the EU that recognised Irish as an offical language!
Of course the EU recognises Irish as an Official Language - of the Irish Republic.
I was merely making the point that the language effectively died out as a
lingua franca in (what is now) NI around a century ago, without anyone being able effectively to restore it so.
Therefore, to try and accord it equal official status alongside English in NI is pointless, misleading and wasteful (imo).
Even worse is the Ulster-Scots lobby's response, which may simply be characterised as "Themmuns have got one [an official language], so Ussuns must have one". Pathetic. >:(
Grousebeater - is that you??
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 23, 2007, 08:40:21 AM
Opens up the old chestnut that most of us in Ireland, certainly over 30 years of age, can be accepted as Irish citizens based on the birth place of our grandparents, even if, ostensibly, we just happened to be born in north-eastern Ireland and are categorised as British 'subjects'.
Still, some OWCers don't often seem to recognise that fact.
I can't/don't speak for what you term "OWCers", but as a Northern Irishman and British citizen*, I personally couldn't care less who Leinster House accords Irish citizenship to, or on what basis - it's their business, so good luck to them.
But that is straying from my original point, which was that it appears incongruous to me that a proud Irish Republican and Citizen like Aerlik should consider his Irish Nationality inadequate both for himself and his son. Worse still, that he should seek to "augment" their Nationality by applying for nationality of a country which still has Queen Elizabeth as its Head of State.
Further, I sense Aerlik's use of highly derogatory language for the Queen to be evidence of the self-same embarrassment so acutely described by Eamonn McCann in another context, when he observed:
"It's because some Nationalists are uneasy at their own acceptance of Northern Ireland that they feel they have to make a show of rhetorical opposition to it.
It is because, in practical terms, they have endorsed the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland State that they denounce symbolic representations of it all the more loudly" [For "NI", read "Queen Elizabeth", and for "the NI state" read "Australia"]
* - The concept of being "subject" to the Crown was replaced by that of "British citizen" years ago, btw.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2007, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 23, 2007, 08:40:21 AM
Opens up the old chestnut that most of us in Ireland, certainly over 30 years of age, can be accepted as Irish citizens based on the birth place of our grandparents, even if, ostensibly, we just happened to be born in north-eastern Ireland and are categorised as British 'subjects'.
Still, some OWCers don't often seem to recognise that fact.
I can't/don't speak for what you term "OWCers", but as a Northern Irishman and British citizen*, I personally couldn't care less who Leinster House accords Irish citizenship to, or on what basis - it's their business, so good luck to them.
* - The concept of being "subject" to the Crown was replaced by that of "British citizen" years ago, btw.
Again, thank you.
Northern Irishman and British citizen. Interesting concept. Would it be similar to someone from Doncaster saying, I'm a Yorkshireman and a British citizen? It depends on who they're talking to, I guess. Well, it is your entitlement, of course, just as it is equally mine to state I'm an Irishman, Irish citizen by birth and by parentage (incidentally). In fact, what happens in Leinster House is as important to me as what goes on in the British House of Commons, and I've always thought that's the way the transition period should be. But, even so, I don't lose any sleep over it. I leave that to the politicians.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 23, 2007, 10:54:46 AM
Again, thank you.
Northern Irishman and British citizen. Interesting concept. Would it be similar to someone from Doncaster saying, I'm a Yorkshireman and a British citizen? It depends on who they're talking to, I guess. Well, it is your entitlement, of course, just as it is equally mine to state I'm an Irishman, Irish citizen by birth and by parentage (incidentally). In fact, what happens in Leinster House is as important to me as what goes on in the British House of Commons, and I've always thought that's the way the transition period should be. But, even so, I don't lose any sleep over it. I leave that to the politicians.
I'm tempted to say that if I can understand the concept, then it must be a pretty simple one! :D
Anyway, I am an Irishman. I was born in Ireland, to Irish parents and it's obvious to all and sundry the moment I open my mouth to speak.
More specifically, I am a
Northern Irishman. Now I accept that that distinction is unimportant, even offensive to one degree or other, to those my fellow Northern Irishmen who are from the Irish Nationalist tradition.
But as someone from the Irish Unionist tradition, it is hugely important to me, since it allows me to affirm my allegiance to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is, I may call myself "British"*
However, because I am also British does not make me any less Irish, never mind in any way "English", "Scottish" or (heaven forbid) "Welsh"! ;)
The "key" is to be found in the term "Union". Being a member of a Union does not change someone, it merely augments or enhances them (one hopes). Which is why an Irishman from, say, Cork can also be European (i.e. a member of the European Union), without that making him French, Greek, Romanian etc. Nor, of course, will it make him any less Irish.
There, I told you it was simple! 8)
P.S. A more precise analogy for your Doncaster example would be if he described himself as an
Englishman and a British citizen. Bringing Yorkshire into it would be the equivalent of someone from Ballymena describing himself as an Antrim man and British citizen. His county of origin might be interesting and informative in its own right, but not really relevant to the question of "Nationality".
* - I say "British" rather than "United Kingdomish", in the same way as someone from e.g. New York will call himself "American", rather than "United Statish".
You see, I must be incredibly stupid because I could never say I was a Northern Irishman - the term just doesn't make sense to me. I think it more describes a state of mind than an actual nationality.
I used the Yorkshire analogy, because I would imagine someone from, we'll say, Doncaster, for the sake of it, might actually be more proud to tell people he was a Yorkshire man first, then an Englishman, and maybe ultimately British. Just as you might feel proud to be 'northern' Irish. Again, it depends on who you are talking to. When away on holiday, do you instantly describe yourself to the locals as a Northern Irishman? I would imagine many people on mainland Europe or the Americas would be mightily confused by this. I say Irish because I am and because it makes it clear to them where I am from. Would you really, all joking aside, describe yourself ever as British to someone in Spain or Germany, France or the States?
PS I'm also an Irish Unionist too, in a roundabout way. :D
Quote from: Bogball XV on May 23, 2007, 10:31:09 AM
Grousebeater - is that you??
if not where are you grousebeater? come back with more flying stories....
QuoteBut that is straying from my original point, which was that it appears incongruous to me that a proud Irish Republican and Citizen like Aerlik should consider his Irish Nationality inadequate both for himself and his son. Worse still, that he should seek to "augment" their Nationality by applying for nationality of a country which still has Queen Elizabeth as its Head of State.
what are you on about eg? i have dual citizenship (us and irish/eu) and one does not negate the other, kinda like joint first minister ian and his new best buddy martin there equal. anyway look at your passport again, think it says eu somewhere... ;)
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 23, 2007, 11:42:44 AM
You see, I must be incredibly stupid because I could never say I was a Northern Irishman - the term just doesn't make sense to me. I think it more describes a state of mind than an actual nationality.
I used the Yorkshire analogy, because I would imagine someone from, we'll say, Doncaster, for the sake of it, might actually be more proud to tell people he was a Yorkshire man first, then an Englishman, and maybe ultimately British. Just as you might feel proud to be 'northern' Irish. Again, it depends on who you are talking to. When away on holiday, do you instantly describe yourself to the locals as a Northern Irishman? I would imagine many people on mainland Europe or the Americas would be mightily confused by this. I say Irish because I am and because it makes it clear to them where I am from. Would you really, all joking aside, describe yourself ever as British to someone in Spain or Germany, France or the States?
PS I'm also an Irish Unionist too, in a roundabout way. :D
I understand why you (presumably an Irish Nationalist) don't feel any affinity to Northern Ireland. Fair enough, that is your right. Nonetheless, neither can you deny that NI exists and is in many ways separate from the Irish Republic, however much some might wish it differently. Therefore, no-one can reasonably deny me the rights which accrue when I assert my Northern Irishness.
And whilst in one sense Northern Irishness is a "state of mind", it is not merely that, never mind some figment of my imagination, since it also has
tangible expression e.g. Passport, Taxation, Voting Rights, Courts of Law etc.(Indeed, I can comfortably argue that Northern Irishness has more practical, day-to-day relevance to your average NI Nationalist, then his Irish citizenship has to him!)
As for your Yorkshireman, that is perhaps an unfortunate example, since Yorkshire folk consider themselves to be different to the whole of the rest of humanity, never mind those who live within the same shores! But taking most other parts of the UK, many people happily describe themselves as e.g. Scottish and British, English and British or Welsh and British. My describing myself as Northern Irish and British is no different. And which order or priority we choose to give to those two facets makes no difference to the concept, nor does the fact that there are Scots, Welsh, (Northern) Irish and even Yorkshire people who would prefer not to be part of the UK in the first place.
