gaaboard.com

More as a penitential exercise than anything else, I've looked at the results of all NI elections throughout the noughties. (My source is: http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/)

The purpose of the exercise was to see if it were possible to come up with a forecast of the outcome of a UI referendum. This could be any time in the near to medium term future based on those results.
I wonder if others on the board would also care to consider the stats and let the rest of us know what they think of them.

Points to keep in mind.

First, a public health warning...
I'm no statistician and I've often been told that I could clear Croke Park in double quick time when I start meddling with stats!

Second, I've omitted the results I don't consider to be relevant to the discussion eg numbers of seats won.

Third, I would consider such a poll to be a classic Orange vs. Green confrontation, where no local issues etc. come into the reckoning. Because of this I added the DUP/UUP totals and put them on the Orange side to begin with. Likewise, the Stoops and Shinners can be napped to belong almost exclusively to the Green side
.
Fourth, I added a Shift feature to the original presentation of stats.
Here, I took the results of the more recent election and recorded the change from the one prior to that.
By way of example, the Orange vote in the Westminster elections dropped by 11.2% between elections and the Alliance votes increased by 2.4%.

Here goes.....

(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/851/arialdupgif.gif)

FFS! I thought I had the image inserted correctly. It showed up okay when I was testing it out.
Any kind soul able to tell me where I have goofed?

(http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/851/arialdupgif.gif)

I wouldn't say that the end of the Union is entirely within sight at this stage, but the trends are only going one way. But these kind of calculations require looking at turnout, transfers, the composition of others etc.

Lar, I right clicked on the image on that page and used that address within the [img] tags.

Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2011, 03:18:08 PM

(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/851/arialdupgif.gif)
I wouldn't say that the end of the Union is entirely within sight at this stage, but the trends are only going one way. But these kind of calculations require looking at turnout, transfers, the composition of others etc.

Lar, I right clicked on the image on that page and used that address within the [img] tags.

Thanks, armaghaniac, I think we can go by your image and, with luck, others can use it for reference. I think the Internet today is more mixed up than I am!
I had coded the image link correctly and it showed up in Google Chrome alright but not in Firefox.
On my machine, your graphic and your comments below it are not showing up either. Everything is fine in Google.

With regard to your comments after the chart, I'd say a quick look doesn't tell the true story and the Green vote is likely to be far closer to 50% than the bare stats reveal.

To keep the peace on the domestic front, I'd better go out and cut the garden now but I'll give my reasons for this later. ;)

QuoteTo keep the peace on the domestic front, I'd better go out and cut the garden now

yes, keep those greens from growing too quickly.

It's like the joke about the man whose wife said
"cut the grass, it's up to the window"
"why should I cut it, let the guy in the downstairs flat cut it!"

All based on turnout I would estimate of about 60%. if ever there was a referendum I would expect a much larger turnout which would negate the stats quoted. Still a long way away.

What Wills and Kate over already? Have i missed something? Union between N. Ire and GB, no, prob about 40 yrs i think. Present figures if you go by reglion kids at school. Protestant 35%, Catholic and other, well the rest. Need to check that, but it's pretty close to them figures.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 30, 2011, 03:11:27 PM
More as a penitential exercise than anything else, I've looked at the results of all NI elections throughout the noughties. (My source is: http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/)

The purpose of the exercise was to see if it were possible to come up with a forecast of the outcome of a UI referendum. This could be any time in the near to medium term future based on those results.
I wonder if others on the board would also care to consider the stats and let the rest of us know what they think of them.

Points to keep in mind.

First, a public health warning...
I'm no statistician and I've often been told that I could clear Croke Park in double quick time when I start meddling with stats!

Second, I've omitted the results I don't consider to be relevant to the discussion eg numbers of seats won.

Third, I would consider such a poll to be a classic Orange vs. Green confrontation, where no local issues etc. come into the reckoning. Because of this I added the DUP/UUP totals and put them on the Orange side to begin with. Likewise, the Stoops and Shinners can be napped to belong almost exclusively to the Green side
.
Fourth, I added a Shift feature to the original presentation of stats.
Here, I took the results of the more recent election and recorded the change from the one prior to that.
By way of example, the Orange vote in the Westminster elections dropped by 11.2% between elections and the Alliance votes increased by 2.4%.

Here goes.....

(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/851/arialdupgif.gif)

Sorry, LN, but without taking the time to go further into your analysis myself, I suspect it is fundamentally flawed.

That is, when I was going through the figures for my own stats on another thread, I'm pretty sure that the large majority of those voters you categorise as "Others" are actually Unionists who would undoubtedly vote "No" to a UI in any Referendum.


That is because the Unionist vote, unlike its Nationalist counterpart, has been heavily splintered since the 1970's. Therefore what you term "Others" is almost exclusively composed of "Hardline Unionism" (TUV etc), "Paramilitary Unionism" (UDP, PUP etc), "Independent Unionism" (McCartney, Dixon, Hermon, Connor etc) and "Mainland Unionism" (Tories, UKIP, BNP etc). Individually each of these groupings might be small, but collectively they must amount to several percentage points at each election.

Moreover, the impact of Alliance voters in any Referendum cannot be discounted. At worst*, they will split along the lines of the rest of NI - say 53% to 47%?. But at best*, they will come down more heavily in favour of the Union. My reasoning behind this is threefold:
1. I get the impression that Alliance generally poll better in Unionist-majority areas than Nationalist-majority (see, eg, Naomi Wide in East Belfast);
2. The Alliance Party is already tacitly "pro-Union", in the sense that it accepts the status quo;
3. Alliance voters are more prosperous/middle-class than average and so would be risking more, in material terms at least, by taking a leap into the unknown of a UI.

Of course, I am open to correction by anyone who analyses the figures for "Others" more closely, but should such voters be either completely "agnostic" on the subject, or even if they split 50/50 over it, the Nationalist vote would still not be big enough to hit the magic 50%+1 mark.

Nor do I see any sign of that changing in the foreseeable future - quite the contrary, in fact.


* - From a Unionist point of view 

Quote from: Bensars on April 30, 2011, 04:17:11 PM
All based on turnout I would estimate of about 60%. if ever there was a referendum I would expect a much larger turnout which would negate the stats quoted. Still a long way away.

Either way, I cannot see the "turnout" argument assisting Nationalism.

That is, if the Nationalist parties are poor at getting their vote out at elections compared to Unionism, then why should they be more successful (relatively-speaking) for a referendum?

Alternatively, if Nationalism is better than Unionism at "getting the vote out" at elections, and they can still only muster around 43%, where is the extra 7% going to come from?

Garden Centre Taigs?  ;)

Quote from: dillinger on April 30, 2011, 10:52:35 PM
What Wills and Kate over already? Have i missed something? Union between N. Ire and GB, no, prob about 40 yrs i think. Present figures if you go by reglion kids at school. Protestant 35%, Catholic and other, well the rest. Need to check that, but it's pretty close to them figures.

The number of RC's versus Prods has been increasing throughout this Century.

The number of Nationalist voters (versus Unionist voters, that is) has not.

Therefore until Nationalism can address that weakness, it will make no progress. And even if it can, as LeoMc argues persuasively in post #237 of this thread, it's liable to take rather more than 40 years:
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19075.225

Of course, Nationalism might close the gap rather quicker if it could manage to appeal to Unionists to switch allegiances. That said, however, it would have to overcome the "Aye, like Fcuk we will" barrier first... :D

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 01, 2011, 04:18:35 PM

Sorry, LN, but without taking the time to go further into your analysis myself, I suspect it is fundamentally flawed.

That is, when I was going through the figures for my own stats on another thread, I'm pretty sure that the large majority of those voters you categorise as "Others" are actually Unionists who would undoubtedly vote "No" to a UI in any Referendum.


That is because the Unionist vote, unlike its Nationalist counterpart, has been heavily splintered since the 1970's. Therefore what you term "Others" is almost exclusively composed of "Hardline Unionism" (TUV etc), "Paramilitary Unionism" (UDP, PUP etc), "Independent Unionism" (McCartney, Dixon, Hermon, Connor etc) and "Mainland Unionism" (Tories, UKIP, BNP etc). Individually each of these groupings might be small, but collectively they must amount to several percentage points at each election.

Moreover, the impact of Alliance voters in any Referendum cannot be discounted. At worst*, they will split along the lines of the rest of NI - say 53% to 47%?. But at best*, they will come down more heavily in favour of the Union. My reasoning behind this is threefold:
1. I get the impression that Alliance generally poll better in Unionist-majority areas than Nationalist-majority (see, eg, Naomi Wide in East Belfast);
2. The Alliance Party is already tacitly "pro-Union", in the sense that it accepts the status quo;
3. Alliance voters are more prosperous/middle-class than average and so would be risking more, in material terms at least, by taking a leap into the unknown of a UI.

Of course, I am open to correction by anyone who analyses the figures for "Others" more closely, but should such voters be either completely "agnostic" on the subject, or even if they split 50/50 over it, the Nationalist vote would still not be big enough to hit the magic 50%+1 mark.

Nor do I see any sign of that changing in the foreseeable future - quite the contrary, in fact.


* - From a Unionist point of view

Hi EG, I haven't had time either to go into detail on my reading of those figures: I'm having a problem with a little devil called "Bonjour DNS Responder Services" and he is mucking up my Internet connectivity big time.
I'll have another go tomorrow and either he goes or I do. That, incidentally, won't be my decision to make. Background noises are starting to increase in pitch and frequency and they don't augur well for my immediate well-being.  ;D
My connection has been intermittent since early yesterday morning and I haven't been able to post my own analysis.
But from what I read into the figures, I broadly agree with you.
I can't see the Yes vote going over 45% and I think the birth rate in the 'Green' areas is at the point where it is, or soon will be, slowing down. Going by the five stage population cycle that demographers love to waffle about, I'd imagine that the Nationalist community in NI will soon experience a convergence between the birth and death rates—as the Unionist community has been experiencing for some time.
That's not to say there won't be a Yes vote in a future UI poll but I can't see it happening in the foreseeable future. 

There's no chance of a yes vote in NI this side of 2050, if SF continue to push for one I think they'd get a nasty suprise and could do themselves some serious Electoral harm, but i suspect it's shite talk anyway as the various elections approach and they know full well what way a vote would go. 

I'd like to see a bit more effort put into any potential vote anyway as to what exactly is being asked what would we expect from 'New Ireland' institutions - I (like most Unionists  I'd imagine) wouldn't merely want to see a subsumation of NI by the ROI, I'd want the creation of new Police forces, Civil Service, form of Government etc...

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 01, 2011, 04:32:10 PM
The number of RC's versus Prods has been increasing throughout this Century.

The number of Nationalist voters (versus Unionist voters, that is) has not.

Therefore until Nationalism can address that weakness, it will make no progress.

Assuming the increase is at least partly due to difference in birth rates, you'll surely have to wait a number of years until such changes filter through to the ballot box. After all, the voting age is 18.

I'm not going to analyse the stats as I don't know enough about them but i have 2 points.

1) Could people who left the north and moved to the south move back up to vote in a referendum.

2) Some here say it could happen in 2050, maybe its 2100 but it seems it is likely to happen at some stage. Would unionist not be better off making a deal now with the south ensuring more power and better representation for their people instead of waiting until they are in a position of weakness? Unionists could surely get some better concessions now with regards to identity, citizenship or whatever else.

Quote from: bennydorano on May 01, 2011, 11:00:56 PMI'd like to see a bit more effort put into any potential vote anyway as to what exactly is being asked what would we expect from 'New Ireland' institutions - I (like most Unionists  I'd imagine) wouldn't merely want to see a subsumation of NI by the ROI, I'd want the creation of new Police forces, Civil Service, form of Government etc...

Yep.

If there was to be a UI, I believe Unionists would accept it peacefully* on two conditions:
(a ) That it was arrived at following a 50%+1 vote in a referendum in NI, without coercion or manipulation etc by others;
(b ) That in creating a "New Ireland", we would start out with a blank sheet and work from there.

Whatever else, it would not be acceptable if it were to be predicated on the basis outlined by Gerry Adams, in a speech he made in 1994:
"Unionists are an Irish national minority, a religio/political minority, with minority rights not majority ones. Unionists can have no veto of British government policy or Irish government policy either for that matter."


* - I was gratified to see how paltry support for SF was in the last election in the ROI. If Unionists thought there was any chance of being delivered into a UI where Adams & Co had any significant control over their future, I would expect that, in the words of Randolph Churchill a century ago, "Ulster Will Fight - and Ulster Will Be Right!"



 

Quote from: Maguire01 on May 02, 2011, 01:05:41 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 01, 2011, 04:32:10 PM
The number of RC's versus Prods has been increasing throughout this Century.

The number of Nationalist voters (versus Unionist voters, that is) has not.

Therefore until Nationalism can address that weakness, it will make no progress.

Assuming the increase is at least partly due to difference in birth rates, you'll surely have to wait a number of years until such changes filter through to the ballot box. After all, the voting age is 18.

Except that the difference in the birth rates etc was just as marked in the last 18 years of the 20th Century. Why hasn't that  filtered through by now?

Those people born after around 1980 are now approaching their 30's. They were not even born during the "bad old days" of Discrimination etc, and childhood memories of (the tailend of) The Troubles must be fading, too.

Since voting figures clearly indicate that the (former) rise in the Nationalist share of the vote has stalled over the last decade, this suggests that this generation may no longer be voting Nationalist in the numbers in which preceeding generations did.

And it is my hope that as tensions and emotions increasingly settle down in NI generally; the economic imbalance between NI and ROI evens out (since the demise of the Celtic Tiger); and apathy and indifference towards NI in the ROI increases, then this drift away from Nationalism by people in the Catholic community will continue.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 02, 2011, 10:47:55 AM
I'm not going to analyse the stats as I don't know enough about them but i have 2 points.

1) Could people who left the north and moved to the south move back up to vote in a referendum.

No. There would have to be a minimum residential qualification to vote.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 02, 2011, 10:47:55 AM
2) Some here say it could happen in 2050, maybe its 2100 but it seems it is likely to happen at some stage.

Why is it "likely"? I agree it's possible,  but NI is now 90 years old - that's older than the great majority of the members of the United Nations.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 02, 2011, 10:47:55 AM
Would unionist not be better off making a deal now with the south ensuring more power and better representation for their people instead of waiting until they are in a position of weakness? Unionists could surely get some better concessions now with regards to identity, citizenship or whatever else.

With there being no sign of Unity [sic] anywhere on the horizon, why should Unionism give the notion some sort of credence? This would only be giving hope to Nationalism, with the chance (however slim) that it might become self-fulfilling.

It is up to Nationalism  to see that this topic (UI) be placed on the Agenda, not Unionism. If and when they manage to do so, then we will respond.

I looked at the election results summaries on http: arc.ac.uk/elections/ and I copied what I found there to compile my figures. 
Those returns I used represent the percentage of votes cast in all Local District, Assembly, European and Westminster elections of the last decade. Incidentally, there was two of each.
So I think the data gives the best available indication of current voting trends in NI.
At first glance, it can be seen that the Green vote (as in a UI referendum) is holding remarkably stable in the low- forties range.
In a head-to-head confrontation between Orange and Green, this is where the vast majority of yes votes will come from.
On the other hand, the DUP/UUP percentage of the vote is shrinking steadily and this is where the highest percentage of Orange (ie No) votes will be found. The last Westminster result saw an almost dead heat between the core Orange and Green percentages. (42.2% vs. 42 %.)
(All this of course is only relevant if there is to be a UI poll any time in the near to medium term future.)
One has to look to the Alliance and Others to see which side is going to get the extra 8% or more to carry it over the line.

Looking at the failure of the Nationalist vote to increase while the Catholic population is growing in numbers, one must feel that a growing number of voters from this sector are switching to either Alliance or some flavour of Others.

However, even of the vast majority of those 'stray' Nationalist voters were to return to the fold for a UI referendum, I don't see the Yes side making up the deficit.

But there is a very strong correlation between the respective performances of DUP/UUP and Alliance/Others.
As one rises, the other falls and vice versa and so I agree with EG that the majority of voters in the middle ground are Unionists. There is no other explanation for this 'mirror' effect.
'Others,' in particular, seem to be heavily linked to the 'Orange' bloc.  The up/down effect is apparent throughout all of the elections from the base one onwards.

The tie up between DUP/UUP and the Alliance party is to be seen alright but it is nowhere as pronounced as the previous one.
My guess is that Alliance is gaining support in Nationalist regions and this increase is masking the rise in the Catholic/Nationalist population figures. However, the inverse link to the fortunes of the DUP/UUP is evident all the time so I guess it's still got a strong Unionist in membership. Maybe 50/50 or even 40/60 as the increasing number of Catholic voters has to be accommodated somewhere and Aliance is the most likely place.
In a yes/No vote, the vast majority of Others are going to vote against a UI.

Taking the results of the 2010 Westminster election and comparing them with the previous one (2005,) you find that the DUP/UUP vote decreased by 11.2%
This decrease was matched exactly by the rise of Alliance, (2.4) Others (8.6) and SF/SDLP.  (0.2)
Somewhat co-incidental perhaps but the fact that Others gained by far the most of this increase tells its own story.
In the Europeans under consideration, the DUP/UUP vote went down by 13.5%, while the Others made a 12.9% gain.

Unionists may not be supporting the main parties to the same extent as they once did but their votes are staying within the Unionist fold.

When I tried to assess the present strength of the four groups, I did so by adding their  respective totals over the number of elections they contested. (Eight for all others and six for the Alliance.)
It's a rough and ready method of calculation but it applies to all concerned in equal measure.

Doing this and rounding figures to nearest 0.5, I got:
(The figures in parentheses are the returns from the most recent election. Westminster 2010.)

DUP/UUP: ...45.....(42)
Alliance: .......5.....(6.3)
Others: ........10... (11.5)
SDLP/SF:..... 41... (42)

Here, once more, you'll find the second set is almost matching the slide in DUP/UUP with the rise in Alliance/Others.  It's a case of Unionists switching around but not crossing the divide.
At the very least the middle ground will go Unionist by 2:1 and probably by 3:1 or more.

I can't see a UI in those figures.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2011, 11:42:08 AM

Quote from: Maguire01 on May 02, 2011, 01:05:41 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 01, 2011, 04:32:10 PM
The number of RC's versus Prods has been increasing throughout this Century.

The number of Nationalist voters (versus Unionist voters, that is) has not.

Therefore until Nationalism can address that weakness, it will make no progress.

Assuming the increase is at least partly due to difference in birth rates, you'll surely have to wait a number of years until such changes filter through to the ballot box. After all, the voting age is 18.

Except that the difference in the birth rates etc was just as marked in the last 18 years of the 20th Century. Why hasn't that  filtered through by now?

Those people born after around 1980 are now approaching their 30's. They were not even born during the "bad old days" of Discrimination etc, and childhood memories of (the tailend of) The Troubles must be fading, too.

Since voting figures clearly indicate that the (former) rise in the Nationalist share of the vote has stalled over the last decade, this suggests that this generation may no longer be voting Nationalist in the numbers in which preceeding generations did.

And it is my hope that as tensions and emotions increasingly settle down in NI generally; the economic imbalance between NI and ROI evens out (since the demise of the Celtic Tiger); and apathy and indifference towards NI in the ROI increases, then this drift away from Nationalism by people in the Catholic community will continue.

This will turn quite quick if people in the Republic get a whiff of a United Ireland.

On the other side, I know people will think I am banging the same old drum (wait for some comparrison) but Sinn Féin will be a tick in the no box for a very high percentage of people in the Republic when they weighing things up.

A sure E.G. wait until you see the Gaelic Tiger it will put the Celtic Tiger in the ha'penny penny piece place.   ;)

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2011, 11:52:35 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 02, 2011, 10:47:55 AM
I'm not going to analyse the stats as I don't know enough about them but i have 2 points.

1) Could people who left the north and moved to the south move back up to vote in a referendum.

No. There would have to be a minimum residential qualification to vote.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 02, 2011, 10:47:55 AM
2) Some here say it could happen in 2050, maybe its 2100 but it seems it is likely to happen at some stage.

Why is it "likely"? I agree it's possible,  but NI is now 90 years old - that's older than the great majority of the members of the United Nations.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 02, 2011, 10:47:55 AM
Would unionist not be better off making a deal now with the south ensuring more power and better representation for their people instead of waiting until they are in a position of weakness? Unionists could surely get some better concessions now with regards to identity, citizenship or whatever else.

With there being no sign of Unity [sic] anywhere on the horizon, why should Unionism give the notion some sort of credence? This would only be giving hope to Nationalism, with the chance (however slim) that it might become self-fulfilling.

It is up to Nationalism  to see that this topic (UI) be placed on the Agenda, not Unionism. If and when they manage to do so, then we will respond.

Why do unionists want to be part of the UK?? I never understand it.

It appears to me they have no real culture--other than wading in from another land--being given land and then pretending the world ends at an invisible border. Therefore this part of the island is rendered almost identity-less--it must leave unionists feeling weird, like they are just camping out in a place that isnt really theirs. I mean all the towns names --like Belfast--an anglasised version of "mouth of the river Farset" --Derry --Doire --meaning "oak grove." It must leave you feeling like your 'holding what you have' for dear life --wee corners of Belfast and other towns--simply custodians for now, not forever.

Sure nearly all middle class protestants go to university in England and Scotland--many never return--they feel more at home over there--surely this trend will affect voting patterns negatively for unionists. Sure they'll still have the "yeeeeeeooooooooo" brigade who'll always vote for anyone holding a union jack but it's bound to affect things.

I mind years ago i went to USA for a soccer trip and me and this fella from east belfast were staying in a family home of the host team--they had loads of people over at the house to meet the "irish guys" during the 2 weeks and the clown i was with tired himself out telling everyone "no we're not the irish guys, we're not irish, we're nothern irish" everyone was like "yeah, ok" We even played a game and this fella kicked someone and the USA kid was sayin "you irish bastard" and the boy said "i'm not irish i'm northern irish"!!!! He'd a permanant confused frown on his face, it was a laugh. They also welcomed us with a tricolour on the wall in our bedroom--the wee man near had a breakdown! HE'd never been outta east belfast and probably didnt even know that if you keep driving you'll get to dublin (to be fair he probably had never heard of lisburn, never mind longford etc)

Why do Unionist want to remain with the UK? I can only think like us all a lot off what people think and do comes from our parents. Ex. if your Da supports Rangers or Celtic you will likley do the same. It's how your brought up.

 :D :D

Holy Feck! Why oh Why does this have to come down to a base sum? The odds of Larne, Carrick, Lisburn, East Belfast etc etc accepting a crude sum is NIL! We will have partition re-drawn to ensure that Unionism survives .. at the best / worst case we will have a 'Northern Ireland' the size of Jersey based in south-east Antrim and North Down - this is a nonsense to believe that the 32 is on the cards. That lesson was learnt in 1922.

Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on May 02, 2011, 10:44:49 PM
:D :D
Holy Feck! Why oh Why does this have to come down to a base sum? The odds of Larne, Carrick, Lisburn, East Belfast etc etc accepting a crude sum is NIL! We will have partition re-drawn to ensure that Unionism survives .. at the best / worst case we will have a 'Northern Ireland' the size of Jersey based in south-east Antrim and North Down - this is a nonsense to believe that the 32 is on the cards. That lesson was learnt in 1922.

the point being missed by most is that a reunification will be pushed not by the Irish, but by the british.
the biggest supporters of a reunification wil lbe Irish republicans and their previous enemies - the British gov - who want to get rid of the millstone of the north from their hands.
The population swing will happen. However, will the brit gov engage in their infamous 'dirty tricks' to manipulate things again?
ie taking jobs back to blighty, God knows what else they can and would do - as they were liable to do anything in the past (including killing ) to maintain the status quo !
Anything they can think of to halp quicken the referendum - they will do it.
I am sure the 'lost voters' the apathetic nationalists and those that have moved south, will head back up the road again for such a referendum.
then it will be up to the southern voters and the Irish Gov to see what changes they can and will make to integrate and thus appease those looking to maintain their same benefits/health system etc.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2011, 11:42:08 AM

Quote from: Maguire01 on May 02, 2011, 01:05:41 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 01, 2011, 04:32:10 PM
The number of RC's versus Prods has been increasing throughout this Century.

The number of Nationalist voters (versus Unionist voters, that is) has not.

Therefore until Nationalism can address that weakness, it will make no progress.

Assuming the increase is at least partly due to difference in birth rates, you'll surely have to wait a number of years until such changes filter through to the ballot box. After all, the voting age is 18.

Except that the difference in the birth rates etc was just as marked in the last 18 years of the 20th Century. Why hasn't that  filtered through by now?

Those people born after around 1980 are now approaching their 30's. They were not even born during the "bad old days" of Discrimination etc, and childhood memories of (the tailend of) The Troubles must be fading, too.

