There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Are people from Inishowen "southerners"? ;)
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
It's a piece about one persons personal experience so I don't really see how he could explain someone elses experience and feelings. I'm a "Nordie" too so you needn't ask me either lol
Quote from: Rossfan on April 14, 2016, 10:26:44 AM
Are people from Inishowen "southerners"? ;)
Donegal the only place in the world where the Norths in the South and the Souths in the North.
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:42:10 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
It's a piece about one persons personal experience so I don't really see how he could explain someone elses experience and feelings. I'm a "Nordie" too so you needn't ask me either lol
That'll be a no then. :D
Interesting read all right. Nothing remotely anti 'Southern' about it imo.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 14, 2016, 10:26:44 AM
Are people from Inishowen "southerners"? ;)
He clears that up in the first couple of paragraphs. You may have noticed the use of inverted commas around the word southerner? Or maybe you didn't read the piece at all? To my mind, it sums things up quite well.
You have taken the trouble to respond to the post, so I'm going to assume that you're interested in the subject matter. Have you anything relevant to add or are you waiting for muppet or some of the lads to post a response and then you can quote it and add your customary "+1"?
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
Its an excellent piece, sums it up pretty well. Muppet and Rossfans comments suggest they didn't bother to read the piece.
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm always interested in hearing the views of Southerners about abandoning us in the occupied six. Unless of course you are Ruth Dudley Edwards.
Muppet are you, by any chance, Ruth Dudley Edwards?
Quote from: Franko on April 14, 2016, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 12:37:04 PM
Its an excellent piece, sums it up pretty well. Muppet and Rossfans comments suggest they didn't bother to read the piece.
Of course I read it. It followed the usual stereotypical line, even with added Joe Brolly insult.
You tell em muppet....
Don't let them Nordies away with anything.
So you saw it as southern-bashing? What parts in particular?
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 01:00:50 PM
So you saw it as southern-bashing? What parts in particular?
Here is wile Joe:
" My father, a veteran republican, fluent Irish speaker and traditional musician steeped in all things Gaelic quipped to me during the week, "Don't be too hard on the southerners Joe, some of them are almost as Irish as we are."Take the reference to the (foolish) Meath East TD. She unwisely suggested that an attack on Sinn Féin's Belfast office in 1982, where staff were murdered, was 'brought upon themselves'. It has to be said that this was a particular stupid comment from the TD.
However the article leaps from that to:
"She blindly and sanctimoniously assumed that the suffering of the nationalist community and republicans was "all brought on by [their] own actions", as if nationalist trouble-making was the primary source or cause of the conflict."But worse than that. He then uses that daft cow, and in particular his twisting of her idiotic comments, as a brush to tar us all:
"
Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)."
I have relatives in the wee 6 and I lived up there for a while. I consider myself a 32-county Ireland man. I know I am an Irishman and I don't need Joe f**king Brolly to tell me what that is.
The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.
That's my issue with this sort of article. It makes assumptions about everyone in the Republic, and I'm a bit sick of lads telling me what I think or believe. I know what I think or believe, and I also am fairly confident that the majority of people in this state would have similar views on the North, certainly most of the 'real' people I've spoken to. I'm not sure what the various usernames on here would say to cause a row.
There is an issue with our media, and with an over-representation of a particular point of view, but that does not mean that we all see ye as different or less Irish. I'm actually sick of talking about this.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 14, 2016, 01:19:34 PM
That's my issue with this sort of article. It makes assumptions about everyone in the Republic, and I'm a bit sick of lads telling me what I think or believe. I know what I think or believe, and I also am fairly confident that the majority of people in this state would have similar views on the North, certainly most of the 'real' people I've spoken to. I'm not sure what the various usernames on here would say to cause a row.
There is an issue with our media, and with an over-representation of a particular point of view, but that does not mean that we all see ye as different or less Irish. I'm actually sick of talking about this.
+1
As a northerner, I'm sick of nordies that go on like this. It's just getting boring at this stage and caring so much about whether or not somebody in Galway or Kildare is dreaming of a United Ireland makes you look insecure in your own skin and it neglects the real pressing issues on either side of the non-existant border.
Like what is the big f**king deal here?
Do you reckon inaction spoke louder than words or sentiment to us nordies and thats what we're 'huffing' about?
I remember my first time meeting a unionist. It was in one of those sun holiday places. By chance I sat at a table where this couple were. To be sociable I started chit chat, he was from the north but seemed a tad uncomfortable. I didn't want to offend or make him feel uncomfortable among so many southerners as there were a crowd of us. Just to be sure I asked him was he into football. He asked "which type?". I could tell from the reply and his tone that he had no interest in chit chat with a taig so I left it at that. Even though we had never met before he immediately disliked me even though I was trying to be friendly. My first trip over the border was a year later and I seen the Army and RUC doing their rounds in Belleek. For some reason it annoyed me. The major difference between the 26 and the other 6 is that we don't have to deal with bigotry/sectarianism. I don't buy the Donegal folk feeling like outsiders. That's just geographical. Connemara people feel the same in Galway.
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.
You couldn't have demonstrated your ignorance any more perfectly
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 14, 2016, 01:19:34 PM
That's my issue with this sort of article. It makes assumptions about everyone in the Republic, and I'm a bit sick of lads telling me what I think or believe. I know what I think or believe, and I also am fairly confident that the majority of people in this state would have similar views on the North, certainly most of the 'real' people I've spoken to. I'm not sure what the various usernames on here would say to cause a row.
There is an issue with our media, and with an over-representation of a particular point of view, but that does not mean that we all see ye as different or less Irish. I'm actually sick of talking about this.
+1
As someone from the North,I agree with this, one of my pet hates is six county nationalism or more correctly six county partitionism
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.
You couldn't have demonstrated your ignorance any more perfectly
You hunted and hunted and found something semantic to be offended about.
Good for you. :D
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.
You couldn't have demonstrated your ignorance any more perfectly
Why so? Would you care to elaborate?
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.
You couldn't have demonstrated your ignorance any more perfectly
You hunted and hunted and found something semantic to be offended about.
Good for you. :D
It doesn't offend me in the slightest, but it should embarrass you.
I didn't hunt by the way, and the whole rest of your reply was tripe. The Brolly comment is obv tongue in cheek, and was quoted as such, and it wasn't much of a leap at all to make from that td's comments. In any event - this is a guy thoughts, based on his experiences. I can identify with them, I understand that you and others can't, but you can hardly dismiss everything hes saying.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 14, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.
You couldn't have demonstrated your ignorance any more perfectly
Why so? Would you care to elaborate?
It betrays a complete lack of any sort of knowledge or understanding of the north, well, certainly any from the nationalist side.
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.
You couldn't have demonstrated your ignorance any more perfectly
You hunted and hunted and found something semantic to be offended about.
Good for you. :D
It doesn't offend me in the slightest, but it should embarrass you.
I didn't hunt by the way, and the whole rest of your reply was tripe. The Brolly comment is obv tongue in cheek, and was quoted as such, and it wasn't much of a leap at all to make from that td's comments. In any event - this is a guy thoughts, based on his experiences. I can identify with them, I understand that you and others can't, but you can hardly dismiss everything hes saying.
You keep telling me what I can and can't dismiss and even what I should feel. Just like he did.
If it is ok with you, I'll decide for myself thanks.
As for your defence of his leap from the TDs comment, well fair enough. But you accuse me of tripe and then defend this rubbish based on her stupid comment:
"Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)."
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 14, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.
You couldn't have demonstrated your ignorance any more perfectly
Why so? Would you care to elaborate?
It betrays a complete lack of any sort of knowledge or understanding of the north, well, certainly any from the nationalist side.
Yes because it certainly has never had anything to do with religion.
God forbid.
So are all Catholics in the 6 Cos now Unionists or are All Nationalists now Agnostics/ Protestant/Atheists or what?
I liked the essay apart from a few generalisations such as referring to a "common southern mindset"
Those faults are not enough to detract from the essay. It's a good read and an honest personal account
and way beyond the intelligence level of the tractors.
What do we call nordies if we can't call them nordies? nothing, we don't have to call them anything? they are just like one of us?
Life was easier when I could call a nordie a nordie and not feel like I was socially stigmatising them.
Quote from: Main Street on April 14, 2016, 02:58:42 PM
I liked the essay apart from a few generalisations such as referring to a "common southern mindset"
Those faults are not enough to detract from the essay. It's a good read and an honest personal account
and way beyond the intelligence level of the tractors.
What do we call nordies if we can't call them nordies? nothing, we don't have to call them anything? they are just like one of us?
Life was easier when I could call a nordie a nordie and not feel like I was socially stigmatising them.
I know they have high torque but they are still very slow! :D
Quote from: Main Street on April 14, 2016, 02:58:42 PM
I liked the essay apart from a few generalisations such as referring to a "common southern mindset"
Those faults are not enough to detract from the essay. It's a good read and an honest personal account
and way beyond the intelligence level of the tractors.
What do we call nordies if we can't call them nordies? nothing, we don't have to call them anything? they are just like one of us?
Life was easier when I could call a nordie a nordie and not feel like I was socially stigmatising them.
We're all as Irish as one another, but that doesn't mean we don't have traits related to our areas. Midlanders are different to Cork lads, Dubs are different to nearly everyone. The lads on the Wesht have their own traits, and nordies have their own as well. But we're all Irish.
Precisely
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 14, 2016, 03:10:02 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 14, 2016, 02:58:42 PM
I liked the essay apart from a few generalisations such as referring to a "common southern mindset"
Those faults are not enough to detract from the essay. It's a good read and an honest personal account
and way beyond the intelligence level of the tractors.
What do we call nordies if we can't call them nordies? nothing, we don't have to call them anything? they are just like one of us?
Life was easier when I could call a nordie a nordie and not feel like I was socially stigmatising them.
We're all as Irish as one another, but that doesn't mean we don't have traits related to our areas. Midlanders are different to Cork lads, Dubs are different to nearly everyone. The lads on the Wesht have their own traits, and nordies have their own as well. But we're all Irish.
That's fair enough. There's no stigma attached to just being called a nordie.
And if Kerry folk are not too put out by being called cute hoors, then there's a degree of flexibility allowed.
I'm a Biffo for Jaysus sake. I wear it as a badge of honour. But maybe that's because I'm Big and Ignorant :)
To a Dub, you're just from bogland.
The term BIffo, would be way over their heads.
Dubs have Ireland neatly partitioned into Dublin and "Deeowen de cooonthry" ???
This essay could easily have been written by a unionist expressing how he is unloved or not identified with or by real British people.
The fact is,the vast majority of people in England,Scotland and Wales do not regard themselves as kindred spirits of Northern unionists,and neither do the vast majority of 26 counties people regard northern nationalists as their kindred.This works both ways,as I don't think the average northern nationalist or unionist identifies with or even thinks like the people they believe are the same nationality as them in the UK or the 26 counties.
As I've said before why at this stage do so many people from the North owe allegiance to the UK or 26 counties when they've been screwed over many times by them,and with whom their is no national identity or even common traits shared?
Anyone from Ulster or the 6C that gets offended by the term 'Nordie' or 'Northener' needs to catch themselves on and have a look at which part of the country their county lies in. A lot of people consider Cavan/Monaghan/Donegal people as northerners anyway - because Ulster is in the north of the country.
The trouble comes with some gobshites calling you 'British' or (almost as bad) 'Northern Irish'. A lot of these people subscribe to the modern revisionist view of Irish history and are more interested in furthering the cause of a neutered and PC world than educating themselves about the plight of 6 County Catholics and doing something about it. Don't you know that waving flags (apart from rainbow flags) is uncool?
Quote from: OgraAnDun on April 14, 2016, 03:59:14 PM
Anyone from Ulster or the 6C that gets offended by the term 'Nordie' or 'Northener' needs to catch themselves on and have a look at which part of the country their county lies in. A lot of people consider Cavan/Monaghan/Donegal people as northerners anyway - because Ulster is in the north of the country.
The trouble comes with some gobshites calling you 'British' or (almost as bad) 'Northern Irish'. A lot of these people subscribe to the modern revisionist view of Irish history and are more interested in furthering the cause of a neutered and PC world than educating themselves about the plight of 6 County Catholics and doing something about it. Don't you know that waving flags (apart from rainbow flags) is uncool?
Agree with that.
But as for the bit in bold, Haranguerer will be along shortly to lambaste you over your 'lack of any knowledge or understanding of the North'. Which is ironic, assuming you are from County Down.
Quote from: OgraAnDun on April 14, 2016, 03:59:14 PM
Anyone from Ulster or the 6C that gets offended by the term 'Nordie' or 'Northener' needs to catch themselves on and have a look at which part of the country their county lies in. A lot of people consider Cavan/Monaghan/Donegal people as northerners anyway - because Ulster is in the north of the country.
The trouble comes with some gobshites calling you 'British' or (almost as bad) 'Northern Irish'. A lot of these people subscribe to the modern revisionist view of Irish history and are more interested in furthering the cause of a neutered and PC world than educating themselves about the plight of 6 County Catholics and doing something about it. Don't you know that waving flags (apart from rainbow flags) is uncool?
Being called Northern Irish makes my skin crawl
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Because "British" and "Irish" are the only Nationalities available.
If the 6 Cos wants to become an Independent State of course then yyou'll be grand......
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 14, 2016, 03:19:34 PM
I'm a Biffo for Jaysus sake. I wear it as a badge of honour. But maybe that's because I'm Big and Ignorant :)
Beautiful Intelligent Female From Offaly :-*
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 04:09:26 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on April 14, 2016, 03:59:14 PM
Anyone from Ulster or the 6C that gets offended by the term 'Nordie' or 'Northener' needs to catch themselves on and have a look at which part of the country their county lies in. A lot of people consider Cavan/Monaghan/Donegal people as northerners anyway - because Ulster is in the north of the country.
The trouble comes with some gobshites calling you 'British' or (almost as bad) 'Northern Irish'. A lot of these people subscribe to the modern revisionist view of Irish history and are more interested in furthering the cause of a neutered and PC world than educating themselves about the plight of 6 County Catholics and doing something about it. Don't you know that waving flags (apart from rainbow flags) is uncool?
Being called Northern Irish makes my skin crawl
Agreed, vomit inducing. Used by Catholics who for some reason think that calling yourself Irish means you're a Provie.
Only one of those things are wrong.
On my travels I've always got on better with Donegal and Monaghan lads (Cavan not much ;)) but surely this is more a geographical thing. Similar humour etc?? Plenty of people in the south 'get it', plenty don't. No big deal.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Northern Irish to me = British
Quote from: general_lee on April 14, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Northern Irish to me = British
Is there any term (derogatory or otherwise) for someone born of Unionist/Loyalist stock who identifies themselves more as Irish?
I am thinking of the opposite of West Brit for example.
Quote from: general_lee on April 14, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Northern Irish to me = British
I wouldn't say that.
It's a very watered down version of what people feel. I'd equate it to someone saying they are agnostic. . . most couldn't give a shit about the baggage that comes with saying you're either British or Irish so they find it easier to say Northern Irish.
Personally I don't give a shit either way but I'm not watering down my Nationality for anyone regardless of what baggage comes with it. I couldn't give a f**k if you want to be Irish or British good luck to you!
You'll find very timid people use Northern Irish or else those in the public eye who don't want to offend one way or the other.
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: general_lee on April 14, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Northern Irish to me = British
Is there any term (derogatory or otherwise) for someone born of Unionist/Loyalist stock who identifies themselves more as Irish?
I am thinking of the opposite of West Brit for example.
Lundy!!
Quote from: screenexile on April 14, 2016, 05:13:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: general_lee on April 14, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Northern Irish to me = British
Is there any term (derogatory or otherwise) for someone born of Unionist/Loyalist stock who identifies themselves more as Irish?
I am thinking of the opposite of West Brit for example.
Lundy!!
Really?
They could probably try a bit harder with that one.
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: general_lee on April 14, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Northern Irish to me = British
Is there any term (derogatory or otherwise) for someone born of Unionist/Loyalist stock who identifies themselves more as Irish?
I am thinking of the opposite of West Brit for example.
Fenian Lover!
Quote from: AQMP on April 14, 2016, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: general_lee on April 14, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Northern Irish to me = British
Is there any term (derogatory or otherwise) for someone born of Unionist/Loyalist stock who identifies themselves more as Irish?
I am thinking of the opposite of West Brit for example.
Fenian Lover!
There it is.
Suitably insulting and yet a century out of date, as the genre requires.
Quote from: screenexile on April 14, 2016, 05:13:21 PM
Quote from: general_lee on April 14, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Northern Irish to me = British
I wouldn't say that.
It's a very watered down version of what people feel. I'd equate it to someone saying they are agnostic. . . most couldn't give a shit about the baggage that comes with saying you're either British or Irish so they find it easier to say Northern Irish.
Personally I don't give a shit either way but I'm not watering down my Nationality for anyone regardless of what baggage comes with it. I couldn't give a f**k if you want to be Irish or British good luck to you!
You'll find very timid people use Northern Irish or else those in the public eye who don't want to offend one way or the other.
Well it's subjective I suppose. Plenty of people from nationalist and Unionist backgrounds describe themselves as Northern Irish and good enough for them - but in my experience they're the type who haven't a clue about the history, the divisions etc. So they don't see any baggage. To me they may as well just declare their Britishness. It's like drinking Diet coke. You're still drinking coke.
I would describe myself now as "Northern Irish".It is unique and has no relation to Britain whatsoever,and reflects the reality of a part of Ireland that has been physically and largely culturally separate,and is drifting further and further apart in this respect,from the rest of the island for nearly a century.
I have no longer any sovereign aspirations to belong to a state that files me under its foreign affairs dept,and less and less affinity with the general atheism,greed,unionist British empathy,and boorishness of our hitherto southern brethren.In short I believe a United Ireland would be disastrous currently for Northern nationalists,who are not understood by Dublin and largely pigeon holed down there with Sinn Fein who are reviled.
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: general_lee on April 14, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Northern Irish to me = British
Is there any term (derogatory or otherwise) for someone born of Unionist/Loyalist stock who identifies themselves more as Irish?
I am thinking of the opposite of West Brit for example.
Mature, comfortable with their identity, progressive, open minded... Some terms that spring to mind.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 05:41:48 PM
I would describe myself now as "Northern Irish".It is unique and has no relation to Britain whatsoever,and reflects the reality of a part of Ireland that has been physically and largely culturally separate,and is drifting further and further apart in this respect,from the rest of the island for nearly a century.
I have no longer any sovereign aspirations to belong to a state that files me under its foreign affairs dept,and less and less affinity with the general atheism,greed,unionist British empathy,and boorishness of our hitherto southern brethren.In short I believe a United Ireland would be disastrous currently for Northern nationalists,who are not understood by Dublin and largely pigeon holed down there with Sinn Fein who are reviled.