As for my self-designation when overseas, I sometimes change it, for convenience. For example, if I'm at a Customs Post, or Bank etc, if someone asks me my Nationality, I will sometimes reply "British", in case I have to show my (British) Passport. And if, out of ignorance, they automatically assume this means I must be "English", I don't usually bother to disabuse them, if it saves me a lengthy attempt to explain.
Similarly, if I'm e.g. in a bar in Boston and someone, on hearing my accent, asks me where I'm from, I'll happily reply "Ireland", if for no other reason than that I prefer to enjoy my Sam Adams in peace!
However, for the most part, if someone asks, I simply reply that I'm from Northern Ireland (or am "Northern Irish"). As knowledge of the situation has seeped out into the wider world, I increasingly find that my enquirer will be aware that there is some distinction between Northern Irish and Irish (even if they may be somewhat confused as to precise details)
And sometimes, I get asked why I've used the qualification "Northern" and this leads to further discussion/explanation. At this point, the conversation might develop to where I point out that this makes me "British" as well, with my Passport produced as evidence. But if it's too much hassle, or I haven't time, or my Inquisitor is Spanish and we're just up the road from Gibraltar (!), then I'll not bother. (Who needs Spanish sputum in his Sam McGill?)
And yes, there are rare occasions when I will describe myself simply as "British"; normally this follows my having been pissed off by some irritating separatist (e.g. Basque, Welsh, French Canadian etc), or someone who is notably anti-British (e.g Argentinian), but even then it is usually only when they are obviously of weak build, under 5 foot tall and drawing their Widow's Pension...
P.S. On Six Nations Weekends I'm incorrigably Irish; however, if David Healy can continue his ascent to immortality for just six more matches, no-one will ever be more NORN IRON than I shall be for the month of June 2008, in either Austria or Switzerland!
"Onwards and Upwards!" :D
Quote from: magickingdom on May 23, 2007, 12:01:52 PM
what are you on about eg? i have dual citizenship (us and irish/eu) and one does not negate the other, kinda like joint first minister ian and his new best buddy martin there equal. anyway look at your passport again, think it says eu somewhere... ;)
I think you miss my point. Of course I understand the concept of dual citizenship. I was merely questioning Aerlik, a proud Irish Republican, as to what he thought of the fact when he also becomes* an Australian citizen, his new Head of State will be Queen Elizabeth II? (Personally, I prefer her to e.g. George W. Bush ;))
And yes, my (old) Passport does say "European Community" [
sic]. This reflects the fact that my country of Nationality, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is also a member of the European Union. I'm happy with both... :D
* - "Has already become"?
Of course, I feel an affinity to Ireland, which I think you probably do too, though perhaps you are not quite able to openly admit it (in an anonymous message board).
In actual fact, I have recently considered calling myself firstly an Ulster man, 9-counties you understand; because I feel I have a direct and immediate closeness to the people in this part of the island, whether it be in accent, attitude, isolationist tendencies (which I think a lot of people in this part of the world share, whether it be from Dublin or London) or radicalism.
I have never heard of a Northern Ireland passport but then again, I've always had an Irish passport because that was a) my choice and b) my birthright. Indeed, and you will really have to forgive my ignorance here, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by northern Irish in the context of Voting Rights, Taxation or Courts of Law. Is that a reference to the unique Northern Ireland Orders that we have been 'subjected' to since 1972?
It's an interesting debate about how many different people, living throughout Britain, not to mention north-eastern Ireland, who'd rather not be a part of the "United Kingdom". It is quite a meaningless term, anyhow, isn't it - a bit like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I personally prefer the term 'Britain'.
But as for self-designation, I hear what you're saying, of course, but my God, wouldn't it just be easier to say you're Irish at all times and be done with it. It certainly works for me.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 23, 2007, 01:22:24 PM
Of course, I feel an affinity to Ireland, which I think you probably do too, though perhaps you are not quite able to openly admit it (in an anonymous message board).
In actual fact, I have recently considered calling myself firstly an Ulster man, 9-counties you understand; because I feel I have a direct and immediate closeness to the people in this part of the island, whether it be in accent, attitude, isolationist tendencies (which I think a lot of people in this part of the world share, whether it be from Dublin or London) or radicalism.
I have never heard of a Northern Ireland passport but then again, I've always had an Irish passport because that was a) my choice and b) my birthright. Indeed, and you will really have to forgive my ignorance here, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by northern Irish in the context of Voting Rights, Taxation or Courts of Law. Is that a reference to the unique Northern Ireland Orders that we have been 'subjected' to since 1972?
It's an interesting debate about how many different people, living throughout Britain, not to mention north-eastern Ireland, who'd rather not be a part of the "United Kingdom". It is quite a meaningless term, anyhow, isn't it - a bit like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I personally prefer the term 'Britain'.
But as for self-designation, I hear what you're saying, of course, but my God, wouldn't it just be easier to say you're Irish at all times and be done with it. It certainly works for me.
Of course I'm an Irishman and I have no difficulty in admitting that openly, never mind via the anonymity of a Message Board.
I suppose the point I am trying to get across is that there are two equally valid Irish traditions (at least) on this island - those of Irish Nationalism and of Irish Unionism. And just because I adhere to the latter, doesn't make me any less "Irish". (Nor does my "Britishness", for that matter).
And if I had been born and brought up in the Irish Republic, I would have to accept that that tradition is dying in the Republic (if not already dead) and either find another affinity, or move elsewhere and adopt a new one.
But I'm not from down South, I am an Irish Unionist from Northern Ireland, which means I can preserve my tradition/heritage/identity (or whatever) with ease. Now, I'm not one of those individuals who sees things in "black and white" (Orange and Green). One side of my family derives originally from Scotland, the other from the Irish Midlands (pre-partition). I still have some distant relatives in the Republic, afaik. Nor does my Northern Irishness give me the right to deny my neighbour another affiliation should he choose differently.
But if required to choose one from the many designations which might apply to me, (NI, Ulster, Irish, British etc) the one I choose is "Norn Iron", since that is what best defines me, for better or worse. That's all, really.
Re. some of your technical points, there is no "NI Passport, as such. But neither is there a Scottish, Welsh or English one, either; the absence of same does not make us any less Scot/Welsh/Eng/NI. Instead, we all share equally the same Passport, that of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
As for:
"And whilst in one sense Northern Irishness is a "state of mind", it is not merely that, never mind some figment of my imagination, since it also has tangible expression e.g. Passport, Taxation, Voting Rights, Courts of Law etc.(Indeed, I can comfortably argue that Northern Irishness has more practical, day-to-day relevance to your average NI Nationalist, then his Irish citizenship has to him!)"I did not mean by this special legislation applying to NI. Rather, it was more simple. When a Nationalist from NI goes e.g. to tax his car, pay his TV Licence, make his Tax Return, stamp a letter etc etc, he does so in the same place and manner as his (Unionist) NI neighbour. Should he be up in Court for any reason, it is British law which will be appied. And when he goes to vote, it will be to a British administrative body, at one level or another.
With occasional exceptions or idiosyncracies, all of these will be different from his fellow Irish citizen in the Republic - even when the other is maybe only two miles up the road. Considering the consequences of these circumstances, along with long held geographical and cultural factors, in my experience, your average Northern Nationalist often has more in common with his Northern Unionist neighbour than he does with Nationalists in the Republic.
As for the concept of the "United Kingdom", or Britishness generally, rather like the British Constitution, these can be hard to define; that does not mean they cease to exist or matter, however.
On a day-to-day basis, most "Brits" see themselves as English, Scot, Welsh or NI etc. However, there are certain circumstances when their Britishness comes to the fore, and institutions or ceremonies reflect this. The most obvious example is the Monarchy. Another is the Armed Forces. The BBC, various sports teams and the shared language are others. The attachment to the Pound Sterling is another; even such relatively unimportant factors such as the inability of the EU to replace the old Imperial measures fully with metric measures is an indicator (or when did you last hear of someone nipping into their local for a "swift quarter litre"?).
I don't want to sound like John Major, wittering on about cricket, spinsters on bicycles and warm beer etc., but when foreign visitors come to these islands, they invariably fail to see the differences which are often so apparent to us; they are more often struck by the similarities.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2007, 02:29:51 PM
Of course I'm an Irishman and I have no difficulty in admitting that openly
:o :o
jeez - theres progress for ya boys
a few years ago, this kinda fella would have rather died than say/write even think something like that
the damn is cracking alright ! :D
Quote from: Aerlik on May 22, 2007, 04:15:28 PM
Well lads and lassies, I'm 10 hours away from facing the Australian Citizenship Office to convince them I am worthy of becoming an Aussie. Actually the only reason I am doing it is cos of my son, who's 9/16 Irish anyway.