Since voting figures clearly indicate that the (former) rise in the Nationalist share of the vote has stalled over the last decade, this suggests that this generation may no longer be voting Nationalist in the numbers in which preceeding generations did.

And it is my hope that as tensions and emotions increasingly settle down in NI generally; the economic imbalance between NI and ROI evens out (since the demise of the Celtic Tiger); and apathy and indifference towards NI in the ROI increases, then this drift away from Nationalism by people in the Catholic community will continue.

Come on EG, i enjoy your posts to get a balanced rounded view from the 'other side' but are you seriously saying discrimination by the establishment against nationalists was over after 1980!

When Scotland pull the plug and go for full independence, how secure with NI be within the Union, especially when most NI Unionists are of Scottish extraction in the first place.

Interesting couple of decades ahead for those around to see it.

50% of Scotland's economy is public sector so I can't see them going for full independence any time soon unless the English boot them out.
Mind you at some stage the English will get fed up subsidising the rest of Great Britain plus the North and may pull the plug on the "United Kingdom" and set up their own independent State. : ;)

I'm not sure of this but I thought I read somewhere before that most if not all the North Sea oil is Scottish?

Quote from: Franko on May 03, 2011, 12:57:13 PM
I'm not sure of this but I thought I read somewhere before that most if not all the North Sea oil is Scottish?

I can't say for certain.
Sullam Voe in the Shetlands is the place where the crude oil is brought ashore but it's not refined there. I know that gas from fields off the West Shetlands coast is brought there as well—but the legalisation setting up the operations was passed at Westminster.
I suppose that the resources there belong to the UK.
What might happen if Scotland were to become independent is another matter.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 03, 2011, 01:47:15 PM

Quote from: Franko on May 03, 2011, 12:57:13 PM
I'm not sure of this but I thought I read somewhere before that most if not all the North Sea oil is Scottish?

I can't say for certain.
Sullam Voe in the Shetlands is the place where the crude oil is brought ashore but it's not refined there. I know that gas from fields off the West Shetlands coast is brought there as well—but the legalisation setting up the operations was passed at Westminster.
I suppose that the resources there belong to the UK.
What might happen if Scotland were to become independent is another matter.

i'm not sure but i thought i heard there is only about 5 years worth of oil left meaning in 5 years time this source of revenue won't be available to the scots for independence....

Quote from: Franko on May 03, 2011, 12:57:13 PM
I'm not sure of this but I thought I read somewhere before that most if not all the North Sea oil is Scottish?

I don't think so, I remember seeing or reading about this some time ago (and my memory could be playing tricks on me), but sometime between the 1930's and 1950's, England slyly gave up a miniscule amount of territory to Scotland meaning that the border no longer reached the sea facing direct East, but in a North East fashion. It seems it was English MP's (or whoever decides these things) idea to strenghten the Union by making Scotland's succession less enticing. It was also to strenghten English claims in the case of a U.K. breakup. The Union has always been for the benefit of England first.

I am far from sure on this by the way. Its been quite a while since I came across this information and I cannot remember the source or its credibility. Has anyone else heard about this?

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 02, 2011, 06:00:31 PMI can't see a UI in those figures.

That's because there isn't one.

Nor is there anything on the horizon likely to alter that.

I was tempted therefore to call for the thread to be closed, except that that would deny "the usual suspects" their opportunity to point out where your figures and analysis are incorrect.

And we wouldn't want to do that, would we?  :D

Quote from: Gold on May 02, 2011, 09:11:55 PM


Why do unionists want to be part of the UK??  I never understand it.

It appears to me they have no real culture--other than wading in from another land--being given land and then pretending the world ends at an invisible border. Therefore this part of the island is rendered almost identity-less--it must leave unionists feeling weird, like they are just camping out in a place that isnt really theirs. I mean all the towns names --like Belfast--an anglasised version of "mouth of the river Farset" --Derry --Doire --meaning "oak grove." It must leave you feeling like your 'holding what you have' for dear life --wee corners of Belfast and other towns--simply custodians for now, not forever.

Sure nearly all middle class protestants go to university in England and Scotland--many never return--they feel more at home over there--surely this trend will affect voting patterns negatively for unionists. Sure they'll still have the "yeeeeeeooooooooo" brigade who'll always vote for anyone holding a union jack but it's bound to affect things.

I mind years ago i went to USA for a soccer trip and me and this fella from east belfast were staying in a family home of the host team--they had loads of people over at the house to meet the "irish guys" during the 2 weeks and the clown i was with tired himself out telling everyone "no we're not the irish guys, we're not irish, we're nothern irish" everyone was like "yeah, ok" We even played a game and this fella kicked someone and the USA kid was sayin "you irish b**tard" and the boy said "i'm not irish i'm northern irish"!!!! He'd a permanant confused frown on his face, it was a laugh. They also welcomed us with a tricolour on the wall in our bedroom--the wee man near had a breakdown! HE'd never been outta east belfast and probably didnt even know that if you keep driving you'll get to dublin (to be fair he probably had never heard of lisburn, never mind longford etc)

If ever I run out of reasons for wanting NI to remain in the UK, I can always refer back to this ignorant, insulting and frankly bigoted rant.

Thank You.  ::)

Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on May 02, 2011, 10:44:49 PM
:D :D

Holy Feck! Why oh Why does this have to come down to a base sum? The odds of Larne, Carrick, Lisburn, East Belfast etc etc accepting a crude sum is NIL! We will have partition re-drawn to ensure that Unionism survives .. at the best / worst case we will have a 'Northern Ireland' the size of Jersey based in south-east Antrim and North Down - this is a nonsense to believe that the 32 is on the cards. That lesson was learnt in 1922.

Have you understood anything  from the figures and analysis which Lar Naparka has supplied in this thread?

Unionism does not need a re-drawing of Partition in order to survive.

After decades during which NI's very existence was threatened on a number of fronts, the only threat to our place in the Union now lies in a majority vote for a UI by the NI electorate.

And there is no sign anywhere of that beiong realised, either imminently, or in the foreseeable future.

Of course, I appreciate that that must be an uncomfortable truth for Republicans to accept, but concocting unrealistic theories such as yours (above) will not help you.

I'd advise you just get used to it... ;)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 03, 2011, 11:05:22 AM

Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on May 02, 2011, 10:44:49 PM
:D :D
Holy Feck! Why oh Why does this have to come down to a base sum? The odds of Larne, Carrick, Lisburn, East Belfast etc etc accepting a crude sum is NIL! We will have partition re-drawn to ensure that Unionism survives .. at the best / worst case we will have a 'Northern Ireland' the size of Jersey based in south-east Antrim and North Down - this is a nonsense to believe that the 32 is on the cards. That lesson was learnt in 1922.

the point being missed by most is that a reunification will be pushed not by the Irish, but by the british.
the biggest supporters of a reunification wil lbe Irish republicans and their previous enemies - the British gov - who want to get rid of the millstone of the north from their hands.
The population swing will happen. However, will the brit gov engage in their infamous 'dirty tricks' to manipulate things again?
ie taking jobs back to blighty, God knows what else they can and would do - as they were liable to do anything in the past (including killing ) to maintain the status quo !
Anything they can think of to halp quicken the referendum - they will do it.
I am sure the 'lost voters' the apathetic nationalists and those that have moved south, will head back up the road again for such a referendum.
then it will be up to the southern voters and the Irish Gov to see what changes they can and will make to integrate and thus appease those looking to maintain their same benefits/health system etc.

So to summarise: You can't rely on Republicanism (by ballot or bullet) to deliver a UI. Nor can you rely on the Unionists to concede or acquiesce. And you certainly can't depend on those treacherous b a s t ards in the Free State to "help you over the line", either.

Therefore your "cunning plan" for a United Ireland essentially boils down to waiting for the Brits  to deliver. And not only that, but they will also provide a nice wee dowry, to sweeten the deal.

Tell me, Lynchbhoy, have you ever thought of writing a letter to Santa?  :D

Quote from: HiMucker on May 03, 2011, 11:50:08 AMCome on EG, i enjoy your posts to get a balanced rounded view from the 'other side' but are you seriously saying discrimination by the establishment against nationalists was over after 1980!

No.

My point was that any Nationalist born in 1980 is not likely to be politically aware until the mid 90's, and ineilgible to vote before 1998, by which time institutional discrimination had been all but eradicated, and "informal" discrimination was greatly reduced.

Which for me partly* explains why, even with the "Catholic" demographics outstripping their "Prod" equivalents during the 1980's and 90's, we have not seen a corresponding outstripping of the Unionist share of the vote by Nationalism during the 2000's (i.e. when those RC's were entitled to vote).


* - There are other reasons too, of course, imo primarily economic.

Quote from: balladmaker on May 03, 2011, 12:16:43 PM
When Scotland pull the plug and go for full independence, how secure with NI be within the Union, especially when most NI Unionists are of Scottish extraction in the first place.

Interesting couple of decades ahead for those around to see it.

There is no more sign of a majority in Scotland opting for independence than there is for a majority in NI opting for a UI.

In fact, all the evidence of successive elections proves that there is even less appetite for Independence in Scotland, than for Unity in NI.

P.S. Can somebody explain to me why Republicans appear so insistent about their right to vote etc, at the same time as being so capable of ignoring the results whenever a vote actually does take place?  ???

Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2011, 12:50:34 PM
50% of Scotland's economy is public sector so I can't see them going for full independence any time soon unless the English boot them out.
Mind you at some stage the English will get fed up subsidising the rest of Great Britain plus the North and may pull the plug on the "United Kingdom" and set up their own independent State. : ;)

Good point. If the school of thought that the English (the overwhelming constituent nationality of the UK) want rid of the North is correct, what's to stop THEM seceding from the Union, especially under a Conservative government, who would doubtless be happy getting rid of the troublesome, non-Tory-voting Scots in the process, now that the oil is about to stop flowing? (What about the Welsh? Well, exactly.)

The first thing we need to do in the UI is to educate themuns.

Please, no more 90's and 80's. That's a horrible use of the apostrophe.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 04:33:43 PM

Quote from: HiMucker on May 03, 2011, 11:50:08 AMCome on EG, i enjoy your posts to get a balanced rounded view from the 'other side' but are you seriously saying discrimination by the establishment against nationalists was over after 1980!

No.

My point was that any Nationalist born in 1980 is not likely to be politically aware until the mid 90's, and ineilgible to vote before 1998, by which time institutional discrimination had been all but eradicated, and "informal" discrimination was greatly reduced.

Which for me partly* explains why, even with the "Catholic" demographics outstripping their "Prod" equivalents during the 1980's and 90's, we have not seen a corresponding outstripping of the Unionist share of the vote by Nationalism during the 2000's (i.e. when those RC's were entitled to vote).


* - There are other reasons too, of course, imo primarily economic.

I will accept that.  Now i will go back to playing my PS3 on my 42 inch TV in my british opressed living room  :D

Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2011, 12:50:34 PM
50% of Scotland's economy is public sector so I can't see them going for full independence any time soon unless the English boot them out.

Indeed. And that of Wales is even greater (approaching NI levels, as it happens).

Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2011, 12:50:34 PMMind you at some stage the English will get fed up subsidising the rest of Great Britain plus the North and may pull the plug on the "United Kingdom" and set up their own independent State. : ;)

The "English" have been pretty much subsidising the rest of the UK ever since its (UK) foundation in 1707.

Yet there is no sign, then or now, of any significant English Nationalist movement. On the contrary, when given the opportunity eg for regional councils in England, the English voted decisively to reject these.

To be quite honest, the only significant sign of discontent at economic imbalance comes from London and the South East, who grumble more about having to subsidise 25 million (unproductive) English people in the Midlands and North than they do about 10 million (unproductive) Scots/Welsh/NI.

But even then these complaints amount to nothing very much.

No, if you wish to provoke Nationalistic indignation in England about money down the drain etc, you only have to murmur the word "Europe", for the sparks to fly!

Quote from: Hardy on May 03, 2011, 04:47:13 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2011, 12:50:34 PM
50% of Scotland's economy is public sector so I can't see them going for full independence any time soon unless the English boot them out.
Mind you at some stage the English will get fed up subsidising the rest of Great Britain plus the North and may pull the plug on the "United Kingdom" and set up their own independent State. : ;)

Good point. If the school of thought that the English (the overwhelming constituent nationality of the UK) want rid of the North is correct, what's to stop THEM seceding from the Union, especially under a Conservative government, who would doubtless be happy getting rid of the troublesome, non-Tory-voting Scots in the process, now that the oil is about to stop flowing? (What about the Welsh? Well, exactly.)

Except that since the bombs stopped going off in London and squaddies stopped dying in Londonderry etc, NI has ceased to play any significant part in English thinking.

That is, I guess that if you asked the average English person about NI, they would mumble something about "giving it back etc", but if you then pointed out that that would be contrary to the GFA etc, then they would be likely to reply "Oh, well, I suppose that that's that, then" (or somesuch).

In other words, NI barely figures on the political radar much more highly than eg Shetland, Gibraltar or the Falklands. Or Wales  :D

And as regards the English political establishment  (as opposed to the English electorate), the notion of divesting the UK of NI would be completely contrary in principle to their desire to keep Scotland and Wales within the UK (as well as illegal).

Besides, most of the English political establishment is Scottish, anyway!

Is that flag not redundant?

Northern where? How come Robinson cant bring himself to say IRELAND and says ALLEN/ALIN instead?

I wonder does he call Scotland, Scotlin or Iceland, Icelin

It's happening already. David Jeffrey, the Linfield supremo, said last week that Linfield was one of the best run clubs on the Island of Ireland. The drip drip is working.

England has been content to subsidise the rest of the UK as long as military uniforms continued to be filled  down through the years & strategic defence positions/locations were occupied by friends and not foes.

Just watching Tom Elliot on TV now. With the Union in the hands of men of his calibre there has to be hope for the future.  :D

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 04:53:57 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2011, 12:50:34 PM
50% of Scotland's economy is public sector so I can't see them going for full independence any time soon unless the English boot them out.

Indeed. And that of Wales is even greater (approaching NI levels, as it happens).

Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2011, 12:50:34 PMMind you at some stage the English will get fed up subsidising the rest of Great Britain plus the North and may pull the plug on the "United Kingdom" and set up their own independent State. : ;)

The "English" have been pretty much subsidising the rest of the UK ever since its (UK) foundation in 1707.

Yet there is no sign, then or now, of any significant English Nationalist movement. On the contrary, when given the opportunity eg for regional councils in England, the English voted decisively to reject these.

To be quite honest, the only significant sign of discontent at economic imbalance comes from London and the South East, who grumble more about having to subsidise 25 million (unproductive) English people in the Midlands and North than they do about 10 million (unproductive) Scots/Welsh/NI.

But even then these complaints amount to nothing very much.

No, if you wish to provoke Nationalistic indignation in England about money down the drain etc, you only have to murmur the word "Europe", for the sparks to fly!

He was taking a cut at you there ziggy99 :D

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 04:24:36 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 03, 2011, 11:05:22 AM

Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on May 02, 2011, 10:44:49 PM
:D :D
Holy Feck! Why oh Why does this have to come down to a base sum? The odds of Larne, Carrick, Lisburn, East Belfast etc etc accepting a crude sum is NIL! We will have partition re-drawn to ensure that Unionism survives .. at the best / worst case we will have a 'Northern Ireland' the size of Jersey based in south-east Antrim and North Down - this is a nonsense to believe that the 32 is on the cards. That lesson was learnt in 1922.

the point being missed by most is that a reunification will be pushed not by the Irish, but by the british.
the biggest supporters of a reunification wil lbe Irish republicans and their previous enemies - the British gov - who want to get rid of the millstone of the north from their hands.
The population swing will happen. However, will the brit gov engage in their infamous 'dirty tricks' to manipulate things again?
ie taking jobs back to blighty, God knows what else they can and would do - as they were liable to do anything in the past (including killing ) to maintain the status quo !
Anything they can think of to halp quicken the referendum - they will do it.
I am sure the 'lost voters' the apathetic nationalists and those that have moved south, will head back up the road again for such a referendum.
then it will be up to the southern voters and the Irish Gov to see what changes they can and will make to integrate and thus appease those looking to maintain their same benefits/health system etc.

So to summarise: You can't rely on Republicanism (by ballot or bullet) to deliver a UI. Nor can you rely on the Unionists to concede or acquiesce. And you certainly can't depend on those treacherous b a s t ards in the Free State to "help you over the line", either.

Therefore your "cunning plan" for a United Ireland essentially boils down to waiting for the Brits  to deliver. And not only that, but they will also provide a nice wee dowry, to sweeten the deal.

Tell me, Lynchbhoy, have you ever thought of writing a letter to Santa?  :D

the brits are and will be the main agitator for this.
the republicans/nationalists/Irish will get this when the majority swings and the southern gov kicks in with budgetary changes - on the back of a huge pile of cash from british gov for jettisoning the north (payable over a number of years).

you can try to stick your head in the sand all you like, you know what I have written is no lie.

its your own problem that you just want to deny that there will be reunification.
same type of unionist mentality that wanted to deny nationalists votes,civil rights etc
the never never never mentality never ;) changes.
However your old muckers the brits will switch sides and sell you down the river in the not too distant future !  :D

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 05:05:02 PM

Quote from: Hardy on May 03, 2011, 04:47:13 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2011, 12:50:34 PM
50% of Scotland's economy is public sector so I can't see them going for full independence any time soon unless the English boot them out.
Mind you at some stage the English will get fed up subsidising the rest of Great Britain plus the North and may pull the plug on the "United Kingdom" and set up their own independent State. : ;)

Good point. If the school of thought that the English (the overwhelming constituent nationality of the UK) want rid of the North is correct, what's to stop THEM seceding from the Union, especially under a Conservative government, who would doubtless be happy getting rid of the troublesome, non-Tory-voting Scots in the process, now that the oil is about to stop flowing? (What about the Welsh? Well, exactly.)

Except that since the bombs stopped going off in London and squaddies stopped dying in Londonderry etc, NI has ceased to play any significant part in English thinking.

That is, I guess that if you asked the average English person about NI, they would mumble something about "giving it back etc", but if you then pointed out that that would be contrary to the GFA etc, then they would be likely to reply "Oh, well, I suppose that that's that, then" (or somesuch).

In other words, NI barely figures on the political radar much more highly than eg Shetland, Gibraltar or the Falklands. Or Wales  :D

And as regards the English political establishment  (as opposed to the English electorate), the notion of divesting the UK of NI would be completely contrary in principle to their desire to keep Scotland and Wales within the UK (as well as illegal).

Besides, most of the English political establishment is Scottish, anyway!

are you deliberately missing the point- the English need cash as much as everyone sles. Paying huge sums to subsidise the north and even worse to subsidise the military presence etc in the north is costing them a fortune - they all know about this and all want to get rid of this money pit !

Quote from: Gold on May 03, 2011, 10:32:13 PMIs that flag not redundant?

No.

Quote from: Gold on May 03, 2011, 10:32:13 PMNorthern where?

Northern Ireland.

Quote from: Gold on May 03, 2011, 10:32:13 PMHow come Robinson cant bring himself to say IRELAND and says ALLEN/ALIN instead?

No idea.

Quote from: Gold on May 03, 2011, 10:32:13 PMI wonder does he call Scotland, Scotlin or Iceland, Icelin

Why don't you ask him?

P.S. After winning the prize for the "Most Bigoted Post on this Thread" (#19), are you now aiming for the "Most Brainless and Irrelevant Post on this Thread"? Because if you are, I warn you, you face pretty stiff competition...

Quote from: ONeill on May 03, 2011, 10:41:57 PMIt's happening already. David Jeffrey, the Linfield supremo, said last week that Linfield was one of the best run clubs on the Island of Ireland. The drip drip is working.

And you would heed the opinion of this p r ick?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUzKkm1j9DY

Quote from: bennydorano on May 03, 2011, 11:00:18 PM
England has been content to subsidise the rest of the UK as long as military uniforms continued to be filled  down through the years & strategic defence positions/locations were occupied by friends and not foes.

Whatever the reasons behind it, the Union has now existed for over 300 years.

How many other countries may say that?

Quote from: armaghniac on May 03, 2011, 11:45:35 PM
Just watching Tom Elliot on TV now. With the Union in the hands of men of his calibre there has to be hope for the future.  :D

Have you learned nothing  from this thread?

The Union is in the hands of the electorate of NI.

Whether Tom Elliott is returned to Stormont or not makes no difference to that fact.

Still, I suppose I should be grateful that you have changed your tack from citing entirely specious statistics about birth rates and school rolls etc...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMthe brits are and will be the main agitator for this.

"So let me repeat the pledge I made to you in Belfast a year and a half ago. I will never be neutral on our Union. We passionately believe that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are stronger together, weaker apart"  - David Cameron* speaking in Northern Ireland, May 4th, 2010.

* - He's the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in case it had slipped by you...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PM
the republicans/nationalists/Irish will get this when the majority swings

"... when the majority swings" Why not go down to your local kiddies' play park? You'll find plenty of swings there. And if you engage them in conversation, you should learn something, too...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PM... and the southern gov kicks in with budgetary changes

Er, don't you mean the German  Government?  :o

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PM
... on the back of a huge pile of cash from british gov for jettisoning the north (payable over a number of years).

"A huge pile of cash"?
Let me get this straight. The (perfidious) Brits resent paying for NI when it is part of the UK, but will happily pay out bundles when it isn't.
Aye, that figures.  ::)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMyou can try to stick your head in the sand all you like, you know what I have written is no lie.

I wouldn't say it's a "lie", because you have repeated it so often that I accept that you genuinely believe it.
Therefore it is a delusion.
You really shouldn't have stopped taking your medication.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMits your own problem that you just want to deny that there will be reunification.

I do not claim that there will never  be "reunification" [sic].
Rather, I believe that there is no realistic prospect of a single Irish state in the foreseeable future.
Beyond that, I cannot tell, because it is, er, unforeseeable...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMsame type of unionist mentality that wanted to deny nationalists votes,civil rights etc

I have never denied any Nationalist anything. How old do you think I am?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMthe never never never mentality never ;) changes.

With your deluded fantasies about Brits waving wads of cash for Irish Republicans etc, you are the one who is living in "Neverland":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-530257/Tumbledown-abandoned-The-ruins-Michael-Jacksons-Neverland.html

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMHowever your old muckers the brits will switch sides and sell you down the river in the not too distant future !  :D

I'll take my chances with this, thank you very much:
1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:
(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland; - Good Friday Agreement ( http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf )

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 01:10:25 PM

Quote from: bennydorano on May 03, 2011, 11:00:18 PM
England has been content to subsidise the rest of the UK as long as military uniforms continued to be filled  down through the years & strategic defence positions/locations were occupied by friends and not foes.

Whatever the reasons behind it, the Union has now existed for over 300 years.

How many other countries may say that?

The current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is no older than the Irish Republic, which is the Irish Free State with constitutional changes. The country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the one whose official name is Ireland or Éire are the same age. In fact they are more or less twins, born at the same time. The 1801 Union failed. My passport proves that  ;D

Your Union is the 1922 Union  8)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:56:05 PMare you deliberately missing the point- the English need cash as much as everyone sles. Paying huge sums to subsidise the north...

The "English" [sic] are not paying "huge sums" to subsidise "the north" [sic].
NI accounts for barely 3% of the UK population. Even if the Exchequer were paying twice what it pays for people in GB (it doesn't) and NI were paying nothing itself (it does), the difference would still only amount to 3% of the total budget.
This is approximately what the UK pays eg in Overseas Aid, far less than it pays eg to the EU and a drop in the ocean compared to what it pays eg for Social Security.
And even then, they will be cutting the NI budget over the next few years. 

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:56:05 PM... and even worse to subsidise the military presence etc in the north is costing them a fortune - they all know about this and all want to get rid of this money pit !

Are you for real?
Since the end of Operation Banner in 2007, here are the "cash outturn" figures for British military spending in NI. We may assume that this significant reduction reflects total MOD spending in NI - and that's before we factor in the return from selling off redundant Military Bases etc:
2006/7 - £389m
2007/8 -  £232m
2008/9 - £131m
2009/10 - £114m
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-06-09a.49.0

Meanwhile, the removal of British troops from the streets and fields of NI leaves them available to be redeployed elsewhere, as here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXJqVXcpSWc
This is widely appreciated throughout the Kingdom:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-13248078

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 02:20:16 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 01:10:25 PM

Quote from: bennydorano on May 03, 2011, 11:00:18 PM
England has been content to subsidise the rest of the UK as long as military uniforms continued to be filled  down through the years & strategic defence positions/locations were occupied by friends and not foes.

Whatever the reasons behind it, the Union has now existed for over 300 years.

How many other countries may say that?