This is not intended as a retort, it is just to stop you deleting it like you did the last time. :D
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 05:41:48 PM
I would describe myself now as "Northern Irish".It is unique and has no relation to Britain whatsoever,and reflects the reality of a part of Ireland that has been physically and largely culturally separate,and is drifting further and further apart in this respect,from the rest of the island for nearly a century.
I have no longer any sovereign aspirations to belong to a state that files me under its foreign affairs dept,and less and less affinity with the general atheism,greed,unionist British empathy,and boorishness of our hitherto southern brethren.In short I believe a United Ireland would be disastrous currently for Northern nationalists,who are not understood by Dublin and largely pigeon holed down there with Sinn Fein who are reviled.
You think a lack of religion/belief in God/organized religion is a problem in the 26 counties?
Jesus !
There are many people who would say that historically, it has had far too much of it & that its citizens suffered terribly as a result.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 05:41:48 PM
I would describe myself now as "Northern Irish".It is unique and has no relation to Britain whatsoever,and reflects the reality of a part of Ireland that has been physically and largely culturally separate,and is drifting further and further apart in this respect,from the rest of the island for nearly a century.
I have no longer any sovereign aspirations to belong to a state that files me under its foreign affairs dept,and less and less affinity with the general atheism,greed,unionist British empathy,and boorishness of our hitherto southern brethren.In short I believe a United Ireland would be disastrous currently for Northern nationalists,who are not understood by Dublin and largely pigeon holed down there with Sinn Fein who are reviled.
If Russia invaded, and took over the county of Armagh and incorporated the county as part of Russia, would you call yourself a Russian?
You seem to be pigeon holing yourself because of a shower of bastards in UK/Irish governments and media not understanding or caring about you.
I'm heartened that many here still feed Tony the poor troll, even though he is what he is and has been bringing up the same opinions already flogged to death in a hundred other threads That indeed is true charity.
I am facing up to reality which is neither London nor Dublin regards as as "their" people and at this stage never will.What therefore is the point of striving for some utopian scenario when it is not wanted by any significant section of people in the UK or rest of Ireland?
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: general_lee on April 14, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Northern Irish to me = British
Is there any term (derogatory or otherwise) for someone born of Unionist/Loyalist stock who identifies themselves more as Irish?
I am thinking of the opposite of West Brit for example.
Paisley had no problem describing himself as Irish he felt it was the same as being Scottish and British though
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
"Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)."
Pretty much captures it. The TD in question was voted in even after her comments. Tells you all you need to know about the southern attitude.
Quote from: foxcommander on April 14, 2016, 08:35:38 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
"Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)."
Pretty much captures it. The TD in question was voted in even after her comments. Tells you all you need to know about the southern attitude.
So by that logic, every time Peter Robinson puts his foot in his mouth, it is indicative of the "attitude" of every single person in the 6 counties? Nice one ! ::)
Quote from: Beffs on April 14, 2016, 08:47:49 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on April 14, 2016, 08:35:38 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
"Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)."
Pretty much captures it. The TD in question was voted in even after her comments. Tells you all you need to know about the southern attitude.
So by that logic, every time Peter Robinson puts his foot in his mouth, it is indicative of the "attitude" of every single person in the 6 counties? Nice one ! ::)
I didn't hear of anyone in the FG party correcting her. Maybe you can let me know who did.
So what? How often does PR's party pull him up on everything he says?
Gerry Adams made some pretty idiotic comments during the recent election on economic matters. They made him look a right twit. Did his party make a song and dance about them? Did they draw even more attention to them, in their mad rush to repudiate them? Like hell they did. They just ignored them and hoped the fuss would die down in time. As do all political parties, when one of their own does or says something incredibly thick.
Taking one stupid comment of one politician, as being indicative of what 4 million people think, is very narrow minded.
Quote from: Beffs on April 14, 2016, 09:54:01 PM
So what? How often does PR's party pull him up on everything he says?
Gerry Adams made some pretty idiotic comments during the recent election on economic matters. They made him look a right twit. Did his party make a song and dance about them? Did they draw even more attention to them, in their mad rush to repudiate them? Like hell they did. They just ignored them and hoped the fuss would die down in time. As do all political parties, when one of their own does or says something incredibly thick.
Taking one stupid comment of one politician, as being indicative of what 4 million people think, is very narrow minded.
Gerry Adams trampolines naked with his dog and has two gay teddies. I know this because he told us on twitter.
Quote from: Beffs on April 14, 2016, 09:54:01 PM
So what? How often does PR's party pull him up on everything he says?
Gerry Adams made some pretty idiotic comments during the recent election on economic matters. They made him look a right twit. Did his party make a song and dance about them? Did they draw even more attention to them, in their mad rush to repudiate them? Like hell they did. They just ignored them and hoped the fuss would die down in time. As do all political parties, when one of their own does or says something incredibly thick.
Taking one stupid comment of one politician, as being indicative of what 4 million people think, is very narrow minded.
I searched the web for Ms Doherty's apology and didn't find one. If, as you say, it was just a stupid comment she would have retracted it or someone from her party would have pulled her up on it.
but they didn't.
Surely if they wanted to distance themselves from her remarks they had ample opportunity to do so and let the pubic know this wasn't a FG party view. Or was that their view just for electioneering purposes?
Quote from: foxcommander on April 14, 2016, 10:15:02 PM
Quote from: Beffs on April 14, 2016, 09:54:01 PM
So what? How often does PR's party pull him up on everything he says?
Gerry Adams made some pretty idiotic comments during the recent election on economic matters. They made him look a right twit. Did his party make a song and dance about them? Did they draw even more attention to them, in their mad rush to repudiate them? Like hell they did. They just ignored them and hoped the fuss would die down in time. As do all political parties, when one of their own does or says something incredibly thick.
Taking one stupid comment of one politician, as being indicative of what 4 million people think, is very narrow minded.
I searched the web for Ms Doherty's apology and didn't find one. If, as you say, it was just a stupid comment she would have retracted it or someone from her party would have pulled her up on it.
but they didn't.
Surely if they wanted to distance themselves from her remarks they had ample opportunity to do so and let the pubic know this wasn't a FG party view. Or was that their view just for electioneering purposes?
Did you even read my post?
When one of their own fcuks up, political parties don't make a song and dance about it and issue public statements and apologies and retractions, which only draws more attention to it. If someone else makes a fuss about it, or it becomes a big deal in the media, yeah, then they'll do something to save face. But until that happens, they will ignore it and hope everyone else does too. It's politics 101.
Whether you agree with that or not, it still doesn't mean that one ignorant comment from a relatively low ranking politician, mirrors the opinions of 4 million people.
Quote from: Beffs on April 14, 2016, 10:43:00 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on April 14, 2016, 10:15:02 PM
Quote from: Beffs on April 14, 2016, 09:54:01 PM
So what? How often does PR's party pull him up on everything he says?
Gerry Adams made some pretty idiotic comments during the recent election on economic matters. They made him look a right twit. Did his party make a song and dance about them? Did they draw even more attention to them, in their mad rush to repudiate them? Like hell they did. They just ignored them and hoped the fuss would die down in time. As do all political parties, when one of their own does or says something incredibly thick.
Taking one stupid comment of one politician, as being indicative of what 4 million people think, is very narrow minded.
I searched the web for Ms Doherty's apology and didn't find one. If, as you say, it was just a stupid comment she would have retracted it or someone from her party would have pulled her up on it.
but they didn't.
Surely if they wanted to distance themselves from her remarks they had ample opportunity to do so and let the pubic know this wasn't a FG party view. Or was that their view just for electioneering purposes?
Did you even read my post?
When one of their own fcuks up, political parties don't make a song and dance about it and issue public statements and apologies and retractions, which only draws more attention to it. If someone else makes a fuss about it, or it becomes a big deal in the media, yeah, then they'll do something to save face. But until that happens, they will ignore it and hope everyone else does too. It's politics 101.
Whether you agree with that or not, it still doesn't mean that one ignorant comment from a relatively low ranking politician is reflective of the opinions of 4 million people.
It was a little bit more of a screw up than normal, especially since it shows your party's attitude towards the people in the 6 counties.
Ms Doherty doesn't strike me as intelligent enough to come up with this off her own bat so there's a FG spindoctor who's been authorised to feed her a few lines. To me that means it's the party viewpoint towards the people in the 6. And people still vote FG. What does that tell you.
FG are not my party. They have never (in my life time) been able to put together a majority government. So what does that tell you about their being representative of the views of 4 million people, either now or over the life time of the state?
Ok, so some looper comes out with an idiotic statement. No one else in the party has come out and agreed with her. She was not promoted for saying it. No one defected to her side from other parties, because of her opinions on the matter....the way that some other politicians did with Lucinda Creighton. She is not the figure head of a particular way of thinking about the north.
But she is still representative of the feelings of 4 million people? I'm done talking about this now, as you seem to be unable to grasp the basic lack of logic in your argument.
Quote from: Beffs on April 15, 2016, 01:07:32 AM
FG are not my party. They have never (in my life time) been able to put together a majority government. So what does that tell you about their being representative of the views of 4 million people, either now or over the life time of the state?
Ok, so some looper comes out with an idiotic statement. No one else in the party has come out and agreed with her. She was not promoted for saying it. No one defected to her side from other parties, because of her opinions on the matter....the way that some other politicians did with Lucinda Creighton. She is not the figure head of a particular way of thinking about the north.
But she is still representative of the feelings of 4 million people? I'm done talking about this now, as you seem to be unable to grasp the basic lack of logic in your argument.
I think the writer was more illustrating that there is some people that think that way down South rather than its the majority viewpoint. The First paragraph before mentioning Doherty explains that its a subsection of Southern people.
QuoteUnfortunately, when experiences of the nationalist community are articulated to certain other southerners – especially those of a partitionist persuasion – this absence of experience leads them to jump to the other extreme of hesitancy and into the realm of bellicose anti-empathy.
Fine Gael TD Regina Doherty's insensitive comments before the recent general election in the south were a perfect example of this phenomenon. She blindly and sanctimoniously assumed that the suffering of the nationalist community and republicans was "all brought on by [their] own actions", as if nationalist trouble-making was the primary source or cause of the conflict.
Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners).
Quote from: foxcommander on April 14, 2016, 10:51:55 PM
To me that means it's the party viewpoint towards the people in the 6. And people still vote FG. What does that tell you.
Foxy, did you see and hear all the socialist and liberal statements made by Sinn Fein during the campaign?
The Loony Left. And people still voted for them!
What does that tell you about them and the people who voted for them?
How does the right-wing part of Sinn Fein feel about this? Are they just instructed to keep the head down?
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 14, 2016, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.
Yeah, cos that's how things work round here. How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread? The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article. The 'bias' was only your opinion.
The blng linked above is really good
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
I was talking to friend of mine yesterday about settler territories such as the US, NI and Israel and he was saying that all of them have problem with violence going back to Day 1. Another thing they have in common is very flaky ideologies. Such as A protestant state for a protestant people.
It wouldn't matter how long NI was separated from the South. It will always be Irish.
Get a copy of the O Donaill dictionary and you'll see why
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 04:38:04 PM
What is wrong with being called "Northern Irish?" It is merely an accurate reflection of reality.I wish more people in the North identified themselves as Northern Irish as opposed to the ridiculous British or Irish titles
Tony you are quite entitled to call yourself Northern Irish if that floats your boat, but don't foist that partitionist identity on those of us who consider ourselves as simply Irish.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 05:41:48 PM
I would describe myself now as "Northern Irish".It is unique and has no relation to Britain whatsoever,and reflects the reality of a part of Ireland that has been physically and largely culturally separate,and is drifting further and further apart in this respect,from the rest of the island for nearly a century.
I have no longer any sovereign aspirations to belong to a state that files me under its foreign affairs dept,and less and less affinity with the general atheism,greed,unionist British empathy,and boorishness of our hitherto southern brethren.In short I believe a United Ireland would be disastrous currently for Northern nationalists,who are not understood by Dublin and largely pigeon holed down there with Sinn Fein who are reviled.
I think we get that by now Tony, but by rejecting your Irish passport you are automatically acquiring a British one, like Rory you are more British than Irish. The reality is Northern Irish is considered one of the constituent "nationalities" of the UK you therefore are giving allegiance to the UK.
Quote from: Main Street on April 14, 2016, 06:21:58 PM
I'm heartened that many here still feed Tony the poor troll, even though he is what he is and has been bringing up the same opinions already flogged to death in a hundred other threads That indeed is true charity.
It's like smoking you can't help taking one last drag!
Quote from: Franko on April 15, 2016, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 14, 2016, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.
Yeah, cos that's how things work round here. How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread? The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article. The 'bias' was only your opinion.
I wasn't the OP on that thread.
As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?
I worked in Dublin with a fella who announced one coffee break that NI had nothing to do with "Ireland". I hate that attitude. The media drive it. They are ultra partitionist. There arent enough southerners who go to to the North either.
That's the prevailing attitude and in truth I don't blame the people of the South.
I have a fleeting admiration for T Fearon.
Feel a bit dirty after saying that
It's the accent, it's so different.
To be honest the article was long winded and made valid and not so valid points .
To be honest there are many regional differances in the country. Coming from Limerick you would often get the old "stab city" thing which is not nice .,
People who move from Ireland to live in Britain or Australia live effectively under British or Australian rule but they are still Irish.I will never be British,similarly,whatever the opinion of the few on this thread,neither the Dublin government nor the vast majority of its people want any sovereign authority over the North,so why not regard yourself as Northern Irish and try to forge a common northern identity?
Quote from: seafoid on April 15, 2016, 08:01:03 PM
I worked in Dublin with a fella who announced one coffee break that NI had nothing to do with "Ireland". I hate that attitude. The media drive it. They are ultra partitionist. There arent enough southerners who go to to the North either.
Lost all interest when the booze stopped being so cheap.
Have you seen the price of a bottle of vodka in Newry these days? :o
Scandalous ! ;)
Quote from: T Fearon on April 15, 2016, 11:07:13 PM
People who move from Ireland to live in Britain or Australia live effectively under British or Australian rule but they are still Irish.I will never be British,similarly,whatever the opinion of the few on this thread,neither the Dublin government nor the vast majority of its people want any sovereign authority over the North,so why not regard yourself as Northern Irish and try to forge a common northern identity?
True, the Brits and the South don't want or give a toss about the North or it's people, but no government gives a toss about the people it's supposed to serve. It's not just here.
How do you forge a NI identity when both sides have nothing in common? One side has an Irish idetity, the other British.
Truthfully both sides have more in common here than either has with the South or UK.Easy enough to forge a Northern identity if you could get people to switch their focus away from pipe dreams or the hang ups of being "British or Irish".
I agree governments have a lack of concern for their people,but there aren't any votes for the main British or Irish parties in the North (British Labour Party's policy is not to stand candidates here),and crucially no significant section of people in the UK or 26 counties regards the North or its people as their nationalities.
I think people up here generally share traits like honesty,plain speaking,religious belief,humour,community focus,concern for others etc.There is also common things like parading,Bonfires etc.We now have a shared history and Linda Ervine's full Irish classes in East Belfast shows how people are willing to branch out and embrace lost parts of their heritage.Also the Good Friday Agreement generation has grown up untarnished largely by the troubles.Will take time but better than wasting more time chasing pipe dreams like a United Ireland.
The politics of the 2 island viz Ireland and the other one have been in flux since 1912. Scotland may well leave the UK. NI was a panic job and the workmanship was very shoddy. It probably won't be around 50 years from now. A NI identity could be created but why would you bother?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 16, 2016, 06:06:02 AM
I think people up here generally share traits like honesty,plain speaking,religious belief,humour,community focus,concern for others etc.There is also common things like parading,Bonfires etc.We now have a shared history and Linda Ervine's full Irish classes in East Belfast shows how people are willing to branch out and embrace lost parts of their heritage.Also the Good Friday Agreement generation has grown up untarnished largely by the troubles.Will take time but better than wasting more time chasing pipe dreams like a United Ireland.
What utter garbage. I don't think you could be any more deluded.
Why is it garbage? One hundred years after the rising a united Ireland is further away than ever,paradoxically because a substantial majority of people North and South are opposed to it,while the British actually favour it!
I see no point whatsoever in pursuing the diametrically opposed British/Irish solution,which is toxically divisive and has no hope of success either way.In short I see no alternative,in our lifetimes,than coming together in common Northern Irishness.
I know you're on the wind up but a Fermanagh Catholic farmer hasn't very much in common with Larne, Newtownards, Ballymena etc.
However he has an awful lot in common with people in Cavan, Leitrim, Longford etc etc.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 16, 2016, 10:37:32 AM
Why is it garbage? One hundred years after the rising a united Ireland is further away than ever,paradoxically because a substantial majority of people North and South are opposed to it,while the British actually favour it!
I see no point whatsoever in pursuing the diametrically opposed British/Irish solution,which is toxically divisive and has no hope of success either way.In short I see no alternative,in our lifetimes,than coming together in common Northern Irishness.
as PJ HARVEY noted, England's dancing days are done . The UK is v fragile. Anything could happen. NI is a failed statelet. NI catholics are obviously Irish as are most NI protestants.
Quote from: muppet on April 15, 2016, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 15, 2016, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 14, 2016, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.
Yeah, cos that's how things work round here. How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread? The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article. The 'bias' was only your opinion.
I wasn't the OP on that thread.
As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?
You've been the OP on plenty of threads. I've yet to see you post two differing opinions for the sake of balance. Like I said earlier, some posters thought the article was bang on. Some didn't. It's all a matter of opinion. We had a difference of opinion over this a while back. You ended the conversation by saying that my opinion was wrong because it was just 'dogma'. Why was my opinion just dogma and yours wasn't? You said recently here that your posting style gets people angry. Maybe it's because, when you see an opinion different from your own, you immediately default to words like 'biased' and 'dogma', dismissing immediately the other's POV and attempting to assume the standard role of all knowing sage.
So Seafoid,is Dublin going to pick up the tab for the North when British fragility implodes? I doubt it.
A really radical proposal is that NI would pay its own way and not require handouts from anyone.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 16, 2016, 11:26:19 AM
So Seafoid,is Dublin going to pick up the tab for the North when British fragility implodes? I doubt it.
A combination of spending cuts, thank you so much money from London and economic growth could do the trick
Quote from: seafoid on April 16, 2016, 08:00:11 AM
The politics of the 2 island viz Ireland and the other one have been in flux since 1912. Scotland may well leave the UK. NI was a panic job and the workmanship was very shoddy. It probably won't be around 50 years from now. A NI identity could be created but why would you bother?
"Ourland"
But seriously the Northerners have more in common with Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan than the Southerners. I think we need to annex that land and put up the borders. If however we are talking of going together the United States of Ireland, (USI) (Free state and Northern statelet) or United Federation of Ourland (UFO) I believe it would be progressive economically, politically, in sport and the Eurovision which is what is behind this whole debate anyway.