Sounds like Australia's loss is Ireland's gain.
Good luck to you.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2007, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2007, 02:29:51 PM
Of course I'm an Irishman and I have no difficulty in admitting that openly
:o :o
jeez - theres progress for ya boys
a few years ago, this kinda fella would have rather died than say/write even think something like that
the damn is cracking alright ! :D
You simply don't get it, do you? There is more than one kind of Irishman, there is more than one tradition in Ireland, it has been that way for hundreds of years (if not forever) and it's going to remain that way for equally as long.
The only question remaining is what system of government(s) we need to accommodate this set of circumstances. As I see it, the choice is between Partition (effectively, "more of the same"), or an Agreed-Ireland*.
For a whole raft of reasons, my preference is the former. However, I would never say "Never" to the latter. Then again, I am entirely confident that the present arrangement (or something similar) will see me out, at least.
This is because after 80 years+, it has finally been accepted, throughout all of Ireland, Great Britain and the rest of the world, that
nothing is going to change unless/until a majority of people in NI (alone) so will it. Not only that, but the enemies of partition, even including the most bitter and extreme, have accepted this. Indeed, they are acquiescing in the administration of a partitionist government even as we speak!
With the Republic having relinquished its former territiorial claim, the Union remains solely in the hands of the people of NI. So barring some population shift which demographers think highly unlikely, the only way the Union will end is if the (Unionist) majority so wishes it.
Which is why I have no fears of an Agreed Ireland, since such a construct would only emerge with our willing and equal contribution. And as yet, I've not seen anything worth our while to end the status quo.
So if you wish to take this as some evidence of an imminent dam-burst, so be it: I won't be building a boat anytime soon, though.
* - For Information: An "Agreed Ireland" is the exact opposite of the "United [
sic] Ireland" which various armed Republicans have sought to impose on NI down the decades, entirely without success.
Quote from: Aerlik on May 22, 2007, 05:29:10 PM
Sammy G I can imagine is busting his breaches at your incredulity. How dare you question the dignity of the official language of Northern Ireland. Yeah, shite. No, simply put, the days of the evil empire are ending and I want to have a finger in the pie whe the rest of yiz are chucked out.
My mini-me was born here; either here or Japan. Shou ga nai as the Japs would say
#
Eh, don't drag me into your argument. Speaking with a Ballymena accent is not a language, never has been and never will be.
QuoteAnd as yet, I've not seen anything worth our while to end the status quo.
Evil the nationalist community have had to reassess various things to reach the present state of agreement. In my opinion the unionist community also have to look at a few things. One of these is recognition that partition is a real disadvantage, and the creation of NI a sign of failure, whatever way you look at it. Whatever benefits you believe there are in a link with Britain, as the unionist point of view has not found favour in Ireland as a whole then for the union to be worthwhile these must exceed the real disadvantages of partition. Why is it more important for a person in Armagh to be linked with Manchester than with Monaghan? You can legitimately argue that conditions are not right for a united Ireland, but only if there are some reasonable circumstances in which these conditions do become appropriate.
QuoteWith the Republic having relinquished its former territiorial claim, the Union remains solely in the hands of the people of NI. So barring some population shift which demographers think highly unlikely, the only way the Union will end is if the (Unionist) majority so wishes it.
eg, only needs a majority, about 10% of the unionist pop voting for it will do.. i agree with your point that it has to be an agreed ireland tho.
An agreed Ireland is a United Ireland - in any mans language.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2007, 01:07:03 PM
I'll happily reply "Ireland", if for no other reason than that I prefer to enjoy my Sam Adams in peace!
Who needs Spanish sputum in his Sam McGill?
Sorry to butt in, but have to ask what this means, obviously it's your pint/tipple but why Sam and what's the difference between Adams and McGill ?
"it appears incongruous to me that a proud Irish Republican and Citizen like Aerlik should consider his Irish Nationality inadequate both for himself and his son. Worse still, that he should seek to "augment" their Nationality by applying for nationality of a country which still has Queen Elizabeth as its Head of State.
Further, I sense Aerlik's use of highly derogatory language for the Queen to be evidence of the self-same embarrassment..."
Fear not EG, my considering my Irish nationality and that of my son are major assets for us. Not for us the shame of having to admit we're "british". No, wherever I have gone in the world, my passport has been a massive advantage. And if you read correctly you'll see that my son was born in Australia therefore entitling him to Aussie citizenship by birth.
And for a person as seemingly articulate and well-read as you are, surely YOU must cringe with embarrassment when you have to change your nationality to save your skin thanks to the antics of the British now and in the past. The only good things to come from the British Empire are John Harrison and James Hind.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2007, 02:29:51 PM
Of course I'm an Irishman and I have no difficulty in admitting that openly, never mind via the anonymity of a Message Board.
I suppose the point I am trying to get across is that there are two equally valid Irish traditions (at least) on this island - those of Irish Nationalism and of Irish Unionism. And just because I adhere to the latter, doesn't make me any less "Irish". (Nor does my "Britishness", for that matter).
And if I had been born and brought up in the Irish Republic, I would have to accept that that tradition is dying in the Republic (if not already dead) and either find another affinity, or move elsewhere and adopt a new one.
But I'm not from down South, I am an Irish Unionist from Northern Ireland, which means I can preserve my tradition/heritage/identity (or whatever) with ease. Now, I'm not one of those individuals who sees things in "black and white" (Orange and Green). One side of my family derives originally from Scotland, the other from the Irish Midlands (pre-partition). I still have some distant relatives in the Republic, afaik. Nor does my Northern Irishness give me the right to deny my neighbour another affiliation should he choose differently.
But if required to choose one from the many designations which might apply to me, (NI, Ulster, Irish, British etc) the one I choose is "Norn Iron", since that is what best defines me, for better or worse. That's all, really.
Re. some of your technical points, there is no "NI Passport, as such. But neither is there a Scottish, Welsh or English one, either; the absence of same does not make us any less Scot/Welsh/Eng/NI. Instead, we all share equally the same Passport, that of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
As for:
"And whilst in one sense Northern Irishness is a "state of mind", it is not merely that, never mind some figment of my imagination, since it also has tangible expression e.g. Passport, Taxation, Voting Rights, Courts of Law etc.(Indeed, I can comfortably argue that Northern Irishness has more practical, day-to-day relevance to your average NI Nationalist, then his Irish citizenship has to him!)"
I did not mean by this special legislation applying to NI. Rather, it was more simple. When a Nationalist from NI goes e.g. to tax his car, pay his TV Licence, make his Tax Return, stamp a letter etc etc, he does so in the same place and manner as his (Unionist) NI neighbour. Should he be up in Court for any reason, it is British law which will be appied. And when he goes to vote, it will be to a British administrative body, at one level or another.
With occasional exceptions or idiosyncracies, all of these will be different from his fellow Irish citizen in the Republic - even when the other is maybe only two miles up the road. Considering the consequences of these circumstances, along with long held geographical and cultural factors, in my experience, your average Northern Nationalist often has more in common with his Northern Unionist neighbour than he does with Nationalists in the Republic.
As for the concept of the "United Kingdom", or Britishness generally, rather like the British Constitution, these can be hard to define; that does not mean they cease to exist or matter, however.
On a day-to-day basis, most "Brits" see themselves as English, Scot, Welsh or NI etc. However, there are certain circumstances when their Britishness comes to the fore, and institutions or ceremonies reflect this. The most obvious example is the Monarchy. Another is the Armed Forces. The BBC, various sports teams and the shared language are others. The attachment to the Pound Sterling is another; even such relatively unimportant factors such as the inability of the EU to replace the old Imperial measures fully with metric measures is an indicator (or when did you last hear of someone nipping into their local for a "swift quarter litre"?).
I don't want to sound like John Major, wittering on about cricket, spinsters on bicycles and warm beer etc., but when foreign visitors come to these islands, they invariably fail to see the differences which are often so apparent to us; they are more often struck by the similarities.