The current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is no older than the Irish Republic, which is the Irish Free State with constitutional changes. The country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the one whose official name is Ireland or Éire are the same age. In fact they are more or less twins, born at the same time. The 1801 Union failed. My passport proves that  ;D

Your Union is the 1922 Union  8)

No, "my" Union dates back unbroken to 1801. The fact that another part  of the Union opted to break away 120 years later does not alter that.

As for your Passport, how long before it expires? Maybe you might be advised to renew it early, since I'm sure you won't be wanting the new version which you'll be getting before long, mein Herr:

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40970000/jpg/_40970040_body300pprt.jpg)

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 02:54:33 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 02:20:16 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 01:10:25 PM

Quote from: bennydorano on May 03, 2011, 11:00:18 PM
England has been content to subsidise the rest of the UK as long as military uniforms continued to be filled  down through the years & strategic defence positions/locations were occupied by friends and not foes.

Whatever the reasons behind it, the Union has now existed for over 300 years.

How many other countries may say that?

The current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is no older than the Irish Republic, which is the Irish Free State with constitutional changes. The country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the one whose official name is Ireland or Éire are the same age. In fact they are more or less twins, born at the same time. The 1801 Union failed. My passport proves that  ;D

Your Union is the 1922 Union  8)

No, "my" Union dates back unbroken to 1801. The fact that another part  of the Union opted to break away 120 years later does not alter that.

As for your Passport, how long before it expires? Maybe you might be advised to renew it early, since I'm sure you won't be wanting the new version which you'll be getting before long, mein Herr:

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40970000/jpg/_40970040_body300pprt.jpg)

No it does not, both regions of Ireland left the Union, even the North for a very short period.

I'd rather have a German passport than one of these

(http://www.tarrantcounty.com/edistrictclerk/lib/edistrictclerk/passport1.jpg)

The U.K. = The U.S.A. lapdog. The British Armed forces are little more than a Mercenary servant of the United States of America's Empire.

(http://www.gpilondon.com/typo3temp/pics/cb6ec639dd.jpg)(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ate0141l.jpg)

Give me Berlin over Boston or Munich over Manhatten anyday. We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but sure the Kaiser is long dead.

1922 Union, FACT. After huge territorial losses to my country. In fact ye probably lost as much territory as the Germans after WW1, OUCH.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 02:17:28 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMthe brits are and will be the main agitator for this.

"So let me repeat the pledge I made to you in Belfast a year and a half ago. I will never be neutral on our Union. We passionately believe that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are stronger together, weaker apart"  - David Cameron* speaking in Northern Ireland, May 4th, 2010.

* - He's the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in case it had slipped by you...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PM
the republicans/nationalists/Irish will get this when the majority swings

"... when the majority swings" Why not go down to your local kiddies' play park? You'll find plenty of swings there. And if you engage them in conversation, you should learn something, too...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PM... and the southern gov kicks in with budgetary changes

Er, don't you mean the German  Government?  :o

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PM
... on the back of a huge pile of cash from british gov for jettisoning the north (payable over a number of years).

"A huge pile of cash"?
Let me get this straight. The (perfidious) Brits resent paying for NI when it is part of the UK, but will happily pay out bundles when it isn't.
Aye, that figures.  ::)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMyou can try to stick your head in the sand all you like, you know what I have written is no lie.

I wouldn't say it's a "lie", because you have repeated it so often that I accept that you genuinely believe it.
Therefore it is a delusion.
You really shouldn't have stopped taking your medication.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMits your own problem that you just want to deny that there will be reunification.

I do not claim that there will never  be "reunification" [sic].
Rather, I believe that there is no realistic prospect of a single Irish state in the foreseeable future.
Beyond that, I cannot tell, because it is, er, unforeseeable...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMsame type of unionist mentality that wanted to deny nationalists votes,civil rights etc

I have never denied any Nationalist anything. How old do you think I am?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMthe never never never mentality never ;) changes.

With your deluded fantasies about Brits waving wads of cash for Irish Republicans etc, you are the one who is living in "Neverland":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-530257/Tumbledown-abandoned-The-ruins-Michael-Jacksons-Neverland.html

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMHowever your old muckers the brits will switch sides and sell you down the river in the not too distant future !  :D

I'll take my chances with this, thank you very much:
1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:
(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland; - Good Friday Agreement ( http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf )

yawn
you can quote cameron all youlike on his PR stunt. Its well known that the suits in Gov and civil service want to jettison the money pit of the north as soon as possible.
Our Irish gov still run the show. the banks are the only thing holding us back down presently- exports and internal indsutry ar eup !
your little jibes may amuse you, but hardly of any use in your mission to show why there wont be a reunification - or are you going to flip-flop again !!

when countries leave an occupied jurastiction- eg germany, japan, hong kng etc - they have to pay for the upkeep for a number or years.
Thie payment will be less than their usual annual spend, but it is the sweetner that enables these 'transactions' to happen.
If you didnt know that, then you really dont know what happens in reality in this world - what we mostly knew for a good while now !!
:D

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 03:04:48 PM
No it does not, both regions of Ireland left the Union, even the North for a very short period.

Well that just have been a shock to my parents, both of whom were born before 1921 (just), but never noticed any difference.
In any case, they managed to survive somehow, before going on to consumate their greatest achievement... ;)

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 03:04:48 PM
I'd rather have a German passport than one of these

(http://www.tarrantcounty.com/edistrictclerk/lib/edistrictclerk/passport1.jpg)

German Passport, Irish Passport, what's the difference? Each is liable to see you whipped by the Brits when the time comes  ;)

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 03:04:48 PM
The U.K. = The U.S.A. lapdog. The British Armed forces are little more than a Mercenary servant of the United States of America's Empire.

(http://www.gpilondon.com/typo3temp/pics/cb6ec639dd.jpg)(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ate0141l.jpg)

Oi! Less of the Cheek - or we'll demand our £7 billion back:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/22/ireland-bailout-uk-lends-seven-billion

Btw, Osborne is part of the old Anglo-Irish aristocracy, known in Ireland as the Ascendancy. He is the heir to the Osborne baronetcy (of Ballentaylor, in County Tipperary, and Ballylemon, in County Waterford). And you thought you had got rid of the Landlords in 1921...  :D

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 03:04:48 PM
Give me Berlin over Boston or Munich over Manhatten anyday. We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but sure the Kaiser is long dead.

Where's your Irish Spirit, eh?
"Geographically we are closer to Berlin than Boston. Spiritually we are probably a lot closer to Boston than Berlin.
http://www.deti.ie/press/2000/210700.htm

Anyhow, the Kaiser's Dead, as you say, whilst the Queen Lives On - as you'll get to see for yourself, soon enough:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13003898

Btw, I have some of this left over from the Royal Wedding that I can let you have... ;)
http://www.partydelights.co.uk/confirmitem.asp?ProductID=ENGLUJBAN

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 03:04:48 PM1922 Union, FACT. After huge territorial losses to my country. In fact ye probably lost as much territory as the Germans after WW1, OUCH.

You're in no position to be laughing about "loss of territory". Or have you forgotten about this?
'the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland' - The late, but unlamented, Article 2... ;)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 04:19:00 PMyou can quote cameron all youlike on his PR stunt.

I can quote Political Leaders. I can cite the Election Results, I can quote the Law, I can cite Historical Precedent and Economic Fact.
Meanwhile you can quote/cite precisely Nothing (bar the deluded ramblings of your own fevered imagination).
Are you really so thick-skinned that you don't realise when your arse is being kicked?  ::)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 04:19:00 PMIts well known that the suits in Gov and civil service want to jettison the money pit of the north as soon as possible.

Those would be the self-same "suits" whose last major action over NI was to draft, enact and sign into Law the GFA, which took NI's right to self-determination out of their ("suits") hands and placed it firmly in the hands of the NI electorate?
Waken up, man - you've had 13 years to get used to it!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 04:19:00 PM
Our Irish gov still run the show. the banks are the only thing holding us back down presently - exports and internal indsutry ar eup !

Nurse! Nurse! He's got out again...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 04:19:00 PMyour little jibes may amuse you, but hardly of any use in your mission to show why there wont be a reunification - or are you going to flip-flop again !!

No flip-flop from me. I have never denied the possibility of a UI at some stage in future, since I lack the Power of Prophecy.
All I have said is that in my considered opinion, there is no sign whatever of any such thing, either imminently, or in the foreseeable future. And I have quoted the electoral results to back up my thesis, electoral results which you have notably failed even to ackowledge, never mind address.
Which is quite enough for me.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 04:19:00 PMwhen countries leave an occupied jurastiction- eg germany, japan, hong kng etc - they have to pay for the upkeep for a number or years.
Thie payment will be less than their usual annual spend, but it is the sweetner that enables these 'transactions' to happen.
If you didnt know that, then you really dont know what happens in reality in this world - what we mostly knew for a good while now !!
:D

More drivel. To take your three examples, it was the Americans,  not the British, who pumped money into (West) Germany and Japan after WWII. And they only did so in order to prevent them going Communist - hardly a fate likely to befall any part of ireland anytime soon!
As for Hong Kong, the British didn't pay a single penny to the Chinese after they left; rather we repatriated everything of worth well in advance of the 1997 handover, most notably:
"HSBC Holdings plc established in 1990 became the parent company to The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation in preparation for its purchase of Midland Bank in the United Kingdom and restructuring of ownership domicile for the impending transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to China. HSBC Holdings acquisition of Midland Bank gave HSBC Group a substantial market presence in the United Kingdom which was completed in 1992. As part of the takeover conditions for the purchase of Midland Bank, HSBC Holdings plc was required to relocate its world headquarters from Hong Kong to London in 1993"

And as with HK, so it was with virtually all of our former colonies. For providing a "dowry" would have cost money which we preferred to spend within the UK, including NI.

But hey, none of that really counts (or even happened?), since you're Lynchbhoy and all it takes for something you want to happen, is for you to say it will...

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 04:31:26 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 03:04:48 PM
No it does not, both regions of Ireland left the Union, even the North for a very short period.

Well that just have been a shock to my parents, both of whom were born before 1921 (just), but never noticed any difference.
In any case, they managed to survive somehow, before going on to consumate their greatest achievement... ;)

Well the 6 counties did leave the Union for a few days. So it is the 1922 Union. No older than the 26 county state. The U.K. is among the 20'th century formed nations in Europe.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 03:04:48 PM
I'd rather have a German passport than one of these

(http://www.tarrantcounty.com/edistrictclerk/lib/edistrictclerk/passport1.jpg)

German Passport, Irish Passport, what's the difference? Each is liable to see you whipped by the Brits when the time comes  ;)

Remember Fontenoy  ;)

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 03:04:48 PM
The U.K. = The U.S.A. lapdog. The British Armed forces are little more than a Mercenary servant of the United States of America's Empire.

(http://www.gpilondon.com/typo3temp/pics/cb6ec639dd.jpg)(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ate0141l.jpg)

Oi! Less of the Cheek - or we'll demand our £7 billion back:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/22/ireland-bailout-uk-lends-seven-billion

Btw, Osborne is part of the old Anglo-Irish aristocracy, known in Ireland as the Ascendancy. He is the heir to the Osborne baronetcy (of Ballentaylor, in County Tipperary, and Ballylemon, in County Waterford). And you thought you had got rid of the Landlords in 1921...  :D

You know how the 1801 Union was secured (after the small matters of rape, murder, colonisation, torture, genocide, apartheid, and land grab) by filthy bribery. The only Germans that may have been involved were the ones on Perfidious Albion's throne.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 03:04:48 PM
Give me Berlin over Boston or Munich over Manhatten anyday. We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but sure the Kaiser is long dead.

Where's your Irish Spirit, eh?
"Geographically we are closer to Berlin than Boston. Spiritually we are probably a lot closer to Boston than Berlin.
http://www.deti.ie/press/2000/210700.htm


I'm not a Europhobe, I'll leave that to the Brits who build Unions at the barrell of a gun & the sharp end of a blade.

Fat Harney, as credible as Tony Blair talking about Iraq.

Anyhow, the Kaiser's Dead, as you say, whilst the Queen Lives On - as you'll get to see for yourself, soon enough:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13003898

If the Indifference I witnessed in England is anything to go by, she may be the last  ;) The people of Liverpool give me impression that the people of the European offshore island of Britian may soon ready to join the 21'st century and abandon their Feudal Kingdom.

Btw, I have some of this left over from the Royal Wedding that I can let you have... ;)
http://www.partydelights.co.uk/confirmitem.asp?ProductID=ENGLUJBAN

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 03:04:48 PM1922 Union, FACT. After huge territorial losses to my country. In fact ye probably lost as much territory as the Germans after WW1, OUCH.

You're in no position to be laughing about "loss of territory". Or have you forgotten about this?
'the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland' - The late, but unlamented, Article 2... ;)

Hey I don't think Irish troops ever had to get on boats out of UK territory with their tails between their legs on other hand the Brits have been doing it for nearly 100 years now.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 05:20:08 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 04:19:00 PMyou can quote cameron all youlike on his PR stunt.

I can quote Political Leaders. I can cite the Election Results, I can quote the Law, I can cite Historical Precedent and Economic Fact.
Meanwhile you can quote/cite precisely Nothing (bar the deluded ramblings of your own fevered imagination).
Are you really so thick-skinned that you don't realise when your arse is being kicked?  ::)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 04:19:00 PMIts well known that the suits in Gov and civil service want to jettison the money pit of the north as soon as possible.

Those would be the self-same "suits" whose last major action over NI was to draft, enact and sign into Law the GFA, which took NI's right to self-determination out of their ("suits") hands and placed it firmly in the hands of the NI electorate?
Waken up, man - you've had 13 years to get used to it!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 04:19:00 PM
Our Irish gov still run the show. the banks are the only thing holding us back down presently - exports and internal indsutry ar eup !

Nurse! Nurse! He's got out again...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 04:19:00 PMyour little jibes may amuse you, but hardly of any use in your mission to show why there wont be a reunification - or are you going to flip-flop again !!

No flip-flop from me. I have never denied the possibility of a UI at some stage in future, since I lack the Power of Prophecy.
All I have said is that in my considered opinion, there is no sign whatever of any such thing, either imminently, or in the foreseeable future. And I have quoted the electoral results to back up my thesis, electoral results which you have notably failed even to ackowledge, never mind address.
Which is quite enough for me.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 04:19:00 PMwhen countries leave an occupied jurastiction- eg germany, japan, hong kng etc - they have to pay for the upkeep for a number or years.
Thie payment will be less than their usual annual spend, but it is the sweetner that enables these 'transactions' to happen.
If you didnt know that, then you really dont know what happens in reality in this world - what we mostly knew for a good while now !!
:D

More drivel. To take your three examples, it was the Americans,  not the British, who pumped money into (West) Germany and Japan after WWII. And they only did so in order to prevent them going Communist - hardly a fate likely to befall any part of ireland anytime soon!
As for Hong Kong, the British didn't pay a single penny to the Chinese after they left; rather we repatriated everything of worth well in advance of the 1997 handover, most notably:
"HSBC Holdings plc established in 1990 became the parent company to The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation in preparation for its purchase of Midland Bank in the United Kingdom and restructuring of ownership domicile for the impending transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to China. HSBC Holdings acquisition of Midland Bank gave HSBC Group a substantial market presence in the United Kingdom which was completed in 1992. As part of the takeover conditions for the purchase of Midland Bank, HSBC Holdings plc was required to relocate its world headquarters from Hong Kong to London in 1993"

And as with HK, so it was with virtually all of our former colonies. For providing a "dowry" would have cost money which we preferred to spend within the UK, including NI.

But hey, none of that really counts (or even happened?), since you're Lynchbhoy and all it takes for something you want to happen, is for you to say it will...

ok I am incorrect about hong kong then.
However the resourses left behind more than made up for this !!

as for your other stuff- yes you are flip flopping
read back on yer own posts !

the notion of reunification obv drives you so mad you stick yer head back into the sand all over again !

I'm interested in why you ar calling for a nurse - incontinence time again perhaps?

sad to see someone like yourself so blinkered by hatred !

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 04:06:04 PM

Quote from: Gold on May 02, 2011, 09:11:55 PM


Why do unionists want to be part of the UK??  I never understand it.

It appears to me they have no real culture--other than wading in from another land--being given land and then pretending the world ends at an invisible border. Therefore this part of the island is rendered almost identity-less--it must leave unionists feeling weird, like they are just camping out in a place that isnt really theirs. I mean all the towns names --like Belfast--an anglasised version of "mouth of the river Farset" --Derry --Doire --meaning "oak grove." It must leave you feeling like your 'holding what you have' for dear life --wee corners of Belfast and other towns--simply custodians for now, not forever.

Sure nearly all middle class protestants go to university in England and Scotland--many never return--they feel more at home over there--surely this trend will affect voting patterns negatively for unionists. Sure they'll still have the "yeeeeeeooooooooo" brigade who'll always vote for anyone holding a union jack but it's bound to affect things.

I mind years ago i went to USA for a soccer trip and me and this fella from east belfast were staying in a family home of the host team--they had loads of people over at the house to meet the "irish guys" during the 2 weeks and the clown i was with tired himself out telling everyone "no we're not the irish guys, we're not irish, we're nothern irish" everyone was like "yeah, ok" We even played a game and this fella kicked someone and the USA kid was sayin "you irish b**tard" and the boy said "i'm not irish i'm northern irish"!!!! He'd a permanant confused frown on his face, it was a laugh. They also welcomed us with a tricolour on the wall in our bedroom--the wee man near had a breakdown! HE'd never been outta east belfast and probably didnt even know that if you keep driving you'll get to dublin (to be fair he probably had never heard of lisburn, never mind longford etc)

If ever I run out of reasons for wanting NI to remain in the UK, I can always refer back to this ignorant, insulting and frankly bigoted rant.

Thank You.  ::)

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 04:31:26 PM
Oi! Less of the Cheek - or we'll demand our £7 billion back:

(http://s.myniceprofile.com/myspacepic/478/47831.gif)

From what I've seen of the stats, the catholic population has been breeding like rabbits but that growth is levelling off.  Since the unionist discrimination machine was dismantled, catholics have become better off and as people become more affluent they have fewer children.  So if we just assume that all taigs will vote nationalist and all prods will vote unionists, we're looking at a continuation of the status quo for some time to come.

Evil Genius has plenty to say on this subject (more so than on GAA matters, which makes me wonder what exactly he's doing here) and he makes some points above which I agree with and some that I disagree with.

Some of his points that I disagree with:

1 - English nationalism is weak as evidenced by rejection of regional assemblies.  Bunkum.  Regional assemblies have nothing to do with English nationalism, they were an internal matter for England.  The English (it's OK to use that label without the sneering quotation marks and without the 'sic,' because a man from England is English) rejected them as an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy.  However, there is plenty of resentment in England about the fact that Scottish MPs get to vote on matters that affect England and Wales only but English MPs cannot vote on matters that affect Scotland only since most of that power was devolved.  Support for an independent English parliament has been quoted as being as high as 60%.  And if you're the kind of person who is obsessed with flags, you might be interested to note the soccer-inspired popularity of the flag of St George which has surged in the last 20 odd years.

2 - Alliance is a unionist party because it "accepts the status quote."  Well SF and the SDLP have also accepted the status quo.  Anyone who signed up to the Good Friday Agreement (or the "Belfast Agreement" as the [Edited Mod3] prefer to describe it) accepts the status quo. Accepting the status quo is the basis for working the institutions of government that were agreed, but it does not a unionist make.

3 - SF had a "paltry showing" at the last southern general election. If trebling your number of seats is a "paltry showing" then I'd hate to see your idea of a success.

4 - Nationalism in Britain is weak. Since 1935, the SNP has gone from zero to a third of the vote in Scotland. Since 1929 Plaid Cymru has grown from zero to a fifth of the vote in Wales. Nationalism is a long term project and its strength or weakness cannot be measured by one set of election results alone.  You have to plot the strength of the vote over time and see if it's going up or down in the long term. It's going up.

Other people have suggested repartition.  Ain't gonna happen, nor should it.  It's not written anywhere in the Good Friday Agreement that the place can be carved up a second time just because one tribe with delusions of grandeur can't take a beating in a free and fair vote.  As soon as 50%+1 vote for a UI in the north and the same happens in the south, then a united Ireland it will be. End of.

Here's the problem though, and on this I agree with Evil Genius.  Nationalism is its own worst enemy.

You see, with a very small number of exceptions, someone who makes it as far as his 20s with unionist beliefs is not going to change them.  Same for a nationalist.  However it is possible for deeply held beliefs to change from one generation to the next.  Witness the collapse of the power of the catholic church.  Children of devout catholics are at least abandoning collective worship via the middle man, and at most others are abandoning religious faith altogether.  I remember when the word 'atheist' was almost a term of abuse, but it's not anymore. 

So the best hope that nationalism has of winning over people from the other side is to convince the children of today's unionists that unionism is politically incorrect as a cultural idea.  But that is never going to happen as long as the current education system remains, dare I say it, partitioned.  As long as the state carries on funding the catholic system, the state system is going to be dominated by protestants and it's going to remain a system in which unionist ideas are not challenged and hence survive into adulthood by which time they are set in stone. Now special interests, usually religious ones, like to deny this and claim that the segregated education system is not the "only" cause of division, but it's a disingenuous denial since it is a very significant contributor to division.

So it's in nationalism's own interest to de-segregate the education system, and yet the two nationalist parties are not interested in doing so.  They claim to support the integrated sector and claim their non-sectarian brownie points that way, but only a severe overhaul of the state and catholic sectors is going to move the needle on the gauge of sectarian division.  Peter Robinson, a man with whom I've often disagreed, raised the matter last year by suggesting that the catholic sector should not get such generous support from the state.  The two nationalist parties closed ranks and called him a bigot for daring to challenge the segregated system. So nationalism is keen to keep closed the one channel that it needs to open in order to let its ideas flow into the minds of the next generation of voters.

As for the message that nationalism needs to be getting out there, what is it? I think it needs to be a vision of a united Ireland that we can sell to northern protestants in terms that will benefit them and which they would be comfortable with.  What kind of structures of government can we expect?  What constitutional protections can we put in place? 

Could we live with Stormont in its present form, with all its checks and balances to prevent one-sided domination, as a regional assembly within a united Ireland? I wouldn't have a problem with it. 

For national parliament elections do we use the STV voting system currently in use in the 26 counties? It would put northern protestants in a strong position, they'd have a lot more representation in an actual national parliament than they've ever had at Westminster. 

How about moving the capital from Dublin to Belfast?  Or at least there should be a decent looking parliament building. Leinster House looks fine as a mansion, but its bland look and ugly car park and security ramps in front are very unbecoming for a national parliament. The Custom House is a far more impressive building. Even Stormont looks more imposing.

How about commonwealth membership for our new 32-county republic?  If it makes northern protestants feel better and maintains some connection to their motherland then why not? It doesn't dilute the country's independence, there are plenty of republics in the commonwealth who maintain their own elected head of state. 

What about more practical matters, like the appearance on the street?  Do we paint all the post boxes green or do we let certain areas leave them in red?  Who gives a toss?  If some people want the post box on their street to stay red then leave it red. 

What about parades?  Can we get nationalist residents' groups to draw up a list of reasonable conditions under which they would accept orange parades in their areas? Could they come up with a list of what they actually find objectionable about such parades and offer to allow them to pass if the objectionable aspects were removed from orange culture?

Above all, Irish unity could be a chance for Ulster protestants to get back in touch with the so-called protestant work ethic about which we've heard so much and seen so little in the last few decades.  Right now there's an inherent culture of entitlement concerning handouts and subsidies from the English taxpayer.  Paper-pushing bureaucrats doing communist style non-jobs have come in, actual productive industries that add value and produce something have gone out. Cutting the ties to the British apron strings would force them to rediscover that old self-sufficient pioneering spirit and start earning their keep again.

This is a long term project, folks. Anyone who thinks there's any point in having a border poll in the next ten years is kidding themselves.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 02:17:28 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMthe brits are and will be the main agitator for this.

"So let me repeat the pledge I made to you in Belfast a year and a half ago. I will never be neutral on our Union. We passionately believe that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are stronger together, weaker apart"  - David Cameron* speaking in Northern Ireland, May 4th, 2010.

* - He's the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in case it had slipped by you...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PM
the republicans/nationalists/Irish will get this when the majority swings

"... when the majority swings" Why not go down to your local kiddies' play park? You'll find plenty of swings there. And if you engage them in conversation, you should learn something, too...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PM... and the southern gov kicks in with budgetary changes

Er, don't you mean the German  Government?  :o

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PM
... on the back of a huge pile of cash from british gov for jettisoning the north (payable over a number of years).

"A huge pile of cash"?
Let me get this straight. The (perfidious) Brits resent paying for NI when it is part of the UK, but will happily pay out bundles when it isn't.
Aye, that figures.  ::)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMyou can try to stick your head in the sand all you like, you know what I have written is no lie.