Make no mistake about it and Northern BREXIT supporters be warned, If we leave the Eurovision there'll be a war like no other..
Quote from: Franko on April 16, 2016, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 15, 2016, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 15, 2016, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 14, 2016, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.
Yeah, cos that's how things work round here. How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread? The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article. The 'bias' was only your opinion.
I wasn't the OP on that thread.
As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?
You've been the OP on plenty of threads. I've yet to see you post two differing opinions for the sake of balance. Like I said earlier, some posters thought the article was bang on. Some didn't. It's all a matter of opinion. We had a difference of opinion over this a while back. You ended the conversation by saying that my opinion was wrong because it was just 'dogma'. Why was my opinion just dogma and yours wasn't? You said recently here that your posting style gets people angry. Maybe it's because, when you see an opinion different from your own, you immediately default to words like 'biased' and 'dogma', dismissing immediately the other's POV and attempting to assume the standard role of all knowing sage.
Of course it was biased. It was one person's criticisms of a lot of other people. Please tell me how this cannot be biased. If it was a self-criticism it could be deemed to be honest, but when you bash others it can nevertheless be anything other than opinion and biased opinion at that.
I notice he posts links to An Phoblacht in his articles. No bias there either.
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2016, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 16, 2016, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 15, 2016, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 15, 2016, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 14, 2016, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.
Yeah, cos that's how things work round here. How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread? The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article. The 'bias' was only your opinion.
I wasn't the OP on that thread.
As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?
You've been the OP on plenty of threads. I've yet to see you post two differing opinions for the sake of balance. Like I said earlier, some posters thought the article was bang on. Some didn't. It's all a matter of opinion. We had a difference of opinion over this a while back. You ended the conversation by saying that my opinion was wrong because it was just 'dogma'. Why was my opinion just dogma and yours wasn't? You said recently here that your posting style gets people angry. Maybe it's because, when you see an opinion different from your own, you immediately default to words like 'biased' and 'dogma', dismissing immediately the other's POV and attempting to assume the standard role of all knowing sage.
Of course it was biased. It was one person's criticisms of a lot of other people. Please tell me how this cannot be biased. If it was a self-criticism it could be deemed to be honest, but when you bash others it can nevertheless be anything other than opinion and biased opinion at that.
I notice he posts links to An Phoblacht in his articles. No bias there either.
By that fuzzy logic, your criticisms of the writer and the piece are also biased (the writer, and quite a few others seemed to agree with what he was saying). Does that immediately render them incorrect also?
Quote from: rrhf
"Ourland"
But seriously the Northerners have more in common with Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan than the Southerners. I think we need to annex that land and put up the borders. If however we are talking of going together the United States of Ireland, (USI) (Free state and Northern statelet) or United Federation of Ourland (UFO) I believe it would be progressive economically, politically, in sport and the Eurovision which is what is behind this whole debate anyway.
Make no mistake about it and Northern BREXIT supporters be warned, If we leave the Eurovision there'll be a war like no other..
Bit like Eire Nua maybe, the federalising to two parts rather than four like in that document is the best option I think their original 4 province option was too cumbersome and was only really so it didn't seem to soft for other republicans to swallow
Quote from: Franko on April 16, 2016, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2016, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 16, 2016, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 15, 2016, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 15, 2016, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 14, 2016, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.
Yeah, cos that's how things work round here. How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread? The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article. The 'bias' was only your opinion.
I wasn't the OP on that thread.
As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?
You've been the OP on plenty of threads. I've yet to see you post two differing opinions for the sake of balance. Like I said earlier, some posters thought the article was bang on. Some didn't. It's all a matter of opinion. We had a difference of opinion over this a while back. You ended the conversation by saying that my opinion was wrong because it was just 'dogma'. Why was my opinion just dogma and yours wasn't? You said recently here that your posting style gets people angry. Maybe it's because, when you see an opinion different from your own, you immediately default to words like 'biased' and 'dogma', dismissing immediately the other's POV and attempting to assume the standard role of all knowing sage.
Of course it was biased. It was one person's criticisms of a lot of other people. Please tell me how this cannot be biased. If it was a self-criticism it could be deemed to be honest, but when you bash others it can nevertheless be anything other than opinion and biased opinion at that.
I notice he posts links to An Phoblacht in his articles. No bias there either.
By that fuzzy logic, your criticisms of the writer and the piece are also biased (the writer, and quite a few others seemed to agree with what he was saying). Does that immediately render them incorrect also?
Brilliant. You finally got there. Now see why I suggested some balance? Instead we got the usual one way traffic of Southern bashing that appears in that article, supported by a few others.
Quote from: MoChara on April 16, 2016, 06:04:51 PM
Quote from: rrhf
"Ourland"
But seriously the Northerners have more in common with Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan than the Southerners. I think we need to annex that land and put up the borders. If however we are talking of going together the United States of Ireland, (USI) (Free state and Northern statelet) or United Federation of Ourland (UFO) I believe it would be progressive economically, politically, in sport and the Eurovision which is what is behind this whole debate anyway.
Make no mistake about it and Northern BREXIT supporters be warned, If we leave the Eurovision there'll be a war like no other..
Bit like Eire Nua maybe, the federalising to two parts rather than four like in that document is the best option I think their original 4 province option was too cumbersome and was only really so it didn't seem to soft for other republicans to swallow
Perhaps you could call it Eire Renua?
Muppet, it's a conversation forum. Of course the article is biased, it's an opinion piece in which one person puts forward their point of view. It is up to others to create a conversation around that where they can get their point of view across and allow people to make up their minds. It's not a requirement that when starting a new thread that the OP has to post a link to both sides of a debate.
Ogra I agree with you completely. I merely suggested it might have been better to have balanced the original post.
MoChara has shown himself to be a good contributor here and I was suggesting balance as a way to avoid the usual directions these threads go, i.e. The Shinnerbots show up.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2016, 10:45:54 AM
I know you're on the wind up but a Fermanagh Catholic farmer hasn't very much in common with Larne, Newtownards, Ballymena etc.
However he has an awful lot in common with people in Cavan, Leitrim, Longford etc etc.
What would a Fermanagh farmer have in common with someone from Longford?
The most resentful thing I have with Southerners is that there hasn't be an acknowledgement that they abandoned us, it doesn't occur to them that their inaction and apathy to what northern nationalists had to go through during the troubles was wrong - and the subsequent moralising and pro-Brit revisionism they adopt of republicans defending their own people in the North, just adds salt into the wounds.
I'd agree with the article, I do feel a detachment from Southerners. For those of you who defend that particular view of the Southerners and the Free State establishments, do you at least acknowledge that successive Free State governments absolutely failed the northern nationalists and can understand the resentment that may be there? That does not mean to state that the governments of that time were representative of your own view, but if they weren't then surely you would feel some sort of shame or guilt about how the north was abandoned by the South for selfish reasons. Compare to a family member carrying out some action to a person you knew who you had no quarrel with and regular dealings with, if you met them would you apologise for their actions and let them know that said person was wrong or would you just act as if nothing happened? Or alternatively would you, like as seems to be certainly the case of the Free State media and establishment political parties, that we deserved what we got? Can you understand that is why there may be a resentment there.
The aspect that the Free State and it's people failed the North has never been borne out by Southerners, no contrition or acknowledgement has ever been made of this - not in media and not in public figures. That is the angle the article gets at and one that I feel accurately conveys my own feelings. For those of you who say you empathise with what Northern nationalists had to go through, is there an acknowledgement or shed of guilt or shame with the reaction of Free State and its citizens (by association) to the plight of Northern nationalists?
I'd also agree with the author in that in the term Southerners, I would not include Donegal, Louth, Monaghan and parts of Leitrim in terms of their attitude to the north. I feel these people had an understanding of the troubles and weren't represented by the common Free State Establishment view, the further south you went the more ignorance and inverted guilt played out. The problem is generalisations, some people may feel dismayed to be tagged in that view but I would feel you can't quibble if you are not ashamed by the inaction of the Free State toward the north and the establishment parties and media's revisionism, ignorance and hypocrisy when reporting on Northern issues.
Hello all. I'm the author of the piece. Wordpress has a facility that allows you to see the origin of traffic to your blog so thought I'd check out what people were saying. Might as well engage with some of the criticism whilst I'm at it! Thanks for reading, by the way, those that did, and for your range of thoughts and opinions on it. All appreciated.
In relation to accusations of bias, it's a personal account, articulating my own experiences and that of my family, friends and community. I can't articulate the personal experiences of people I don't know, of communities in which I did not grow up or with whom I have not had the opportunity of interacting on a meaningful basis. Any personal account is, of course, going to be "biased" in that sense. (For what it's worth, a published unionist blogger got in touch with me and had very positive words to say about what I'd written. He welcomed the perspective.)
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 01:00:50 PM
So you saw it as southern-bashing? What parts in particular?
Here is wile Joe:
" My father, a veteran republican, fluent Irish speaker and traditional musician steeped in all things Gaelic quipped to me during the week, "Don't be too hard on the southerners Joe, some of them are almost as Irish as we are."
Take the reference to the (foolish) Meath East TD. She unwisely suggested that an attack on Sinn Féin's Belfast office in 1982, where staff were murdered, was 'brought upon themselves'. It has to be said that this was a particular stupid comment from the TD.
However the article leaps from that to:
"She blindly and sanctimoniously assumed that the suffering of the nationalist community and republicans was "all brought on by [their] own actions", as if nationalist trouble-making was the primary source or cause of the conflict."
But worse than that. He then uses that daft cow, and in particular his twisting of her idiotic comments, as a brush to tar us all:
"Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)."
I have relatives in the wee 6 and I lived up there for a while. I consider myself a 32-county Ireland man. I know I am an Irishman and I don't need Joe f**king Brolly to tell me what that is.
The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.
I think you're being overly defensive and cherry-picking. I would suggest Joe was being slightly tongue-in-cheek with the "almost as Irish as we are" bit. And I wasn't southerner-bashing. My ma's a southerner, as are my relations. Plenty of southerners have responded positively to the piece. It's hardly tarring all with the one brush when I make clear distinctions throughout and also make it very clear that there are southerners who are empathic. I'm very careful to make it clear that southerners are not a monolithic group. When I brought up Regina Doherty's comment, for example, I brought it up in the context of referring to "certain other southerners - especially those of a partitionist persuasion", so there's absolutely no reason why you should have thought I was generalising and accusing all southerners of harbouring her sentiments.
On Regina Dohery's comment, she used the words "all brought on by your own actions" as Gerry Adams spoke about attacks on him, his family and other members of the nationalist and republican community. At best, there was ambiguity, but she was still victim-blaming. I analysed what she said in two other pieces I wrote around the time I heard it. Here: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/suspicion-hangs-over-veracity-of-regina-dohertys-death-threat-allegation/ and https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/the-death-threat-to-regina-doherty-and-misconceptions-about-sinn-fein-in-the-south/
My father's cousin (who I mention in the piece) was a member of Sinn Féin, so did the same principle of "bringing it upon himself" apply to him simply because of his Sinn Féin membership? Why would he and other victims killed because of their politics (or religion) be any different from those other innocent people she blamed for their own fate? It's entirely reasonable to assume her application was general. (By the way, I'm not affiliated with any party myself and I link to plenty of sources in my writings to provide further background info besides 'An Phoblacht', which I've linked to pretty infrequently.)
As for my suspicion that hostile reactions like Doherty's are rooted in defensiveness, notions of southern guilt over sacrificing their northern compatriots or repressed feelings of failure (over not achieving full 32-county independence), such feelings have long been written about. They aren't theories I've come up with myself. It was a theme in some of the work of James Joyce. Elizabeth Keane, Donnacha Ó Beacháin, Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd have also documented such feelings.
The reaction to republicanism using its voice or emerging as an electoral force in the south has been more hostile than how republicans are treated in the north by unionists or even by British politicians and, indeed, monarchs. What reason do critics have in the south to be more angry than, say, unionists or British politicians/monarchs have to be? That's why I suspect there may be some deeper underlying psychological complex at root. Call it an irritable or unresolved hang-over from partition maybe?
Republicans are a "nuisance" for the southern establishment because republicans force the state to self-reflect and ask deep questions of its origins, its legitimacy and its very existence. Republicans, by their very existence, expose the reality that the southern state is a failed attempt at putting the principles of the 1916-proclaimed republic celebrated every Easter by the state into practice. Anger, indignance and rejection perhaps helps deflect from this uncomfortable fact and from southern establishment hypocrisy.
Quote from: OakleafCounty on April 14, 2016, 01:46:49 PM
As a northerner, I'm sick of nordies that go on like this. It's just getting boring at this stage and caring so much about whether or not somebody in Galway or Kildare is dreaming of a United Ireland makes you look insecure in your own skin and it neglects the real pressing issues on either side of the non-existant border.
Like what is the big f**king deal here?
Having your identity explicitly denied doesn't grate even slightly with you or evoke even the remotest hint of derision for whoever's denying it? Fine, you don't think it's a big deal and see the matter as nothing more than an issue of sentiment. I think it'd be nice to have a more collective sense of national consciousness, but, as you say, it's not essential, of course. As for where the partitionist attitude is of practical detriment or some examples of what the south could do to bridge the sense of separation:
i) The southern government has done precious little to pressure the British government on truth and legacy issues despite the latter's continued violation of its ECHR obligations. It has failed to effectively assist its own citizens from the north in taking on the British government in numerous outstanding suspected collusion cases, torture cases and (over 150) cases of alleged army misconduct. Its silence on the "hooded men" case is deafening, for example. Families would appreciate assistance in getting the truth and some form of closure. I think the nationalist community in the north generally would appreciate this.
When the Bloody Sunday families first went south for help long before the Saville Inquiry was set up, they were shunned and their appeals for meetings with the then-president Mary Robinson and cardinal Cahal Daly were flat-out rejected. The southern establishment had not the slightest bit of interest interest in meeting the families or in listening to what they had to say. Is this a prevailing attitude?
There's a superb dissection of the Saville Report here by Eamonn McCann where he mentions how the families were treated like dirt until the PR-savvy British establishment saw re-opening the Bloody Sunday matter as a means of buttering-up or making a sort of cover-all reconciliation-offering to the nationalist community whilst simultaneously insulating itself from ultimate blame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x83lt5zDRbg
McCann talks about southern rejection of the families at 12:30. He comments that there was a perception in the south that the families' cause to have the names of their sons, fathers and brothers cleared was "tainted with Provo-ism".
I also describe the Inquiry itself in rather cynical terms above because, as McCann discusses from 06:40, the families had initially crafted a statement to make to the public upon the announcement of the Inquiry's findings; it was set to state that the victims had been vindicated and that the parachute regiment had been disgraced. After this was heard by the senior NIO official, Mary Madden, in the Guildhall that day (the statement had been read out inside the Guildhall to the families for their final seal of approval right before they were to go outside and announce their feelings to the public from the stage in Guildhall Square), she took McCann aside and said whilst quivering, "That will have to be changed. That statement will have to be changed. Everybody had agree that this was to be a day of reconciliation."
What a strange thing to say. Everyone had agreed to no such thing. In reality, or at least for the families and community anyway, it was to be a day of finally having forced the British state to admit to the truth about a massacre that had happened on the streets of Derry – a truth it had been denying for decades – but here was a state official still attempting to stage-manage or sanitise the victims' families' collective response for the benefit of the state.
ii) The south could think more seriously about giving northern Irish nationals a vote (at least in presidential elections), although some sort of official representative, for whom people in the north could vote too might be a thought. I'm aware there'd be a fear of unionist sabotage – maybe that's over-stated and unfounded – but, if not residence, then perhaps possession of an Irish passport could be the qualifying mechanism.
iii) More cross-border initiatives such as school-exchanges where students from the south might visit the north for a few days and vice-versa for students from the north.
iv) Get the motorway built from Dublin to Derry. The north-west region was a peripheral region before partition anyway, but partition doubled that effect by splitting an urban commercial centre from its Donegal hinterland. Both Derry and Donegal became declining peripheral areas of remote centralist capitals in Dublin and London (via Belfast).
v) Ditto, a train-line.
vi) Less of the hypocrisy, pontification, victim-blaming and general sense of moral superiority. The Irish state was founded through violence and bloodshed too. Trying to understand it and the material difficulties people experienced doesn't have to equate to glorifying their responses.
vii) Most importantly, start talking about a unity strategy that will benefit all on the island. That will have economic implications too, so it's not as if it's a luxury side or non-issue. Brexit has the potential of reinforcing partition, and not merely politically or socially. People north and south can benefit from unity in their everyday lives, but the only mainstream party on the island talking about it at present is Sinn Féin.
Quote from: AQMP on April 14, 2016, 02:27:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 14, 2016, 01:19:34 PM
That's my issue with this sort of article. It makes assumptions about everyone in the Republic, and I'm a bit sick of lads telling me what I think or believe. I know what I think or believe, and I also am fairly confident that the majority of people in this state would have similar views on the North, certainly most of the 'real' people I've spoken to. I'm not sure what the various usernames on here would say to cause a row.
There is an issue with our media, and with an over-representation of a particular point of view, but that does not mean that we all see ye as different or less Irish. I'm actually sick of talking about this.
+1
As someone from the North,I agree with this, one of my pet hates is six county nationalism or more correctly six county partitionism
What do you mean by "six county nationalism" exactly? Any form of nationalist expression form within the six counties, is it? My nationalism is very much a 32-county one. And it's hardly partitionism. I'm lamenting the partitionist attitudes that the border has spawned.
Quote from: Main Street on April 14, 2016, 02:58:42 PM
I liked the essay apart from a few generalisations such as referring to a "common southern mindset"
Those faults are not enough to detract from the essay. It's a good read and an honest personal account
and way beyond the intelligence level of the tractors.
What do we call nordies if we can't call them nordies? nothing, we don't have to call them anything? they are just like one of us?
Life was easier when I could call a nordie a nordie and not feel like I was socially stigmatising them.
Fair enough, maybe "common southern mindset" there is a bit of a generalisation and I could/should have been more careful in that instance, but I did make that comment in the context of referring to my conversations with my own mother on her feelings and the blissful ignorance of her and her peers before she actually moved north. I think it would be fair to say most people in the south don't fully get it because they hadn't lived it, no?
It can be difficult making certain assertions when you don't have exact stats and figures, but I do know that certain attitudes are prevalent because I have experienced them, my friends and family have experienced them and hundreds of people with whom the piece resonated have felt or experienced them. The piece is the most popular post ever on my blog, by a distance, and I was being bombarded with dozens of messages on various platforms from people saying they connected with it. I think that's surely some sort of validation of what I was articulating.
Your thoughts and criticism are appreciated though.
By the way, I never said "nordie" was a slur. I did say it was used without malice and was geographical primarily. Only thing I said was that it made me feel a bit different, which is only natural surely; that's the purpose and inevitable effect of labels of distinction.