Naturally, I recognise that there are at least two traditions in Ireland - I say, at least two - and that's what it's all about. But I can't for the life of me think that I could ever be Irish, northern Irish and British all at the same time. It just smacks too much of, to quote Jeffrey Donaldson, 'cherry picking' to suit the situation. I'm proud to be Irish, particularly when I am abroad. Not out of some 'ooo, ahhh, up the ra' pseudo uber-republican Wolfe Toner, though I believe a united Ireland is the ultimate solution to our 'troubles'. Yes, I also believe in consensus, but people can be persuaded, in modern politics, to accept changes that would have been anathema to their forefathers. Like a United Ireland. You'd need to have been on the moon to have missed the 360 degree somersaults power-hungry northern politicians have made in the lead up to 8 May.
I agree that northern Nationalists have more in common with their Unionist neighbours - but we play the game - what choice have we at the moment than to use the British-imposed institutions to live our lives. I differ from Eamon McCann in that I believe in evolution, not revolution. That's human nature's way of changing - gradually. But I see this as a transition period. I don't want to force my Irishness down anyone's throats but, at the same time, there is an Irish solution here to the 'Irish problem'. And it's happening, right now.
I respect your right to call yourself northern Irish. Of course, I disagree, but I respect your right. I guess the Unionist mindset has made considerable advances to accept the right of 'northern-based' nationalists to see themselves - ourselves - as Irish - and, in time, I expect the full (legislative) rights of an Irish government to enshrine this. In the meantime, as long as the debate is healthy, as it is in here, most of the time, I'll contribute my case.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 23, 2007, 11:29:01 PM
An agreed Ireland is a United Ireland - in any mans language.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but for me, Ireland will never be "united", except with the
agreement of all its people.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 24, 2007, 08:53:52 AMI respect your right to call yourself northern Irish.
Hmm...what about calling himself Northern Irish?
Have to admit I still don't quite 'get' the Irishness of the likes of EG.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 23, 2007, 11:42:44 AMWhen away on holiday, do you instantly describe yourself to the locals as a Northern Irishman? I would imagine many people on mainland Europe or the Americas would be mightily confused by this. I say Irish because I am and because it makes it clear to them where I am from. Would you really, all joking aside, describe yourself ever as British to someone in Spain or Germany, France or the States?
If I'm asked what country I'm from, I automatically say Northern Ireland. Basically all of the people I grew up with would automatically give Northern Irish as their identity. (Though interestingly I and I would say plenty of others like me would give British as their nationality, if specifically asked for 'nationality'). There's a whole gamut of permutations to be run through in terms of being aboard and people nuderstanding the concept of Northern Ireland, right through to people not even getting references to 'Britain' or 'Ireland'...'near England' seems to be the lowest common denominator in my experience)
Quote from: Aerlik on May 24, 2007, 02:12:57 AM
Not for us the shame of having to admit we're "british".
And for a person as seemingly articulate and well-read as you are, surely YOU must cringe with embarrassment when you have to change your nationality to save your skin thanks to the antics of the British now and in the past.
The only good things to come from the British Empire are John Harrison and James Hind.
Whilst never a tub thumper for Queen & Country etc, neither am I "ashamed" to be British, either.
In fact, I'm quite happy with my Nationality, thank you; then again,
you're the guy taking out citizenship of another country, not me...
As for the British Empire, your choice of "heroes" is an interesting one. I assume you chose Hind because he tried to assassinate Cromwell. Fair enough, we'll overlook the fact that he was an armed robber by trade (and choice). And Harrison was certainly an admirable bloke, but is he really the only inventor/scientist to grab your attention?
How about Newton (Physics), Babbage (Computer), Stevenson/Hackworth (Locomotives), Brunel (Trains, Ships & God Knows What Else), Rutherford (Physics), Fleming (Penicillin), Logie Baird (TV)? (And those are off the top of the head of someone who was crap at Science)
In fact, were it not for Alan Turing inventing the world's first programmable computer and Tim Berners-Lee the (free) World Wide Web, we wouldn't be able to conduct this debate in the first place. In English, the language of the Oppressor.
"Pah! What did the Romans ever do for us?" - John Cleese, (British Comedian)
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 24, 2007, 08:53:52 AM
Naturally, I recognise that there are at least two traditions in Ireland - I say, at least two - and that's what it's all about. But I can't for the life of me think that I could ever be Irish, northern Irish and British all at the same time. It just smacks too much of, to quote Jeffrey Donaldson, 'cherry picking' to suit the situation. I'm proud to be Irish, particularly when I am abroad. Not out of some 'ooo, ahhh, up the ra' pseudo uber-republican Wolfe Toner, though I believe a united Ireland is the ultimate solution to our 'troubles'. Yes, I also believe in consensus, but people can be persuaded, in modern politics, to accept changes that would have been anathema to their forefathers. Like a United Ireland. You'd need to have been on the moon to have missed the 360 degree somersaults power-hungry northern politicians have made in the lead up to 8 May.
I agree that northern Nationalists have more in common with their Unionist neighbours - but we play the game - what choice have we at the moment than to use the British-imposed institutions to live our lives. I differ from Eamon McCann in that I believe in evolution, not revolution. That's human nature's way of changing - gradually. But I see this as a transition period. I don't want to force my Irishness down anyone's throats but, at the same time, there is an Irish solution here to the 'Irish problem'. And it's happening, right now.
I respect your right to call yourself northern Irish. Of course, I disagree, but I respect your right. I guess the Unionist mindset has made considerable advances to accept the right of 'northern-based' nationalists to see themselves - ourselves - as Irish - and, in time, I expect the full (legislative) rights of an Irish government to enshrine this. In the meantime, as long as the debate is healthy, as it is in here, most of the time, I'll contribute my case.
Well, we're arriving at the nub of the issue. As an Irish Unionist, I consider my heritage and place in Ireland is every bit as valid and worthy as that of any other tradition. And like all other traditions, all I require is to be able to follow it without having to apologise/compromise/defend/fight for it with any other.
Of course, the exact same applies to the Irish Nationalist tradition. As such, I consider it a shame that Nationalism both came to feel that it could not exist comfortably within the United Kingdom (whether by Home Rule or some other means) and had to fight a war of independence.
But just as the UK was not capable of satisfying three quarters of Ireland's population, the "Free State" of 1921 was never going to be "free" for the other quarter. Consequently, it was only in a Northern Ireland which was part of the UK we could be sure to avoid going the same way as those fellow Unionists who were left on the "wrong" side of the Border i.e. oblivion.
Which, 80-odd years later, is where we are now, only with the position of NI more secure than at any time in its existence (imo).
So what next? I personally feel that the present settlement will prevail for the foreseeable future. You, naturally enough, look to a future based without partition, which is fair enough. But notwithstanding the enormity of the changes which have recently occurred, I can predict with certainty that
if the only version of a "United [
sic] Ireland" on offer is that envisaged by the likes of Sinn Fein, then to use a well-worn Ulsterism, it will NEVER come about.
If, on the other hand, any new Ireland is the product of a tolerant, prosperous, pluralistic and agreed settlement, then who knows? But think on this: even if the Republic
could come up with an arrangement to which Unionists might just be amenable, what guarantee is there that it ever
will?
That is, considering the apathy towards, and disconnection from, all things Norn Iron which increasingly exists in the present day Republic of Ireland, particularly amongst the young, it might just turn out that persuading the North's Unionists to budge might be the easy part. It will be the problem of persuading Bertie and his Friends which could put the kibosh on things - especially when they are presented with the Bill!* :D
* - We can be pretty certain that Westminster will be in no mood to provide a Dowry, the EU has now got considerably poorer places to worry about than Ireland and I wouldn't be too hopeful that the Yanks will pick up the tab, at least until they're hauled what remains of their ass out of Iraq! ;)
QuoteWell, we're arriving at the nub of the issue. As an Irish Unionist, I consider my heritage and place in Ireland is every bit as valid and worthy as any other tradition. And like all other traditions, all I require is to be able to follow it without having to apologise/compromise/defend/fight for it with any other.
You've haven't addressed the issue of why the advantages of the Union justifies partition.
Quotethe "Free State" of 1921 was never going to be "free" for the other quarter
Why not? It was not a colonial arrangement, Ireland as a whole would have been based on straightforward principles of a recognisable geographic area with universal franchise.
Quote from: Aerlik on May 24, 2007, 02:12:57 AMThe only good things to come from the British Empire are John Harrison and James Hind.
When a line like that is uttered, even an ounce of wisdom is shown to have been an illusion.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2007, 07:43:00 PMYou've haven't addressed the issue of why the advantages of the Union justifies partition.