I wouldn't say it's a "lie", because you have repeated it so often that I accept that you genuinely believe it.
Therefore it is a delusion.
You really shouldn't have stopped taking your medication.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMits your own problem that you just want to deny that there will be reunification.

I do not claim that there will never  be "reunification" [sic].
Rather, I believe that there is no realistic prospect of a single Irish state in the foreseeable future.
Beyond that, I cannot tell, because it is, er, unforeseeable...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMsame type of unionist mentality that wanted to deny nationalists votes,civil rights etc

I have never denied any Nationalist anything. How old do you think I am?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMthe never never never mentality never ;) changes.

With your deluded fantasies about Brits waving wads of cash for Irish Republicans etc, you are the one who is living in "Neverland":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-530257/Tumbledown-abandoned-The-ruins-Michael-Jacksons-Neverland.html

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 04, 2011, 12:52:32 PMHowever your old muckers the brits will switch sides and sell you down the river in the not too distant future !  :D

I'll take my chances with this, thank you very much:
1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:
(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland; - Good Friday Agreement ( http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf )

(http://www.irishbridge.com/images/ireland_nasa.gif)

Enjoy your stay on the island!!

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 04, 2011, 06:05:18 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 04:31:26 PM
Oi! Less of the Cheek - or we'll demand our £7 billion back:

(http://s.myniceprofile.com/myspacepic/478/47831.gif)

To prop up British Banks. Here maybe ye should keep the money and take the hits and bail out your own banks, without the interest repayments of course.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 04, 2011, 08:43:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 04, 2011, 06:05:18 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 04:31:26 PM
Oi! Less of the Cheek - or we'll demand our £7 billion back:

(http://s.myniceprofile.com/myspacepic/478/47831.gif)

To prop up British Banks. Here maybe ye should keep the money and take the hits and bail out your own banks, without the interest repayments of course.

Not sure who you're talking to or what you're trying to say but I just love the way [Edited Mod3] refer to British exchequer funds as "our money" when in fact they are net beneficiaries from HMG and don't contribute anywhere near enough tax revenue to cover the services they use.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 04, 2011, 07:08:55 PM
What about more practical matters, like the appearance on the street?  Do we paint all the post boxes green or do we let certain areas leave them in red?  Who gives a toss? 

You'd be surprised.
http://ograshinnfein.blogspot.com/2008/10/green-post-boxes-continues-to-spread.html
Actually, you wouldn't.

Quote from: Maguire01 on May 04, 2011, 09:28:34 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 04, 2011, 07:08:55 PM
What about more practical matters, like the appearance on the street?  Do we paint all the post boxes green or do we let certain areas leave them in red?  Who gives a toss? 

You'd be surprised.
http://ograshinnfein.blogspot.com/2008/10/green-post-boxes-continues-to-spread.html
Actually, you wouldn't.

I certainly wouldn't.  It's a shame they have so much time on their hands, but on the other hand I suppose it's better to give them something to do other than rioting.

Quote from: Maguire01 on May 04, 2011, 09:28:34 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 04, 2011, 07:08:55 PM
What about more practical matters, like the appearance on the street?  Do we paint all the post boxes green or do we let certain areas leave them in red?  Who gives a toss? 

You'd be surprised.
http://ograshinnfein.blogspot.com/2008/10/green-post-boxes-continues-to-spread.html
Actually, you wouldn't.

This is Criminal Activity. Is this being carried out by the Youth Wing of Sinn Féin. Still strugging with the rule of law I see.

It will be interesting to see what is going to result from the Assembly elections.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 05, 2011, 06:26:45 AM
It will be interesting to see what is going to result from the Assembly elections.

I think we might see a low turn out.  It's been a very low profile campaign on the whole and it seems NI's first ever election on "bread and butter" issue (to paraphrase Robinson) has not caught the public imagination at least where I live.  Even Mrs AQMP who insists on exercising her franchise at every opportunity has said she's not going to bother this time.

Quote from: AQMP on May 05, 2011, 09:21:44 AM

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 05, 2011, 06:26:45 AM
It will be interesting to see what is going to result from the Assembly elections.

I think we might see a low turn out.   It's been a very low profile campaign on the whole and it seems NI's first ever election on "bread and butter" issue (to paraphrase Robinson) has not caught the public imagination at least where I live.  Even Mrs AQMP who insists on exercising her franchise at every opportunity has said she's not going to bother this time.

Turnout reported as 'steady' so far.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 04, 2011, 07:08:55 PM
From what I've seen of the stats, the catholic population has been breeding like rabbits but that growth is levelling off.  Since the unionist discrimination machine was dismantled, catholics have become better off and as people become more affluent they have fewer children.  So if we just assume that all taigs will vote nationalist and all prods will vote unionists, we're looking at a continuation of the status quo for some time to come.

Evil Genius has plenty to say on this subject (more so than on GAA matters, which makes me wonder what exactly he's doing here) and he makes some points above which I agree with and some that I disagree with.

Some of his points that I disagree with:

1 - English nationalism is weak as evidenced by rejection of regional assemblies.  Bunkum.  Regional assemblies have nothing to do with English nationalism, they were an internal matter for England.  The English (it's OK to use that label without the sneering quotation marks and without the 'sic,' because a man from England is English) rejected them as an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy.  However, there is plenty of resentment in England about the fact that Scottish MPs get to vote on matters that affect England and Wales only but English MPs cannot vote on matters that affect Scotland only since most of that power was devolved.  Support for an independent English parliament has been quoted as being as high as 60%.  And if you're the kind of person who is obsessed with flags, you might be interested to note the soccer-inspired popularity of the flag of St George which has surged in the last 20 odd years.

2 - Alliance is a unionist party because it "accepts the status quote."  Well SF and the SDLP have also accepted the status quo.  Anyone who signed up to the Good Friday Agreement (or the "Belfast Agreement" as the [Edited Mod3] prefer to describe it) accepts the status quo. Accepting the status quo is the basis for working the institutions of government that were agreed, but it does not a unionist make.

3 - SF had a "paltry showing" at the last southern general election. If trebling your number of seats is a "paltry showing" then I'd hate to see your idea of a success.

4 - Nationalism in Britain is weak. Since 1935, the SNP has gone from zero to a third of the vote in Scotland. Since 1929 Plaid Cymru has grown from zero to a fifth of the vote in Wales. Nationalism is a long term project and its strength or weakness cannot be measured by one set of election results alone.  You have to plot the strength of the vote over time and see if it's going up or down in the long term. It's going up.

Other people have suggested repartition.  Ain't gonna happen, nor should it.  It's not written anywhere in the Good Friday Agreement that the place can be carved up a second time just because one tribe with delusions of grandeur can't take a beating in a free and fair vote.  As soon as 50%+1 vote for a UI in the north and the same happens in the south, then a united Ireland it will be. End of.

Here's the problem though, and on this I agree with Evil Genius.  Nationalism is its own worst enemy.

You see, with a very small number of exceptions, someone who makes it as far as his 20s with unionist beliefs is not going to change them.  Same for a nationalist.  However it is possible for deeply held beliefs to change from one generation to the next.  Witness the collapse of the power of the catholic church.  Children of devout catholics are at least abandoning collective worship via the middle man, and at most others are abandoning religious faith altogether.  I remember when the word 'atheist' was almost a term of abuse, but it's not anymore. 

So the best hope that nationalism has of winning over people from the other side is to convince the children of today's unionists that unionism is politically incorrect as a cultural idea
etc
etc
etc
etc

On the subject of a UI, I have argued on this thread and others my belief that the Union is basically safe, since a small, but clear and consistent majority of voters in NI wants NI to remain in the UK. I have further argued that there is nothing on the horizon which is likely to change that in the foreseeable future (quite the opposite, imo).

Therefore on the basis that Unionism doesn't actually need  to do anything (i.e. it is for Nationalism to produce a "game-changer"), I could have left it there. Instead, however, out of respect for posters like Lar Naparka and MGHU etc, I continued to participate in what has been an interesting debate.

In which spirit, as I started reading the above post, I noted a lot of interesting stuff which merited a response. And then I got to the part which stated that Unionism is "politically incorrect as a cultural idea". Note the term "politically incorrect":  not that Unionism is eg doomed to failure, or badly presented, or unacceptable to many etc.
No, according to Nationalists like you, Unionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

And at that point, I stopped mentally composing my reply to your lengthy post. For that, in essence, is the real problem which Nationalism faces - namely too many adherents simply do not accord even the most basic respect to the views and wishes of a million of their fellow Irishmen and women.

At which point, I can only conclude that not only do we (Unionists) not actually need  to do anything to change our position, but this one, at least, no longer wants  to do anything. For if the whole point of engaging with your political opposites is to try to find some sort of common ground and understanding etc, how is that possible if your opponents do not accord you even the most basic respect necessary for such engagement, from the very outset?

For if Unionism is genuinely "politically incorrect", then the only logical outcome of any dialogue would be one whereby Unionism would no longer exist. And whatever else you and your fellow Nationalists should know, it is that after 400 years, Unionists are here and they're here to stay.

Beyond that, if as Nationalists you're hoping to get anywhere with us, as a first step, you would be advised to drop the casual, even instinctive bigotry as posted eg by "Gold" in post#19 (and, I note, endorsed by you in post #62).

Then and only then, will Unionists feel it worth our while to "engage with" or "reach out to" Nationalism (or whatever the latest trendy phrase for "talking to" might be)...

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 05, 2011, 05:44:02 PM

On the subject of a UI, I have argued on this thread and others my belief that the Union is basically safe, since a small, but clear and consistent majority of voters in NI wants NI to remain in the UK. I have further argued that there is nothing on the horizon which is likely to change that in the foreseeable future (quite the opposite, imo).

Therefore on the basis that Unionism doesn't actually need  to do anything (i.e. it is for Nationalism to produce a "game-changer"), I could have left it there. Instead, however, out of respect for posters like Lar Naparka and MGHU etc, I continued to participate in what has been an interesting debate.

In which spirit, as I started reading the above post, I noted a lot of interesting stuff which merited a response. And then. I got to the part which stated that Unionism is "politically incorrect as a cultural idea". Note the term "politically incorrect:  not that Unionism is eg doomed to failure, or badly presented, or unacceptable to many etc.
No, according to Nationalists like you, Unionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

And at that point, I stopped mentally composing my reply to your lengthy post. For that, in essence, is the real problem which Nationalism faces - namely too many adherents simply do not accord even the most basic respect to the views and wishes of a million of their fellow Irishmen and women.

At which point, I can only conclude that not only do we (Unionists) not actually need  to do anything to change our position, but this one, at least, no longer wants  to do anything. For if the whole point of engaging with your political opposites is to try to find some sort of common ground and understanding etc, how is that possible if your opponents do not accord you even the most basic respect necessary for such engagement, from the very outset?

For if Unionism is genuinely "politically incorrect", then the only logical outcome of any dialogue would be one whereby Unionism would no longer exist. And whatever else you and your fellow Nationalists should know, it is that after 400 years, Unionists are here and they're here to stay.

Beyond that, if as Nationalists you're hoping to get anywhere with us, as a first step, you would be advised to drop the casual, even instinctive bigotry as posted eg by "Gold" in post#19 (and, I note, endorsed by you in post #62).

Then and only then, will Unionists feel it worth our while to "engage with" or "reach out to" Nationalism (or whatever the latest trendy phrase for "talking to" might be)...

Translation: "Allow me to throw the dummy out of the pram and refuse to talk to you until you promise to be nice to me."

Again, the truth hurts.  It could be that you saw a lot in my post that you agreed with and were preparing to say something magnanimous, but then you found that little line and found your excuse to get out of saying something as radical as agreeing with a nationalist on something.

I make no apology for describing unionism as a politically incorrect idea.  I class it in the same category as slavery in America, subsequent segregation and Jim Crow laws in the American south, and apartheid in South Africa. The reason is because it is fundamentally undemocratic and seeks to ascribe special status to a minority as if they have a divine right to be a superior ruling class. 

Unionism has long been a minority in Ireland. You are a garrison people who tried and failed to outnumber the natives. You had everything your own way for centuries, you were installed as a "chosen people" who were superior to the native Irish who had to be kept down and prevented from participating in civic society. When the pressure for independence became too much to bear and your minority status started to threaten your privileged position, you secured a little homeland in the north in which you could be kept in a permanent majority and hence carry on acting out your little fantasy of being a superior ruling class.

Now you could have used your time after partition to show that you had an ounce of humanity and were willing to treat catholics as equals, but what did you do instead? It wasn't enough that you were calling most of the shots, you had to have more. What few catholics there were in the north to vote were prevented from doing so in huge numbers. Single protestants were given priority over catholic families in the allocation of public housing. It was legal to post job ads including the text "catholics need not apply." 

When your powers were taken away with the abolition of Stormont they were given to a menagerie of unelected quangos since elected councils (invariably controlled by unionists) could not be trusted to exercise power without discriminating against catholics. And what limited powers you were left with (running leisure centres, emptying bins) you still could do that right. Chaining swings up and closing parks on a Sunday because you wanted all the non-protestants to be forced to act like protestants and be bored sh|tless of a Sunday - this is the work of a hate-filled people who know that they can get away with discrimination.

And to this day you still have elements in your midst that want to keep rigging the democratic system to guarantee that unionists will always be in charge even when the ballot box says otherwise.

I have lived in Britain. I have a lot of respect for the British and their achievements throughout history. They pioneered democracy in a world where absolute monarchs still ruled by divine right. They developed industry and changed the world with their innovations in engineering, agriculture, and organisation of civic society. They led the world in their scientific achievements and inventiveness. They developed a globalised economy centuries before the word 'globalisation' was even heard of. And when they lost their empire they became a diverse nation which went through the growing pains of immigration and has now developed a culture which has a tolerance and respect for diversity and other peoples' cultures that northern protestants are years away from developing.

For all your claims to be "British," you are nothing like your British masters. They are open minded, forward thinking, and respectful of the rules of the system even when doing so doesn't always suit them. You are not.

You want me to respect unionism?  Unionism is an unacceptable ideology that does not deserve any respect for as long as it is based on sectarian supremacist principles and demands that it retain the status of unionists as absolute masters. If you want me to respect unionism, make a case for the union that does not involve anti-catholic paranoia, does not assume that unionists are a special chosen people with a divine right to be in a position of power, does not involve protestant supremacism, and does not consider gaelophobia to be a virtue.

You will doubtless react by shooting the messenger and calling me a "bigot." But speaking the truth, calling a spade a spade and calling a bigot a bigot does not make me a bigot. Your people need to take a long hard look at yourselves. You need to face the unpleasant truth of what your political ideology is based upon.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2011, 06:23:43 PM

, make a case for the union that does not involve anti-catholic paranoia, does not assume that unionists are a special chosen people with a divine right to be in a position of power, does not involve protestant supremacism, and does not consider gaelophobia to be a virtue.

I don't ever remeber EG in his many long ramblings ever saying that his reasons for continuing his Union with GB was for anti catholic paranoia etc etc as per your quote Eamonn.
A lot of the other stuff you mentioned  about Unionists down the years  is true about a large amount of them but is.
history.
Time to move on eh ?
If we are to have a United Ireland or some form of All Ireland entity we all have to look forward .

Hey, I'm more than willing to respect any unionist case that's based on something legitimate. If he can argue that it's all about making life better for the people of the north, I'll be happy to engage with him on that and I'll respectfully disagree. But if it's all about keeping catholics in their place and suppressing Gaelic culture then that's not on and there'll be no respect from me for that position.

And a lot of what I say may be history, but I see little evidence that unionism has changed all that much. We are still in the middle of a big long unionist discussion about how the system can be rigged so that Martin McGuinness can be prevented from taking the post of First Minister and that a unionist can take the post even if SF top the poll fair and square. This is evidence that they still don't get it.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2011, 06:43:57 PM
Hey, I'm more than willing to respect any unionist case that's based on something legitimate. If he can argue that it's all about making life better for the people of the north, I'll be happy to engage with him on that and I'll respectfully disagree. But if it's all about keeping catholics in their place and suppressing Gaelic culture then that's not on and there'll be no respect from me for that position.

Can't see that in any of EG's posts? I think your being a bit of a tw@t tbh.

I'm talking about unionism in general and not his specific posts.

Your schoolyard name-calling is noted.

QuoteUnionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2011, 07:01:35 PM

QuoteUnionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

Preach it, brother!

What's worse than this false moral equivalence between unionism and nationalism is the idea that nationalism is the immoral doctrine and unionism is the moral one. The reverse is true.

Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2011, 07:01:35 PM

QuoteUnionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

Would EG want us to all converge in an area somewhere and him and his mates can start the oul scorched earth tactics on us again?

True, if someone tries to conquer a country when do the natives give up? Is it the very hour your invaders arrive? A day later when they have murdered your family? Do you roll over a week later? A month? A year? 10 years? 100 years? Do you say "oh look at their culture, isnt it great, look at them marching remembering the time they murdered our ancestors and took our land." Do we now just give up? Accept the current situation as if it's meant to be this way (as the News Letter etc would tell you). I mean your on a different island --waving a flag from a different land, singing about a Queen from a different land--why????!!!!!! How come Scotland and Wales dont be signing God save the queen but you's want to over here??!

I say take your pink shirts, thick pin striped ugly suits, cricket stumps etc and do one

I read that Ulster Tatler last week and couldnt get over the names in it--where do those surnames come from --there's no local origin --maybe i'm ignorant but i was quite shocked

Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2011, 07:01:35 PM

QuoteUnionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

The plantation of Ulster happened over 400 years ago. The Ulster British have therefore more right to be called natives of the place in which they were born than most of the people of America, Canada, Australia, etc. They are as Irish - as in, from the island of Ireland - as anyone from Cork or Galway or Dublin. The fact that they have a different political view on how Ireland should be governed may be inconvenient for the rest of us, but until we learn to accept the difference and even cherish it, there is fcuk all squared chance of there ever being a UI. Calling them imperialists, invaders, conquerors, just isn't going to convince them to like us.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 05, 2011, 09:52:38 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2011, 07:01:35 PM

QuoteUnionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

The plantation of Ulster happened over 400 years ago. The Ulster British have therefore more right to be called natives of the place in which they were born than most of the people of America, Canada, Australia, etc. They are as Irish - as in, from the island of Ireland - as anyone from Cork or Galway or Dublin. The fact that they have a different political view on how Ireland should be governed may be inconvenient for the rest of us, but until we learn to accept the difference and even cherish it, there is fcuk all squared chance of there ever being a UI. Calling them imperialists, invaders, conquerors, just isn't going to convince them to like us.

Myles, you might answer a question for me, if you would.

I think it's fair to say that Unionists perceive themselves to be a very straightforward class of individuals; they are slow to accept any proposal or suggestion from elsewhere without examining it in the minutest detail.
However, once they commit themselves to anything, thereafter their word is their bond. (Okay, that a bit convoluted but I hope you can follow my meaning.)

In brief, they acknowledge that they are slow to accept the word of anyone but, once accepted, they will be equally slow to break their own.
Irish government negotiators during the GFA process were driven to the point of despair at times when proposals were put to various Unionist delegations and, without fail, each grouping would then retreat into the background to parse every word of every sentence therein.
But most southerners at the talks felt it was always worthwhile to give them time to make up their minds and not rush them along. Once they committed themselves to some course of action or other, all other parties concerned were confident that there would be no rowing back by any of the Unionist interests.
Bertie Ahern was to say later that, once he had won Ian Paisley's confidence, he felt he could take his word at face value.
Still, many Nationalists feel that this no-nonsense, plain talking stereotype is a caricature of the real Unionist persona. The impression I get from many posters on here is that it is almost impossible to get Unionists as a body to discuss mutual differences openly. For them, it's a case of Unionist prevarication and delaying tactics to the point where no progress can be made.
EG makes the point repeatedly that it's in Nationalists' own best interests to reach out to engage with their Unionist neighbours.
It's fair to say that the majority who respond to him tell him to go f**k himself as those who attempt to do as he says feel their approaches are going to be rebuffed.
Now, you strike me as a man who can appreciate both points of view.

What do you think?
Are Unionists as a body willing to enter into meaningful dialogue with their Nationalist counterparts?

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 04, 2011, 01:03:11 PM

Quote from: Gold on May 03, 2011, 10:32:13 PMIs that flag not redundant?

No.

Quote from: Gold on May 03, 2011, 10:32:13 PMNorthern where?

Northern Ireland.

Quote from: Gold on May 03, 2011, 10:32:13 PMHow come Robinson cant bring himself to say IRELAND and says ALLEN/ALIN instead?

No idea.

Quote from: Gold on May 03, 2011, 10:32:13 PMI wonder does he call Scotland, Scotlin or Iceland, Icelin

Why don't you ask him?

P.S. After winning the prize for the "Most Bigoted Post on this Thread" (#19), are you now aiming for the "Most Brainless and Irrelevant Post on this Thread"? Because if you are, I warn you, you face pretty stiff competition...

[/b]

What is so sexy about a United Ireland?

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 05, 2011, 11:01:32 PM
I think it's fair to say that Unionists perceive themselves to be a very straightforward class of individuals; they are slow to accept any proposal or suggestion from elsewhere without examining it in the minutest detail.
However, once they commit themselves to anything, thereafter their word is their bond.

I nearly choked when I saw this.

They said that they'd never get into a negotiated settlement with republicans until they had an electoral mandate. Sinn Fein started making progress in elections and the unionists refused to talk to them.

They said there'd be no talks until the IRA stopped the killing. The IRA called a ceasfire and the unionists refused to talk to them until they declared that the ceasefire was permanent.

Then the decommissioning thing was added to the unionist demand escalator. After the weapons were decommissioned they still wouldn't believe it.

Then they were dragged kicking and screaming into  negotiating a deal in the Good Friday Agreement that included a commitment to sit in government with nationalists/republicans. No sooner were they in government with SF than they got their mates in the RUC's Special Branch to concoct a "spy ring" at Stormont (remember that?) by sending two dozen land rovers up to Stormont to retrieve two computer disks from a Sinn Fein office which were later returned. That was all they needed to pull out of government and the place lay idle for years while the "spy ring" was quietly forgotten and a new agreement had to be rigged up at St Andrews to restore their delicate little confidence.

And at St Andrews wasn't there a thing about agreeing to support an Irish language act? Have they delivered on that part of the deal? Have they f***! They've blocked it at every turn and proclaimed it in their political campaigning about how they're better than the other unionist party for being so effective at blocking any attempts to have an Irish language act. It's as if they never agreed to it!

Unionists stick to their word? Don't make me laugh!

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2011, 06:43:57 PM
Hey, I'm more than willing to respect any unionist case that's based on something legitimate. If he can argue that it's all about making life better for the people of the north, I'll be happy to engage with him on that and I'll respectfully disagree. But if it's all about keeping catholics in their place and suppressing Gaelic culture then that's not on and there'll be no respect from me for that position.

Except you've already decided that the latter is the case. You prefer themmus to be the evil bogeyman.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2011, 11:39:31 PM
I nearly choked when I saw this.

They said that they'd never get into a negotiated settlement with republicans until they had an electoral mandate. Sinn Fein started making progress in elections and the unionists refused to talk to them.

They said there'd be no talks until the IRA stopped the killing. The IRA called a ceasfire and the unionists refused to talk to them until they declared that the ceasefire was permanent.

Then the decommissioning thing was added to the unionist demand escalator. After the weapons were decommissioned they still wouldn't believe it.

Then they were dragged kicking and screaming into  negotiating a deal in the Good Friday Agreement that included a commitment to sit in government with nationalists/republicans. No sooner were they in government with SF than they got their mates in the RUC's Special Branch to concoct a "spy ring" at Stormont (remember that?) by sending two dozen land rovers up to Stormont to retrieve two computer disks from a Sinn Fein office which were later returned. That was all they needed to pull out of government and the place lay idle for years while the "spy ring" was quietly forgotten and a new agreement had to be rigged up at St Andrews to restore their delicate little confidence.

And at St Andrews wasn't there a thing about agreeing to support an Irish language act? Have they delivered on that part of the deal? Have they f***! They've blocked it at every turn and proclaimed it in their political campaigning about how they're better than the other unionist party for being so effective at blocking any attempts to have an Irish language act. It's as if they never agreed to it!

Unionists stick to their word? Don't make me laugh!

You really have a rather tenuous grasp on reality.

In actual fact, unionists said before the IRA ceasefire of 1994 that they wouldn't talk to an armed terrorist "movement". Actually the requirements set in place by unionist leaders weakened, and they repeatedly compromised on what had been "red lines":

- no talks with SF before the IRA had fullly decommissioned
- no talks with SF until the IRA had started to decommission
...then attendance at talks with SF prior to any decommissioning...
- but no bilateral meetings prior to decomissioning beginning
...then there were bilaterals with SF...
--No entry into government with SF before decommissioning
- No entry into government with SF before decommissioning is begun
-No entry into government with SF before a commitment to begin decommissioning...
As for an Irish language act, I suggest you read the St Andrews Agreement before you go spouting off any more ill-informed nonsense.