I was down at a festival in the south a few years back with two friends who happen to be protestant and unionist, we got chatting to these lads from Limerick beside us, the craic was mighty, everyone getting along. Then one of the lads from Limerick asked boys whats it like up north with all the prods and loyalists, I said ach we all get along fine, depends where your from, the boys with me never let on they were protestant as they feared a booting. I assured them later they wouldn't have, but at the same time I didn't say they were. I suppose the point is the lads just assumed we were all catholic because we were down. The sectarian link sickens me, I couldn't give a flying fcuk about being a catholic but care deeply about my nationality.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
This essay could easily have been written by a unionist expressing how he is unloved or not identified with or by real British people.
Semi-related this, but an interesting blog post from 2012 by Darach MacDonald on the feelings of Ulster Protestants who were marooned (similar to how nationalists were in the north) on the southern side of the border post-partition: http://darachmac.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/trapped-by-border-ulster-protestants-in.html
Many of east Donegal's Ulster-Scots community still identify as British, either solely or primarily. Notable members of this community include Basil McCrea, Willie Hay (DUP) and Maurice Devenney.
Quote from: OgraAnDun on April 14, 2016, 03:59:14 PM
Anyone from Ulster or the 6C that gets offended by the term 'Nordie' or 'Northener' needs to catch themselves on and have a look at which part of the country their county lies in. A lot of people consider Cavan/Monaghan/Donegal people as northerners anyway - because Ulster is in the north of the country.
The trouble comes with some gobshites calling you 'British' or (almost as bad) 'Northern Irish'. A lot of these people subscribe to the modern revisionist view of Irish history and are more interested in furthering the cause of a neutered and PC world than educating themselves about the plight of 6 County Catholics and doing something about it. Don't you know that waving flags (apart from rainbow flags) is uncool?
Just to be clear, I wasn't saying it offended me. Just that it made me feel a bit different. Have a read of the entirety of Brolly's piece for some examples of the nastier abuse some northern GAA players have had to endure, and that's from within an overtly-nationalist, 32-county body: http://www.derryjournal.com/news/columnists/brolly-s-bites-north-men-south-men-comrades-all-my-arse-1-3674549
Quote from: Beffs on April 14, 2016, 09:54:01 PM
So what? How often does PR's party pull him up on everything he says?
Gerry Adams made some pretty idiotic comments during the recent election on economic matters. They made him look a right twit. Did his party make a song and dance about them? Did they draw even more attention to them, in their mad rush to repudiate them? Like hell they did. They just ignored them and hoped the fuss would die down in time. As do all political parties, when one of their own does or says something incredibly thick.
Taking one stupid comment of one politician, as being indicative of what 4 million people think, is very narrow minded.
But nobody did that. I was clearly referring to those partitionists who react with hostility or incredulousness to northerners articulating their experiences.
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on April 16, 2016, 08:05:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2016, 10:45:54 AM
I know you're on the wind up but a Fermanagh Catholic farmer hasn't very much in common with Larne, Newtownards, Ballymena etc.
However he has an awful lot in common with people in Cavan, Leitrim, Longford etc etc.
What would a Fermanagh farmer have in common with someone from Longford?
Wet fields, not much use at football, country music
Quote from: seafoid on April 16, 2016, 09:27:34 PM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on April 16, 2016, 08:05:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2016, 10:45:54 AM
I know you're on the wind up but a Fermanagh Catholic farmer hasn't very much in common with Larne, Newtownards, Ballymena etc.
However he has an awful lot in common with people in Cavan, Leitrim, Longford etc etc.
What would a Fermanagh farmer have in common with someone from Longford?
Wet fields, not much use at football, country music
:) :)
Quote from: seafoid on April 16, 2016, 09:27:34 PM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on April 16, 2016, 08:05:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2016, 10:45:54 AM
I know you're on the wind up but a Fermanagh Catholic farmer hasn't very much in common with Larne, Newtownards, Ballymena etc.
However he has an awful lot in common with people in Cavan, Leitrim, Longford etc etc.
What would a Fermanagh farmer have in common with someone from Longford?
Wet fields, not much use at football, country music
Also nationality, culture, family names.......
Only a unionist, a UKIPite or a total partitionist would ask that question
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2016, 09:46:00 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 16, 2016, 09:27:34 PM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on April 16, 2016, 08:05:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2016, 10:45:54 AM
I know you're on the wind up but a Fermanagh Catholic farmer hasn't very much in common with Larne, Newtownards, Ballymena etc.
However he has an awful lot in common with people in Cavan, Leitrim, Longford etc etc.
What would a Fermanagh farmer have in common with someone from Longford?
Wet fields, not much use at football, country music
Also nationality, culture, family names.......
Only a unionist, a UKIPite or a total partitionist would ask that question
A better question would be what do they
not have in common?
No doubt Tony Fearon will explain to us what they don't have in common. Their sense of humour perhaps.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 17, 2016, 10:46:11 AM
No doubt Tony Fearon will explain to us what they don't have in common. Their sense of humour perhaps.
Northerners, according to the bould Tony are more religious than their southern counterparts.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 17, 2016, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 17, 2016, 10:46:11 AM
No doubt Tony Fearon will explain to us what they don't have in common. Their sense of humour perhaps.
Northerners, according to the bould Tony are more religious than their southern counterparts.
And he gets most of the people on the board hook, line and sinker. I just skip his contribution to threads about nationality at this stage.
I never really thought much about the abandonment until I went to Belfast and saw a list of all the people who were killed in the 20s.
Regina Doherty was channelling Cupid Stunt.
The GAA is one of the strongest reminders that it is the one nation. I think RTE always downplay the significance of 6 county Sams as well. It is way more than just football and beating Kerry.
Quote from: seafoid on April 17, 2016, 12:01:41 PM
I never really thought much about the abandonment until I went to Belfast and saw a list of all the people who were killed in the 20s.
Regina Doherty was channelling Cupid Stunt.
The GAA is one of the strongest reminders that it is the one nation. I think RTE always downplay the significance of 6 county Sams as well. It is way more than just football and beating Kerry.
Look RTE show Full home game Ireland six nation 'A' Internationals in Rugby. Who the sh1te are interested in that other than family, friends, club colleagues and the odd anorak? That for me shows where the powers that be that are RTE.
Quote from: Cú Choileáin on April 16, 2016, 08:41:22 PM
Hello all. I'm the author of the piece. Wordpress has a facility that allows you to see the origin of traffic to your blog so thought I'd check out what people were saying. Might as well engage with some of the criticism whilst I'm at it! Thanks for reading, by the way, those that did, and for your range of thoughts and opinions on it. All appreciated.
In relation to accusations of bias, it's a personal account, articulating my own experiences and that of my family, friends and community. I can't articulate the personal experiences of people I don't know, of communities in which I did not grow up or with whom I have not had the opportunity of interacting on a meaningful basis. Any personal account is, of course, going to be "biased" in that sense. (For what it's worth, a published unionist blogger got in touch with me and had very positive words to say about what I'd written. He welcomed the perspective.)
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 14, 2016, 01:00:50 PM
So you saw it as southern-bashing? What parts in particular?
Here is wile Joe:
" My father, a veteran republican, fluent Irish speaker and traditional musician steeped in all things Gaelic quipped to me during the week, "Don't be too hard on the southerners Joe, some of them are almost as Irish as we are."
Take the reference to the (foolish) Meath East TD. She unwisely suggested that an attack on Sinn Féin's Belfast office in 1982, where staff were murdered, was 'brought upon themselves'. It has to be said that this was a particular stupid comment from the TD.
However the article leaps from that to:
"She blindly and sanctimoniously assumed that the suffering of the nationalist community and republicans was "all brought on by [their] own actions", as if nationalist trouble-making was the primary source or cause of the conflict."
But worse than that. He then uses that daft cow, and in particular his twisting of her idiotic comments, as a brush to tar us all:
"Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)."
I have relatives in the wee 6 and I lived up there for a while. I consider myself a 32-county Ireland man. I know I am an Irishman and I don't need Joe f**king Brolly to tell me what that is.
The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.
I think you're being overly defensive and cherry-picking. I would suggest Joe was being slightly tongue-in-cheek with the "almost as Irish as we are" bit. And I wasn't southerner-bashing. My ma's a southerner, as are my relations. Plenty of southerners have responded positively to the piece. It's hardly tarring all with the one brush when I make clear distinctions throughout and also make it very clear that there are southerners who are empathic. I'm very careful to make it clear that southerners are not a monolithic group. When I brought up Regina Doherty's comment, for example, I brought it up in the context of referring to "certain other southerners - especially those of a partitionist persuasion", so there's absolutely no reason why you should have thought I was generalising and accusing all southerners of harbouring her sentiments.
On Regina Dohery's comment, she used the words "all brought on by your own actions" as Gerry Adams spoke about attacks on him, his family and other members of the nationalist and republican community. At best, there was ambiguity, but she was still victim-blaming. I analysed what she said in two other pieces I wrote around the time I heard it. Here: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/suspicion-hangs-over-veracity-of-regina-dohertys-death-threat-allegation/ and https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/the-death-threat-to-regina-doherty-and-misconceptions-about-sinn-fein-in-the-south/
My father's cousin (who I mention in the piece) was a member of Sinn Féin, so did the same principle of "bringing it upon himself" apply to him simply because of his Sinn Féin membership? Why would he and other victims killed because of their politics (or religion) be any different from those other innocent people she blamed for their own fate? It's entirely reasonable to assume her application was general. (By the way, I'm not affiliated with any party myself and I link to plenty of sources in my writings to provide further background info besides 'An Phoblacht', which I've linked to pretty infrequently.)
As for my suspicion that hostile reactions like Doherty's are rooted in defensiveness, notions of southern guilt over sacrificing their northern compatriots or repressed feelings of failure (over not achieving full 32-county independence), such feelings have long been written about. They aren't theories I've come up with myself. It was a theme in some of the work of James Joyce. Elizabeth Keane, Donnacha Ó Beacháin, Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd have also documented such feelings.
The reaction to republicanism using its voice or emerging as an electoral force in the south has been more hostile than how republicans are treated in the north by unionists or even by British politicians and, indeed, monarchs. What reason do critics have in the south to be more angry than, say, unionists or British politicians/monarchs have to be? That's why I suspect there may be some deeper underlying psychological complex at root. Call it an irritable or unresolved hang-over from partition maybe?
Republicans are a "nuisance" for the southern establishment because republicans force the state to self-reflect and ask deep questions of its origins, its legitimacy and its very existence. Republicans, by their very existence, expose the reality that the southern state is a failed attempt at putting the principles of the 1916-proclaimed republic celebrated every Easter by the state into practice. Anger, indignance and rejection perhaps helps deflect from this uncomfortable fact and from southern establishment hypocrisy.
It is difficult to tell whether you are speaking for all Northerners, or just Republicans, or indeed which branch of Republicans. There is a whole spectrum of views in the south of say John Hume and say Gerry Adams. You focus on one, rather uneducated, view of Gerry adams, which was articulated stupidly, and extrapolate from that the view of many southerners of all northerners. It may be your personal opinion, but you are attributing an attitude, and the reasons for it, to many people who are not you. Do they not have a right to have their own opinions on what their own views are?
I don't like many aspects of Republicanism. It has absolutely nothing to do with 1916, 1921 or any sense of guilt.
It has everything to do with drug dealing, smuggling, bank robbing, racketeering, bombing children, knee-capping, extortion and other criminal activity and not least the habit of shooing dead ordinary decent Irishmen such as Jerry McCabe and Gaa-star John Morley, and most especially, historically Adam's regular appearances on TV refusing to condemn any of it. That is what I grew up watching, so using something James Joyce wrote about has little or no relevance to me.
When you then get into attacking the various southern Governments for not putting pressure on the Brits for legacy issues, you are of course correct. But then Gerry Adams behaves exactly the same when with his legacy issues. So why does he get a free pass?
As for this constant Sinn Féin mantra that the south is a failed state, Ireland was the poorest part of Europe at the end of the 19th Century. It was the only country in Europe that had a smaller population in 1900 than in 1800. It is far from perfect, but it has come a long, long way.
Here are a few surveys of the best countries in the world to live in. Of course they are media gimmicks and a bit twee, but but it is enough to show that your Ireland-bashing looks to me like little more than a party political agenda:
http://www.techinsider.io/the-top-countries-to-live-in-2015-12 (http://www.techinsider.io/the-top-countries-to-live-in-2015-12) (Ireland 7th)
http://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/2/ (http://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/2/) (Ireland 12th)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-best-places-to-live-in-the-world-is-norway-according-to-the-un-s-human-development-report-a6773891.html#gallery (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-best-places-to-live-in-the-world-is-norway-according-to-the-un-s-human-development-report-a6773891.html#gallery) (Ireland 7th - with a picture of Giant Causeway to boot!)
http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list (http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list) (Ireland 18th)
Finally, this constant dogma about how the south left the north behind is very grating. In July 1921 there was a ceasefire and negotiations began, leading to a treaty. The outcome was not ideal from an Irish point of view, to put it mildly. In 1994 and in 1996 there were two ceasefires. Negations began and another treaty was the outcome. Again a 32 county was not secured. Modern Sinn Féin was commendably part of the latter process, by signing up to it and canvassing a yes vote.
Why is it that there is no guilt on behalf of those who signed up to this recent treaty, in light of it's failure to secure a 32 county Ireland, or at least to free northern Nationalists & Republicans of British rule? Indeed the recent agreement reinforcing partition, at least in the short/medium term, is deemed to one of Gerry's great successes. Why the double standards all the time and why is there never, ever an public scrutiny or criticism of Adams within Sinn Féin?
This great unquestioned leadership cultism is perhaps my greatest fear of Sinn Féin. And it has nothing to do with guilt.
You're an awful dopey **** muppet
Quote from: haranguerer on April 17, 2016, 07:00:32 PM
You're an awful dopey **** muppet
Back to your default abusive position. You'll feel better there.
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2016, 06:14:42 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 16, 2016, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2016, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 16, 2016, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 15, 2016, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 15, 2016, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 14, 2016, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.
Yeah, cos that's how things work round here. How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread? The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article. The 'bias' was only your opinion.
I wasn't the OP on that thread.
As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?
You've been the OP on plenty of threads. I've yet to see you post two differing opinions for the sake of balance. Like I said earlier, some posters thought the article was bang on. Some didn't. It's all a matter of opinion. We had a difference of opinion over this a while back. You ended the conversation by saying that my opinion was wrong because it was just 'dogma'. Why was my opinion just dogma and yours wasn't? You said recently here that your posting style gets people angry. Maybe it's because, when you see an opinion different from your own, you immediately default to words like 'biased' and 'dogma', dismissing immediately the other's POV and attempting to assume the standard role of all knowing sage.
Of course it was biased. It was one person's criticisms of a lot of other people. Please tell me how this cannot be biased. If it was a self-criticism it could be deemed to be honest, but when you bash others it can nevertheless be anything other than opinion and biased opinion at that.
I notice he posts links to An Phoblacht in his articles. No bias there either.
By that fuzzy logic, your criticisms of the writer and the piece are also biased (the writer, and quite a few others seemed to agree with what he was saying). Does that immediately render them incorrect also?
Brilliant. You finally got there. Now see why I suggested some balance? Instead we got the usual one way traffic of Southern bashing that appears in that article, supported by a few others.
Ah right, so you've just admitted that your opinion on the issue is a load of bollocks. This is a quare zero sum game here. I'll keep an eye out for you policing other threads for balance from the opening poster. If I don't see it I'll just have to conclude that you're full of shoite.
Quote from: muppet on April 17, 2016, 03:02:12 PM
As for this constant Sinn Féin mantra that the south is a failed state, Ireland was the poorest part of Europe at the end of the 19th Century. It was the only country in Europe that had a smaller population in 1900 than in 1800. It is far from perfect, but it has come a long, long way.
Here are a few surveys of the best countries in the world to live in. Of course they are media gimmicks and a bit twee, but but it is enough to show that your Ireland-bashing looks to me like little more than a party political agenda:
http://www.techinsider.io/the-top-countries-to-live-in-2015-12 (http://www.techinsider.io/the-top-countries-to-live-in-2015-12) (Ireland 7th)
http://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/2/ (http://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/2/) (Ireland 12th)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-best-places-to-live-in-the-world-is-norway-according-to-the-un-s-human-development-report-a6773891.html#gallery (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-best-places-to-live-in-the-world-is-norway-according-to-the-un-s-human-development-report-a6773891.html#gallery) (Ireland 7th - with a picture of Giant Causeway to boot!)
http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list (http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list) (Ireland 18th)
The reality is that for narrow political advantage SF does not wish to compare North and South. If they say that the South is actually doing rather well then it rather inhibits the
whine policies they sell to the 26 county voters. If they say that elements of the NI approach (property taxes anyone) has merit then that also rather inhibits the
whine policies they sell to the 26 county voters.
That said, the many limitations of SF do nothing to justify the disgusting partitionism that permeates much of 26 county society. Some the proponents of these attitudes think these attitudes stick it to the Shinners, but of course they also mainly exclude a large part of the Irish people.
Quote from: Franko on April 17, 2016, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2016, 06:14:42 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 16, 2016, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2016, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 16, 2016, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 15, 2016, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 15, 2016, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 14, 2016, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.
Yeah, cos that's how things work round here. How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread? The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article. The 'bias' was only your opinion.
I wasn't the OP on that thread.
As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?
You've been the OP on plenty of threads. I've yet to see you post two differing opinions for the sake of balance. Like I said earlier, some posters thought the article was bang on. Some didn't. It's all a matter of opinion. We had a difference of opinion over this a while back. You ended the conversation by saying that my opinion was wrong because it was just 'dogma'. Why was my opinion just dogma and yours wasn't? You said recently here that your posting style gets people angry. Maybe it's because, when you see an opinion different from your own, you immediately default to words like 'biased' and 'dogma', dismissing immediately the other's POV and attempting to assume the standard role of all knowing sage.
Of course it was biased. It was one person's criticisms of a lot of other people. Please tell me how this cannot be biased. If it was a self-criticism it could be deemed to be honest, but when you bash others it can nevertheless be anything other than opinion and biased opinion at that.
I notice he posts links to An Phoblacht in his articles. No bias there either.
By that fuzzy logic, your criticisms of the writer and the piece are also biased (the writer, and quite a few others seemed to agree with what he was saying). Does that immediately render them incorrect also?
Brilliant. You finally got there. Now see why I suggested some balance? Instead we got the usual one way traffic of Southern bashing that appears in that article, supported by a few others.
Ah right, so you've just admitted that your opinion on the issue is a load of bollocks. This is a quare zero sum game here. I'll keep an eye out for you policing other threads for balance from the opening poster. If I don't see it I'll just have to conclude that you're full of shoite.
Everyone, including the author of the piece, has admitted their bias. Everyone except you that is.