Bizarre double-speak alert. Even if there were absolutely no advantages to the Union it would still have nothing whatsoever to do with whether NI should join the Republic. There are probably economic advantages to Spain joining Portugal but it's not likely to happen. The issue of nationality has nothing to do with 'advantages' it has to do with were you're born and bred. Somebody born in Rio probably doesn't have the same advantages as somebody born in New York but they're still Brazillian.
Quote from: SammyG on May 24, 2007, 08:23:34 PMSomebody born in Rio probably doesn't have the same advantages as somebody born in New York but they're still Brazillian.
So you're admitting that the Union is a disadvantage?
Couldn't help it, just stirring! :D
Quote from: ziggysego on May 24, 2007, 08:27:28 PM
Quote from: SammyG on May 24, 2007, 08:23:34 PMSomebody born in Rio probably doesn't have the same advantages as somebody born in New York but they're still Brazillian.
So you're admitting that the Union is a disadvantage?
No I'm saying it's totally irrelevant whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 24, 2007, 08:27:28 PM
Couldn't help it, just stirring! :D
I know.
Quote
No I'm saying it's totally irrelevant whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage.
My question is, if you are in "Irish Unionist" as Evil Genius said above. Other Irish people don't agree that the Union is good for Ireland, and you aren't able to persuade them of the merits of your point of view. What makes the Union worth parting company with other Irish people? I can't see anyone proposing partitioning Scotland, even if there is a majority for independence and some regions do not have such a majority.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2007, 08:55:13 PM
Quote
No I'm saying it's totally irrelevant whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage.
Exactly.
WTF are you on about, how can you say exactly when you disagree with what I said?
QuoteThe only good things to come from the British Empire are John Harrison and James Hind.
what about the toilet? the good ole british empire gave us the flushing toilet. it certainly beats the horrible french one ;)
QuoteWTF are you on about, how can you say exactly when you disagree with what I said?
OK, I've deleted the "Exactly", answer the rest of the question.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2007, 09:20:22 PM
QuoteWTF are you on about, how can you say exactly when you disagree with what I said?
OK, I've deleted the "Exactly", answer the rest of the question.
I've already answered the question. The issue of nationality has nothing to do with advantages or dis-advantages it is to do with where you are born and bred.
QuoteThe issue of nationality has nothing to do with advantages or dis-advantages it is to do with where you are born and bred.
This is a reason for not emigrating. It has no bearing on whether the place your are born and bred, one of the 6 counties, should be linked to Monaghan or Manchester!
Quote from: MW on May 24, 2007, 06:34:02 PM
Have to admit I still don't quite 'get' the Irishness of the likes of EG.
I'm an Irishman, because I was born and brought up in Ireland, to Irish parents. More specifically, I'm one of those Irish people who believes in the Union of the Irish Nation with the other Nations of the British Isles (England, Scotland, Wales).
Regrettably, in the early 20th Century, a section of the people of Ireland (Nationalists, that is), decided that they no longer wanted to be part of that Union and broke away*, forcing/negotiating a part of the island for themselves.
Had I been around then and found myself on the "wrong" side of the border, I would have had the choice facing some from my grandparents' generation i.e. stay and accept that my Unionist tradition was effectively likely to end, or move to where that tradition could be kept alive. Some chose the former, some the latter. (Luckily, I never had to choose, having been born and brought up in NI)
Anyhow, that history means that a number of influences go up to make who I am. I could variously and accurately describe myself as "Irish", "British", "Ulster", "European" etc, and all of those things would say something about me to e.g. a visitor from the other side of the world.
But the description which most accurately defines me
and means most to me, is "Northern Irish".
* - It is an often overlooked part of Ireland's troubled history that it was in fact Irish
Nationalists who were responsible for Partition, following the only period when the island could properly have been said to have been united (ironically under the British). Yet we Unionists get the blame... ::)
Whether or not some Unionists have a dilemma concerning whether they embrace or reject an Irish idenity, nationalists face this one: if Irish nationalists felt they had a right to self-determination within the UK, and chose to remove themselves from it, then is it not inconsistent for them not to recognise the right of Unionists their right to self-determination (to remain outside of the RoI state and within the UK)?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2007, 08:55:13 PM
Quote
No I'm saying it's totally irrelevant whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage.
My question is, if you are in "Irish Unionist" as Evil Genius said above. Other Irish people don't agree that the Union is good for Ireland, and you aren't able to persuade them of the merits of your point of view. What makes the Union worth parting company with other Irish people? I can't see anyone proposing partitioning Scotland, even if there is a majority for independence and some regions do not have such a majority.
As I said in my elaboration of my position to MW (above), we Unionists did not "part company with other Irish people". It was the Nationalist people of Ireland who broke away from the existing set-up (a united Ireland within the UK), thereby separating themselves from the rest of the people of Ireland.
Now don't get me wrong, had I been in their position, I might have done the same; I think it truly sad that they came to that decision, and even sadder that it took a bloody and protracted guerilla war to effect it.
But when they did so, they did not take the "Deeds to Irishness" with them, leaving the rest of us (Unionists) as some sort of "squatter" in someone else's home (no matter how much some like to shout it on St.Paddy's Day, when they've a belly full of Guinness in them!).
The fact is, we Unionists are as Irish as anyone else on the island, we shouldn't deny it, nor we should we have to apologise for it. If anything, we should proclaim it (imo). Indeed, I would contend that when Big Ian recently met Bertie on the banks of the Boyne, and alluded to his own sense of Irishness, he wasn't just "playing to the gallery", but expressing something which is self-evident (whether he knew it, or not).
However, and this is key, not only have we the right to be Irish, but we also have the right to be British. Now when I say "British", that does not make me any less Irish; neither does it make me different in some way. It certainly doesn't make me English (God Forbid!). Rather, I support the Union with my English, Scots and Welsh cousins, since I hope it
enhances who I am.
The sad thing for me is that the only part of Ireland where I can freely exercise my participation in the Union is Northern Ireland. But I am sad that the Free State broke away, not that we remained, which is why I am proud to proclaim my Northern Irishness above all, since that allows me to be who I am.
In the end, the key to rationalising my (superficially contradictory) "Irish" and "British" joint identity is to be found in the simple word itself: "Union". For me, this does not mean annexation, merger, subjugation or absorption etc. Rather, I am a (Northern) Irishman, who prefers to join with our three other neighbopuring nations when it comes to organising and living my life.
And if any Irish Nationalists in the Republic should find that a difficult concept to comprehend, they need only look to their own country's membership of the European Union. That arrangement doesn't make them any less "Irish", but they mostly* seem to feel it enhances their lives.
* - Am I right in saying that Sinn Fein is one of the most anti-EU parties in the Republic? If so, it would appear that they don't truly want to join with
anyone who doesn't share their own, narrow view of "nationhood". We Ourselves, indeed... :o
Quote from: stephenite on May 23, 2007, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2007, 01:07:03 PM
I'll happily reply "Ireland", if for no other reason than that I prefer to enjoy my Sam Adams in peace!
Who needs Spanish sputum in his Sam McGill?
Sorry to butt in, but have to ask what this means, obviously it's your pint/tipple but why Sam and what's the difference between Adams and McGill ?
Here EG, this is bugging me - don't know why but it is ::)
Quotethen is it not inconsistent for them not to recognise the right of Unionists their right to self-determination (to remain outside of the RoI state and within the UK)?
The present position is that the GFA means that such a right has in practice been recognised. In general there are some issues about colonial populations to engage in self determination, the Nazis cleared out parts of Poland and Slovenia, but you would accept that the populations they placed there did not have the right to self determination. Unionists distinguish themselves from this kind of thing because they've been here for so long, which confuses the practical issues if not the moral ones. However even neglecting this point it is one thing for a country to have self determination, it is another for a collection of people in part of a country to have such self determination. If a majority of Polish people come to live to my estate I don't agree that they have the right to make it part of Poland. Unionists don't recognise the right either, they don't recognise the right of the people of Derry to name their city, never mind engage in self determination. My example of Scotland is pertinent, do unionists argue that Scotland should be partitioned if a majority for independence arises and some regions do not have such a majority?
Ireland is one country, you can argue that it cannot be one state for some serious reason, but this is a disadvantage and not a something to be tolerated if the reasons it is partitioned can be addressed.
Saying that nationalists caused partition is a bit like regretting the Nederlands reimposing a border with Germany in 1945.
QuoteAnd if any Irish Nationalists in the Republic should find that a difficult concept to comprehend, they need only look to their own country's membership of the European Union. That arrangement doesn't make them any less "Irish", but they mostly* seem to feel it enhances their lives.
