Dual Citizenship

[SammyG]

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.

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?

[Fiodoir Ard Mhacha]

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.

[SammyG]

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?

[Fiodoir Ard Mhacha]

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.

[Evil Genius]

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'?

[magickingdom]

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

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)   blah blah blah

[Fiodoir Ard Mhacha]

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.

[Evil Genius]

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

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)   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."

[Evil Genius]

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!  )

[Fiodoir Ard Mhacha]

"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.

[magickingdom]

"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  . would you be ok with the partition of scotland considering the hugh parts of the north of scotland that just voted snp?

[GalwayBayBoy]

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

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)   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.

[SammyG]

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?

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.

[Evil Genius]

"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  )



* - 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.

[Evil Genius]

"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  . 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?