And I'm very sure you'll keep an eye on me, you have been stalking me for some time now.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 17, 2016, 07:38:09 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 17, 2016, 03:02:12 PM
As for this constant Sinn Féin mantra that the south is a failed state, Ireland was the poorest part of Europe at the end of the 19th Century. It was the only country in Europe that had a smaller population in 1900 than in 1800. It is far from perfect, but it has come a long, long way.
Here are a few surveys of the best countries in the world to live in. Of course they are media gimmicks and a bit twee, but but it is enough to show that your Ireland-bashing looks to me like little more than a party political agenda:
http://www.techinsider.io/the-top-countries-to-live-in-2015-12 (http://www.techinsider.io/the-top-countries-to-live-in-2015-12) (Ireland 7th)
http://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/2/ (http://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/2/) (Ireland 12th)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-best-places-to-live-in-the-world-is-norway-according-to-the-un-s-human-development-report-a6773891.html#gallery (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-best-places-to-live-in-the-world-is-norway-according-to-the-un-s-human-development-report-a6773891.html#gallery) (Ireland 7th - with a picture of Giant Causeway to boot!)
http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list (http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list) (Ireland 18th)
The reality is that for narrow political advantage SF does not wish to compare North and South. If they say that the South is actually doing rather well then it rather inhibits the whine policies they sell to the 26 county voters. If they say that elements of the NI approach (property taxes anyone) has merit then that also rather inhibits the whine policies they sell to the 26 county voters.
That said, the many limitations of SF do nothing to justify the disgusting partitionism that permeates much of 26 county society. Some the proponents of these attitudes think these attitudes stick it to the Shinners, but of course they also mainly exclude a large part of the Irish people.
Sinn Féin partitions its politics and policies incredibly well.
Regarding the 2nd part, is the Good Friday Agreement not the basis for the current existence on this island? I know it isn't ideal, but are we not all better off with it than without?
Quote from: muppet on April 17, 2016, 08:02:12 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 17, 2016, 07:36:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2016, 06:14:42 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 16, 2016, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2016, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 16, 2016, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 15, 2016, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 15, 2016, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 14, 2016, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: MoChara on April 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.
I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"
https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/
Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?
I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread? If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so. It's not up to him.
There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.
Yeah, cos that's how things work round here. How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread? The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article. The 'bias' was only your opinion.
I wasn't the OP on that thread.
As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?
You've been the OP on plenty of threads. I've yet to see you post two differing opinions for the sake of balance. Like I said earlier, some posters thought the article was bang on. Some didn't. It's all a matter of opinion. We had a difference of opinion over this a while back. You ended the conversation by saying that my opinion was wrong because it was just 'dogma'. Why was my opinion just dogma and yours wasn't? You said recently here that your posting style gets people angry. Maybe it's because, when you see an opinion different from your own, you immediately default to words like 'biased' and 'dogma', dismissing immediately the other's POV and attempting to assume the standard role of all knowing sage.
Of course it was biased. It was one person's criticisms of a lot of other people. Please tell me how this cannot be biased. If it was a self-criticism it could be deemed to be honest, but when you bash others it can nevertheless be anything other than opinion and biased opinion at that.
I notice he posts links to An Phoblacht in his articles. No bias there either.
By that fuzzy logic, your criticisms of the writer and the piece are also biased (the writer, and quite a few others seemed to agree with what he was saying). Does that immediately render them incorrect also?
Brilliant. You finally got there. Now see why I suggested some balance? Instead we got the usual one way traffic of Southern bashing that appears in that article, supported by a few others.
Ah right, so you've just admitted that your opinion on the issue is a load of bollocks. This is a quare zero sum game here. I'll keep an eye out for you policing other threads for balance from the opening poster. If I don't see it I'll just have to conclude that you're full of shoite.
Everyone, including the author of the piece, has admitted their bias. Everyone except you that is.
And I'm very sure you'll keep an eye on me, you have been stalking me for some time now.
You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased. I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules. As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual. Happy policing.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2016, 10:45:54 AM
I know you're on the wind up but a Fermanagh Catholic farmer hasn't very much in common with Larne, Newtownards, Ballymena etc.
However he has an awful lot in common with people in Cavan, Leitrim, Longford etc etc.
Exactly every region on the Island has differences which have nothing to do with the separate jurisdictions. You will never forge a common NI identity in the way that people up here feel Irish or British it just isn't possible. Is it possible they can work together for the common good and with mutual respect? Absolutely but good luck persuading the Unionists on that one as everything must first start with the fleg.
Maybe I'm the only northerner on here to think this way, but lets see. Firstly I'm bored at this stage by Tony's campaign for a NI identity. I would believe that he is only doing it for the rise, but sure I can't help myself.
I don't believe we were abandoned by the treaty, I do believe that everybody including the British at the time saw it as a holding position, except perhaps the Unionists.The treaty was the best available at the time short of an all out sectarian war which would have ended with the British flat-out steamrollering the whole Island. I do believe that many in the South don't really think or care about the North on any given day, in the same way that people in Manchester wouldn't be losing sleep over the lot of Cornish farmers or fishermen. Not all people in the South are ill-informed on the North and not all are uncaring but there are some.I do think but can't prove that Southern Politicians feel a guilt about partition that is sub-conscious and their reaction to the rise of SF seems to touch that raw nerve. I also firmly believe that a State founded on violence or the threat of violence be it either side of the border should not be hypocritical when it comes to SF. I grew up threw the worst of the troubles and I commend Adams and McGuinness who both from the early '70's have worked to deliver the imperfect peace we now have.
I don't believe Adams is in any way stupid, I do however cringe when I hear him speak. I have stated before that when it comes to dealing with the British in the past the Irish Government outwardly could have been more robust and supportive of Northern Nationalists, however the couldn't exactly threaten to invade given the disparity in the armed forces. What is unknown is the work that went on behind the scenes, governments very often can say things privately that must remain of the record for diplomatic reasons. I am disappointed by the utterances of some of my fellow northerners on this forum who take simplistic and jingoistic positions that are not helpful.
A UI is achievable but only in the context of uniting everyone both within the 6 counties and across the border thats will take time and work. I won't see it but perhaps my Grand children will (if I ever get any!).
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 18, 2016, 12:05:51 PM
Maybe I'm the only northerner on here to think this way, but lets see. Firstly I'm bored at this stage by Tony's campaign for a NI identity. I would believe that he is only doing it for the rise, but sure I can't help myself.
I don't believe we were abandoned by the treaty, I do believe that everybody including the British at the time saw it as a holding position, except perhaps the Unionists.The treaty was the best available at the time short of an all out sectarian war which would have ended with the British flat-out steamrollering the whole Island. I do believe that many in the South don't really think or care about the North on any given day, in the same way that people in Manchester wouldn't be losing sleep over the lot of Cornish farmers or fishermen. Not all people in the South are ill-informed on the North and not all are uncaring but there are some.I do think but can't prove that Southern Politicians feel a guilt about partition that is sub-conscious and their reaction to the rise of SF seems to touch that raw nerve. I also firmly believe that a State founded on violence or the threat of violence be it either side of the border should not be hypocritical when it comes to SF. I grew up threw the worst of the troubles and I commend Adams and McGuinness who both from the early '70's have worked to deliver the imperfect peace we now have.
I don't believe Adams is in any way stupid, I do however cringe when I hear him speak. I have stated before that when it comes to dealing with the British in the past the Irish Government outwardly could have been more robust and supportive of Northern Nationalists, however the couldn't exactly threaten to invade given the disparity in the armed forces. What is unknown is the work that went on behind the scenes, governments very often can say things privately that must remain of the record for diplomatic reasons. I am disappointed by the utterances of some of my fellow northerners on this forum who take simplistic and jingoistic positions that are not helpful.
A UI is achievable but only in the context of uniting everyone both within the 6 counties and across the border thats will take time and work. I won't see it but perhaps my Grand children will (if I ever get any!).
Very good post.
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 09:17:36 AM
You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased. I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules. As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual. Happy policing.
Nope.
I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.
Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 09:17:36 AM
You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased. I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules. As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual. Happy policing.
Nope.
I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.
Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.
You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this. Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece. Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done? Post nothing? See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules. And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 01:43:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 09:17:36 AM
You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased. I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules. As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual. Happy policing.
Nope.
I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.
Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.
You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this. Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece. Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done? Post nothing? See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules. And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
It goes like this.
<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.
Jesus wept.
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 01:43:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 09:17:36 AM
You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased. I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules. As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual. Happy policing.
Nope.
I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.
Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.
You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this. Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece. Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done? Post nothing? See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules. And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
It goes like this.
<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.
Jesus wept.
Bold - agreed.
I've been a member here for about 8 years and never once have I seen a thread started like that. Until now, I've never seen anyone suggest that it should be that way.
But like I say, I'll look out for your patrolling of this in future.
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 01:55:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 01:43:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 09:17:36 AM
You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased. I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules. As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual. Happy policing.
Nope.
I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.
Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.
You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this. Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece. Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done? Post nothing? See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules. And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
It goes like this.
<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.
Jesus wept.
Bold - agreed.
I've been a member here for about 8 years and never once have I seen a thread started like that. Until now, I've never seen anyone suggest that it should be that way.
But like I say, I'll look out for your patrolling of this in future.
I suggested a balanced discussion on a divisive political topic, and you then demand that I must always demand balance on everything for ever. I suppose it was always going to reach this level.
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
Finally, this constant dogma about how the south left the north behind is very grating. In
Ach bless your cottons socks , you find it 'grating'.. Must b hard for you, cause you know living in the six counties is a walk in the park..
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
Finally, this constant dogma about how the south left the north behind is very grating. In
Ach bless your cottons socks , you find it 'grating'.. Must b hard for you, cause you know living in the six counties is a walk in the park..
No one said it was a walk in the park.
I lived in the 6 counties too. So did my siblings for years and I still have family there.
My issue is with the constant dogma about 1921.
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
Finally, this constant dogma about how the south left the north behind is very grating. In
Ach bless your cottons socks , you find it 'grating'.. Must b hard for you, cause you know living in the six counties is a walk in the park..
No one said it was a walk in the park.
I lived in the 6 counties too. So did my siblings for years and I still have family there.
My issue is with the constant dogma about 1921.
Oh yeah when a treaty was signed and what happened the six counties .. They were part of a 32 county country , em nope that didn't happen .. I do believe they were 'left' behind .. Can't rewrite history .. It did happen
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 18, 2016, 12:05:51 PM
Maybe I'm the only northerner on here to think this way, but lets see. Firstly I'm bored at this stage by Tony's campaign for a NI identity. I would believe that he is only doing it for the rise, but sure I can't help myself.
I don't believe we were abandoned by the treaty, I do believe that everybody including the British at the time saw it as a holding position, except perhaps the Unionists.The treaty was the best available at the time short of an all out sectarian war which would have ended with the British flat-out steamrollering the whole Island. I do believe that many in the South don't really think or care about the North on any given day, in the same way that people in Manchester wouldn't be losing sleep over the lot of Cornish farmers or fishermen. Not all people in the South are ill-informed on the North and not all are uncaring but there are some.I do think but can't prove that Southern Politicians feel a guilt about partition that is sub-conscious and their reaction to the rise of SF seems to touch that raw nerve. I also firmly believe that a State founded on violence or the threat of violence be it either side of the border should not be hypocritical when it comes to SF. I grew up threw the worst of the troubles and I commend Adams and McGuinness who both from the early '70's have worked to deliver the imperfect peace we now have.
I don't believe Adams is in any way stupid, I do however cringe when I hear him speak. I have stated before that when it comes to dealing with the British in the past the Irish Government outwardly could have been more robust and supportive of Northern Nationalists, however the couldn't exactly threaten to invade given the disparity in the armed forces. What is unknown is the work that went on behind the scenes, governments very often can say things privately that must remain of the record for diplomatic reasons. I am disappointed by the utterances of some of my fellow northerners on this forum who take simplistic and jingoistic positions that are not helpful.
A UI is achievable but only in the context of uniting everyone both within the 6 counties and across the border thats will take time and work. I won't see it but perhaps my Grand children will (if I ever get any!).
More or less spot on AiA. Yes, Tony is a WUM!! Partition was going to happen in some form, truce and treaty or no truce and treaty. Maybe the 26 didn't abandon Irish people in the North but I know there was a sense or feeling of abandonment among northern nationalists of, say, my parents generation (i.e. the "partition generation") - perception/reality and all that. I'll probably never know what efforts there were from the Free State government in the years immediately after partition to intercede on behalf of or improve the lot of nationalists in the North, but it appears arch Republican Dev did sweet FA when in power and the British government did even less.
In my opinion at the risk of boring everyone, we should be developing cross border cooperation and links in health, education, power supply. communications, presidential election votes, etc rather than bleating on about a border poll.
While I'm all for including everyone in the New Ireland, Stephen Watson and James Nesbitt will have to be deported.
And Stephen Nolan
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
Finally, this constant dogma about how the south left the north behind is very grating. In
Ach bless your cottons socks , you find it 'grating'.. Must b hard for you, cause you know living in the six counties is a walk in the park..
No one said it was a walk in the park.
I lived in the 6 counties too. So did my siblings for years and I still have family there.
My issue is with the constant dogma about 1921.
Oh yeah when a treaty was signed and what happened the six counties .. They were part of a 32 county country , em nope that didn't happen .. I do believe they were 'left' behind .. Can't rewrite history .. It did happen
I have no idea what your point is.
Is is that because of the Treaty signed in 1921, Southerners born 2 generation later are to blame for the troubles from 1969 to 1996?
Expand on blaming ?
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 02:59:58 PM
Expand on blaming ?
Am I supposed to guess what your point is? :D
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 02:11:01 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 01:55:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 01:43:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 09:17:36 AM
You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased. I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules. As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual. Happy policing.
Nope.
I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.
Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.
You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this. Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece. Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done? Post nothing? See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules. And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
It goes like this.
<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.
Jesus wept.
Bold - agreed.
I've been a member here for about 8 years and never once have I seen a thread started like that. Until now, I've never seen anyone suggest that it should be that way.
But like I say, I'll look out for your patrolling of this in future.
I suggested a balanced discussion on a divisive political topic, and you then demand that I must always demand balance on everything for ever. I suppose it was always going to reach this level.
Well yeah, it's called being consistent. And I didn't demand that you did anything, I just said I'd keep an eye out in future. There's been plenty of divisive political topics discussed here. Some people might see it as a little hypocritical to criticise a poster for lack of balance on an article which you clearly disagree with, whilst remaining steadfastly silent for years in this regard on any number of other divisive issues. Keep wriggling.
Muppet
What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 02:11:01 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 01:55:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 01:43:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 09:17:36 AM
You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased. I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules. As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual. Happy policing.
Nope.
I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.
Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.
You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this. Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece. Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done? Post nothing? See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules. And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
It goes like this.
<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.
Jesus wept.
Bold - agreed.
I've been a member here for about 8 years and never once have I seen a thread started like that. Until now, I've never seen anyone suggest that it should be that way.
But like I say, I'll look out for your patrolling of this in future.
I suggested a balanced discussion on a divisive political topic, and you then demand that I must always demand balance on everything for ever. I suppose it was always going to reach this level.
Well yeah, it's called being consistent. And I didn't demand that you did anything, I just said I'd keep an eye out in future. There's been plenty of divisive political topics discussed here. Some people might see it as a little hypocritical to criticise a poster for lack of balance on an article which you clearly disagree with, whilst remaining steadfastly silent for years in this regard on any number of other divisive issues. Keep wriggling.
No it isn't. It is called you playing the man all the time and ignoring the issue being discussed completely.
Once again, here is what I said:
"Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?"
I was hoping for something to balance the obvious bias in the link which everyone, including the author, understood and accepted but which you insisted wasn't the case. Thankfully you have abandoned that argument.
Most threads quickly have multiple views, thus providing their own balance, and most linked articles provide their own balance or point out that there are other views. What I asked for was a balancing piece, before it descended into the usual Republican worldview.
You now will avoid the topic at all costs and set out to bash me because I have a view different to your own. You set out to pretend that because I favour seeking balance this time round, thus I am a hypocrite for not seeking balance in every post. All the time. You will keep playing the man, and refuse to discuss what he said, or what the main issue of the tread was.
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 03:31:16 PM
Muppet
What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?
The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.
The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.
Must be a wile burden having all that blame on one mans shoulder ...
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 04:52:37 PM
Must be a wile burden having all that blame on one mans shoulder ...
Was that your point though?
Nope, just acknowledging your admittance that you are to blame..
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 05:33:49 PM
Nope, just acknowledging your admittance that you are to blame..
I see.
Where would that acknowledgment be exactly?
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 03:54:12 PM
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 03:31:16 PM
Muppet
What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?
The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.
The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.
Apologies... The dogma , that you are to blame
This dogma, set of beliefs , principles , would it be held by many ?
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 06:07:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 03:54:12 PM
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 03:31:16 PM
Muppet
What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?
The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.
The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.
Apologies... The dogma , that you are to blame
This dogma, set of beliefs , principles , would it be held by many ?
I think we have inadvertently got to the crux of this issue.
Evidently there are a few from the 6 counties who DO blame today's southerners for the 1921 Treaty. But when asked this question they can't bring themselves to answer it.
That brings me back to this from the link in the OP:
"Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from repressed southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)." [my emphasis]
I know there is a historical dogma in the 6 counties whereby this view of southerners is gospel. The above touches on it, a few posters here inferred it, and I have encountered it. I believe it is often what is behind the 'Free Stater' insult, even though that would go straight over the heads of most 'Free Staters', as the Free State ceased to exist in 1937.
As I keep saying, I would love to see a 32 county Ireland.
But do I have
'repressed feeling of semi-responsibility, failure...or guilt....' for partition?
Not in the slightest. I wasn't there.
While I am sure there may be some in the 26 counties who feel that way, I seriously doubt there are many.
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 06:18:19 PM
I think we have inadvertently got to the crux of this issue.
Evidently there are a few from the 6 counties who DO blame today's southerners for the 1921 Treaty. But when asked this question they can't bring themselves to answer it.
That brings me back to this from the link in the OP: "Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from repressed southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)." [my emphasis]
I know there is a historical dogma in the 6 counties whereby this view of southerners is gospel. The above touches on it, a few posters here inferred it, and I have encountered it. I believe it is often what is behind the 'Free Stater' insult, even though that would go straight over the heads of most 'Free Staters', as the Free State ceased to exist in 1937.
As I keep saying, I would love to see a 32 county Ireland.
But do I have 'repressed feeling of semi-responsibility, failure...or guilt....' for partition?
Not in the slightest. I wasn't there.
While I am sure there may be some in the 26 counties who feel that way, I seriously doubt there are many.
Let me know which shop sells the airbrushes you're using Muppet. Couldn't find one at the local Londis ;)
Funny how some of the usual suspects jump in to attack me, but none of them seem to be able to say what it is that bothers them.