I greatly value the EU, however if the Republic chooses to leave, I will not be advocating that the part of it I live in should seperate from the rest of the country and remain in the EU. What is so good about the UK that 1. isn't available in the broader EU and 2. that justifies partition.
Quote from: stephenite on May 25, 2007, 12:12:23 AM
Quote from: stephenite on May 23, 2007, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2007, 01:07:03 PM
I'll happily reply "Ireland", if for no other reason than that I prefer to enjoy my Sam Adams in peace!
Who needs Spanish sputum in his Sam McGill?
Sorry to butt in, but have to ask what this means, obviously it's your pint/tipple but why Sam and what's the difference between Adams and McGill ?
Here EG, this is bugging me - don't know why but it is ::)
Oh, it's SOOOOOO tempting to keep you in suspenders, but I suppose I'd better explain:
(http://www.mahou-sanmiguel.com/Pics/foto_noticia.gif)
( http://www.mahou-sanmiguel.com/ )
;)
Silly and possibly (deliberately?) offensive parallels or even comparisons with the Third Reich might appeal to Mary McAleese and others who follow in De Valera's foot-steps (to the German representative's house in Dublin?- there's the irony) but are ludicrous.
Ireland is an island, you can argue over whether it is one or two countries, it is two states (or includes two states).
People have been moving between Ireland and Great Britian, and back, and forth, for centuries if not millenia.
It's hard to envisage either Wales or Scotland (or England) being partitioned, especially in this era, but not impossible. Wales is a linguistic dicotomy, and the Scots Higlanders and Islanders have little in sommon with the Central Belt and the Borders - those in the Northern Isles have more historic affinity to Norway than they have to Edinburgh or London. Several European countries/states are only held together by the thinnest of national bonds and the maximum devolution regionally/locally.
We have what we have here in Ireland and can make the best of it.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 25, 2007, 12:14:52 AM
In general there are some issues about colonial populations to engage in self determination, the Nazis cleared out parts of Poland and Slovenia, but you would accept that the populations they placed there did not have the right to self determination. Unionists distinguish themselves from this kind of thing because they've been here for so long, which confuses the practical issues if not the moral ones.
Well, it's slipping out, now, isn't it? Gweyltah has already dealt with the old Nazi "Blut und Boden" bit, so I'll just ask a question, if I may.
At what point were we Unionists* here long enough so as to cause "practical difficulties" in just kicking us out again? 1641? 1690? 1798, perhaps? Any advance? Do I hear 1848? Is there a 1916 in the house? Thank You, Sir. I'll accept a 1968, if there's one out there. No? Going once, going tw.... Wait, I have 1968. 1968 has the floor. I'll take a 2007, if there's one out there. 2007 it is. Is there any more? One last chance.... Yes! I have 2016! 2016 from the corner. 2016 going once, going twice, going for the last time: Sold! To the gentleman in the Black Beret, Dark Glasses and White Belt. Leave your details with the Cashier, Mr. Adams. :o
* - I just know you'd like to use the term "Planter", but this pesky Political Correctness gets everywhere, these days... >:(
This is a very interesting debate but if I had to go through all the points, I'd be here til the next bank holiday. (The 12th!)
Suffice to say, EG, it seems that you 'blame' the Irish nationalists for partition - surely it was their right to self-determination? - you make it sound like they were being the spoiled child, ruining the party (Union?) by wanting to run away from mummy Britain.
The other point raised by MW that I thought I should respond to was that, yes the Unionist tradition must be respected, of course, but the sizeable nationalist minority in the dissected Ulster also needs to have its aspirations aired and/or fulfilled, something that did not happen between 1921 and, I'll say, to be ultra-fair, 1968. EG says the Union may be the safest it's ever been, but that doesn't mean that the rights of northern nationalists can ever be ridden over roughshod again.
Incidentally, I do want an "Ireland of equals" - I think it may have been Gerry Adams who said that blandest of statements - but, whether you trust him and his cohorts or not, the phrase is exactly the ultimate solution.
What can be so wrong with a united Ireland, which happens to be independent (not, note "free") from Britain, who treats all its citizens with equity, fairness, freedom of expression and civil and (religious?) liberty - and plays an fully participative role in Europe, unlike its nearest neighbour !!
PS Finally, forgive me, but I still can't get my head round wanting to declare oneself "Northern Irish" above all else. Surely, you should just be British, or a UK citizen? Northern Ireland as a separate entity doesn't exist.
Respectfully yours.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 25, 2007, 09:00:22 AMPS Finally, forgive me, but I still can't get my head round wanting to declare oneself "Northern Irish" above all else. Surely, you should just be British, or a UK citizen? Northern Ireland as a separate entity doesn't exist.
Respectfully yours.
Excellent post FAM
I'll answer your last post with anther question. Would you expect a Spanish person to say they were Spanish or European first?
It depends! I would imagine most would say Spanish first but who knows?
Now, if they were from Barcelona, they may say Catalonian, or Basque if they're from San Sebastian etc.
But, technically, (legally?), they would be Spanish.
My point is Northern Ireland is not a separate entity so calling oneself 'Northern Irish' as a nationality is just not right! At the same time, it doesn't negate the 'feeling' or desire to want to think of oneself as 'Northern Irish' but, unfortunately, like Welsh or Scottish, it has no legal basis.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 25, 2007, 09:28:16 AM
It depends! I would imagine most would say Spanish first but who knows?
Now, if they were from Barcelona, they may say Catalonian, or Basque if they're from San Sebastian etc.
But, technically, (legally?), they would be Spanish.
My point is Northern Ireland is not a separate entity so calling oneself 'Northern Irish' as a nationality is just not right! At the same time, it doesn't negate the 'feeling' or desire to want to think of oneself as 'Northern Irish' but, unfortunately, like Welsh or Scottish, it has no legal basis.
Different issue surely. If we're talking about legal entities then anyone born in the six counties is British.
If at some stage there was a European superstate would you cease to see yourself as Irish because your passport said European?
Legally, anyone born in the '6-counties' post 1921 is British by birth UNLESS they opt for an Irish passport (imo).
Me, personally, yeah, I feel very much European - absolutely. Though I have obvious misgivings about a super-state, particularly if it's somehow to be in league or alliance with 'our American cousins'.
Incidentally, as I said earlier, I also feel an Ulsterman too. But I know I am Irish.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 25, 2007, 09:00:22 AM
Suffice to say, EG, it seems that you 'blame' the Irish nationalists for partition - surely it was their right to self-determination? - you make it sound like they were being the spoiled child, ruining the party (Union?) by wanting to run away from mummy Britain.
The other point raised by MW that I thought I should respond to was that, yes the Unionist tradition must be respected, of course, but the sizeable nationalist minority in the dissected Ulster also needs to have its aspirations aired and/or fulfilled, something that did not happen between 1921 and, I'll say, to be ultra-fair, 1968. EG says the Union may be the safest it's ever been, but that doesn't mean that the rights of northern nationalists can ever be ridden over roughshod again.
Incidentally, I do want an "Ireland of equals" - I think it may have been Gerry Adams who said that blandest of statements - but, whether you trust him and his cohorts or not, the phrase is exactly the ultimate solution.
What can be so wrong with a united Ireland, which happens to be independent (not, note "free") from Britain, who treats all its citizens with equity, fairness, freedom of expression and civil and (religious?) liberty - and plays an fully participative role in Europe, unlike its nearest neighbour !!
PS Finally, forgive me, but I still can't get my head round wanting to declare oneself "Northern Irish" above all else. Surely, you should just be British, or a UK citizen? Northern Ireland as a separate entity doesn't exist.
Respectfully yours.
Re. the question of Partition, I do not ascribe "blame", in its perjorative sense, to the Irish Nationalists. On the contrary, I actually said:
"Now don't get me wrong, had I been in their position, I might have done the same;"My point merely was that Partition was the inevitable result of the actions of (the majority of) Irish Nats; otherwise, what was the Irish Civil War all about? It is misleading, imo, to "blame" Unionists, as happens routinely. That's all.
Re. the rights of Nationalists within NI, I agree entirely.
Re. an "Ireland of Equals", don't disagree there, either. But whilst I accept that for peace to prevail, a place in the NI government as of right must be accorded to all parties with an electoral mandate, I don't know of any Unionist who would be prepared to trust his fate to any independent Ireland where Sinn Fein had a realistic chance of control.