Quote from: MW on May 06, 2011, 12:21:39 AM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2011, 06:43:57 PM
Hey, I'm more than willing to respect any unionist case that's based on something legitimate. If he can argue that it's all about making life better for the people of the north, I'll be happy to engage with him on that and I'll respectfully disagree. But if it's all about keeping catholics in their place and suppressing Gaelic culture then that's not on and there'll be no respect from me for that position.

Except you've already decided that the latter is the case. You prefer themmus to be the evil bogeyman.

Unionism has long had a progressive wing which is willing to accept that they're not a superior ruling class and has been willing to recognise catholics as equals. Unfortunately it has often been denounced as "traitors" and "lundies" and promptly ousted from power by the orange wing. Thankfully the bigoted element seems to be losing influence these days, but there's still a long way to go. The UUP had a golden opportunity a short while ago to elect a progressive leader, but instead they opted for the boy who proved his "true" unionist credentials by announcing that he'd never attend a GAA match. Lovely.

Quote from: MW on May 06, 2011, 12:31:03 AM
In actual fact, unionists said before the IRA ceasefire of 1994 that they wouldn't talk to an armed terrorist "movement".

They walked into the GFA negotiations literally shoulder-to-shoulder with the representatives of an armed terrorist "movement" namely the PUP and UDP representatives. Their aversion to talking to "terrorists" was entirely dependent on whose side said terrorists were on.

Still sticks in my throat every time someone (most recently on the Belfast bus tour) mentions David Trimble and Nobel Peace Prize like he was some form of latter day saint.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 05, 2011, 11:01:32 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 05, 2011, 09:52:38 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2011, 07:01:35 PM

QuoteUnionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

The plantation of Ulster happened over 400 years ago. The Ulster British have therefore more right to be called natives of the place in which they were born than most of the people of America, Canada, Australia, etc. They are as Irish - as in, from the island of Ireland - as anyone from Cork or Galway or Dublin. The fact that they have a different political view on how Ireland should be governed may be inconvenient for the rest of us, but until we learn to accept the difference and even cherish it, there is fcuk all squared chance of there ever being a UI. Calling them imperialists, invaders, conquerors, just isn't going to convince them to like us.

Myles, you might answer a question for me, if you would.

I think it's fair to say that Unionists perceive themselves to be a very straightforward class of individuals; they are slow to accept any proposal or suggestion from elsewhere without examining it in the minutest detail.
However, once they commit themselves to anything, thereafter their word is their bond. (Okay, that a bit convoluted but I hope you can follow my meaning.)

In brief, they acknowledge that they are slow to accept the word of anyone but, once accepted, they will be equally slow to break their own.
Irish government negotiators during the GFA process were driven to the point of despair at times when proposals were put to various Unionist delegations and, without fail, each grouping would then retreat into the background to parse every word of every sentence therein.
But most southerners at the talks felt it was always worthwhile to give them time to make up their minds and not rush them along. Once they committed themselves to some course of action or other, all other parties concerned were confident that there would be no rowing back by any of the Unionist interests.
Bertie Ahern was to say later that, once he had won Ian Paisley's confidence, he felt he could take his word at face value.
Still, many Nationalists feel that this no-nonsense, plain talking stereotype is a caricature of the real Unionist persona. The impression I get from many posters on here is that it is almost impossible to get Unionists as a body to discuss mutual differences openly. For them, it's a case of Unionist prevarication and delaying tactics to the point where no progress can be made.
EG makes the point repeatedly that it's in Nationalists' own best interests to reach out to engage with their Unionist neighbours.
It's fair to say that the majority who respond to him tell him to go f**k himself as those who attempt to do as he says feel their approaches are going to be rebuffed.
Now, you strike me as a man who can appreciate both points of view.

What do you think?
Are Unionists as a body willing to enter into meaningful dialogue with their Nationalist counterparts?

I think that the GFA and the workings of the assembly at Stormont have shown that unionists and nationalists both have it within themselves to be pragmatic and reasonable when faced with the right set of circumstances. However, when nationalists / republicans talk of 'meaningful dialogue' with unionists, too often it's code for 'sit down and talk about what sort of UI you want'. If the unionists then say, 'we don't want a UI', they're accused of refusing to engage! Nationalism as a body needs to accept that a UI isn't on the agenda for the forseeable future. Once we've done that, and unionists are reassured that the only item on the agenda isn't the dismantling of the border, then there won't be a problem engaging. Like I say, the operation of the assembly shows that our political reps can do business handily enough in the right circumstances.

Seems like big win for the SNP in Scotland yesterday. Salmond promised a referendum on independence. Will he deliver?

And will the people of Scotland deliver a yes to that is unclear but yesterdays vote has sent a few shockwaves.

If Nationalism in NI had a leader of the calibre of Salmond then the end would be advanced. Still Salmond is helping things along in Scotland. The Scottish referendum may not pass, first time. But there is considerable civic reasons for the UK to separate and in a less sectarian NI these forces will also come into play to some extent. The odd thing about NI is that figures like Robinson, who have little in common with the London rulers, are continually emphasising the union, while their equivalents in Scotland are emphasising separation.

Quote from: thejuice on May 06, 2011, 09:54:57 AM
Seems like big win for the SNP in Scotland yesterday. Salmond promised a referendum on independence. Will he deliver?

And will the people of Scotland deliver a yes to that is unclear but yesterdays vote has sent a few shockwaves.

Interesting times ahead, Scotland is undoubtedly a bigger threat to the future of the Union than this place.  Elections and Referenda are different kettles of fish (as a panicky EG will undoubtedly be along to tell us before long :)) but if the Scottish Assembly Election results are anywhere near replicated (and assuming that a fair smattering of Scottish Labour and possiby Scottish Liberals wouldn't be averse to Independence) it would have to have a fair chance of success.  The SNP have went from non-entities to the main (looking like sole) party of Government in what 50 odd years?  The political trajectory is quite clear.

What's clearly in the SNP's favour now is that the greater UK economic argument has been scuppered by the financial crisis of recent times, why should smaller nations be afraid to go it alone? especially as Scotland would presumably still be a member of the EU and be able to avail of it's considerable support in weaning it off it's Public Sector dependence.

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AM

Quote from: thejuice on May 06, 2011, 09:54:57 AM
Seems like big win for the SNP in Scotland yesterday. Salmond promised a referendum on independence. Will he deliver?

And will the people of Scotland deliver a yes to that is unclear but yesterdays vote has sent a few shockwaves.

Interesting times ahead, Scotland is undoubtedly a bigger threat to the future of the Union than this place.  Elections and Referenda are different kettles of fish (as a panicky EG will undoubtedly be along to tell us before long :)) but if the Scottish Assembly Election results are anywhere near replicated (and assuming that a fair smattering of Scottish Labour and possiby Scottish Liberals wouldn't be averse to Independence) it would have to have a fair chance of success.  The SNP have went from non-entities to the main (looking like sole) party of Government in what 50 odd years?  The political trajectory is quite clear.

What's clearly in the SNP's favour now is that the greater UK economic argument has been scuppered by the financial crisis of recent times, why should smaller nations be afraid to go it alone? especially as Scotland would presumably still be a member of the EU and be able to avail of it's considerable support in weaning it off it's Public Sector dependence.

If anything this is more a reason to vote No for independence but do please explain.

How so?

Can the same argument be trotted out now - your safer in the union as you'll be better insulated from Economic catasrophes?  The SNP would have an excellent war footing to fight an Independence campaign - the actual realities of the Economics are a different matter.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 04:41:32 PM

Quote from: balladmaker on May 03, 2011, 12:16:43 PM
When Scotland pull the plug and go for full independence, how secure with NI be within the Union, especially when most NI Unionists are of Scottish extraction in the first place.

Interesting couple of decades ahead for those around to see it.

There is no more sign of a majority in Scotland opting for independence than there is for a majority in NI opting for a UI.

In fact, all the evidence of successive elections proves that there is even less appetite for Independence in Scotland, than for Unity in NI.

P.S. Can somebody explain to me why Republicans appear so insistent about their right to vote etc, at the same time as being so capable of ignoring the results whenever a vote actually does take place?  ???

Where exactly did this 'evidence' come from EG?  If that's the calibre of the rest of your evidence the postboxes could be green by the morning!

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 01:29:40 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 04:41:32 PM

Quote from: balladmaker on May 03, 2011, 12:16:43 PM
When Scotland pull the plug and go for full independence, how secure with NI be within the Union, especially when most NI Unionists are of Scottish extraction in the first place.

Interesting couple of decades ahead for those around to see it.

There is no more sign of a majority in Scotland opting for independence than there is for a majority in NI opting for a UI.

In fact, all the evidence of successive elections proves that there is even less appetite for Independence in Scotland, than for Unity in NI.

P.S. Can somebody explain to me why Republicans appear so insistent about their right to vote etc, at the same time as being so capable of ignoring the results whenever a vote actually does take place?  ???

Where exactly did this 'evidence' come from EG?  If that's the calibre of the rest of your evidence the postboxes could be green by the morning!

+1 EG i would like to know where this bold assertion of your's came from especially given the results coming out of the Scottish Parliament election results this morning....

There is no way Westminister will let scotland go, not until the north sea is drained of

Quote from: snoopdog on May 06, 2011, 03:14:55 PM
There is no way Westminister will let scotland go, not until the north sea is drained of its resources

Quote from: Banana Man on May 06, 2011, 01:40:10 PM

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 01:29:40 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 04:41:32 PM

Quote from: balladmaker on May 03, 2011, 12:16:43 PM
When Scotland pull the plug and go for full independence, how secure with NI be within the Union, especially when most NI Unionists are of Scottish extraction in the first place.

Interesting couple of decades ahead for those around to see it.

There is no more sign of a majority in Scotland opting for independence than there is for a majority in NI opting for a UI.

In fact, all the evidence of successive elections proves that there is even less appetite for Independence in Scotland, than for Unity in NI.

P.S. Can somebody explain to me why Republicans appear so insistent about their right to vote etc, at the same time as being so capable of ignoring the results whenever a vote actually does take place?  ???

Where exactly did this 'evidence' come from EG?  If that's the calibre of the rest of your evidence the postboxes could be green by the morning!

+1 EG i would like to know where this bold assertion of your's came from especially given the results coming out of the Scottish Parliament election results this morning....

Where is my evidence?

Simple. It comes from the voting figures.

If we accept (from the NI voting figures) that support within NI for a UI is somewhere around 45%, I believe that the support within Scotland for Independence is rather less, as follows.

Given that the SNP is the only Independence Party contesting elections within Scotland, here are its election results since 1974, when it made its big breakthrough:

1974 - 30.4% Westminster ("WM")
1977 - 12.4% Local
1977 - 24.2% Local
1979 - 19.4% WM
1980 - 15.5% Local
1983 - 11.7% WM
1984 - 11.7% Local
1987 - 14.0% WM
1988 - 21.3% Local
1992 - 21.5% WM
1995 - 26.1% Local
1997 - 22.1% WM
1999 - 28.7% Holyrood ("HR")
        - 28.9% Local
2001 - 20.1% WM
2003 - 23.8% HR
        - 24.1% Local
2005 - 17.7% WM
2007 - 29.7% HR
2011 - 19.9% WM

The conclusion to be drawn from the above is clear. That is, whilst Scottish voters "trust" the SNP on local or regional issues etc, when it comes to Westminster, they draw back from voting for the only independence party and instead vote for the Unionist parties (in varying proportions).

In particular, I would point to the Westminster election of last year, where the SNP gained only one fifth of the vote.

Of course, they have had a staggering jump in support at yesterday's Holyrood elections, and perhaps some of their new voters might be being persuaded as to the merits of independence. However, I do not believe that these "new-born Independents"  are sufficiently numerous to take the Independence vote from around 20%(?) to over 40%, for the following reasons:

1. Alex Salmond clearly stated before the Holyrood election that it would NOT be a Referendum on Independence, and his party studiously avoided bringing it to the fore in their campaigning (i.e. not wishing to "frighten the horses");
2. If sentiment had switch decisively towards Independence in yesterday's vote, you might have expected the most obviously pro-Union party - Tories - to have been obliterated. In fact, their vote held up better than eg the Lib Dems, who are the most "wishy-washy" of the pro-Union parties and were absolutely "caned";
3. If sentiment had, indeed, switched towards Independence, you would expect Salmond to "Strike whilst the Iron is Hot" i.e. call for a Referendum asap. Instead, he has been extremely cagey, only saying he expects one "towards the back end of the new Parliament" i.e. 3 or even 4 years away. The only conclusiion which can be drawn from this is that he knows he has a considerable deal of work to do before he has a realistic chance (40%+?) in any Referendum.

So the above is my evidence for believing that support for Independence in Scotland is less than that for a UI within NI.

When may I expect your evidence to the contrary?   

Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2011, 10:23:04 AM
If Nationalism in NI had a leader of the calibre of Salmond then the end would be advanced. Still Salmond is helping things along in Scotland. The Scottish referendum may not pass, first time. But there is considerable civic reasons for the UK to separate and in a less sectarian NI these forces will also come into play to some extent.

By all accounts, Salmond is a very capable leader. Of course, it helps that he continues to live in his home city and campaign from there, rather than emigrating to another jurisdiction entirely (as another well-known "Celtic Nationalist" did recently)... :D

Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2011, 10:23:04 AMThe odd thing about NI is that figures like Robinson, who have little in common with the London rulers, are continually emphasising the union, while their equivalents in Scotland are emphasising separation.

Further evidence of the difference between those two nations of the UK and the danger, therefore, of trying to draw conclusions about one by reference to the other.

Quote from: snoopdog on May 06, 2011, 03:14:55 PM
There is no way Westminister will let scotland go, not until the north sea is drained of

"... Oil".

Obviously.

For whatever else, the British aren't complete idiots. Then again, after 800 years of being "oppressed" by them us, you probably know that... ;)

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AM
Interesting times ahead, Scotland is undoubtedly a bigger threat to the future of the Union than this place

Only in the sense that the "threat to the Union" from NI is negligiible (imo).

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AMElections and Referenda are different kettles of fish (as a panicky EG will undoubtedly be along to tell us before long :))

No "panic" whatever - see my post #105.

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AM... but if the Scottish Assembly Election results are anywhere near replicated (and assuming that a fair smattering of Scottish Labour and possiby Scottish Liberals wouldn't be averse to Independence) it would have to have a fair chance of success.

The key word being "if". I would be interested to see your evidence (for replication), since I see little or none.

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AMThe SNP have went from non-entities to the main (looking like sole) party of Government in what 50 odd years?  The political trajectory is quite clear.

Only when it comes to local and regional/Holyrood issues.
When it comes to "National" issues, I need only repeat their Westminster results:
1974 - 30.4%; 1979 - 19.4%; 1983 - 11.7%; 1987 - 14.0%; 1992 - 21.5%; 1997 - 22.1%; 2001 - 20.1%; 2005 - 17.7%; 2011 - 19.9%.

Try picking a "trajectory" out of that!  ;)

And Independence is most decidedly a National issue.

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AMWhat's clearly in the SNP's favour now is that the greater UK economic argument has been scuppered by the financial crisis of recent time

Really?
Since the Scottish Labour Party's Economic  Manifesto was virtually identical to that of the SNP's, why did the former's vote collapse?
In fact, if you look at the opinion polls leading up to the election, Scottish Labour and SNP were neck-and-neck, until Labour panicked and "re-launched" its campaign in mid-stream.
They first tried to make it an Independence Referendum (Salmond was far too cute to fall for that), then brought "the Two Eds" up from London to lecture their Scottish supporters of the need to send a message to the Coalition Government in Westminster etc.
Unsurprisingly, Scottish voters resented being told how to vote by English "blow-ins" and defected to the SNP in droves during the last few days of the campaign.

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AM... why should smaller nations be afraid to go it alone?

Er, Portugal? Greece? Iceland? Irish Republic, even?  :o

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AM... especially as Scotland would presumably still be a member of the EU and be able to avail of it's considerable support in weaning it off it's Public Sector dependence.

Jeez, that belongs to the "Lynchbhoy Graduate School of Wishful Thinking"!  :D

When the 2004 EU entrants (Easter Europe, Baltic etc) found "the cupboard was bare", never mind Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, what on earth makes you think that the Germans, French and, ahem, British are going to pump money into a newly-admitted Scotland? Especially when in order to achieve independence from the UK, the SNP will have to persuade the people of Scotland that the newly-independent Scottish nation will be able to stand on its own two feet economically.

They can't boast Wealth in Westminster, then Poverty in Brussels... :o

QuoteBelfast Telegraph:
SNP secures majority election win

Friday, 6 May 2011

The SNP has secured an unprecedented victory by taking a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament election.

Alex Salmond's party passed the half-way point by taking its 65th seat in a historic win at Kirkcaldy, the first time gains on this scale have been achieved since the Parliament was established in 1999.

The decisive victory comes at the heavy expense of Labour in what were considered heartland territories, and with a collapse in the Liberal Democrat vote.

As the scale of Labour's losses became clear, including right across Glasgow, questions were raised about the party's election tactics and the surprise surge in SNP votes.

Professor Murray Pittock, a vice principal of Glasgow University, and author of The Road to Independence?, suggested Labour may have been guilty of complacency in seats the party did not expect to lose.

He said: "The scale of it is a surprise, particularly the fact that so many first-past-the-post seats have fallen.

"One thing that is very clear is that Labour were expecting a tough battle and hoped to maybe unseat Kenny MacAskill, for example."

Mr MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was predicted to be fighting against a Labour advantage in Edinburgh Eastern, but ended up with a 2,233 majority. Similar pictures emerged across the country.

Professor Pittock said: "They weren't expecting to lose those seats. They couldn't have been working too hard.

"Even in Glasgow, people really didn't believe. Maybe they thought Nicola Sturgeon would get in, perhaps seats like Clydesdale would go, but they really didn't believe all these seats would go.

"They've had their potential front bench wiped out. They're going to have to completely rebuild."

Even in seats that Labour held, the SNP recorded swings in its favour. And the party replicated that trend in seats previously held by the Liberal Democrats and Tories.

Prof Pittock said Labour misjudged the approach to the election, adding: "Labour has steadily treated Holyrood as a B-team, just somebody that people should vote for to give the Tories a bloody nose. Labour was negative."

Quote from: Lamh Dhearg Alba on May 06, 2011, 04:14:01 PMTo pick up on a couple of points there EG the SNP are not the only pro independence party in Scotland. The Scottish Green Party (who currently have 2 MSP's with 2  lists still to declare) and the smaller socialist parties are also nationalist. With those 2 Green MSP's and the independent nationalist MSP Margo MacDonald you will be most likely looking at 70 pro independence MSP's at Holyrood by the end of play tonight.

Aye, but how many votes do the Scottish Greens and Socialists* etc get in Westminster  elections?

* - Those that aren't in prison, that is... ;)

Quote from: Lamh Dhearg Alba on May 06, 2011, 04:14:01 PM
The other point is regarding last year's Westminster election. The reason the Labour vote rose sharply there in contrast to other recent  Scottish elections to Westminster and Holyrood was the spectre of a Tory government in London. Scotland still holds a massive suspicion of the Tories and Labour picked  up huge support last year because of that. It wasn't an issue here and as such Labour lost much of that support. The distrust of the London Tories has been a factor again though with the Lib Dems paying a huge price for their Westminster coalition with their vote in Scotland collapsing last night.

In short all that means probably backs up for your point, the Scottish electorate will vote differently according to the bigger issues and this result can't be seen in  such black and white terms as Scots now wanting independence. In reality I believe people recognised that a a minority SNP goverment had done well in it's first term in difficult circumstances whilst Labour under Iain Gray had been a poor opposition. The SNP then ran a very strong positive campaign with Labour rather flat and negative. Add the Tories always struggling in Scotland and the Lib Dems collapsing and you get a huge SNP win. The SNP have won this because people see them as the best option to run the Scottish Parliament, not because they want independence. The SNP have been clear in the campaign that people should back them on their record even if they support the Union and many of their high profile endorsements and media support were from unionist supporters who said they would vote NO in a referendum but backed Alex Salmond as the best First Minister in a devolved Scotland. Rather similar to the situations in the Basque Country and Catalonia.

Still an incredible result for Scotland however. The SNP have won seats in places in Central Scotland where Labour would always win whatever the circumstances, places like Glasgow and Lanarkshire. In Edinburgh where the SNP never had a look in they now have all but 1 MSP. In the North, where they have been strong before, they now have total control. As an SNP supporter for many years I find it incredible to see SNP MSP's in these areas. So whilst it's not really a vote for independence it's still huge to see the SNP make these breakthroughs and see this surge of  support when voters know they will also get an independence referendum. Support for independence tends to go back and forth between 30 and 50% and when this referendum comes the media and wider British politics will campaign furiously against a YES vote. Ultimately it won't happen this time, but the SNP have still made great progress towards their ultimate goal by getting into this position and forming 2 governments in a row. Independence or not they will almost certainly win further powers for Holyrood and perhaps the long term picture will be a Scottish Parliament which is all but indepent within the Union. I don't agree the "end of the Union is in sight" but certainly this is the finest hour of Scottish Nationalism so far. I'm a bit happy ;D.

As someone who is not  well-disposed towards the SNP, I can't argue with any of that (esp the bits I've emboldened!)

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2011, 04:55:26 PM

QuoteBelfast Telegraph:
SNP secures majority election win

Friday, 6 May 2011

The SNP has secured an unprecedented victory by taking a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament election.

Alex Salmond's party passed the half-way point by taking its 65th seat in a historic win at Kirkcaldy, the first time gains on this scale have been achieved since the Parliament was established in 1999.

The decisive victory comes at the heavy expense of Labour in what were considered heartland territories, and with a collapse in the Liberal Democrat vote.

As the scale of Labour's losses became clear, including right across Glasgow, questions were raised about the party's election tactics and the surprise surge in SNP votes.

Professor Murray Pittock, a vice principal of Glasgow University, and author of The Road to Independence?, suggested Labour may have been guilty of complacency in seats the party did not expect to lose.

He said: "The scale of it is a surprise, particularly the fact that so many first-past-the-post seats have fallen.

"One thing that is very clear is that Labour were expecting a tough battle and hoped to maybe unseat Kenny MacAskill, for example."

Mr MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was predicted to be fighting against a Labour advantage in Edinburgh Eastern, but ended up with a 2,233 majority. Similar pictures emerged across the country.

Professor Pittock said: "They weren't expecting to lose those seats. They couldn't have been working too hard.

"Even in Glasgow, people really didn't believe. Maybe they thought Nicola Sturgeon would get in, perhaps seats like Clydesdale would go, but they really didn't believe all these seats would go.

"They've had their potential front bench wiped out. They're going to have to completely rebuild."

Even in seats that Labour held, the SNP recorded swings in its favour. And the party replicated that trend in seats previously held by the Liberal Democrats and Tories.

Prof Pittock said Labour misjudged the approach to the election, adding: "Labour has steadily treated Holyrood as a B-team, just somebody that people should vote for to give the Tories a bloody nose. Labour was negative."

More Breaking News: Titanic sunk off Newfoundland... ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 06, 2011, 05:11:15 PM
More Breaking News: Titanic sunk off Newfoundland... ::)

I'm not surprised. Those dodgy rivets used by them shipbuilders in Belfast - couldn't be up to them, could you?

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 06, 2011, 03:48:32 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on May 06, 2011, 01:40:10 PM

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 01:29:40 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 04:41:32 PM

Quote from: balladmaker on May 03, 2011, 12:16:43 PM
When Scotland pull the plug and go for full independence, how secure with NI be within the Union, especially when most NI Unionists are of Scottish extraction in the first place.

Interesting couple of decades ahead for those around to see it.

There is no more sign of a majority in Scotland opting for independence than there is for a majority in NI opting for a UI.

In fact, all the evidence of successive elections proves that there is even less appetite for Independence in Scotland, than for Unity in NI.

P.S. Can somebody explain to me why Republicans appear so insistent about their right to vote etc, at the same time as being so capable of ignoring the results whenever a vote actually does take place?  ???

Where exactly did this 'evidence' come from EG?  If that's the calibre of the rest of your evidence the postboxes could be green by the morning!

+1 EG i would like to know where this bold assertion of your's came from especially given the results coming out of the Scottish Parliament election results this morning....

Where is my evidence?

Simple. It comes from the voting figures.

If we accept (from the NI voting figures) that support within NI for a UI is somewhere around 45%, I believe that the support within Scotland for Independence is rather less, as follows.