Even attempts to airbrush the thread ;D
Plenty have muppet, but they might as well be banging their head against the wall as attempting to get you to acknowledge it.
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 03:49:15 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 02:11:01 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 01:55:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 01:43:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 18, 2016, 09:17:36 AM
You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased. I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules. As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual. Happy policing.
Nope.
I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.
Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.
You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this. Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece. Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done? Post nothing? See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules. And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
It goes like this.
<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.
Jesus wept.
Bold - agreed.
I've been a member here for about 8 years and never once have I seen a thread started like that. Until now, I've never seen anyone suggest that it should be that way.
But like I say, I'll look out for your patrolling of this in future.
I suggested a balanced discussion on a divisive political topic, and you then demand that I must always demand balance on everything for ever. I suppose it was always going to reach this level.
Well yeah, it's called being consistent. And I didn't demand that you did anything, I just said I'd keep an eye out in future. There's been plenty of divisive political topics discussed here. Some people might see it as a little hypocritical to criticise a poster for lack of balance on an article which you clearly disagree with, whilst remaining steadfastly silent for years in this regard on any number of other divisive issues. Keep wriggling.
No it isn't. It is called you playing the man all the time and ignoring the issue being discussed completely.
Once again, here is what I said:
"Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?"
I was hoping for something to balance the obvious bias in the link which everyone, including the author, understood and accepted but which you insisted wasn't the case. Thankfully you have abandoned that argument.
Most threads quickly have multiple views, thus providing their own balance, and most linked articles provide their own balance or point out that there are other views. What I asked for was a balancing piece, before it descended into the usual Republican worldview.
You now will avoid the topic at all costs and set out to bash me because I have a view different to your own. You set out to pretend that because I favour seeking balance this time round, thus I am a hypocrite for not seeking balance in every post. All the time. You will keep playing the man, and refuse to discuss what he said, or what the main issue of the tread was.
No it isn't. It is called you playing the man all the time and ignoring the issue being discussed completely.Haha, brilliant! I'll point out to you that most of what you've posted here regarding the topic is attempts to discredit anyone with these views, including the author of the original piece. Playing the man indeed.
Once again, here is what I said:
"Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?"
I was hoping for something to balance the obvious bias in the link which everyone, including the author, understood and accepted but which you insisted wasn't the case. Thankfully you have abandoned that argument.Then you followed it up with this...
"There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.
I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion."
You then proceeded to argue that there was no such thing as an unbiased piece. The mind boggles. I didn't argue that there was no bias in the article, I simply argued that this is a matter of opinion.
Most threads quickly have multiple views, thus providing their own balance, and most linked articles provide their own balance or point out that there are other views. What I asked for was a balancing piece, before it descended into the usual Republican worldview.Ah yes, you allowed all of 36 minutes and one other reply for the thread to take it's course. Maybe the fact that this thread and others turn out this way is because a lot of people hold a contrary view to yourself. Of course, all those people's opinions will be without merit and will be 'biased' and 'dogma'. Because muppet says so.
You now will avoid the topic at all costs and set out to bash me because I have a view different to your own. You set out to pretend that because I favour seeking balance this time round, thus I am a hypocrite for not seeking balance in every post. All the time. You will keep playing the man, and refuse to discuss what he said, or what the main issue of the tread was.See part 1. (I did have a laugh at this little rant). And you are being a hypocrite.
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 03:54:12 PM
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 03:31:16 PM
Muppet
What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?
The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.
The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.
In order to compare the GFA and what happened in 1921, the republican negotiators would have to have said. "Feck this, we'll never win over North Antrim, North Down and East Belfast, we'll just leave them to be ruled by the Brits." (And then do feck all about it for the next century). Then hand wring and moralise when the nationalists in those areas decided they were going to do something about it themselves. Comparisons are bullshit, the GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied.
Quote from: Franko on April 19, 2016, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 03:54:12 PM
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 03:31:16 PM
Muppet
What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?
The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.
The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.
In order to compare the GFA and what happened in 1921, the republican negotiators would have to have said. "Feck this, we'll never win over North Antrim, North Down and East Belfast, we'll just leave them to be ruled by the Brits." (And then do feck all about it for the next century). Then hand wring and moralise when the nationalists in those areas decided they were going to do something about it themselves. Comparisons are bullshit, the GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied.
Finally, on page 11 post from Franko that does something other than play the man.
However, I have no idea at all what you are on about.
In 1921 everyone, including the Brits, thought it was a temporary solution. Even the border hadn't been decided at the time. Churchill himself later claimed he supported a United Ireland. Almost no one, probably even including unionists, thought the situation wouldn't change for a century.
It was similar with the GFA. Articles 2 & 3 were dropped on one hand but on the other there is a commitment to allow a majority decision to decide on a United Ireland.
Both agreements maintained partition as the status quo. Neither achieved a 32 County Ireland. Not identical obviously, but plenty of similarities.
'The GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied'.
Really?
Spin it all you like, but for the 18 years since the GFA, the 6 counties are still stuck in the UK. Just like in 1921. The headline of the GFA for Nationailsts was the vote, but where is it 18 years later? Do you think it will happen in the next ten years? Or the ten after that?
The GFA never had any suggestions of a re partition in the discussions.
However from 1912 to 1920 the non inclusion of all or most of Ulster from a Home Rule Parliament was an ongoing issue.
Then the Brits passed their Act in 1920 for 2 home rule establishments for "Northern Ireland" and "Southern" Ireland"
The latter became the Irish Free State with "Dominion" status as a result of the War of Independence/Truce/Treaty.
The GFA was a treaty to try to settle the conflict in the North. It was not about reunification or re-partition. It had nothing to do with Pearse's republic, 1921, partition, Free State, Dominion status or the price of a pint.
The big point for Nationalists in the North was not a putative sometime in the future border poll, rather it was an end to conflict, a power sharing administration, North-South bodies (though they turned into talking shops) and a recognition by the British and Unionists that if you called yourself Irish and aspired to a United Ireland, it didn't automatically mean you were a danger to the state.
Comparing 1921 and 1998 is a bit odd considering the 77 years of events in between.
Oh, and on a nerdy technical point since we get all shirty about Free State, Republic, names and descriptions of the State etc, Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution were not dropped, they were amended ;)
Quote from: AQMP on April 19, 2016, 11:58:43 AM
The GFA was a treaty to try to settle the conflict in the North. It was not about reunification or re-partition. It had nothing to do with Pearse's republic, 1921, partition, Free State, Dominion status or the price of a pint.
The big point for Nationalists in the North was not a putative sometime in the future border poll, rather it was an end to conflict, a power sharing administration, North-South bodies (though they turned into talking shops) and a recognition by the British and Unionists that if you called yourself Irish and aspired to a United Ireland, it didn't automatically mean you were a danger to the state.
Comparing 1921 and 1998 is a bit odd considering the 77 years of events in between.
Oh, and on a nerdy technical point since we get all shirty about Free State, Republic, names and descriptions of the State etc, Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution were not dropped, they were amended ;)
Regarding the last point, you are right. I should have said that the claim in articles 2 & 3 were dropped.
As for comparing 1921 & 1998. The Treaty was an agreement to try to settle the conflict in Ireland. Using hindsight to condemn the 1921 Treaty is hardly fair. The point is that at the time of both agreements they were both seen as temporary solutions and were entered into, rightly or wrongly, in good faith as the best deal available at both times.
The former is constantly used as a stick to beat modern day Southerners by a certain admittedly small constituency, and I certainly don't include you in that. And yet that same constituency entered into another Treaty that adopted the same border as the status quo 18 years ago.
Quote from: muppet on April 19, 2016, 12:07:54 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 19, 2016, 11:58:43 AM
The GFA was a treaty to try to settle the conflict in the North. It was not about reunification or re-partition. It had nothing to do with Pearse's republic, 1921, partition, Free State, Dominion status or the price of a pint.
The big point for Nationalists in the North was not a putative sometime in the future border poll, rather it was an end to conflict, a power sharing administration, North-South bodies (though they turned into talking shops) and a recognition by the British and Unionists that if you called yourself Irish and aspired to a United Ireland, it didn't automatically mean you were a danger to the state.
Comparing 1921 and 1998 is a bit odd considering the 77 years of events in between.
Oh, and on a nerdy technical point since we get all shirty about Free State, Republic, names and descriptions of the State etc, Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution were not dropped, they were amended ;)
Regarding the last point, you are right. I should have said that the claim in articles 2 & 3 were dropped.
As for comparing 1921 & 1998. The Treaty was an agreement to try to settle the conflict in Ireland. Using hindsight to condemn the 1921 Treaty is hardly fair. The point is that at the time of both agreements they were both seen as temporary solutions and were entered into, rightly or wrongly, in good faith as the best deal available at both times.
The former is constantly used as a stick to beat modern day Southerners by a certain admittedly small constituency, and I certainly don't include you in that. And yet that same constituency entered into another Treaty that adopted the same border as the status quo 18 years ago.
Yep, the border hasn't changed a foot in 95 years and is unlikely to change any time soon, however I would make the point that the regime that Nationalists had to endure post 1921 and that post 1998 were different (we think!) While I don't subscribe to the "abandonment by the South" narrative myself, as I know from personal experience that many, many ordinary people in the South had deep concerns about events in the north, I do think that partition was copper fastened
in part by a lack of desire from successive Southern and British administrations to get involved in the North for fear of re-igniting conflict. The irony being that this resulted as part maybe of the Law of Unintended Consequences, in northern Nationalists deciding that they would have to "take matters into their own hands" to use a euphemism, to bring about change.
As me aul Da used to say "Don't blame Dev for ignoring the North, he was far too busy f**king up the South!"
From a northern nationalist point of view, any endgame you say the treaty had certainly must have been dropped shortly after, presumably because the 26 became satisfied with their lot? The freedom to achieve freedom indeed...You have the benefit of hindsight Muppet- would you support the treaty now?
The GFA provides for a route to a united Ireland, the treaty provided for the split.
Quote from: AQMP on April 19, 2016, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 19, 2016, 12:07:54 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 19, 2016, 11:58:43 AM
The GFA was a treaty to try to settle the conflict in the North. It was not about reunification or re-partition. It had nothing to do with Pearse's republic, 1921, partition, Free State, Dominion status or the price of a pint.
The big point for Nationalists in the North was not a putative sometime in the future border poll, rather it was an end to conflict, a power sharing administration, North-South bodies (though they turned into talking shops) and a recognition by the British and Unionists that if you called yourself Irish and aspired to a United Ireland, it didn't automatically mean you were a danger to the state.
Comparing 1921 and 1998 is a bit odd considering the 77 years of events in between.
Oh, and on a nerdy technical point since we get all shirty about Free State, Republic, names and descriptions of the State etc, Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution were not dropped, they were amended ;)
Regarding the last point, you are right. I should have said that the claim in articles 2 & 3 were dropped.
As for comparing 1921 & 1998. The Treaty was an agreement to try to settle the conflict in Ireland. Using hindsight to condemn the 1921 Treaty is hardly fair. The point is that at the time of both agreements they were both seen as temporary solutions and were entered into, rightly or wrongly, in good faith as the best deal available at both times.
The former is constantly used as a stick to beat modern day Southerners by a certain admittedly small constituency, and I certainly don't include you in that. And yet that same constituency entered into another Treaty that adopted the same border as the status quo 18 years ago.
Yep, the border hasn't changed a foot in 95 years and is unlikely to change any time soon, however I would make the point that the regime that Nationalists had to endure post 1921 and that post 1998 were different (we think!) While I don't subscribe to the "abandonment by the South" narrative myself, as I know from personal experience that many, many ordinary people in the South had deep concerns about events in the north, I do think that partition was copper fastened in part by a lack of desire from successive Southern and British administrations to get involved in the North for fear of re-igniting conflict. The irony being that this resulted as part maybe of the Law of Unintended Consequences, in northern Nationalists deciding that they would have to "take matters into their own hands" to use a euphemism, to bring about change.
As me aul Da used to say "Don't blame Dev for ignoring the North, he was far too busy f**king up the South!"
I have no problem with any of that.
Post 1921 was very different to post 1998 but then we have only 18 years so far to compare with 77. Those 77 years contained a lot of different contexts and subplots, not least WW2 for example.
However looking at it another way, the GFA has already been around longer than the Free State was for example. It secured peace, which is fantastic.
Thankfully it has been a success in keeping Loyalists quiet, despite the dissidents attempts to kickstart the whole thing again.
But it would be naive to think it couldn't all kick off again in the next decade or two. I am sure there are those equivalent to the dissident Republicans on the other side who would happily provoke things.
As for the 1921 Treaty, it wasn't seen as permanent. It was seen firstly as an end to the fighting by both sides, just like the GFA. The Pro-Treaty side thought the Boundary Commission would improve things in the short term and that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ireland) would achieve a United Ireland in the long term. In hindsight both were naive, but the modern Republican narrative of southern bashing 'because they left the North' behind, as if they just said 'ah f*ck them', is deliberately misleading. And it certainly doesn't win friends in the South.
Even De Valera was willing to accept partition as a temporary solution in 1921 as his post-Treaty proposal shows:
"That whilst refusing to admit the right of any part of Ireland to be excluded from the supreme authority of the Parliament of Ireland, or that the relations between the Parliament of Ireland and any subordinate legislature in Ireland can be a matter for treaty with a Government outside Ireland, nevertheless, in sincere regard for internal peace, and in order to make manifest our desire not to bring force or coercion to bear upon any substantial part of the province of Ulster, whose inhabitants may now be unwilling to accept the national authority, we are prepared to grant to that portion of Ulster which is defined as Northern Ireland in the British Government of Ireland Act of 1920, privileges and safeguards not less substantial than those provided for in the 'Articles of Agreement for a Treaty' between Great Britain and Ireland signed in London on 6 December 1921."Source: http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=218 (http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=218)
Quote from: haranguerer on April 19, 2016, 01:02:33 PM
From a northern nationalist point of view, any endgame you say the treaty had certainly must have been dropped shortly after, presumably because the 26 became satisfied with their lot? The freedom to achieve freedom indeed...You have the benefit of hindsight Muppet- would you support the treaty now?
The GFA provides for a route to a united Ireland, the treaty provided for the split.
No I wouldn't support the Treaty with hindsight.
As for the conclusion that 'the 26 became satisfied with their lot', that really doesn't help. For example, The Civil War was a catastrophe and the 1930s and 1940s would have been atrocious for the South, as it was for most of the world. 'happy with their lot' me arse.
The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?
Quote from: muppet on April 19, 2016, 01:34:21 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 19, 2016, 01:02:33 PM
From a northern nationalist point of view, any endgame you say the treaty had certainly must have been dropped shortly after, presumably because the 26 became satisfied with their lot? The freedom to achieve freedom indeed...You have the benefit of hindsight Muppet- would you support the treaty now?
The GFA provides for a route to a united Ireland, the treaty provided for the split.
No I wouldn't support the Treaty with hindsight.
As for the conclusion that 'the 26 became satisfied with their lot', that really doesn't help. For example, The Civil War was a catastrophe and the 1930s and 1940s would have been atrocious for the South, as it was for most of the world. 'happy with their lot' me arse.
I should qualify that by saying I wouldn't accepted it if I was negotiating, I would have voted against it in the Dáil if I was there, but would had to accept any proper vote if it passed. The last thing I would have wanted was Civil War with Irishmen killing Irishmen.
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 01:37:24 PM
The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?
1. Show me the money
2. f**k knows
Re: De Valera and temporary partition - was he really that naive to think the Brits would then hand over the North after a year or two? Same with yer man (name escapes me) rallying Irishmen to fight in WW1, so the thinking was the Brits, in return, will hand over Ireland because thousands of Irish fought for them? How naive were they? The Brits already had turned down Home Rule despite overwhelming majority being in favour. Why the hell would anyone trust a word they said?
It's still happening too. They promised the Scots the moon and stars if they stayed in the UK. And they still have yet to give them what they said. People are so easily fooled by these bastards, again and again. Even those who are deemed intelligent.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 19, 2016, 02:13:18 PM
Re: De Valera and temporary partition - was he really that naive to think the Brits would then hand over the North after a year or two? Same with yer man (name escapes me) rallying Irishmen to fight in WW1, so the thinking was the Brits, in return, will hand over Ireland because thousands of Irish fought for them? How naive were they? The Brits already had turned down Home Rule despite overwhelming majority being in favour. Why the hell would anyone trust a word they said?
It's still happening too. They promised the Scots the moon and stars if they stayed in the UK. And they still have yet to give them what they said. People are so easily fooled by these b**tards, again and again. Even those who are deemed intelligent.
John Redmond.
And does the position in your post apply to the GFA?
Quote from: AQMP on April 19, 2016, 02:04:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 01:37:24 PM
The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?
1. Show me the money
2. f**k knows
In anything but the short term, (1) is guaranteed. Nationalists won't need persuading when it comes down to it.
A UI would be a new Ireland. Those designated as unionist would be about 15% (guesstimate) of the population as opposed to about 1.5% now. They'd be in a much better position. Ringfence investment for unionist areas, guarantee representation, have closer ties to the UK as a whole (rejoin commonwealth?). Essentially make the whole country closer to the UK, and ensure that unionists see they have nothing to fear, or indeed to lose, and a lot to gain.
The crux for everyone is as aqmp says 'show me the money'. Economically both north and south would be a lot better off - London doesn't care about the devolveds - those arguments that NI costs the UK and the south would have to absorb that are rubbish - there are nations spending billions trying to increase their territories, and we're being told that a peaceful western european assimilation would actually cost Ireland?!
Quote from: muppet on April 19, 2016, 11:22:41 AM
Quote from: Franko on April 19, 2016, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 03:54:12 PM
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 03:31:16 PM
Muppet
What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?
The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.
The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.
In order to compare the GFA and what happened in 1921, the republican negotiators would have to have said. "Feck this, we'll never win over North Antrim, North Down and East Belfast, we'll just leave them to be ruled by the Brits." (And then do feck all about it for the next century). Then hand wring and moralise when the nationalists in those areas decided they were going to do something about it themselves. Comparisons are bullshit, the GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied.
Finally, on page 11 post from Franko that does something other than play the man.
However, I have no idea at all what you are on about.
In 1921 everyone, including the Brits, thought it was a temporary solution. Even the border hadn't been decided at the time. Churchill himself later claimed he supported a United Ireland. Almost no one, probably even including unionists, thought the situation wouldn't change for a century.
It was similar with the GFA. Articles 2 & 3 were dropped on one hand but on the other there is a commitment to allow a majority decision to decide on a United Ireland.
Both agreements maintained partition as the status quo. Neither achieved a 32 County Ireland. Not identical obviously, but plenty of similarities.
'The GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied'.
Really?
Spin it all you like, but for the 18 years since the GFA, the 6 counties are still stuck in the UK. Just like in 1921. The headline of the GFA for Nationailsts was the vote, but where is it 18 years later? Do you think it will happen in the next ten years? Or the ten after that?