Now I daresay that last statement will raise a few hackles amongst many readers of this Board - and not just Shinners, either. But think of it in these terms. Nigel Dodds, for example, is a DUP Minister. As such, he has pledged to work alongside SF Ministers at Stormont. Fair enough. But it is not so long such an IRA murder squad tried to assassinate him in a Belfast Hospital, in broad daylight, whilst he visited his seriously ill child. Therefore, since certain senior SF members are/were
also senior IRA members, he is being asked to sit down and work alongside the very people who tried to murder him. Now I don't know what you think of Dodds (and I personally hold no brief whatever for the DUP), but I am quite certain he has never murdered anyone, nor ordered any murder, nor condoned/defended any murder. SF merits their place at Stormont, but Unionism is a long way short of acquiescing to any "Ireland of Equals" where they (SF) might achieve control.
"What can be so wrong with a Northern Ireland, which happens to be allied in Union (not, note "subjugated") with the other people of these islands, who treats all its citizens with equity, fairness, freedom of expression and civil and (religious?) liberty - and plays an fully participative role in Europe, just like its nearest land neighbour !!"As for our being "Northern Irish", I understand why you can't "feel" this, but not why you can't
understand it. What about those people who proclaim themselves to be 'Irish by Birth, Munster by the Grace of God' etc? Or those people who define themselves as Kerrymen before being Irish? At least we have a devolved Government, with associated institutions, here in NI, to prove we exist. Or what would you say to someone who declared himself to be "Scottish", rather than 'just British', or a 'UK citizen'?
QuoteRegrettably, in the early 20th Century, a section of the people of Ireland (Nationalists, that is), decided that they no longer wanted to be part of that Union and broke away*, forcing/negotiating a part of the island for themselves
eg, how about rewriting that to something like: the vast majority of the people of ireland wanted an independant state but the powers that be decided instead to
gerrymander partition the country into two states including as much as the could in the northern part (maybe time will show they bit off more than they could chew) ;D blah blah blah
The Irish Civil War was a power struggle between two egotists, imo. The Yank won when he bumped off the Big Fellah.
Personally, I don't think an SF-run United Ireland is ever on the cards, in the 'old' sense, certainly judging by the results to come today.
BUT, the old argument of "one man's terrorist...." applies re. Dodds and co. Nelson Mandela was an evil man, apparently, well up to 1990.
We could all harp back and quote atrocities in the troubles til the cows wandered in. Me, I'm for looking forward, though that doesn't mean forgetting the past.
Quote from: magickingdom on May 25, 2007, 10:59:50 AM
QuoteRegrettably, in the early 20th Century, a section of the people of Ireland (Nationalists, that is), decided that they no longer wanted to be part of that Union and broke away*, forcing/negotiating a part of the island for themselves
eg, how about rewriting that to something like: the vast majority of the people of ireland wanted an independant state but the powers that be decided instead to gerrymander partition the country into two states including as much as the could in the northern part (maybe time will show they bit off more than they could chew) ;D blah blah blah
If that's how you choose to see it, so be it. Personally, I would prefer if it were re-worked along the lines of:
"A large majority in one part of the island wanted independence from the UK and a large majority in the other part wanted to remain in the UK. Any attempt to enforce the wishes of one part over the other (either way) would inevitably have led to a bloody and protracted War throughout the island. So a settlement was reached (Partition) which was accepted by the majority of Irish people throughout the island i.e. by a majority in both parts."
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 25, 2007, 11:07:39 AM
The Irish Civil War was a power struggle between two egotists, imo. The Yank won when he bumped off the Big Fellah.
Personally, I don't think an SF-run United Ireland is ever on the cards, in the 'old' sense, certainly judging by the results to come today.
BUT, the old argument of "one man's terrorist...." applies re. Dodds and co. Nelson Mandela was an evil man, apparently, well up to 1990.
We could all harp back and quote atrocities in the troubles til the cows wandered in. Me, I'm for looking forward, though that doesn't mean forgetting the past.
Wouldn't argue with any of that. (Now there's a first! ;))
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 25, 2007, 11:47:24 AM
"A large majority in one part of the island wanted independence from the UK and a large majority in the other part wanted to remain in the UK. Any attempt to enforce the wishes of one part over the other (either way) would inevitably have led to a bloody and protracted War throughout the island. So a settlement was reached (Partition) which was accepted by the majority of Irish people throughout the island i.e. by a majority in both parts."
Ach damn, EG, we were doing so well. I don't really think partition was implemented in 1921 in a democratic fashion, not if the 1918 general election in Ireland was anything to go by.
What the British government should have done was hold an all-Ireland referendum in '21. Instead we got a Lloyd-George fudge which led to years of violence throughout the island.
Who, for instance, decided to separate 6 counties away from the 9 of Ulster? I vaguely recall reading that Carson was more in favour of the 9 counties rather than the statelet that was created.
Quote"A large majority in one part of the island wanted independence from the UK and a large majority in the other part wanted to remain in the UK. Any attempt to enforce the wishes of one part over the other (either way) would inevitably have led to a bloody and protracted War throughout the island. So a settlement was reached (Partition) which was accepted by the majority of Irish people throughout the island i.e. by a majority in both parts."
thats fine eg just file it under fiction ;D. would you be ok with the partition of scotland considering the hugh parts of the north of scotland that just voted snp?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 25, 2007, 11:47:24 AM
Quote from: magickingdom on May 25, 2007, 10:59:50 AM
QuoteRegrettably, in the early 20th Century, a section of the people of Ireland (Nationalists, that is), decided that they no longer wanted to be part of that Union and broke away*, forcing/negotiating a part of the island for themselves
eg, how about rewriting that to something like: the vast majority of the people of ireland wanted an independant state but the powers that be decided instead to gerrymander partition the country into two states including as much as the could in the northern part (maybe time will show they bit off more than they could chew) ;D blah blah blah
If that's how you choose to see it, so be it. Personally, I would prefer if it were re-worked along the lines of:
"A large majority in one part of the island wanted independence from the UK and a large majority in the other part wanted to remain in the UK. Any attempt to enforce the wishes of one part over the other (either way) would inevitably have led to a bloody and protracted War throughout the island. So a settlement was reached (Partition) which was accepted by the majority of Irish people throughout the island i.e. by a majority in both parts."
Partition no matter how it's sliced was a completely artificial construct gerrymandered to produce a substantial Unionsist majority in one small part of the island. Maybe if the British government of the time had treated the island as a whole like they should have we would actually have managed to have a proper democratic outcome to the whole affair.
Granted the threat of violence in doing this was always there but all that happened was that the violence was merely postponed for a few decades.
Quote from: magickingdom on May 25, 2007, 12:40:43 PMthats fine eg just file it under fiction ;D. would you be ok with the partition of scotland considering the hugh parts of the north of scotland that just voted snp?
I'd be amazed if a section of Scotland wanted to break-away but if they did they should be allowed to do so, exactly the same as the Free State was allowed to break-away.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 25, 2007, 12:35:03 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 25, 2007, 11:47:24 AM
"A large majority in one part of the island wanted independence from the UK and a large majority in the other part wanted to remain in the UK. Any attempt to enforce the wishes of one part over the other (either way) would inevitably have led to a bloody and protracted War throughout the island. So a settlement was reached (Partition) which was accepted by the majority of Irish people throughout the island i.e. by a majority in both parts."
Ach damn, EG, we were doing so well. I don't really think partition was implemented in 1921 in a democratic fashion, not if the 1918 general election in Ireland was anything to go by.
What the British government should have done was hold an all-Ireland referendum in '21. Instead we got a Lloyd-George fudge which led to years of violence throughout the island.
Who, for instance, decided to separate 6 counties away from the 9 of Ulster? I vaguely recall reading that Carson was more in favour of the 9 counties rather than the statelet that was created.
Whether the implementation of Partition was "democratic"* or not, it was entirely pragmatic in its aim to provide the solution which would be best placed to avoid all-out War in Ireland. The fact that a minority in the Free State subsequently launched a Civil War is hardly the responsibility of Lloyd George (or the Unionists, for that matter)
As for acceding to a Referendum, where do you draw the line? An "All-United Kingdom" Referendum would undoubtedly have produced an overwhelming majority in favour of
denying independence to Irish Nationalists, but no-one is seriously suggesting it would have been the right thing to do, to coerce utterly disaffected and armed Nationalists (the majority in one part of Ireland) against their will.
But then, that is only the exact same principle which protected disaffected and armed
Ulster Unionists (the majority in the other part of Ireland) from being coerced into a settlement against
their will.