Given that the SNP is the only Independence Party contesting elections within Scotland, here are its election results since 1974, when it made its big breakthrough:

1974 - 30.4% Westminster ("WM")
1977 - 12.4% Local
1977 - 24.2% Local
1979 - 19.4% WM
1980 - 15.5% Local
1983 - 11.7% WM
1984 - 11.7% Local
1987 - 14.0% WM
1988 - 21.3% Local
1992 - 21.5% WM
1995 - 26.1% Local
1997 - 22.1% WM
1999 - 28.7% Holyrood ("HR")
        - 28.9% Local
2001 - 20.1% WM
2003 - 23.8% HR
        - 24.1% Local
2005 - 17.7% WM
2007 - 29.7% HR
2011 - 19.9% WM

The conclusion to be drawn from the above is clear. That is, whilst Scottish voters "trust" the SNP on local or regional issues etc, when it comes to Westminster, they draw back from voting for the only independence party and instead vote for the Unionist parties (in varying proportions).

In particular, I would point to the Westminster election of last year, where the SNP gained only one fifth of the vote.

Of course, they have had a staggering jump in support at yesterday's Holyrood elections, and perhaps some of their new voters might be being persuaded as to the merits of independence. However, I do not believe that these "new-born Independents"  are sufficiently numerous to take the Independence vote from around 20%(?) to over 40%, for the following reasons:

1. Alex Salmond clearly stated before the Holyrood election that it would NOT be a Referendum on Independence, and his party studiously avoided bringing it to the fore in their campaigning (i.e. not wishing to "frighten the horses");
2. If sentiment had switch decisively towards Independence in yesterday's vote, you might have expected the most obviously pro-Union party - Tories - to have been obliterated. In fact, their vote held up better than eg the Lib Dems, who are the most "wishy-washy" of the pro-Union parties and were absolutely "caned";
3. If sentiment had, indeed, switched towards Independence, you would expect Salmond to "Strike whilst the Iron is Hot" i.e. call for a Referendum asap. Instead, he has been extremely cagey, only saying he expects one "towards the back end of the new Parliament" i.e. 3 or even 4 years away. The only conclusiion which can be drawn from this is that he knows he has a considerable deal of work to do before he has a realistic chance (40%+?) in any Referendum.

So the above is my evidence for believing that support for Independence in Scotland is less than that for a UI within NI.

When may I expect your evidence to the contrary?

You may not expect it at all.  As I didn't make any sweeping assertions (here!  ;)) in the first instance, the burden of providing the evidence lies decidedly with you.

Nonetheless;

1.
The Scottish electorate knew clearly that if the SNP became the majority party, a referendum on independence would be called.  They duly voted SNP.

2.
Not necessarily.  It is equally likely that the results for the Tories stayed roughly similar because the 'hardcore' pro-Union voters voted as they had always done and were never likely to vote for any other party.  However,  those who were swaying in any way opted to plump for the main anti-Union party.

3.
Again, not necessarily.  To use your own phrase, he was possibly afraid that he might 'frighten the horses'.

Why do you keep referring to the Westminster vote as the only vote in town when it comes to the 'national' question?

What was that you were saying earlier about people's capability for 'ignoring' election results?

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 06, 2011, 03:48:32 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on May 06, 2011, 01:40:10 PM

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 01:29:40 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 04:41:32 PM

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PM
I do not believe that these "new-born [SNP] Independents"  are sufficiently numerous to take the Independence vote from around 20%(?) to over 40%, for the following reasons:

1. Alex Salmond clearly stated before the Holyrood election that it would NOT be a Referendum on Independence, and his party studiously avoided bringing it to the fore in their campaigning (i.e. not wishing to "frighten the horses");
2. If sentiment had switch decisively towards Independence in yesterday's vote, you might have expected the most obviously pro-Union party - Tories - to have been obliterated. In fact, their vote held up better than eg the Lib Dems, who are the most "wishy-washy" of the pro-Union parties and were absolutely "caned";
3. If sentiment had, indeed, switched towards Independence, you would expect Salmond to "Strike whilst the Iron is Hot" i.e. call for a Referendum asap. Instead, he has been extremely cagey, only saying he expects one "towards the back end of the new Parliament" i.e. 3 or even 4 years away. The only conclusiion which can be drawn from this is that he knows he has a considerable deal of work to do before he has a realistic chance (40%+?) in any Referendum.

So the above is my evidence for believing that support for Independence in Scotland is less than that for a UI within NI.

When may I expect your evidence to the contrary?

No you may not.  As I didn't make any sweeping assertions (here!  ;)) in the first instance, the burden of providing the evidence lies decidedly with you.

Fair enough.

But do your subsequent comments (below) not indicate that you're not prepared to make a case of your own, preferring instead merely to pick holes in another posters' case?

C'mon, Franko, don't be so coy!  ;)

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PMNonetheless;
1.
The Scottish electorate knew clearly that if the SNP became the majority party, a referendum on independence would be called.  They duly voted SNP.

Firstly, I don't think many (any?) of the new SNP voters predicted that the SNP would actually gain an overall majority in Holyrood, thereby mandating a referendum. Even Salmond didn't predict it!
Second, they (new SNP voters) know they can always vote "No" in any referendum which might follow.

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PM2.
Not necessarily.  It is equally likely that the results for the Tories stayed roughly similar because the 'hardcore' pro-Union voters voted as they had always done and were never likely to vote for any other party.  However,  those who were swaying in any way opted to plump for the main anti-Union party.

In effect, therefore, the core Tory vote remained "solid", whereas that of Labour and the Lib Dems didn't?
Very unlikely, imo.
Have you any, ahem, evidence to support your conjecture?  ;)

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PM3.
Again, not necessarily.  To use your own phrase, he was possibly afraid that he might 'frighten the horses'.

Doesn't make sense.
If Salmond was confident that these new SNP voters were now converted towards Independence, that must mean that they had already overcome thier former "fright".
Let's be clear, if the majority in Scotland are now in favour of Independence, the SNP waiting three or four years to test that only risks something new emerging to "frighten the horses" (voters) in the meantime.

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PM3.Why do you keep referring to the Westminster vote as the only vote in town when it comes to the 'national' question?

What was that you were saying earlier about people's capability for 'ignoring' election results?

Not "ignoring" anything - I listed the full election results from 1974, after all.

Anyhow, you misrepresent my point, which was that when it comes to Local or Holyrood elections, the Independence Question doesn't feature. Whereas when it comes to Westminster elections, it quite obviously does. And SNP traditionally polls well in the former, but rather more poorly in the latter.

But if you don't believe me on this point, why not re-read Lamd Dhearg Alba's post #106, where he (a committed SNP voter) basically concurs with this point?

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 06, 2011, 06:13:29 PM

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 06, 2011, 03:48:32 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on May 06, 2011, 01:40:10 PM

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 01:29:40 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 03, 2011, 04:41:32 PM

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PM
I do not believe that these "new-born [SNP] Independents"  are sufficiently numerous to take the Independence vote from around 20%(?) to over 40%, for the following reasons:

1. Alex Salmond clearly stated before the Holyrood election that it would NOT be a Referendum on Independence, and his party studiously avoided bringing it to the fore in their campaigning (i.e. not wishing to "frighten the horses");
2. If sentiment had switch decisively towards Independence in yesterday's vote, you might have expected the most obviously pro-Union party - Tories - to have been obliterated. In fact, their vote held up better than eg the Lib Dems, who are the most "wishy-washy" of the pro-Union parties and were absolutely "caned";
3. If sentiment had, indeed, switched towards Independence, you would expect Salmond to "Strike whilst the Iron is Hot" i.e. call for a Referendum asap. Instead, he has been extremely cagey, only saying he expects one "towards the back end of the new Parliament" i.e. 3 or even 4 years away. The only conclusiion which can be drawn from this is that he knows he has a considerable deal of work to do before he has a realistic chance (40%+?) in any Referendum.

So the above is my evidence for believing that support for Independence in Scotland is less than that for a UI within NI.

When may I expect your evidence to the contrary?

No you may not.  As I didn't make any sweeping assertions (here!  ;)) in the first instance, the burden of providing the evidence lies decidedly with you.

Fair enough.

But do your subsequent comments (below) not indicate that you're not prepared to make a case of your own, preferring instead merely to pick holes in another posters' case?

C'mon, Franko, don't be so coy!  ;)

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PMNonetheless;
1.
The Scottish electorate knew clearly that if the SNP became the majority party, a referendum on independence would be called.  They duly voted SNP.

Firstly, I don't think many (any?) of the new SNP voters predicted that the SNP would actually gain an overall majority in Holyrood, thereby mandating a referendum. Even Salmond didn't predict it!
Second, they (new SNP voters) know they can always vote "No" in any referendum which might follow.

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PM2.
Not necessarily.  It is equally likely that the results for the Tories stayed roughly similar because the 'hardcore' pro-Union voters voted as they had always done and were never likely to vote for any other party.  However,  those who were swaying in any way opted to plump for the main anti-Union party.

In effect, therefore, the core Tory vote remained "solid", whereas that of Labour and the Lib Dems didn't?
Very unlikely, imo.
Have you any, ahem, evidence to support your conjecture?  ;)

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PM3.
Again, not necessarily.  To use your own phrase, he was possibly afraid that he might 'frighten the horses'.

Doesn't make sense.
If Salmond was confident that these new SNP voters were now converted towards Independence, that must mean that they had already overcome thier former "fright".
Let's be clear, if the majority in Scotland are now in favour of Independence, the SNP waiting three or four years to test that only risks something new emerging to "frighten the horses" (voters) in the meantime.

Quote from: Franko on May 06, 2011, 05:30:49 PM3.Why do you keep referring to the Westminster vote as the only vote in town when it comes to the 'national' question?

What was that you were saying earlier about people's capability for 'ignoring' election results?

Not "ignoring" anything - I listed the full election results from 1974, after all.

Anyhow, you misrepresent my point, which was that when it comes to Local or Holyrood elections, the Independence Question doesn't feature. Whereas when it comes to Westminster elections, it quite obviously does. And SNP traditionally polls well in the former, but rather more poorly in the latter.

But if you don't believe me on this point, why not re-read Lamd Dhearg Alba's post #106, where he (a committed SNP voter) basically concurs with this point?

1.
Of course they can.  However, the party makes no secret that their main aim is an independent Scotland.  The electorate have endorsed this party with their vote yesterday.

2.
I present you with the election results from yesterday's election.  In terms of seats won, the SNP gained massively, the Lib Dems and Labour lost and the Tories' vote remained the most stable of all the main parties.

3.
Please read Lamh Dearg Alba's most recent post for this.

Also,  you didn't post every election result since 1974, you ignored this result.

You've let yourself down a bagful with that last post EG.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 06, 2011, 06:13:29 PM
Anyhow, you misrepresent my point, which was that when it comes to Local or Holyrood elections, the Independence Question doesn't feature. Whereas when it comes to Westminster elections, it quite obviously does.

What is the basis of this claim?

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 06, 2011, 04:47:44 PM

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AM
Interesting times ahead, Scotland is undoubtedly a bigger threat to the future of the Union than this place

Only in the sense that the "threat to the Union" from NI is negligiible (imo).

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AMElections and Referenda are different kettles of fish (as a panicky EG will undoubtedly be along to tell us before long :))

No "panic" whatever - see my post #105.

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AM... but if the Scottish Assembly Election results are anywhere near replicated (and assuming that a fair smattering of Scottish Labour and possiby Scottish Liberals wouldn't be averse to Independence) it would have to have a fair chance of success.

The key word being "if". I would be interested to see your evidence (for replication), since I see little or none.

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AMThe SNP have went from non-entities to the main (looking like sole) party of Government in what 50 odd years?  The political trajectory is quite clear.

Only when it comes to local and regional/Holyrood issues.
When it comes to "National" issues, I need only repeat their Westminster results:
1974 - 30.4%; 1979 - 19.4%; 1983 - 11.7%; 1987 - 14.0%; 1992 - 21.5%; 1997 - 22.1%; 2001 - 20.1%; 2005 - 17.7%; 2011 - 19.9%.

Try picking a "trajectory" out of that!  ;)

And Independence is most decidedly a National issue.

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AMWhat's clearly in the SNP's favour now is that the greater UK economic argument has been scuppered by the financial crisis of recent time

Really?
Since the Scottish Labour Party's Economic  Manifesto was virtually identical to that of the SNP's, why did the former's vote collapse?
In fact, if you look at the opinion polls leading up to the election, Scottish Labour and SNP were neck-and-neck, until Labour panicked and "re-launched" its campaign in mid-stream.
They first tried to make it an Independence Referendum (Salmond was far too cute to fall for that), then brought "the Two Eds" up from London to lecture their Scottish supporters of the need to send a message to the Coalition Government in Westminster etc.
Unsurprisingly, Scottish voters resented being told how to vote by English "blow-ins" and defected to the SNP in droves during the last few days of the campaign.

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AM... why should smaller nations be afraid to go it alone?

Er, Portugal? Greece? Iceland? Irish Republic, even?  :o

Quote from: bennydorano on May 06, 2011, 10:35:40 AM... especially as Scotland would presumably still be a member of the EU and be able to avail of it's considerable support in weaning it off it's Public Sector dependence.

Jeez, that belongs to the "Lynchbhoy Graduate School of Wishful Thinking"!  :D

When the 2004 EU entrants (Easter Europe, Baltic etc) found "the cupboard was bare", never mind Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, what on earth makes you think that the Germans, French and, ahem, British are going to pump money into a newly-admitted Scotland? Especially when in order to achieve independence from the UK, the SNP will have to persuade the people of Scotland that the newly-independent Scottish nation will be able to stand on its own two feet economically.

They can't boast Wealth in Westminster, then Poverty in Brussels... :o

You've tried to make that look like you've picked apart an argument, by answering a few things that didn't really require an answer.  Using Previous Electoral results as evidence is fine and dandy and you can produce Westminister results till your blue in the face - as I'd imagine you'd be hard pressed to produce previous results of Referenda on Scottish Independence which in context of the discussion would be sort of useful, therefore your Electoral evidence is surely moot as you're not comparing apples with apples.

Smaller nations - you mention 4 that have failed, what about the others that have coped as well as their larger neighbours throughout the Economic downturn?  Good Governance has got nothing to do with size.  Pitiful argument ::)

Ultimately I doubt a Referendum would get a Yes vote in the near future, but there's a better chance of Scotland ceding from the union than NI & ROI 'uniting'.  One thing's for certain it will be decided in the future not in your historical electoral stats and no one knows what the future holds, the trends are debatable but looking at the SNP 15/20 years ago and today should send a shudder down the spine of any unionist IMO.

When the now inevitable vote for Scottish independence comes inexorably around (given the SNP's outright Scottish Parliament majority), the OWC contingent could be left lamentably behind!  :D

Seen Alex Salmond on TV this morning and he was talking about a Refereredum in 8 or 9 years for independance. I wonder why, is it because of the recession? Scotland can't do without GBs money at this time. Will they be able too?

Quote from: dillinger on May 06, 2011, 11:44:15 PM
Seen Alex Salmond on TV this morning and he was talking about a Refereredum in 8 or 9 years for independance. I wonder why, is it because of the recession? Scotland can't do without GBs money at this time. Will they be able too?

Sorry dillinger, but to say "Scotland can't do without GB's money" and therefore can't seek independence from?...., is nonsensical, since Scotland is a component part of Britain. Did you mean England?

If the SNP have an outright majority they can call a referendum whenever they bally well like, though whether they actually would is another matter.

Din't say they can't seek Ind. from GB. Salmon said 8-9 years before they vote on it, or that's what his party wants. Why so long? I had a look at Scottish forum about this and it's about 4 to 1 infavour of the union. And that seems to me a bit strange during to so many voting for the SNP.

Yeah, I'd say it's a bit of a mixed bag for them at the minute.

8 to 9 years seems a bit far out though, since the SNP have always had that as a major plank of their electoral platform.

In Scotland, no less than in NI, people will not vote for uncertainty. A lot of detail is needed to ensure a measure of clarity on which to vote. London won't play ball with this. Salmond is one of the most able politicos in these islands, he'll use the lack of detail and London's refusal to provide it as a reason to delay things, putting the unionists in the bad light all the time.

Can Scotland ever aford to go it alone? Don't know how much oil money is left. Is this oil money even theirs, or do some company own it?

Quote from: dillinger on May 07, 2011, 12:03:36 AM
I had a look at Scottish forum about this and it's about 4 to 1 infavour of the union. And that seems to me a bit strange during to so many voting for the SNP.

It could be the same here - people voting SDLP and even SF because they feel they represent them in the current constitutional arrangements. It may not transfer directly to a 'yes' border poll.

Can any off  Rep of Ireland, N. Ire, Scotland, Wales truly go or exist as an truly  independant country at this time. No i think. They all need the big friendly cousion near us to keep us right. Yes we all have the EC,

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 06, 2011, 04:00:48 PM

Quote from: snoopdog on May 06, 2011, 03:14:55 PM
There is no way Westminister will let scotland go, not until the north sea is drained of

"... Oil".

Obviously.

For whatever else, the British aren't complete idiots. Then again, after 800 years of being "oppressed" by them us, you probably know that... ;)

No need to use quotation marks, it is a reality, it did happen.

Quote from: dillinger on May 07, 2011, 12:35:00 AM
Can any off  Rep of Ireland, N. Ire, Scotland, Wales truly go or exist as an truly  independant country at this time. No i think. They all need the big friendly cousion near us to keep us right. Yes we all have the EC,

Sure England is being proped up by the Irish taxpayer  ;)

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2011, 07:44:50 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2011, 07:01:35 PM

QuoteUnionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

Preach it, brother!

What's worse than this false moral equivalence between unionism and nationalism is the idea that nationalism is the immoral doctrine and unionism is the moral one. The reverse is true.

Am I to take it from prejudiced ranting such as the above, that neither you nor Armaghniac supports the GFA?

For it refers inter alia  to:

[all] our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations
[participants] recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;
the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union
[Government] shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;
[participants] recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose

And if you no longer accept the principles underpinning the GFA, who gets your allegiance now, TUV or the Dissidents?  ::)


 

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 08, 2011, 05:15:29 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2011, 07:44:50 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2011, 07:01:35 PM

QuoteUnionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

Preach it, brother!

What's worse than this false moral equivalence between unionism and nationalism is the idea that nationalism is the immoral doctrine and unionism is the moral one. The reverse is true.

Am I to take it from prejudiced ranting such as the above, that neither you nor Armaghniac supports the GFA?

For it refers inter alia  to:

[all] our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations
[participants] recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;
the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union
[Government] shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;
[participants] recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose

And if you no longer accept the principles underpinning the GFA, who gets your allegiance now, TUV or the Dissidents?  ::)

Was out drinking with a 2 mates of mine and one of their mates from Northern Ireland. One of my mates was an Englishlad the other an Irish girl (N.I. Unionist). Myself and the Englishlad couldn't help smirking all night as our mate kept referring to back home as "Ireland, err am Northern Ireland" and Irish as "Irish, err am Northern Irish". She very very very rarely adds the Northern when drinking over here, but sure on front of the friend from back home she had to put on the show of adding the Northern. Her friend asked her at one stage "why she was talking like that" when my mate from N.I. referred to "the British" in the third person. Just seemed to me the Northern Irish identity seemed like hard work for her, when being Irish was so much more natural.

all the snp have to do is put Braveheart on every night  ;)

Quote from: lawnseed on May 08, 2011, 06:33:36 PM
all the snp have to do is put Braveheart on every night  ;)

Braveheart is a pile of balls. The Bruces were tits too, they invade Ireland to liberate it, me hole, the men of Connacht weren't to fall for their shite like the boyos up in Ulster.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 08, 2011, 05:15:29 PM
And if you no longer accept the principles underpinning the GFA, who gets your allegiance now, TUV or the Dissidents?  ::)

Thanks for misrepresenting me again, EG. Are you really trying to tell me that I have to lick unionism's boots or else I'm with the dissidents? My view is that partition is a wrong that needs to be corrected, but in the meantime I'm willing to put up with it in the name of keeping the peace and taking time to persuade enough of your crowd out of their bigoted ways. My views are 100% compatible with the GFA.

Hi EG,
As far as I rcall, you stated once that you would not be averse to the idea of a UI under certain circumstances.
(I hope I got that right.)
Could you elaborate on this? This is just a matter of personal curiosity.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 10, 2011, 04:15:54 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 08, 2011, 05:15:29 PM
And if you no longer accept the principles underpinning the GFA, who gets your allegiance now, TUV or the Dissidents?  ::)

Thanks for misrepresenting me again, EG. Are you really trying to tell me that I have to lick unionism's boots or else I'm with the dissidents? My view is that partition is a wrong that needs to be corrected, but in the meantime I'm willing to put up with it in the name of keeping the peace and taking time to persuade enough of your crowd out of their bigoted ways. My views are 100% compatible with the GFA.

Aye EG, I would whole heartedly agree with the views of Eamon here, and don't see any bigotry or problem in it.
The union is wrong, but there is no point crying over spilt milk.  Many Nations today have their formation built on blood and tyranny of the past.  We are where we are and that is a place of equal opportunities and rights for all people in the north.  If a united Ireland is only achieved when the majority votes for it I am happy with that, were it be tommorrow  or in a thousand years time.  Whatever the legitimacy of unionist parties now (as they are greatly needed as they represent the majority of people in the north) the foundation of their existence is morally flawed and it is not bigotry to state this.  Much in the same way Americans calling a native Indian a bigot for claiming that their land was stolen is nonsensical

Quote from: MW on May 06, 2011, 12:31:03 AM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2011, 11:39:31 PM
I nearly choked when I saw this.
They said that they'd never get into a negotiated settlement with republicans until they had an electoral mandate. Sinn Fein started making progress in elections and the unionists refused to talk to them.
They said there'd be no talks until the IRA stopped the killing. The IRA called a ceasfire and the unionists refused to talk to them until they declared that the ceasefire was permanent.
Then the decommissioning thing was added to the unionist demand escalator. After the weapons were decommissioned they still wouldn't believe it.
Then they were dragged kicking and screaming into  negotiating a deal in the Good Friday Agreement that included a commitment to sit in government with nationalists/republicans. No sooner were they in government with SF than they got their mates in the RUC's Special Branch to concoct a "spy ring" at Stormont (remember that?) by sending two dozen land rovers up to Stormont to retrieve two computer disks from a Sinn Fein office which were later returned. That was all they needed to pull out of government and the place lay idle for years while the "spy ring" was quietly forgotten and a new agreement had to be rigged up at St Andrews to restore their delicate little confidence.
And at St Andrews wasn't there a thing about agreeing to support an Irish language act? Have they delivered on that part of the deal? Have they f***! They've blocked it at every turn and proclaimed it in their political campaigning about how they're better than the other unionist party for being so effective at blocking any attempts to have an Irish language act. It's as if they never agreed to it!
Unionists stick to their word? Don't make me laugh!

You really have a rather tenuous grasp on reality.
In actual fact, unionists said before the IRA ceasefire of 1994 that they wouldn't talk to an armed terrorist "movement". Actually the requirements set in place by unionist leaders weakened, and they repeatedly compromised on what had been "red lines":
- no talks with SF before the IRA had fullly decommissioned
- no talks with SF until the IRA had started to decommission
...then attendance at talks with SF prior to any decommissioning...
- but no bilateral meetings prior to decomissioning beginning
...then there were bilaterals with SF...
--No entry into government with SF before decommissioning
- No entry into government with SF before decommissioning is begun
-No entry into government with SF before a commitment to begin decommissioning...
As for an Irish language act, I suggest you read the St Andrews Agreement before you go spouting off any more ill-informed nonsense.

you left out the part where unionists/loyalists needed photographs to prove everything...
if these were produced, I wouldnt have been surprised they didnt claim these were photoshopped if produced !!

Eamonnica - you have it spot on in what you say.

Lar - it is in the interests of unionism/loyalism to start negotiations - as the longer they leave it - the less bargaining power they have.
I for one am quite happy they are keeping their heads stuck in the sand.
This way we will keep our Irish Flag and anthem on reunification ! :)

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 10, 2011, 04:15:54 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 08, 2011, 05:15:29 PM
And if you no longer accept the principles underpinning the GFA, who gets your allegiance now, TUV or the Dissidents?  ::)

Thanks for misrepresenting me again, EG. Are you really trying to tell me that I have to lick unionism's boots or else I'm with the dissidents? My view is that partition is a wrong that needs to be corrected, but in the meantime I'm willing to put up with it in the name of keeping the peace and taking time to persuade enough of your crowd out of their bigoted ways. My views are 100% compatible with the GFA.

Really?