Finally, on page 11 post from Franko that does something other than play the man.See my previous post regarding your own penchant for same. Hypocrite.
However, I have no idea at all what you are on about.It would seem so.
In 1921 everyone, including the Brits, thought it was a temporary solution. Even the border hadn't been decided at the time. Churchill himself later claimed he supported a United Ireland. Almost no one, probably even including unionists, thought the situation wouldn't change for a century.Right, so post 1921 we have a fluid situation, with many particulars still open for debate and (one of) the British leader(s) open to the possibility of reuniting the country. Why, in such a case, did the border end up copper fastened as it is and with the 6 county nationalists left to fend for themselves for the next century (so far)? Would it be anything to do with the hopeless efforts of the new Free State government to negotiate anything better due to total apathy towards the fate of those they had agreed to leave with the Brits?
It was similar with the GFA. Articles 2 & 3 were dropped on one hand but on the other there is a commitment to allow a majority decision to decide on a United Ireland.
Both agreements maintained partition as the status quo. Neither achieved a 32 County Ireland. Not identical obviously, but plenty of similarities.
'The GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied'.
Really?
Spin it all you like, but for the 18 years since the GFA, the 6 counties are still stuck in the UK. Just like in 1921. The headline of the GFA for Nationailsts was the vote, but where is it 18 years later? Do you think it will happen in the next ten years? Or the ten after that?Erm, yes. And 95 years after the treaty was signed, the 6 counties is still stuck in the UK. How about we evaluate how the GFA has performed for 6 county nationalists after 95 years? Was a constitutional route to a reunited country enshrined in law post 1921? I must have missed that bit.
But perhaps the main issue in this respect, regards the treatment of the people post each of these agreements. I don't think there can be any debate as to which has left Catholic/Nationalist people in the 6 counties better off. But of course, when comparing the merits of the relative agreements, you didn't even so much as consider that as something worth mentioning. Because like your forefathers, it's obviously not of much concern to you. So you can spin it all you like, but the GFA and the treaty of 1921, from the perspective of someone from the 6 counties are not even in the same ballpark.
Quote from: haranguerer on April 19, 2016, 02:29:31 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 19, 2016, 02:04:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 01:37:24 PM
The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?
1. Show me the money
2. f**k knows
In anything but the short term, (1) is guaranteed. Nationalists won't need persuading when it comes down to it.
A UI would be a new Ireland. Those designated as unionist would be about 15% (guesstimate) of the population as opposed to about 1.5% now. They'd be in a much better position. Ringfence investment for unionist areas, guarantee representation, have closer ties to the UK as a whole (rejoin commonwealth?). Essentially make the whole country closer to the UK, and ensure that unionists see they have nothing to fear, or indeed to lose, and a lot to gain.
The crux for everyone is as aqmp says 'show me the money'. Economically both north and south would be a lot better off - London doesn't care about the devolveds - those arguments that NI costs the UK and the south would have to absorb that are rubbish - there are nations spending billions trying to increase their territories, and we're being told that a peaceful western european assimilation would actually cost Ireland?!
OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 03:05:45 PM
OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?
Offer them cash to to live in Britain?
More seriously, the issue is the establishment of a workable economic model, when that this is within sight then real discussion on other matters can begin. Unfortunately, there is not the least indication that SF, the largest nationalist party in the 6 counties, has any notion that this is case never mind a model for advancing things.
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 03:05:45 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 19, 2016, 02:29:31 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 19, 2016, 02:04:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 01:37:24 PM
The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?
1. Show me the money
2. f**k knows
In anything but the short term, (1) is guaranteed. Nationalists won't need persuading when it comes down to it.
A UI would be a new Ireland. Those designated as unionist would be about 15% (guesstimate) of the population as opposed to about 1.5% now. They'd be in a much better position. Ringfence investment for unionist areas, guarantee representation, have closer ties to the UK as a whole (rejoin commonwealth?). Essentially make the whole country closer to the UK, and ensure that unionists see they have nothing to fear, or indeed to lose, and a lot to gain.
The crux for everyone is as aqmp says 'show me the money'. Economically both north and south would be a lot better off - London doesn't care about the devolveds - those arguments that NI costs the UK and the south would have to absorb that are rubbish - there are nations spending billions trying to increase their territories, and we're being told that a peaceful western european assimilation would actually cost Ireland?!
OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?
I take it you didn't actually read that?
And to note, the economic benefits aren't for northern nationalists - they're for everyone, north and south
Quote from: armaghniac on April 19, 2016, 03:11:28 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 03:05:45 PM
OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?
Offer them cash to to live in Britain?
More seriously, the issue is the establishment of a workable economic model, when that this is within sight then real discussion on other matters can begin. Unfortunately, there is not the least indication that SF, the largest nationalist party in the 6 counties, has any notion that this is case never mind a model for advancing things.
Could you expand on this?
Quote from: haranguerer on April 19, 2016, 03:26:58 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 03:05:45 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 19, 2016, 02:29:31 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 19, 2016, 02:04:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 01:37:24 PM
The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?
1. Show me the money
2. f**k knows
In anything but the short term, (1) is guaranteed. Nationalists won't need persuading when it comes down to it.
A UI would be a new Ireland. Those designated as unionist would be about 15% (guesstimate) of the population as opposed to about 1.5% now. They'd be in a much better position. Ringfence investment for unionist areas, guarantee representation, have closer ties to the UK as a whole (rejoin commonwealth?). Essentially make the whole country closer to the UK, and ensure that unionists see they have nothing to fear, or indeed to lose, and a lot to gain.
The crux for everyone is as aqmp says 'show me the money'. Economically both north and south would be a lot better off - London doesn't care about the devolveds - those arguments that NI costs the UK and the south would have to absorb that are rubbish - there are nations spending billions trying to increase their territories, and we're being told that a peaceful western european assimilation would actually cost Ireland?!
OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?
I take it you didn't actually read that?
And to note, the economic benefits aren't for northern nationalists - they're for everyone, north and south
Yes I did, but I don't think cash will persuade unionists, Britishness runs too deep.
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 03:05:45 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 19, 2016, 02:29:31 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 19, 2016, 02:04:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 01:37:24 PM
The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?
1. Show me the money
2. f**k knows
In anything but the short term, (1) is guaranteed. Nationalists won't need persuading when it comes down to it.
A UI would be a new Ireland. Those designated as unionist would be about 15% (guesstimate) of the population as opposed to about 1.5% now. They'd be in a much better position. Ringfence investment for unionist areas, guarantee representation, have closer ties to the UK as a whole (rejoin commonwealth?). Essentially make the whole country closer to the UK, and ensure that unionists see they have nothing to fear, or indeed to lose, and a lot to gain.
The crux for everyone is as aqmp says 'show me the money'. Economically both north and south would be a lot better off - London doesn't care about the devolveds - those arguments that NI costs the UK and the south would have to absorb that are rubbish - there are nations spending billions trying to increase their territories, and we're being told that a peaceful western european assimilation would actually cost Ireland?!
OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?
If nationalists need persuading are they nationalists ?
Quote from: Franko on April 19, 2016, 02:58:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 19, 2016, 11:22:41 AM
Quote from: Franko on April 19, 2016, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2016, 03:54:12 PM
Quote from: leenie on April 18, 2016, 03:31:16 PM
Muppet
What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?
The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.
The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.
In order to compare the GFA and what happened in 1921, the republican negotiators would have to have said. "Feck this, we'll never win over North Antrim, North Down and East Belfast, we'll just leave them to be ruled by the Brits." (And then do feck all about it for the next century). Then hand wring and moralise when the nationalists in those areas decided they were going to do something about it themselves. Comparisons are bullshit, the GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied.
Finally, on page 11 post from Franko that does something other than play the man.
However, I have no idea at all what you are on about.
In 1921 everyone, including the Brits, thought it was a temporary solution. Even the border hadn't been decided at the time. Churchill himself later claimed he supported a United Ireland. Almost no one, probably even including unionists, thought the situation wouldn't change for a century.
It was similar with the GFA. Articles 2 & 3 were dropped on one hand but on the other there is a commitment to allow a majority decision to decide on a United Ireland.
Both agreements maintained partition as the status quo. Neither achieved a 32 County Ireland. Not identical obviously, but plenty of similarities.
'The GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied'.
Really?
Spin it all you like, but for the 18 years since the GFA, the 6 counties are still stuck in the UK. Just like in 1921. The headline of the GFA for Nationailsts was the vote, but where is it 18 years later? Do you think it will happen in the next ten years? Or the ten after that?
Finally, on page 11 post from Franko that does something other than play the man.
See my previous post regarding your own penchant for same. Hypocrite.
However, I have no idea at all what you are on about.
It would seem so.
In 1921 everyone, including the Brits, thought it was a temporary solution. Even the border hadn't been decided at the time. Churchill himself later claimed he supported a United Ireland. Almost no one, probably even including unionists, thought the situation wouldn't change for a century.
Right, so post 1921 we have a fluid situation, with many particulars still open for debate and (one of) the British leader(s) open to the possibility of reuniting the country. Why, in such a case, did the border end up copper fastened as it is and with the 6 county nationalists left to fend for themselves for the next century (so far)? Would it be anything to do with the hopeless efforts of the new Free State government to negotiate anything better due to total apathy towards the fate of those they had agreed to leave with the Brits?
It was similar with the GFA. Articles 2 & 3 were dropped on one hand but on the other there is a commitment to allow a majority decision to decide on a United Ireland.
Both agreements maintained partition as the status quo. Neither achieved a 32 County Ireland. Not identical obviously, but plenty of similarities.
'The GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied'.
Really?
Spin it all you like, but for the 18 years since the GFA, the 6 counties are still stuck in the UK. Just like in 1921. The headline of the GFA for Nationailsts was the vote, but where is it 18 years later? Do you think it will happen in the next ten years? Or the ten after that?
Erm, yes. And 95 years after the treaty was signed, the 6 counties is still stuck in the UK. How about we evaluate how the GFA has performed for 6 county nationalists after 95 years? Was a constitutional route to a reunited country enshrined in law post 1921? I must have missed that bit.
But perhaps the main issue in this respect, regards the treatment of the people post each of these agreements. I don't think there can be any debate as to which has left Catholic/Nationalist people in the 6 counties better off. But of course, when comparing the merits of the relative agreements, you didn't even so much as consider that as something worth mentioning. Because like your forefathers, it's obviously not of much concern to you. So you can spin it all you like, but the GFA and the treaty of 1921, from the perspective of someone from the 6 counties are not even in the same ballpark.
Franko, you are a true visionary with hindsight, but you need to look a bit more at the history.
"Was a constitutional route to a reunited country enshrined in law post 1921? I must have missed that bit."The 1921 Treaty amended the House of Commons,
Council of Ireland Act 1920 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1920/67/pdfs/ukpga_19200067_en.pdf) which included the following:
With a view to the eventual establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland, and to bringing about harmonious action between the parliaments and governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to the promotion of mutual intercourse and uniformity in relation to matters affecting the whole of Ireland, and to providing for the administration of services which the two parliaments mutually agree should be administered uniformly throughout the whole of Ireland, or which by virtue of this Act are to be so administered, there shall be constituted, as soon as may be after the appointed day, a Council to be called the Council of Ireland.Yes subsequent events rendered it all moot, sadly. But that is with the benefit of hindsight. Did those involved in 1921 believe, in good faith, that a United Ireland was still on the way? I think so. Hindsight may condemn the GFA as well, hopefully not, but who knows? But did those Nationalists/Republicans who signed it believe, in good faith, that it brought a United Ireland closer, I think so too.
The GFA enshrines the right to a referendum, but 18 years later there is no sign of it.
Republican bloggers bashing Southerners for something that happened in 1921, without even pretending there was any context, makes such a vote less likely to even happen in my opinion and even less likely to be carried. It really doesn't help and certainly doesn't get new votes for SF. So what is the objective?
Let those who feel so inclined keep "Britishness" in the new All Ireland.
Doesn't the GFA say that people in the 6 Cos can continue to be British or Irish after re unification.
Obviously there will continue to be a local Assembly of some sort with some Autonomy.
However in any re unification referendum Unionists will no doubt be voting NO
You need to convince apolitical Protestants and lukewarm nationalists to come on board.
But first you need something for them to come on board, then you need more votes for nationalist parties to trigger a referendum.
And certain people need to stop blaming Muppet for the 1921 Treaty, stop hectoring 26 Co people and stop looking for us to wear sackcloth and ashes over the past.
Just remember we will be voting on re unification too..... So be nice to us as well.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 19, 2016, 03:11:28 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 03:05:45 PM
OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?
Offer them cash to to live in Britain?
More seriously, the issue is the establishment of a workable economic model, when that this is within sight then real discussion on other matters can begin. Unfortunately, there is not the least indication that SF, the largest nationalist party in the 6 counties, has any notion that this is case never mind a model for advancing things.
You're right ref SF but that might be a blessing in disguise as a Sinn Fein led UI campaign in a referendum situation would turn about 70% of the electorate off in one fell swoop! Unionists wouldn't have to do anything!
Quote from: haveaharp on April 19, 2016, 03:56:37 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 03:05:45 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 19, 2016, 02:29:31 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 19, 2016, 02:04:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 01:37:24 PM
The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?
1. Show me the money
2. f**k knows
In anything but the short term, (1) is guaranteed. Nationalists won't need persuading when it comes down to it.
A UI would be a new Ireland. Those designated as unionist would be about 15% (guesstimate) of the population as opposed to about 1.5% now. They'd be in a much better position. Ringfence investment for unionist areas, guarantee representation, have closer ties to the UK as a whole (rejoin commonwealth?). Essentially make the whole country closer to the UK, and ensure that unionists see they have nothing to fear, or indeed to lose, and a lot to gain.
The crux for everyone is as aqmp says 'show me the money'. Economically both north and south would be a lot better off - London doesn't care about the devolveds - those arguments that NI costs the UK and the south would have to absorb that are rubbish - there are nations spending billions trying to increase their territories, and we're being told that a peaceful western european assimilation would actually cost Ireland?!
OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?
If nationalists need persuading are they nationalists ?
You would think not...I'm using Nationalist here in terms of the "Nationalist Gene Pool" or "People from a Nationalist Background", just to save me fingers when typing! There are a lot of people in the North who would never consider themselves British and would have no allegiance to the fleg or Queen but would need persuading that there is benefit to changing the status quo. This is the constituency that needs to be convinced first. Then the Northern Irish (most of whom are of the "Nationalist Gene Pool" or "People from a Nationalist Background"). Then the Brits! East peasy...see you in about 125 years!
Quote from: haranguerer on April 19, 2016, 03:29:27 PM
Could you expand on this?
It is widely believed that NI is in receipt of a very large degree of subsidy, owing to limited tax receipts and excessive public expenditure (the highest in these islands). That subsidy is modest per taxpayer in the UK, and largely unknown to them, but would be unrealistic for the rest of Ireland to subsidise. A United Ireland needs to be a one of (approximate) equals where everyone pays their way. Now the exact extent of this gap would have to be calculated, but it needs more economic activity (more tax) and less excessive public expenditure in NI. That requires NI nationalism to go from a perspective of extracting as much from the British as possible, to an intention to become more like the rest of the country, SF have shown little indication of having fully taken this on board, indeed they seem to want to turn the rest of the country into the 6 counties.
Quote from: muppetThe GFA enshrines the right to a referendum, but 18 years later there is no sign of it.
Marty has called for one if there is Brexit, which is a reasonable trigger, as NI will vote against it. Brexit would be a game changer as there would have to be some clarification of what staying the UK would mean, never mind a UI.
Quote from: RossfanLet those who feel so inclined keep "Britishness" in the new All Ireland.
Individuals can do whatever they wish, but there is place for colonialism continuing. Britishness can only get the same type of recognition as Frenchness, Polishness or Nigerianness.
Quote from: AQMP You're right ref SF but that might be a blessing in disguise as a Sinn Fein led UI campaign in a referendum situation would turn about 70% of the electorate off in one fell swoop! Unionists would have to do anything!
Exactly, SF are an obstacle to a UI if anything. Some sort of Alex Salmond type figure has to emerge and probably one will, eventually.
Disappointed at your absolutism Armaghniac. Expected better.
The 6 Co " Protestant background" people will have to have a right to dual citizenship of the new Ireland plus Gt Britain if it still exists.
Must read the GFA again as I'm nearly sure that's included in it.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 19, 2016, 04:18:04 PM
Quote from: muppetThe GFA enshrines the right to a referendum, but 18 years later there is no sign of it.
Marty has called for one if there is Brexit, which is a reasonable trigger, as NI will vote against it. Brexit would be a game changer as there would have to be some clarification of what staying the UK would mean, never mind a UI.
A Brexit could really throw the cat among the pigeons. AQMP referred to the Law of Unintended Consequences earlier. Who knows what would happen in NI?
I am still betting against it though. :D
Northern Nationalism or its gene pool is crying out for leadership, sadly lacking in SF and non-existent in the SDLP.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2016, 04:30:36 PM
Disappointed at your absolutism Armaghniac. Expected better.
The 6 Co " Protestant background" people will have to have a right to dual citizenship of the new Ireland plus Gt Britain if it still exists.
Must read the GFA again as I'm nearly sure that's included in it.
No doubt people will retain GB citizenship for a generation, but nowhere in the British Empire (including ROI) did people remain British indefinitely. Why should they? Why should "British" people in Tyrone retain British citizenship when those in Rathmines or Hong Kong do not?
Quote from: MuppetA Brexit could really throw the cat among the pigeons. AQMP referred to the Law of Unintended Consequences earlier. Who knows what would happen in NI?
I am still betting against it though. :D
A narrow "Remain" achieved by votes in the Celtic Fringe with a small "Leave" majority in England would be interesting however.
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 19, 2016, 04:37:49 PM
Northern Nationalism or its gene pool is crying out for leadership, sadly lacking in SF and non-existent in the SDLP.
+1000.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 19, 2016, 04:40:52 PM
Why should "British" people in Tyrone retain British citizenship when those in Rathmines or Hong Kong do not?
Because we want peace, because it would prevent 7 or 800,000 people being alienated and maybe recreating 1968 to 1998 in reverse, because it wwould be no skin off our noses, because it would be a magnanimous gesture by the majority, because we're Irish......
I suspect Rathmines people did till 1949.
As for Hong Kong please direct you enquiry to the British Government.
I'd imagine a lot of those in the North that are "meh" about a United Ireland, feel that way because they'd be worse off financially, healthcare-wise etc. Nothing wrong with that. People can't be faulted for looking after their own interests.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 19, 2016, 05:37:31 PM
I'd imagine a lot of those in the North that are "meh" about a United Ireland, feel that way because they'd be worse off financially, healthcare-wise etc. Nothing wrong with that. People can't be faulted for looking after their own interests.
Healthcare, maybe but without the UK subsidy?