As for the exact boundary, no delineation was ever going to be perfect. Personally, for practical and emotive reasons, I think Donegal might have been included in a seven county NI (though I doubt if that would find too much favour there, these days! ;)). Similarly, for a 9-county Ulster to have remained wholly within the UK would certainly have had a logic and coherence to it. Indeed, the fact that the Unionist majority over 9 counties would have been much slimmer, might just conceivably have caused them to be more respectful of the rights of the minority in Ulster, thereby avoiding the discrimination which was inflicted on Nationalists in NI, and their subsequent resentment and resistance? But ultimately, I think the eventual settlement was about as practical a working arrangement as was ever likely to be achieved.
Which is why (imo) those people who argue against the "artificial" boundary which did emerge, still have to face up to the fact that for all the status of NI was meant to be "temporary" (at least in some parties eyes), it is still here 86 years later, with little sign of a foreseeable demise. In that respect, we have outlived many another country, including e.g. the USSR (or even our "fellow Nazis" in the Thousand Year Reich :o)
* - Technically, I think it was, seeing as it was agreed by the elected Government of the UK, in negotiation with the representatives of the secessionist movement.
Quote from: magickingdom on May 25, 2007, 12:40:43 PM
Quote"A large majority in one part of the island wanted independence from the UK and a large majority in the other part wanted to remain in the UK. Any attempt to enforce the wishes of one part over the other (either way) would inevitably have led to a bloody and protracted War throughout the island. So a settlement was reached (Partition) which was accepted by the majority of Irish people throughout the island i.e. by a majority in both parts."
thats fine eg just file it under fiction ;D. would you be ok with the partition of scotland considering the hugh parts of the north of scotland that just voted snp?
Which part of my post was fictional (i.e. factually incorrect)? As I indicated, you are entitled to draw a different conclusion from an objective exposition of the facts; to dismiss my conclusion so blithely actually says more about you than me, or my opinion.
P.S. Why do you consider that a Scottish election in 2007 has any great relevance to events in Ireland in the early 20th Century*. After all, its not as if you can deduce by any standard from the Election there that a majority of Scots actively want to break away from the UK.
* - Or even that I care about it? ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 25, 2007, 01:46:23 PM
Similarly, for a 9-county Ulster to have remained wholly within the UK would certainly have had a logic and coherence to it. Indeed, the fact that the Unionist majority over 9 counties would have been much slimmer, might just conceivably have caused them to be more respectful of the rights of the minority in Ulster, thereby avoiding the discrimination which was inflicted on Nationalists in NI, and their subsequent resentment and resistance?
Good point. I wish I had a TARDIS! But of course a 6-county statelet was created to ensure a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people.
But then again, the British have always been very 'resourceful' (but ultimately damning the partitioned country to years of slaughter) when it comes to conflict resolution......India, Palestine, North and South Rhodesia spring to mind.
I still feel those lines in the Gandhi film are powerful.........
BRIGADIER (indignantly, choked): My dear sir – India is British! We're hardly an alien power!
GENERAL: And how do you propose to make (the problems of India) yours? You don't think we're just going to walk out of India.
GANDHI: Yes . . . in the end you will walk out.
QuoteSilly and possibly (deliberately?) offensive parallels or even comparisons with the Third Reich might appeal to Mary McAleese and others who follow in De Valera's foot-steps (to the German representative's house in Dublin?- there's the irony) but are ludicrous.
The second world war was the last example of one European country invading another. Britain invading Ireland was an earlier example of the same thing, even if it was not the unique evil of the Nazis, it was evil nevertheless. Such an example is not ludicrous, in metaphor you use clear examples.
QuoteRe. an "Ireland of Equals", don't disagree there, either. But whilst I accept that for peace to prevail, a place in the NI government as of right must be accorded to all parties with an electoral mandate, I don't know of any Unionist who would be prepared to trust his fate to any independent Ireland where Sinn Fein had a realistic chance of control.
Well if you've been looking at the election results today Sinn Fein control of an all-ireland situation doesn't seem likely. Sinn Fein have many unpleasant features, but are an oddity, born of the unjust nature of the NI state, what use would they serve in a united Ireland. By refusing to deal with moderates unionism brings these extremists to the forefront. In the early part of the 20th century unionist could have talked to Redmond, but they refused to talk to anyone or countenance any form of political progress whatsoever which lead to an uprising and partition. In a situation where protestantism was strongly identified with colonialism and where most protestants give two fingers to the notion of democracy in Ireland and carved out their own gerrymandered state, the south was then criticised for being too Catholic, which was largely a consequence of most protestants having nothing to do with it. Most of the anti-British feeling that unionists go on about is brought about by themselves (plus a bit when watching the England soccer team!).
My point is that unionism hasn't had to look at its position previously, at one time NI was seen to make economic sense and the South could be portrayed as priest-ridden, in more recent times defending NI was seen to be opposing terrorists, in the future these black and white reasons will not be available
QuoteA large majority in one part of the island wanted independence from the UK and a large majority in the other part wanted to remain in the UK. Any attempt to enforce the wishes of one part over the other (either way) would inevitably have led to a bloody and protracted War throughout the island. So a settlement was reached (Partition) which was accepted by the majority of Irish people throughout the island i.e. by a majority in both parts."
thats fine eg just file it under fiction . would you be ok with the partition of scotland considering the hugh parts of the north of scotland that just voted snp?
Which part of my post was fictional (i.e. factually incorrect)?
eg, the bold part is factually incorrect...
But EG, you stated you have/would call yourself British/Irish and 6-county statelet-ish if the situation arose...? I don't have to put myself in that situation-my nation (Ireland) can hold its head up high in the world. Not so "Mother England"...for anyone to suggest otherwise is blinkered, DUP-esque ignorance.
And like I said, I have chosen to take out Aus. citizenship because of my son, who was granted it by the fact he was born here to an Aus. mum. 'Twas I who had to apply for his Irish citizenship/passport. Now, I am well aware the Lizzie the hoor is the head of state of Aus. but that is dwindling as the 10 quid poms are starting to fertilize the daisies. She is head of state of another nation and I have no issue with that...I do have major issues with the fact that she is "head of state" of a part of my country. You see, Aus. citizenship means one thing and that is a passport. That's all; my Irish nationality will always supersede all else.
Sammy G???...(I think it was you, if not apols)
"I'd be amazed if a section of Scotland wanted to break-away but if they did they should be allowed to do so, exactly the same as the Free State was allowed to break-away"
Interesting use of "break away"...that implies that it was right that Scotland (Ireland) be annexed by the English in the first place. Perhaps "become independent again" (although a little wordy) is correct.
Quote from: Aerlik on May 26, 2007, 01:14:01 AMSammy G???...(I think it was you, if not apols)
"I'd be amazed if a section of Scotland wanted to break-away but if they did they should be allowed to do so, exactly the same as the Free State was allowed to break-away"
Interesting use of "break away"...that implies that it was right that Scotland (Ireland) be annexed by the English in the first place. Perhaps "become independent again" (although a little wordy) is correct.
'Become independent again' would make little or no sense as neither Scotland or Ireland were ever independent entities prior to being members of the UK. The where divided up into various kingdoms/lairdships/tribes etc.
Quote'Become independent again' would make little or no sense as neither Scotland or Ireland were ever independent entities prior to being members of the UK. The where divided up into various kingdoms/lairdships/tribes etc.
This has to be one of lamest posts ever in the non-GAA section. Since the term UK referred to the union of Scotland and England and Wales how can you say that Scotland did not exist as an independent entities before the UK. Scotland existed as an independent entity for much longer than the UK has existed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland). As for Ireland whether it had a localised or centralised stucture is neither here nor there, it was not ruled from England before England invaded.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 26, 2007, 12:52:14 PM
Quote'Become independent again' would make little or no sense as neither Scotland or Ireland were ever independent entities prior to being members of the UK. The where divided up into various kingdoms/lairdships/tribes etc.
This has to be one of lamest posts ever in the non-GAA section. Since the term UK referred to the union of Scotland and England and Wales how can you say that Scotland did not exist as an independent entities before the UK. Scotland existed as an independent entity for much longer than the UK has existed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland). As for Ireland whether it had a localised or centralised stucture is neither here nor there, it was not ruled from England before England invaded.
When did I mention anywhere being ruled by England? Try reading what I posted.
QuoteWhen did I mention anywhere being ruled by England? Try reading what I posted.
Quoteneither Scotland or Ireland were ever independent entities prior to being members of the UK.
Independent - i.e not ruled by someone else, in this case England.
Perhaps you mean that Scotland and Ireland were not entities before England made them so. Odd that the Romans knew about Hibernia.