The GFA starts with a "Declaration of Support" which all participants agreed to endorse. This Declaration includes the following phrases [my emphasis]:
"... we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust..."
"We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect"
"We acknowledge the substantial differences between our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations"

The Agreement goes on to address the various Constitutional Issues, stating:
"... the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union"
"[Government] shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;"
"[Participants] recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"

Meanwhile, in eg your post #75 of this thread you stated the following:

"I class [Unionism] in the same category as slavery in America, subsequent segregation and Jim Crow laws in the American South, and apartheid in South Africa". You went on to deem Unionism to be "fundamentally undemocratic" and Unionists to be "a garrison people" and "a hate-filled people".

Finally you concluded that "Unionism is an unacceptable ideology that does not deserve any respect", which is entirely in keeping with your earlier endorsement eg of 'Gold' when he claimed that "[Unionists] have no real culture", or 'Armaghniac''s claim that Unionism is "politically incorrect".

In short, you clearly believe that Unionism lacks legitimacy and deserves no respect etc, whereas the GFA clearly affirms that Unionism is legitimate and should be accorded full and equal respect etc.

Do you still claim that your views are "100% compatible" with the GFA?  ::)

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 10, 2011, 10:46:58 AM
Hi EG,
As far as I rcall, you stated once that you would not be averse to the idea of a UI under certain circumstances.
(I hope I got that right.)
Could you elaborate on this? This is just a matter of personal curiosity.

I am a pragmatist and not a dogmatist. I believe that it is the function of a political ideology to serve us, not the other way round.

Therefore I was of the view during the Troubles, for instance, that if a UI could have replaced all the violence and misery with a peaceful, fair and democratic society, then I would have voted for it in an instant. (This was not incompatible with my concurrent view that the imposition of a UI by force on the unwilling and resolute Unionist majority in NI would actually have made things worse,  btw).

And even today, if I thought that a UI would serve the greater good for all the people of Ireland, I might  certainly be persuaded. The problem with that, however, is twofold.

First, when I think about the people in ROI with whom I would be "uniting", those with whom I would get on best (i.e. the great majority) are imo less and less bothered about Unity in the first place. Whereas those who are the most determined to see a UI are the ones with whom I would least* like to be "united".

And secondly, in the present circumstances I honestly cannot see how either  part of Ireland would be better off following Unity, for economic reasons if nothing else.



* - I guess it's got something to do with my aversion to seeing my friends, family and homeland being bombed to sh1t by the more "committed" of Republicans... ::)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 10, 2011, 02:20:11 PMI for one am quite happy they [Unionists] are keeping their heads stuck in the sane.

As opposed to you, whose head is clearly stuck somewhere insane...
:D

A Freudian Typo?

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 10, 2011, 03:55:05 PM
The GFA starts with a "Declaration of Support" which all participants agreed to endorse. This Declaration includes the following phrases [my emphasis]:
"... we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust..."
"We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect"
"[Government] shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;"
"[Participants] recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"

Could EG or someone point out the above to that arsehole Elliott ?

Quote from: Rossfan on May 10, 2011, 05:22:45 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 10, 2011, 03:55:05 PM
The GFA starts with a "Declaration of Support" which all participants agreed to endorse. This Declaration includes the following phrases [my emphasis]:
"... we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust..."
"We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect"
"[Government] shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;"
"[Participants] recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"

Could EG or someone point out the above to that arsehole Elliott ?

Does Elliott post on this website? If so, any idea of his User Name?

(No hurry, btw - it can wait until I've heard back from Eamonnca1)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 10, 2011, 02:20:11 PM
Lar - it is in the interests of unionism/loyalism to start negotiations - as the longer they leave it - the less bargaining power they have.
I for one am quite happy they are keeping their heads stuck in the sand.
This way we will keep our Irish Flag and anthem on reunification ! :)

Is a flag and an anthem really that significant to you / other republicans, in the grand scheme of unification?

Quote from: Maguire01 on May 10, 2011, 06:42:52 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 10, 2011, 02:20:11 PM
Lar - it is in the interests of unionism/loyalism to start negotiations - as the longer they leave it - the less bargaining power they have.
I for one am quite happy they are keeping their heads stuck in the sand.
This way we will keep our Irish Flag and anthem on reunification ! :)

Is a flag and an anthem really that significant to you / other republicans, in the grand scheme of unification?

no, but theres no better alternative. Right now I dont want reunification as economically we cannot sustain the burden of all these civil servants - when we thought we had a large percentage ourselves !
if unionists/loyalists want to proactively and progressively get in on the deal, they need to engage sooner (ie now) rather than continue dragging their heels and eventually like a petulant child expect to be given a greater share than their then lesser population would entitle them to.
ya cant have it every way. they might have been used to things happening like this in the 'good old days' - but the world doesnt work like that and the future reunified Ireland certainly wont 'march' to their minority tune.
If they engage they will be treated equally. otherwise what can they expect.

if all evil myles can do is snipe back with childish retorts and lengthy diatribes of verbosity with no substance as per usual, then it kind of shows that he/she has nothing , no argument other than the good old 'never never never' - and people like Lar naParka will soon see him and his kind for the stick in the mud old stagers like the good old afrikaaners were too !
I know a lot of unionist/loyalists unlike evil mylesy are starting to come out of this old hat mindset and the country and economy will be all the better for it when the reunification comes.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 10, 2011, 06:05:13 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on May 10, 2011, 05:22:45 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 10, 2011, 03:55:05 PM
The GFA starts with a "Declaration of Support" which all participants agreed to endorse. This Declaration includes the following phrases [my emphasis]:
"... we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust..."
"We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect"
"[Government] shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;"
"[Participants] recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"

Could EG or someone point out the above to that arsehole Elliott ?

Does Elliott post on this website? If so, any idea of his User Name?

(No hurry, btw - it can wait until I've heard back from Eamonnca1)

He wouldn't be the first unionist 'politician' if he did ;) Who was the clown who was caught slabbering (bout 2 years ago?) and then alleged someone hacked his account and then was for taking legal action when all and sundry ripped the piss out of him :D

That would be the Bard of Dunclug (not to be confused with Baron of the Manor of Northstead).

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 10, 2011, 04:15:54 AM
My view is that partition is a wrong that needs to be corrected, but in the meantime I'm willing to put up with it in the name of keeping the peace and taking time to persuade enough of your crowd out of their bigoted ways. My views are 100% compatible with the GFA.

Themmuns are a horrible bunch of bastards aren't they?

They should thank their lucky stars you're so tolerant.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 10, 2011, 02:20:11 PM

Quote from: MW on May 06, 2011, 12:31:03 AM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2011, 11:39:31 PM
I nearly choked when I saw this.
They said that they'd never get into a negotiated settlement with republicans until they had an electoral mandate. Sinn Fein started making progress in elections and the unionists refused to talk to them.
They said there'd be no talks until the IRA stopped the killing. The IRA called a ceasfire and the unionists refused to talk to them until they declared that the ceasefire was permanent.
Then the decommissioning thing was added to the unionist demand escalator. After the weapons were decommissioned they still wouldn't believe it.
Then they were dragged kicking and screaming into  negotiating a deal in the Good Friday Agreement that included a commitment to sit in government with nationalists/republicans. No sooner were they in government with SF than they got their mates in the RUC's Special Branch to concoct a "spy ring" at Stormont (remember that?) by sending two dozen land rovers up to Stormont to retrieve two computer disks from a Sinn Fein office which were later returned. That was all they needed to pull out of government and the place lay idle for years while the "spy ring" was quietly forgotten and a new agreement had to be rigged up at St Andrews to restore their delicate little confidence.
And at St Andrews wasn't there a thing about agreeing to support an Irish language act? Have they delivered on that part of the deal? Have they f***! They've blocked it at every turn and proclaimed it in their political campaigning about how they're better than the other unionist party for being so effective at blocking any attempts to have an Irish language act. It's as if they never agreed to it!
Unionists stick to their word? Don't make me laugh!

You really have a rather tenuous grasp on reality.
In actual fact, unionists said before the IRA ceasefire of 1994 that they wouldn't talk to an armed terrorist "movement". Actually the requirements set in place by unionist leaders weakened, and they repeatedly compromised on what had been "red lines":
- no talks with SF before the IRA had fullly decommissioned
- no talks with SF until the IRA had started to decommission
...then attendance at talks with SF prior to any decommissioning...
- but no bilateral meetings prior to decomissioning beginning
...then there were bilaterals with SF...
--No entry into government with SF before decommissioning
- No entry into government with SF before decommissioning is begun
-No entry into government with SF before a commitment to begin decommissioning...
As for an Irish language act, I suggest you read the St Andrews Agreement before you go spouting off any more ill-informed nonsense.

you left out the part where unionists/loyalists needed photographs to prove everything...
if these were produced, I wouldnt have been surprised they didnt claim these were photoshopped if produced !!

Eamonnica - you have it spot on in what you say.

Lar - it is in the interests of unionism/loyalism to start negotiations - as the longer they leave it - the less bargaining power they have.
I for one am quite happy they are keeping their heads stuck in the sand.
This way we will keep our Irish Flag and anthem on reunification ! :)

Why would they start negotiations now when, as the election results show, there is not a single hint that they are about to be out flanked, out voted, or out numbered any time soon? EG has argued the balls off all comers on this subject over the last couple of weeks. Maybe you missed his posts - big long things with a wee fleg on top?

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 10, 2011, 06:05:13 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on May 10, 2011, 05:22:45 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 10, 2011, 03:55:05 PM
The GFA starts with a "Declaration of Support" which all participants agreed to endorse. This Declaration includes the following phrases [my emphasis]:
"... we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust..."
"We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect"
"[Government] shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;"
"[Participants] recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"

Could EG or someone point out the above to that arsehole Elliott ?

Does Elliott post on this website? If so, any idea of his User Name?

(No hurry, btw - it can wait until I've heard back from Eamonnca1)

TonyBaloney?? ;) (With apologies to the real TB)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2011, 07:23:37 AM
Why would they start negotiations now when, as the election results show, there is not a single hint that they are about to be out flanked, out voted, or out numbered any time soon? EG has argued the balls off all comers on this subject over the last couple of weeks. Maybe you missed his posts - big long things with a wee fleg on top?

Your answer is the typical unionist/loyalist response. You also miss the big massive elephant in the room point !!

why does anyone take action ahead of time !

unionists/loyalists wont take action because turkeys dont vote for Christmas (even though Christmas is coming just as reunification is!) - unionists/loyalists dont want to engage as this is an admission that the 'union' will fall. Loylists/unionists just dont want to face this reality.

If you knew you were going to need money for a holiday - you would start saving money before the actual holiday date.
if you needed to pass an exam - you would presumably start studying before the actual exam.
Why indeed would anyone undertake to start negotiations with an impending reunification.
so while the unionists/loyalists cover their eyes, ears and stick their heads in the sand - they are month by month losing the ability to broker a better deal for themselves.
I am all for it.
its amazing how people like yourself and unionists/loyalists like evil myles etc just cannot see the wood from the trees and will put up lengthy nonsensical arguments in a vain attempt to look like they are 'winning' a debate when they dont and wont engage about the actual reality !
Long may it continue !!
I'd much prefer industry to stay in greater Dublin than lesser belfast !!
;)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2011, 10:34:44 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2011, 07:23:37 AM
Why would they start negotiations now when, as the election results show, there is not a single hint that they are about to be out flanked, out voted, or out numbered any time soon? EG has argued the balls off all comers on this subject over the last couple of weeks. Maybe you missed his posts - big long things with a wee fleg on top?

Your answer is the typical unionist/loyalist response. You also miss the big massive elephant in the room point !!

why does anyone take action ahead of time !

unionists/loyalists wont take action because turkeys dont vote for Christmas (even though Christmas is coming just as reunification is!) - unionists/loyalists dont want to engage as this is an admission that the 'union' will fall. Loylists/unionists just dont want to face this reality.

If you knew you were going to need money for a holiday - you would start saving money before the actual holiday date.
if you needed to pass an exam - you would presumably start studying before the actual exam.
Why indeed would anyone undertake to start negotiations with an impending reunification.
so while the unionists/loyalists cover their eyes, ears and stick their heads in the sand - they are month by month losing the ability to broker a better deal for themselves.
I am all for it.
its amazing how people like yourself and unionists/loyalists like evil myles etc just cannot see the wood from the trees and will put up lengthy nonsensical arguments in a vain attempt to look like they are 'winning' a debate when they dont and wont engage about the actual reality !
Long may it continue !!
I'd much prefer industry to stay in greater Dublin than lesser belfast !!
;)

Elephants do not live in Ireland. Perhaps it is just a Púca  in your room?

Anyhow, I have listed ad nauseum  at length the reasons why I feel a UI is anything but inevitable.

Perhaps you might list for me your case* for why it is?


* - Merely saying "It will happen" is not good enough...

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 11, 2011, 04:51:19 PM
;)

Elephants do not live in Ireland. Perhaps it is just a Púca  in your room?

Anyhow, I have listed ad nauseum  at length the reasons why I feel a UI is anything but inevitable.

Perhaps you might list for me your case* for why it is?

* - Merely saying "It will happen" is not good enough...
[/quote]
ad nauseum indeed - will I have to repeat how the british gov want rid of the money pit
how the british gov want the jobs back for England
the population swing
that the six counties are not rightfully belonging to England - remember invasion, plantation
(with all the other cointries handing back or have handed back occupied territories from africa, carribbean, asia, russia, germany etc etc)
making long term financial sense for both Irish and British govs etc etc etc...

get yer head out of the sand !

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
If you knew you were going to need money for a holiday - you would start saving money before the actual holiday date.

I'd put it on a credit card with 0% interest.  :P

But I don't see any reason why the unionists would start negotiating now, when there's no sign of any movement in sight for at least 20 years.

Quote from: Maguire01 on May 11, 2011, 06:35:58 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
If you knew you were going to need money for a holiday - you would start saving money before the actual holiday date.

I'd put it on a credit card with 0% interest.  :P

But I don't see any reason why the unionists would start negotiating now, when there's no sign of any movement in sight for at least 20 years.

well thats a risky strategy by unionists/loyalists if that was the case (as its doomed to failure by ignoring this)
but we know that its not a strategy, its pretending it wont happen and therefore by ignoring it sure everything will stay rosy and great.

however the same aversion to change and same desire for retaining the status quo saw nationalists kepts as second class citizens
the same aversion to change and same desire for retaining the status quo kept the vote away from taigs as long as possible, kept them out of third level education as much as possible, kept them out of civil service and other higher echelon jobs
the same aversion to change and same desire for retaining the status quo allowed the persecution and oppression against catholics/Nationalists/Irish to go on up until GFA.
all the time unionists/loyalists saw this but while a handful spoke out about it, the rest preferred to cary on regardless.
Thats hardly right. Its borderline criminal. Certainly repulsive and unethical.

yes , it is correct - unionists/loyalists dont have to start talks.
But by keeping their heads in the sand again this time, they will lose the bargaining chips they have until they have nothing left.
As I said, its fine by me, they will be treated equally (not fairly- equally - the same as everyone else) in the reunited Ireland.
Its just that they usually whinge about getting more and wanting more (eg photos of IRA in lurid decommissioning poses) !

I dont know if you or evil myles 'get it' .
no bother if not.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2011, 06:30:02 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 11, 2011, 04:51:19 PM
Elephants do not live in Ireland. Perhaps it is just a Púca  in your room?

Anyhow, I have listed ad nauseum  at length the reasons why I feel a UI is anything but inevitable.

Perhaps you might list for me your case* for why it is?

* - Merely saying "It will happen" is not good enough...

ad nauseum indeed - will I have to repeat how the british gov want rid of the money pit

Ah, the old "money pit" argument.
Well if that's your best shot, then you really don't have a case. For I've already demonstrated, with figures, how we've cut hundreds of millions from the bill since the end of Operation Banner alone - or didn't you read post #54 of this thread, earlier?
Add to that the revenue from the sale of redundant MOD sites.
Add to that the reduction in the bill for compensation for all those buildings etc which were destroyed during The Troubles eg £85 million alone for this atrocity alone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/10/newsid_2539000/2539265.stm
Then factor in the reduction which has already started, as the UK-wide cuts begin to bite.
Further, you need to allow for the introduction of a reduced Corporation Tax rate in NI, which needs to see a comparable reduction in the annual subvention for NI from Whitehall (in order to comply with EU State Regional Aid Rules): http://www.progtaxblog.org.uk/2011/03/28/why-cutting-corporation-tax-in-northern-ireland-means-public-spending-cuts-and-job-losses/
And finally, when you consider that NI has only 3% of the population of the UK, even if we were all driving Mercs courtesy of HMG, the simple fact is, NI is only a drop in the ocean of UK-wide spending - and then at a per capita  rate little higher than that of Wales and not much higher than Scotland's, who between them have nearly 5 times the population of NI.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2011, 06:30:02 PMhow the british gov want the jobs back for England

Ah, " the jobs".
Exactly how many Government jobs do you think there are in NI (population < 2 million), to be somehow "repatriated" to GB (population > 57 million) and how much difference do you think they would make?
Here are some figures:
"Indeed, if the size of the Northern Ireland public sector is measured relative to the population (12.4%) the gap with the UK as a whole (9.4%) reduces significantly to just 3 percentage points."
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/2009-10_pay_and_workforce_technical_annex.pdf
Bear in mind that the great majority of these public sector jobs simply cannot  be moved to GB (hospitals, schools, local Government etc). And of those few that might be, often these are in NI because with our lower cost of living, NI can sustain lower wages than GB i.e. it would cost the Exchequer more to pay people to do the same jobs on the mainland. 

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2011, 06:30:02 PMthe population swing

As the Election thread elsewhere clearly proves, the "population swing", much vaunted by Republicans, is actually having zero effect on voting patterns, this (voting) being the only way in which Republicans might hope to achieve a UI.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2011, 06:30:02 PMthat the six counties are not rightfully belonging to England - remember invasion, plantation

No-one bar you is claiming that "the six counties" [sic] belong to "England" any more than England "belongs" to NI, for that is not how a Union works.
Rather, NI is one of the four nations which makes up the United Kingdom and as such, we have as much right to benefit from our position as any of the other 3 members.
Moreover, NI's position within the Union was universally recognised, including by the overwhelming majority of Irish people, North and South, in the GFA. You know, the GFA which you claim to support.
Anyhow, if you're still confused by the concept of a Union, try thinking about eg the Irish Republic's position within the European Union. that is, although it may appear that they are "owned" by Germany, France and, ahem, the UK, they are not. (Or, at least until they are unable to pay their Membership Fee, at which point we may need to send in the Bailiffs...)

P.S. I don't remember any invasion, orthe Plantation. Do you?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2011, 06:30:02 PM(with all the other cointries handing back or have handed back occupied territories from africa, carribbean, asia, russia, germany etc etc)

NI is "occupied" by the people who live there. And as such, it is the democratic right of those people, and theirs alone, to determine what their constitutional status should be. Moreover this right is universally recognised and accepted* (other than by a few dreamers and idiots etc who refuse to recognise reality). Therefore there is simply no question of anyone "handing back" anywhere to anyone; rather it is votes which will count.

* - That inconvenient GFA again, remember?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2011, 06:30:02 PMmaking long term financial sense for both Irish and British govs etc etc etc...

How so? (And merely typing "etc etc etc" does not constitute an argument).

Any authoritative papers? Any research? Some figures, perhaps?

No?

Thought not... ::)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2011, 06:30:02 PMget yer head out of the sand !

Time you got a new catchphrase, I think.
I would suggest "Pieces of Eight" for you myself, only another bird-brain got there first... :D

Quote
But I don't see any reason why the unionists would start negotiating now, when there's no sign of any movement in sight for at least 20 years.

Yeah, right, don't worry about the pension, sure we are all young yet.

QuoteNo-one bar you is claiming that "the six counties" [sic] belong to "England" any more than England "belongs" to NI, for that is not how a Union works.

But the government of the union have a clear opinion on this as they routinely called themselves the British government rather than the UK government, they routinely refer to British people rather than UK people and they have an army that is invariably called the British army rather than the UK. Nobody, including unionists, believe that the union of GB and NI is for the benefit of the people of NI, it is for the benefit of British people in Britian and British people in NI.

QuoteRather, NI is one of the four nations

nation my arsé.

QuoteNI is "occupied" by the people who live there.

No doubt it is. However it was also occupied in political sense, on what date did it cease to be so occupied?

<sigh> evil myles
you just don't get or don't want to admit it!
Zero money spenditure as opposed to multi millions/ billions is the Brit gov perspective - your own blinkered biased view won't deter them!
Same for the jobs!
You just don't 'get' commercialism either obv!

Anyhow I've been pointing out for some time now your head in the sand lack of reality , no matter how you try to conjure up arbitrary 'stats' and long winded superflous posts with no actual real points or on topic realism.
But keep it up, you are demonstrating to the uninitiated southern contingent the fork tongue of unionist/loyalist 'arseboxing' talk with a view to never never never have to negotiate or 'power share' with the secon class citizens! ( though as this has failed on the first two, the never never never and unionist/loyalist lie - fest now turns it's lack of attention onto reunification and rebuilding a decent fair and inclusive political and economic country!)

Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 04:32:33 PM

QuoteNo-one bar you is claiming that "the six counties" [sic] belong to "England" any more than England "belongs" to NI, for that is not how a Union works.

But the government of the union have a clear opinion on this as they routinely called themselves the British government rather than the UK government, they routinely refer to British people rather than UK people and they have an army that is invariably called the British army rather than the UK.

I suppose we could rename them the United Kingdomish Government/people/Army* etc, but it's a bit unwieldy, don't you think and besides, it's the substance  which counts, not the designation?
Anyhow, whether we be English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh - we're all from the United Kingdomish British Isles...  ;)
(http://www.uni-play.co.uk/ProductImages/107A.jpg)


* - A thought occurs. As well as the (British) Army, Her Majesty's Armed Forces also comprise the Royal  Navy, Royal Air Force and Royal  Marines. Does that designation mean these last three aren't British?  :D

Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 04:32:33 PMNobody, including unionists, believe that the union of GB and NI is for the benefit of the people of NI, it is for the benefit of British people in Britian and British people in NI.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is intended/designed to be for the benefit of the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whether all such people acknowledge and accept that or not.

Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 04:32:33 PM

QuoteRather, NI is one of the four nations

nation my arsé.

Whatever.

(Btw, has anyone ever told you you've got an acute arse?)

Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 04:32:33 PM

QuoteNI is "occupied" by the people who live there.

No doubt it is. However it [NI] was also occupied in political sense, on what date did it cease to be so occupied?

Not sure.
My guess it was some time after it was occupied by the Celts, Vikings and Normans etc, but some time before the founding of other political constructs such as the USA and Canada; Australia and New Zealand; India, South Africa and virtually all of the countries of Central and South America. And many of those in Europe and Asia, too...

Maybe I should ask my four hundred year old grandfather, he might remember?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 14, 2011, 05:45:24 PM
<sigh> evil myles
you just don't get or don't want to admit it!
Zero money spenditure as opposed to multi millions/ billions is the Brit gov perspective - your own blinkered biased view won't deter them!
Same for the jobs!
You just don't 'get' commercialism either obv!

Anyhow I've been pointing out for some time now your head in the sand lack of reality , no matter how you try to conjure up arbitrary 'stats' and long winded superflous posts with no actual real points or on topic realism.
But keep it up, you are demonstrating to the uninitiated southern contingent the fork tongue of unionist/loyalist 'arseboxing' talk with a view to never never never have to negotiate or 'power share' with the secon class citizens! ( though as this has failed on the first two, the never never never and unionist/loyalist lie - fest now turns it's lack of attention onto reunification and rebuilding a decent fair and inclusive political and economic country!)

I am quite happy to let other posters, whether "Southern", "uninitiated" or otherwise, judge which of the two of us has something worthwhile to say.

In fact, when I reply to your posts, it is invariably for the benefit of others, for I have long since concluded that you are incapable of comprehending anything more advanced than "Sun" headlines, cliches, stereotypes and soundbites... ::)

QuoteAnyhow, whether we be English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh - we're all from the United Kingdomish British Isles...  ;)

When you haven't any reasonable response to the point, you come up with this sort of nonsense, complete with smiley.

The Isle of Man is in the Irish sea, but that does not make it Irish.

And of course you provided these telling ripostes

Quote* - A thought occurs. As well as the (British) Army, Her Majesty's Armed Forces also comprise the Royal  Navy, Royal Air Force and Royal  Marines. Does that designation mean these last three aren't British?  :D

QuoteMaybe I should ask my four hundred year old grandfather, he might remember?

On such powerful arguments does the future of the UK rest.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 14, 2011, 05:58:40 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 04:32:33 PM

QuoteNo-one bar you is claiming that "the six counties" [sic] belong to "England" any more than England "belongs" to NI, for that is not how a Union works.

But the government of the union have a clear opinion on this as they routinely called themselves the British government rather than the UK government, they routinely refer to British people rather than UK people and they have an army that is invariably called the British army rather than the UK.