As for financially, you are having laugh. Outside of London, the UK is miles behind.
The north of Ireland is changing massively in it's make up. In the 70's who'd have thought that the church now would have so little influence in Ireland and that church attendance would have dropped so drastically as it has done.
I can see a younger generation in 20-30 years which is less defined by their religion and hopefully less inclined to be so sheepish in their political views. Families are becoming more 'mixed' and less parochial.
There is an interesting MP for an Edinburgh constituency called Tommy Sheppard. He is from a northern Irish protestant background. He realised at a young age that the views of his contemporaries was not his. He is a committed republican in the broader sense. More like him might change the lay of the land somewhat. Unless you soft southerners decide you want to be part of England again :-)
Quote from: armaghniac on April 19, 2016, 04:18:04 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 19, 2016, 03:29:27 PM
Could you expand on this?
It is widely believed that NI is in receipt of a very large degree of subsidy, owing to limited tax receipts and excessive public expenditure (the highest in these islands). That subsidy is modest per taxpayer in the UK, and largely unknown to them, but would be unrealistic for the rest of Ireland to subsidise. A United Ireland needs to be a one of (approximate) equals where everyone pays their way. Now the exact extent of this gap would have to be calculated, but it needs more economic activity (more tax) and less excessive public expenditure in NI. That requires NI nationalism to go from a perspective of extracting as much from the British as possible, to an intention to become more like the rest of the country, SF have shown little indication of having fully taken this on board, indeed they seem to want to turn the rest of the country into the 6 counties.
I appreciate that you did try to expand, but I meant specifically on the issue being a workable economic model. Forgetting about the short term, when there inevitably would be much upheaval, why would the north of ireland not be the same as the rest of Ireland in this respect?
Forgetting about a UI or anything else, its universally acknowledged that chiefly due to its unique circumstances, there is an over-reliance on the public sector in NI. Steps are being taken to cut the public sector, and there are also steps being taken, including reducing the rate of CT, to stimulate the private sector.
NI is then, working to get towards a workable economic model as it is, the success or otherwise of that remains to be seen, but its a long term project...You think, however, that if there was to be a UI the issue would be coming up with a workable economic model for NI? I don't understand how you would arrive at that conclusion at all. If you accept that the south has or will have by that time at least 'a workable economic model', then why wouldn't that do for the island??
I think the point is that, as evidenced by the standoff over welfare cuts, that NI, as it currently stands, is still receiving a subsidy from the UK treasury that, both as a gross figure and per capita, is far beyond what the ROI Dept of Finance would be able to provide. Completely acknowledge the work that has gone on in NI in terms of stimulating the private sector, but there is still a huge amount of work to be done. Probably culturally as much as anything else - the reliance on the block grant is simultaneously a backstop for the institutions, but a disincentive to innovate.
I'm not right-wing economically at all, but the bald fact is that if NI came into a united Ireland tomorrow, the living standards of a lot of people relying on welfare there at the moment across both communities would drop dramatically, if they were to change over to ROI rates. Also the standard of public services in ROI is behind what is currently provided in the UK (although under a Conservative majority that will narrow).
People will always make their choices through self interest - at the moment, UI is a difficult practical argument to make as it can be demonstrated that there is a possibility of a fall in living standards, at least during a transition period.
The two states need to converge - ROI needs to get back to a level of economic growth and sustainability that seemed attainable in the late 90s, whilst the reality of austerity cuts in the UK would have to be applied equally across NI as it is across Scotland and Wales - so a UI becomes an attractive solution, to all segments of the Nationalist community and perhaps to a swathe of the Unionist middle class as well.
I really hope it does happen - whilst the first few years could be very difficult, I think the global goodwill towards a united Ireland, plus the necessary strengthening of our relationship with the UK because of guarantees to Unionists, whilst still remaining firmly with the EU, would present a massive opportunity for all on the island.
But it is opportunity that people will vote for, not history. Agree with commenters before that Nationalism, both North and South needs the emergence of a new leadership. We'll see.
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 20, 2016, 11:39:57 AM
I think the point is that, as evidenced by the standoff over welfare cuts, that NI, as it currently stands, is still receiving a subsidy from the UK treasury that, both as a gross figure and per capita, is far beyond what the ROI Dept of Finance would be able to provide. Completely acknowledge the work that has gone on in NI in terms of stimulating the private sector, but there is still a huge amount of work to be done. Probably culturally as much as anything else - the reliance on the block grant is simultaneously a backstop for the institutions, but a disincentive to innovate.
I'm not right-wing economically at all, but the bald fact is that if NI came into a united Ireland tomorrow, the living standards of a lot of people relying on welfare there at the moment across both communities would drop dramatically, if they were to change over to ROI rates. Also the standard of public services in ROI is behind what is currently provided in the UK (although under a Conservative majority that will narrow).
People will always make their choices through self interest - at the moment, UI is a difficult practical argument to make as it can be demonstrated that there is a possibility of a fall in living standards, at least during a transition period.
The two states need to converge - ROI needs to get back to a level of economic growth and sustainability that seemed attainable in the late 90s, whilst the reality of austerity cuts in the UK would have to be applied equally across NI as it is across Scotland and Wales - so a UI becomes an attractive solution, to all segments of the Nationalist community and perhaps to a swathe of the Unionist middle class as well.
I really hope it does happen - whilst the first few years could be very difficult, I think the global goodwill towards a united Ireland, plus the necessary strengthening of our relationship with the UK because of guarantees to Unionists, whilst still remaining firmly with the EU, would present a massive opportunity for all on the island.
But it is opportunity that people will vote for, not history. Agree with commenters before that Nationalism, both North and South needs the emergence of a new leadership. We'll see.
Do you have any data to support this? Would not have thought there would be a 'dramatic' difference tbh.
I get all that - but that's short term. A 'workable economic model' would appear to me to be referring to a much longer term plan for economic viability and success. And given that it seems everyone already realises what needs to be done to make NI even on its own more economically viable, then coming up with a plan for a future UI doesn't seem to be a big barrier to me...
As I said earlier (anecdotally), nations around the world spend billions expanding their territory, but a peaceful western european assimilation of the north would actually cost Ireland? How does that work?!
Is Social welfare not higher in the 26 these days?
Anyone know how much tax/revenue the British Government collects in the 6 Cos?
Quote from: Rossfan on April 20, 2016, 12:10:16 PM
Is Social welfare not higher in the 26 these days?
Anyone know how much tax/revenue the British Government collects in the 6 Cos?
Unemployment benefit much higher down south, not sure about other social welfare.
One of the biggest concerns you hear raised is that so many people up north are employed in the public service, but I suppose it depends on what exactly they are doing.
NI's unemployment rate is currently twice that of the UK. So it's not all rosy under the UK's watch. And it would certainly get worse in the short term if Brexit comes about. A Brexit could in fact change the climate considerably, and bring a big shift towards a United Ireland
Quote from: Rossfan on April 20, 2016, 12:10:16 PM
Is Social welfare not higher in the 26 these days?
Anyone know how much tax/revenue the British Government collects in the 6 Cos?
The most recent figures I could find are for the year April 2013 - March 2014 and this gives the total tax take in NI as just under stg£15 billion (or just over £15 billion if you make an allowance for North Sea oil revenues). Roughly €19.5 billion.
https://www.dfpni.gov.uk/publications/northern-ireland-net-fiscal-balance-report-2012-13-and-2013-14
Sorry guys, I don't have hard figures to hand - was basing my thoughts on totality of benefits (including housing, disability, access to better services such as NHS etc as well as unemployment) as well as the fact that up to last year, the block grant was based on the Barnett Formula (calculated on relative population rather than need) which would have seen the regions (Scotland, Wales and NI) paid substantially more than England - though the Conservatives are trying to force through the same welfare levels across the entire UK.
Also, as someone mentioned, the public service up there is substantially larger as a per capita employer then it is down here.
Perhaps it is just perception that NI is economically better off within the UK, but that perception is held on both sides of the border, and it is up to nationalist leaders to articulate a better vision for UI and also a detailed, costed road map to get there. Which,I think it is fair enough to say, hasn't been done so far, North or South.
I suppose that comes back to my point, which put simply, is that on an island where discrimination by political persuasion is outlawed in both parts, where there is equal access to jobs and housing in both parts (open to correction there from NI posters), and where there are impartial police forces and equal access to the justice system (same again, open to correction), to rely on a historical argument isn't going to do it. We need a proclamation for the 21st century, which articulates the needs of citizens of a future Republic, not one preserved in aspic since 1916.
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 20, 2016, 02:17:35 PM
Perhaps it is just perception that NI is economically better off within the UK, but that perception is held on both sides of the border
It is just perception, and regardless of where its held, its flawed. The only way it holds any water is if its based on the very short term.
The UK is a london-centric economy. London supports most of the other regions. Whats good for anywhere else in the UK will be economically be secondary for whats good for london. How can NI develop its potential in that environ?
Opposing views saying the same thing from different angles, first is daily mail and the second is guardian
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-rest-UK-One-pound-earned-capital-funds-rest-country.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/public-money-private-wealth-london-north-v-south
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 20, 2016, 02:17:35 PM
Perhaps it is just perception that NI is economically better off within the UK, but that perception is held on both sides of the border, and it is up to nationalist leaders to articulate a better vision for UI and also a detailed, costed road map to get there. Which,I think it is fair enough to say, hasn't been done so far, North or South.
Is that true? Do posters think that they are better off in a pure financial sense now than if NI joined a UI?
It's my perception that people think they are more secure under UK, and would face more uncertainty in UI, rather than their incomes would reduce. And there'd be a worry about the health service of UI compared to UK.
My perception is that if you have a person in Belfast and a person in Dublin doing the exact same job, the guy in Dublin would be getting paid more.
Similarly a guy in Cork would get paid more than a guy in Derry.
But that's just my perceptions, I could be off (and of course there's a lot more than consider than just pure salary)
The point is that NI receives a significant subsidy, which still delivers a standard of living lower than in the 26 counties. This has been obscured in recent years, but with the ROI having taken off again and the Conservatives putting the squeeze on public expenditure in NI this might become more visible.
The problem is that while this visibility might increase interest in a UI it is rather difficult to move on from there. NI costs Britain money and there is no real incentive for them to play hardball in the financial arrangements made, but the problem here that it is difficult to devise arrangements which encourage NI to leave while also encouraging Scotland to stay, so the Scots are confusing the issue. The solution is for NI, like Scotland, to have a measure of local economic performance. Unfortunately, it has a handout mentality engrained in its politicians.
Quote from: Hound on April 20, 2016, 01:06:05 PM
Unemployment benefit much higher down south, not sure about other social welfare.
Pretty much every cash benefit is higher.
Quote from: Hound on April 20, 2016, 01:06:05 PMOne of the biggest concerns you hear raised is that so many people up north are employed in the public service, but I suppose it depends on what exactly they are doing.
This would be an interesting question.
Quote from: Hound on April 20, 2016, 01:06:05 PMA Brexit could in fact change the climate considerably, and bring a big shift towards a United Ireland
Well, yes and no. Assuming that it is a Brexit with real change and not some of the models proposed then it would lead to lose of income for farmers etc and disruption of cross border trade. The problem for Scotland and NI is that such a Brexit would mean substantial dislocation of trade with England if they leave the UK and stay in the EU, and English trade is still important. This would be a bit like 1921 for NI, although trade with the rest of Ireland would also come with the rest of the EU. Ireland (united) and Scotland might have to form a little Celtic block (room for Wales also) closely affiliated with the EU but not quite in it, in order to continue to have separate arrangements with England.
Quote from: haranguerer on April 20, 2016, 02:38:33 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 20, 2016, 02:17:35 PM
Perhaps it is just perception that NI is economically better off within the UK, but that perception is held on both sides of the border
It is just perception, and regardless of where its held, its flawed. The only way it holds any water is if its based on the very short term.
The UK is a london-centric economy. London supports most of the other regions. Whats good for anywhere else in the UK will be economically be secondary for whats good for london. How can NI develop its potential in that environ?
Opposing views saying the same thing from different angles, first is daily mail and the second is guardian
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-rest-UK-One-pound-earned-capital-funds-rest-country.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/public-money-private-wealth-london-north-v-south
What's the very short term though? That's my whole point - people make decisions based on whether they can afford uniforms and schoolbooks for their kids next September, not whether the treaty of 21 was a betrayal of the Republic. They need a very persuasive argument to look beyond next September, and that is not being made. On either side of the border.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 20, 2016, 02:46:59 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 20, 2016, 01:06:05 PM
Unemployment benefit much higher down south, not sure about other social welfare.
Pretty much every cash benefit is higher.
State Pension (contributory) here is €230.30
I believe the figure up north is GB£155.65 ( c €195).
If the British Govt get GB£15Bn from the North - how much do they give Stormont to run the place and then how much do they spend on non Stromont business?
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 20, 2016, 02:55:42 PM
- MOST people make decisions based on whether they can afford uniforms and schoolbooks for their kids next September, not whether the treaty of 21 was a betrayal of the Republic.
Fixed that for you.
There are 5 or 6 GAABoarders at least who would come under the second part of your sentence ::)
Sort of on topic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36092678
More Nordies applying to colleges in the Free State. We're taking over!!
Quote from: AQMP on April 21, 2016, 09:50:34 AM
Sort of on topic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36092678
More Nordies applying to colleges in the Free State. We're taking over!!
I've often thought it a bit odd that there were relatively few in recent years, given the fact that fees in Britain are 4 times as much. And that people who had no problem thinking about going to Stirling were snobby about applying to DCU or UL and would only look at Trinity.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 21, 2016, 10:04:11 AM
Quote from: AQMP on April 21, 2016, 09:50:34 AM
Sort of on topic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36092678
More Nordies applying to colleges in the Free State. We're taking over!!
I've often thought it a bit odd that there were relatively few in recent years, given the fact that fees in Britain are 4 times as much. And that people who had no problem thinking about going to Stirling were snobby about applying to DCU or UL and would only look at Trinity.
Paradoxically the number of NI students studying in the South has gone
down since the GFA. I do think the way A Levels were allocated points was an issue for a good few years. To get enough points to get into a lot of Southern colleges you really needed to do 4 A Levels which wasn't attractive to a lot of students when you could get a place in an NI or British uni with 3 good grades. I know that Trinity has been actively "promoting" itself to in Northern schools in the past three or four years
Quote from: AQMP on April 21, 2016, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 21, 2016, 10:04:11 AM
Quote from: AQMP on April 21, 2016, 09:50:34 AM
Sort of on topic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36092678
More Nordies applying to colleges in the Free State. We're taking over!!
I've often thought it a bit odd that there were relatively few in recent years, given the fact that fees in Britain are 4 times as much. And that people who had no problem thinking about going to Stirling were snobby about applying to DCU or UL and would only look at Trinity.
Paradoxically the number of NI students studying in the South has gone down since the GFA. I do think the way A Levels were allocated points was an issue for a good few years. To get enough points to get into a lot of Southern colleges you really needed to do 4 A Levels which wasn't attractive to a lot of students when you could get a place in an NI or British uni with 3 good grades. I know that Trinity has been actively "promoting" itself to in Northern schools in the past three or four years
The cost of rent in Dublin is an issue, it is much more than in some provincial English city. But then again Limerick might be cheaper. Southern Universities are more difficult to get into, but being in a university that is easier to get into isn't ideal if you can get into a good one. What is a disgrace is that the Stormont junta have preferred to cut university places rather than the money going into sectarian bonfires and the like.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 21, 2016, 10:04:11 AM
Quote from: AQMP on April 21, 2016, 09:50:34 AM
Sort of on topic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36092678
More Nordies applying to colleges in the Free State. We're taking over!!
I've often thought it a bit odd that there were relatively few in recent years, given the fact that fees in Britain are 4 times as much. And that people who had no problem thinking about going to Stirling were snobby about applying to DCU or UL and would only look at Trinity.
Does anyone actually read these articles?? It shouldn't appear odd, there was a completely logical reason for it
'Since 2005, many popular courses at universities in the Republic of Ireland have been inaccessible to Northern Ireland students unless they took four A-levels.
That was due to a scoring system which compared A-level results with the Leaving Certificate qualification.
A Northern Ireland pupil, for instance, who did three A-levels and got three A* grades, would get a maximum of 450 points.
That compared to a maximum of 600 points for a pupil getting top grades in the Leaving Certificate exams.
The most popular courses at Irish universities - such as law, maths, English or psychology at Trinity College Dublin - require a pupil to get well over 500 points to apply for entry.'
Quote from: haranguerer on April 21, 2016, 11:07:43 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 21, 2016, 10:04:11 AM
Quote from: AQMP on April 21, 2016, 09:50:34 AM
Sort of on topic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36092678
More Nordies applying to colleges in the Free State. We're taking over!!
I've often thought it a bit odd that there were relatively few in recent years, given the fact that fees in Britain are 4 times as much. And that people who had no problem thinking about going to Stirling were snobby about applying to DCU or UL and would only look at Trinity.
Does anyone actually read these articles?? It shouldn't appear odd, there was a completely logical reason for it
'Since 2005, many popular courses at universities in the Republic of Ireland have been inaccessible to Northern Ireland students unless they took four A-levels.
That was due to a scoring system which compared A-level results with the Leaving Certificate qualification.
A Northern Ireland pupil, for instance, who did three A-levels and got three A* grades, would get a maximum of 450 points.
That compared to a maximum of 600 points for a pupil getting top grades in the Leaving Certificate exams.
The most popular courses at Irish universities - such as law, maths, English or psychology at Trinity College Dublin - require a pupil to get well over 500 points to apply for entry.'
Well the TCD website says that an 3A* would be 540, and a 25 point bonus for doing maths, so that's 565 which would get you into most courses. https://www.tcd.ie/study/eu/undergraduate/admission-requirements/a-levels/minimum-requirements/
That would get you into pretty much everything in DCU, for instance.
But you are correct, many English universities are easier to get into, just bring the £9000.
Or read anything?
The bit in my post which was in quotation marks was so because it was as a quote from the bbc article. It outlines the reasons why there were fewer northern applicants to southern universities, and why that subsequently has changed.
You've posted a link to the current admission policy - after the change; seemingly to refute the article outlining what you're demonstrating? ???
Quote from: haranguerer on April 22, 2016, 01:06:32 PM
Or read anything?
The bit in my post which was in quotation marks was so because it was as a quote from the bbc article. It outlines the reasons why there were fewer northern applicants to southern universities, and why that subsequently has changed.
You've posted a link to the current admission policy - after the change; seemingly to refute the article outlining what you're demonstrating? ???
This tinkering may have some impact, but points weren't as high as in recent years either and as I said there are a lot of courses other than the top ones in TCD. The better students just did the 4 A levels and the weaker students wouldn't have got into these courses anyway, there is a small enough number in between.
I'd say that the Euro having been at £0.69 at one stage had more effect than points.