I suppose we could rename them the United Kingdomish Government/people/Army* etc, but it's a bit unwieldy, don't you think and besides, it's the substance  which counts, not the designation?
Anyhow, whether we be English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh - we're all from the United Kingdomish British Isles...  ;)
(http://www.uni-play.co.uk/ProductImages/107A.jpg)


* - A thought occurs. As well as the (British) Army, Her Majesty's Armed Forces also comprise the Royal  Navy, Royal Air Force and Royal  Marines. Does that designation mean these last three aren't British?  :D

Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 04:32:33 PMNobody, including unionists, believe that the union of GB and NI is for the benefit of the people of NI, it is for the benefit of British people in Britian and British people in NI.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is intended/designed to be for the benefit of the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whether all such people acknowledge and accept that or not.

Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 04:32:33 PM

QuoteRather, NI is one of the four nations

nation my arsé.

Whatever.

(Btw, has anyone ever told you you've got an acute arse?)

Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 04:32:33 PM

QuoteNI is "occupied" by the people who live there.

No doubt it is. However it [NI] was also occupied in political sense, on what date did it cease to be so occupied?

Not sure.
My guess it was some time after it was occupied by the Celts, Vikings and Normans etc, but some time before the founding of other political constructs such as the USA and Canada; Australia and New Zealand; India, South Africa and virtually all of the countries of Central and South America. And many of those in Europe and Asia, too...

Maybe I should ask my four hundred year old grandfather, he might remember?

A term created by a known Imperalist who actually claimed proudly to be one in the court of Elizabeth I created this faux term to justify the Tudor reconquests and colonisation.

Its Ireland and Britain or f**k OFF.

Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 06:11:22 PM

QuoteAnyhow, whether we be English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh - we're all from the United Kingdomish British Isles...  ;)

When you haven't any reasonable response to the point, you come up with this sort of nonsense, complete with smiley.

The Isle of Man is in the Irish sea, but that does not make it Irish.

And of course you provided these telling ripostes

Quote* - A thought occurs. As well as the (British) Army, Her Majesty's Armed Forces also comprise the Royal  Navy, Royal Air Force and Royal  Marines. Does that designation mean these last three aren't British?  :D

QuoteMaybe I should ask my four hundred year old grandfather, he might remember?

On such powerful arguments does the future of the UK rest.

Sometimes my points are serious, sometimes they are light-hearted.
I had hoped that my use of smilies etc with the latter was sufficient to distinguish between the two (along with a modicum of common sense on the part of the reader).
Do you need me to spell it out for you in future?

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 06:16:07 PMIts Ireland and Britain or f**k OFF.

So shall we agree, then, we all live in the "Isles of Fcuk Off!"

Q. "Where do you come from?"
A. "Fcuk Off!"

I like it!  ;)

P.S. If you're still there, Armaghniac, I'm being light-hearted again...

The Gaelic and Minor peoples Isles

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Map_Gaels_Brythons_Picts.png)

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 14, 2011, 06:26:18 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 06:16:07 PMIts Ireland and Britain or f**k OFF.

So shall we agree, then, we all live in the "Isles of Fcuk Off!"

Q. "Where do you come from?"
A. "Fcuk Off!"

I like it!  ;)

P.S. If you're still there, Armaghniac, I'm being light-hearted again...

I agree, everybody has been telling each other to f**k off for as long as the Irish Isles have been inhabited, as Ireland was an Island long before Britain it makes sense that Ireland should be the more senior of the two mainland islands.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 14, 2011, 06:10:51 PM

I am quite happy to let other posters, whether "Southern", "uninitiated" or otherwise, judge which of the two of us has something worthwhile to say.
In fact, when I reply to your posts, it is invariably for the benefit of others, for I have long since concluded that you are incapable of comprehending anything more advanced than "Sun" headlines, cliches, stereotypes and soundbites... ::)
[/quote]
Interestingly enough it was yourself who resorted to gutter tabloidesque name calling a short while ago possibly on this thread!
It is for the benefit of others that myself and now seemingly a few more reply to your posts. Perspective and opinion ate one thing, but your at worst lies or at best skewed truth and whataboutery cannot be allowed to be passed off as truth.
Meanwhile you should check your facts or sources on Brit gov perspective on jettisoning the north! Check out commercialism while you are at it!

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 06:27:42 PM
The Gaelic and Minor peoples Isles

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Map_Gaels_Brythons_Picts.png)

I know you're keen on old maps, early history and the like, MGHU.

Maybe you can explain some of this to me, for although it's only Wiki, I cannot understand all these references to "the Prettanic Isles" and the like.  ;)

"The earliest known references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of sea-farers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia. The original records have been lost; however, later writings that quoted from the Massaliote Periplus (6th century BC) and Pytheas's On the Ocean (circa 325–320 BC) have survived. In the 1st century BC, Diodorus used the Latin form, Πρεττανια (Prettania) from Πρεττανικη (Prettanike), Strabo used Βρεττανία (Brettania), and Marcian of Heraclea, in his Periplus maris exteri, used αἱ Πρεττανικαὶ νῆσοι (the Prettanic Isles) to refer to the islands. Historians today, though not in absolute agreement, largely agree that these Greek and Latin names were probably drawn from native Celtic-language names for the archipelago. Along these lines, the inhabits of the islands of Pretanike were called the Πρεττανοι (Priteni or Pretani). The shift from the "P" of Pretannia to the "B" of Britannia by the Romans occurred during the time of Julius Caesar.

The classical writer, Ptolemy, referred to the larger island as Great Britain (Megale Britannia) and to Ireland as Little Britain (Mikra Brettania) in his work, Almagest (147–148 AD). In his later work, Geography (c. 150 AD), he gave these islands the names Albion, Iwernia, and Mona (the Isle of Man), suggesting these may have been native names of the individual islands not known to him at the time of writing Almagest."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 06:29:05 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 14, 2011, 06:26:18 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 06:16:07 PMIts Ireland and Britain or f**k OFF.

So shall we agree, then, we all live in the "Isles of Fcuk Off!"

Q. "Where do you come from?"
A. "Fcuk Off!"

I like it!  ;)

P.S. If you're still there, Armaghniac, I'm being light-hearted again...

I agree, everybody has been telling each other to f**k off for as long as the Irish Isles have been inhabited, as Ireland was an Island long before Britain it makes sense that Ireland should be the more senior of the two mainland islands.

So you reckon it's the "Irish Isles" we're all living in, MGHU?

Good Luck with that one - it might catch on before you become "German-administered Irische Kolonie" (or somesuch).

For to paraphrase your fellow-Connaught man, Lord Haw Haw:
"When the Reich's Panzers IMF's Accountants roll through the Irish Free State Republic, De Valera  Inda will have no more power to resist them than the tinkers of the Ballygaddy Road in Tuam."

:D

Why do you post on this site? Have you any interest in the GAA or do you simply see yourself as the GAA Discussion Board's answer to Jim Allister?

Quote from: Dougal Maguire on May 14, 2011, 07:10:49 PMWhy do you post on this site?

The same reason as everyone else, I expect - an agreeable way to waste pass the time.

Quote from: Dougal Maguire on May 14, 2011, 07:10:49 PMHave you any interest in the GAA...

Yes, a little.

Which is probably more interest than the GAA has in me, seeing as I'm one of "themmuns"...

Quote from: Dougal Maguire on May 14, 2011, 07:10:49 PM... or do you simply see yourself as the GAA Discussion Board's answer to Jim Allister?

No.

If I did, I'd have chosen the User Name "Pointless Twatt" or somesuch.

Fair enough. Mind you, you do spend most of your time waging a one man war against most of the posters here ala Jim in Stormont on Thursday. However if your primary reason for visiting the site is your interest in Gaelic sports then as far as I'm concerned you're not one of themmuns but rather you're one of us.
Yours in sport
DM

BTW, that signature of yours, is that a quote from somewhere?

dougal, its a quote from the first season of the soprano's

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 14, 2011, 06:52:25 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 06:27:42 PM
The Gaelic and Minor peoples Isles

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Map_Gaels_Brythons_Picts.png)

I know you're keen on old maps, early history and the like, MGHU.

Maybe you can explain some of this to me, for although it's only Wiki, I cannot understand all these references to "the Prettanic Isles" and the like.  ;)

"The earliest known references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of sea-farers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia. The original records have been lost; however, later writings that quoted from the Massaliote Periplus (6th century BC) and Pytheas's On the Ocean (circa 325–320 BC) have survived. In the 1st century BC, Diodorus used the Latin form, Πρεττανια (Prettania) from Πρεττανικη (Prettanike), Strabo used Βρεττανία (Brettania), and Marcian of Heraclea, in his Periplus maris exteri, used αἱ Πρεττανικαὶ νῆσοι (the Prettanic Isles) to refer to the islands. Historians today, though not in absolute agreement, largely agree that these Greek and Latin names were probably drawn from native Celtic-language names for the archipelago. Along these lines, the inhabits of the islands of Pretanike were called the Πρεττανοι (Priteni or Pretani). The shift from the "P" of Pretannia to the "B" of Britannia by the Romans occurred during the time of Julius Caesar.

The classical writer, Ptolemy, referred to the larger island as Great Britain (Megale Britannia) and to Ireland as Little Britain (Mikra Brettania) in his work, Almagest (147–148 AD). In his later work, Geography (c. 150 AD), he gave these islands the names Albion, Iwernia, and Mona (the Isle of Man), suggesting these may have been native names of the individual islands not known to him at the time of writing Almagest."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

I'm sure i've read elsewhere that GB was a French assignation to distinguish it from Brittany/Bretagne?

EG you have been immature there, ahh well if you dont agree with me im just going to say that your part of the british isles. ironically it is that same british bluster that will sustain nationalist ambition in the north of ireland for future generations, it actually imbues a greater sense of patriotism than the gaa

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 10, 2011, 08:05:58 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on May 10, 2011, 06:42:52 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 10, 2011, 02:20:11 PM
Lar - it is in the interests of unionism/loyalism to start negotiations - as the longer they leave it - the less bargaining power they have.
I for one am quite happy they are keeping their heads stuck in the sand.
This way we will keep our Irish Flag and anthem on reunification ! :)

Is a flag and an anthem really that significant to you / other republicans, in the grand scheme of unification?

no, but theres no better alternative. Right now I dont want reunification as economically we cannot sustain the burden of all these civil servants - when we thought we had a large percentage ourselves !
if unionists/loyalists want to proactively and progressively get in on the deal, they need to engage sooner (ie now) rather than continue dragging their heels and eventually like a petulant child expect to be given a greater share than their then lesser population would entitle them to.
ya cant have it every way. they might have been used to things happening like this in the 'good old days' - but the world doesnt work like that and the future reunified Ireland certainly wont 'march' to their minority tune.
If they engage they will be treated equally. otherwise what can they expect.

if all evil myles can do is snipe back with childish retorts and lengthy diatribes of verbosity with no substance as per usual, then it kind of shows that he/she has nothing , no argument other than the good old 'never never never' - and people like Lar naParka will soon see him and his kind for the stick in the mud old stagers like the good old afrikaaners were too !
I know a lot of unionist/loyalists unlike evil mylesy are starting to come out of this old hat mindset and the country and economy will be all the better for it when the reunification comes.

So you want EG to make a valid proposal for unification?

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 14, 2011, 07:07:58 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 06:29:05 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 14, 2011, 06:26:18 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 06:16:07 PMIts Ireland and Britain or f**k OFF.

So shall we agree, then, we all live in the "Isles of Fcuk Off!"

Q. "Where do you come from?"
A. "Fcuk Off!"

I like it!  ;)

P.S. If you're still there, Armaghniac, I'm being light-hearted again...

I agree, everybody has been telling each other to f**k off for as long as the Irish Isles have been inhabited, as Ireland was an Island long before Britain it makes sense that Ireland should be the more senior of the two mainland islands.

So you reckon it's the "Irish Isles" we're all living in, MGHU?

Good Luck with that one - it might catch on before you become "German-administered Irische Kolonie" (or somesuch).

For to paraphrase your fellow-Connaught man, Lord Haw Haw:
"When the Reich's Panzers IMF's Accountants roll through the Irish Free State Republic, De Valera  Inda will have no more power to resist them than the tinkers of the Ballygaddy Road in Tuam."

:D

Bit pissed at the mo, so I will get back to you. I have to say yourself and Lawnseed are my two favourate posters, followed closely by a few of the Rossie and Mayo lads. Interesting conversation tbf.

O ya the Pretanic Isles never referred to Ireland as far as I understand. Even if they did they would be preferable to British Isles. Why would a Greek get to name an Archipelogo of Gaels, Picts and Britons anyways.

I do have a preference for Pre-Germanic history  ;) Even in Germany the Germanics are blow-ins.

QuoteP.S. If you're still there, Armaghniac,

I haven't gone away, you know.

QuoteI'm being light-hearted again.

..


More likely, light-headed.

MGHU, I find your bluster any time anyone uses the term "Free State" be completely and utterly hypocritical You attempt to lecture people about technicalities over naming and constantly insist that as the 26 county state that occupies the majority of the island is named Éire in its constitution, the correct term in English is Ireland. You frequently refer to this constitution as some sort of vindication, conveniently ignoring the fact that when that constitution was written, the State unreservedly laid claim to the territory of the whole island of Ireland. That constitution, as you know, has been amended in this respect following the GFA.

So while your constitutional backing of the name "Ireland" for the 26 county state, this is as inaccurate as "Free State".

Quote from: gallsman on May 15, 2011, 02:43:03 AM
MGHU, I find your bluster any time anyone uses the term "Free State" be completely and utterly hypocritical You attempt to lecture people about technicalities over naming and constantly insist that as the 26 county state that occupies the majority of the island is named Éire in its constitution, the correct term in English is Ireland. You frequently refer to this constitution as some sort of vindication, conveniently ignoring the fact that when that constitution was written, the State unreservedly laid claim to the territory of the whole island of Ireland. That constitution, as you know, has been amended in this respect following the GFA.

So while your backing of the name "Ireland" for the 26 county state is backed by the constitution, this is as inaccurate as "Free State".

Quote from: gallsman on May 15, 2011, 02:43:03 AM
MGHU, I find your bluster any time anyone uses the term "Free State" be completely and utterly hypocritical You attempt to lecture people about technicalities over naming and constantly insist that as the 26 county state that occupies the majority of the island is named Éire in its constitution, the correct term in English is Ireland. You frequently refer to this constitution as some sort of vindication, conveniently ignoring the fact that when that constitution was written, the State unreservedly laid claim to the territory of the whole island of Ireland. That constitution, as you know, has been amended in this respect following the GFA.

So while your constitutional backing of the name "Ireland" for the 26 county state, this is as inaccurate as "Free State".

There was no name change to the country (state) in any ammendment of Bunreacht na hÉireann. The Irish Free State is a redundant term. Is it only people from the 6 counties that are allowed to get offended.

What's the bloody point of keeping the union if I can't watch Antrim against Donegal on BBC while I'm England. It's a f**king sham.  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 15, 2011, 03:28:11 PM
There was no name change to the country (state) in any ammendment of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Therefore 'Ireland' or 'Éire' refers to the 32 counties, not the 26. Remember that.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 15, 2011, 03:28:11 PM

Quote from: gallsman on May 15, 2011, 02:43:03 AM
MGHU, I find your bluster any time anyone uses the term "Free State" be completely and utterly hypocritical You attempt to lecture people about technicalities over naming and constantly insist that as the 26 county state that occupies the majority of the island is named Éire in its constitution, the correct term in English is Ireland. You frequently refer to this constitution as some sort of vindication, conveniently ignoring the fact that when that constitution was written, the State unreservedly laid claim to the territory of the whole island of Ireland. That constitution, as you know, has been amended in this respect following the GFA.

So while your constitutional backing of the name "Ireland" for the 26 county state, this is as inaccurate as "Free State".

There was no name change to the country (state) in any ammendment of Bunreacht na hÉireann. The Irish Free State is a redundant term. Is it only people from the 6 counties that are allowed to get offended.

So what you're saying is you base the offence you take on a technicality of the Constitution. What was the name of the 26 counties pre-1998, whe the constitution laid claim to the entire island?

You are a pedant. A disgrace living up the history of the Fine Gael party in which you refuse to ever see any wrongdoing.

Quote from: thejuice on May 15, 2011, 03:36:45 PM
What's the bloody point of keeping the union if I can't watch Antrim against Donegal on BBC while I'm England. It's a f**king sham.  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

That might have been something of a blessing, given the game that's in it!  ;)

Quote from: gallsman on May 15, 2011, 04:24:37 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 15, 2011, 03:28:11 PM

Quote from: gallsman on May 15, 2011, 02:43:03 AM
MGHU, I find your bluster any time anyone uses the term "Free State" be completely and utterly hypocritical You attempt to lecture people about technicalities over naming and constantly insist that as the 26 county state that occupies the majority of the island is named Éire in its constitution, the correct term in English is Ireland. You frequently refer to this constitution as some sort of vindication, conveniently ignoring the fact that when that constitution was written, the State unreservedly laid claim to the territory of the whole island of Ireland. That constitution, as you know, has been amended in this respect following the GFA.

So while your constitutional backing of the name "Ireland" for the 26 county state, this is as inaccurate as "Free State".

There was no name change to the country (state) in any ammendment of Bunreacht na hÉireann. The Irish Free State is a redundant term. Is it only people from the 6 counties that are allowed to get offended.

So what you're saying is you base the offence you take on a technicality of the Constitution. What was the name of the 26 counties pre-1998, whe the constitution laid claim to the entire island?

You are a pedant. A disgrace living up the history of the Fine Gael party in which you refuse to ever see any wrongdoing.

Here we go again, I normally use the term the Irish Republic and only resort to Ireland or Éire when the Free Stater or Free State shite starts on this board. Care to check my posts you will find I am telling the truth.

What wrongdoing are you on about ffs? Cumann na nGaedheal delievered us the Irish state, they preserved democracy against anti-democrats in the Civil War, they stablised the fledgling state. Fine Gael established the Republic.

I have no anti-6 county agenda, I have a bloody hangover from hell from being out drinking with a crowd of friends from the 6 counties last night. I get annoyed and retort when people from Northern Ireland try and mock or belittle the state I am proud to call home (I am also proud to be from the Island and the 32 county nation).

You are trying to tell me what my views are as opposed to listening to what they are. I don't just talk about N.I. sure if you read my posts I am as likely to be annoyed about something up in Dublin, Ballina, Galway, the status of Ballaghaderreen, Britain or with the Yanks.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 15, 2011, 05:30:42 PM
I am as likely to be annoyed about something up in Dublin, Ballina, Galway, the status of Ballaghaderreen, Britain or with the Yanks.

Ballagh is nothing to do with ye rhubarbs. It's a happy Roscommon town looked after by the great Roscommon Co Council and its wonderful local Councillors whom the people of Ballagh elect freely onto the Ros Co Co.
Now if the few GAA dinosaurs who remain in that lovely town could see the light instead of trying to turn back the clock to the dark ages of rhubarbdome..........

That this thread has degenerated into playground name-calling by various Nationalist factions etc tells us all we need to know about the likelihood of Irish Re-Unification [sic] occurring anytime soon!  :D

Time to close it, I'd say...


















... and keep it closed for another 50+ years!  ;)

I see nothing in the GFA that says that I have to "respect" unionism in the sense of declaring that it's a perfectly valid political argument worthy of my support. All I see is that I give it enough recognition as a view that is held by a significant section of the population and that they are entitled to have that view. So you're entitled to your opinion that unionism is a valid position, and I'm entitled to my view that it's an immoral one. But in the interests of building a stable society we both agree to disagree on that issue for the time being.

But, tomorrow's another day!

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 16, 2011, 04:31:39 PM
That this thread has degenerated into playground name-calling by various Nationalist factions etc tells us all we need to know about the likelihood of Irish Re-Unification [sic] occurring anytime soon!  :D

So every time someone resorts to name-calling, that tells you "all we need to know" about their position or the liklihood of them getting their own way? Well that's Tom Elliot sorted out so.

Quote
Time to close it, I'd say...
... and keep it closed for another 50+ years!  ;)

Ah, the old "let's not even talk about Irish unity" ruse. No dice. We're gonna keep on talking about it until the day it happens, matey!  ;D

Incidentally, what's up with the sic thing up there when you talk about reunification? Are you saying it was never unified?  We'll leave aside the Ard Ri and Brian Boru and the comparison with England which wasn't united until under Henry VII in 1485 for a minute, but youse boys are fond of telling us that Ireland was only united under the British. Well if the British saw fit to have the place run as a single entity with its own devolved parliament for so long (and the Orange Order were leading campaigners against the abolition of what they called "our Irish Parliament") then that kinda holes your little 'sic' below the waterline, wouldn't you say? 

In fact to this day it's not uncommon to hear planters like yourself say that you'd be okay with the Free State* rejoining the UK, and with Ireland being united under those circumstances. That tells me that deep down you don't really believe your own propaganda about the sick county state being a nation in its own right. If you did, why would you want to reunite with these "foreigners" south of the border?

*I'll carry on using that term as long as the word "nordie" keeps appearing on these pages.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 16, 2011, 04:31:39 PM
That this thread has degenerated into playground name-calling by various Nationalist factions etc tells us all we need to know about the likelihood of Irish Re-Unification [sic] occurring anytime soon!  :D

Time to close it, I'd say...


















... and keep it closed for another 50+ years!  ;)

Unfortunately, it seems to have passed its sell by date. Like most other threads with an Orange vs Green flavour, it has degenerated as you say.
However, I had hoped it would slide down the ratings and slip into the background.
I am reluctant to close it for a number of reasons:
It may happen that, sometime in the future, the thread may become relevant again. I'm not anticipating  this but it remains a possibility. In such a case, leaving this thread open would perhaps stop someone opening a fresh thread on the same topic. Then, the whole tiresome cycle would start all over again.
Maybe those who choose to play the man and not the ball would show more restraint and stay on topic if it's a resumption rather than a fresh start. I would also expect a few whining PMs to accuse me of favouring the Unionist cause. It happens from time to time.
You can be sure MW isn't going to send me one of those!
It could also be pointed out to me that all the handbagging isn't coming from the nationalist side and that nobody needs to respond to anything that is posted. Believe me, I have heard all of this before.
I have another reason for leaving this thread open, EG, at least for a little while longer and it is this; shutting this one down would leave the posters, who annoy you here, free to move to another one and degrade the discussion there also.

I don't see the point of closing the thread myself. It people get sick of it then nature will take its course and it'll disappear off the front page.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 07:32:07 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 16, 2011, 04:31:39 PM
That this thread has degenerated into playground name-calling by various Nationalist factions etc tells us all we need to know about the likelihood of Irish Re-Unification [sic] occurring anytime soon!  :D

So every time someone resorts to name-calling, that tells you "all we need to know" about their position or the liklihood of them getting their own way? Well that's Tom Elliot sorted out so.

Quote
Time to close it, I'd say...
... and keep it closed for another 50+ years!  ;)

Ah, the old "let's not even talk about Irish unity" ruse. No dice. We're gonna keep on talking about it until the day it happens, matey!  ;D

Incidentally, what's up with the sic thing up there when you talk about reunification? Are you saying it was never unified?  We'll leave aside the Ard Ri and Brian Boru and the comparison with England which wasn't united until under Henry VII in 1485 for a minute, but youse boys are fond of telling us that Ireland was only united under the British. Well if the British saw fit to have the place run as a single entity with its own devolved parliament for so long (and the Orange Order were leading campaigners against the abolition of what they called "our Irish Parliament") then that kinda holes your little 'sic' below the waterline, wouldn't you say? 

In fact to this day it's not uncommon to hear planters like yourself say that you'd be okay with the Free State* rejoining the UK, and with Ireland being united under those circumstances. That tells me that deep down you don't really believe your own propaganda about the sick county state being a nation in its own right. If you did, why would you want to reunite with these "foreigners" south of the border?

*I'll carry on using that term as long as the word "nordie" keeps appearing on these pages.

probably best not use that as your example of a United Ireland...

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 09:17:11 PM
I don't see the point of closing the thread myself. It people get sick of it then nature will take its course and it'll disappear off the front page.

Exactly. I don't think all the slagging is coming from the Nationalist side- not by a long shot.
This is not the first time a thread like this has been brought to a standstill or maybe it would be more accurate to say it was fought to a standstill.
I think the discussion was reasonable enough in the earlier stages but, by now, it has gone the way of many others. 
However, it takes at least one from both sides to keep the handbagging going on. This tit for tat stuff won't stop with the closing of this thread. There will always be another one and it inevitably be derailed once more and I really don't see much point in not leaving this one open.

Quote from: bloodybreakball on May 14, 2011, 07:57:48 PM
dougal, its a quote from the first season of the soprano's

Not so, it's from rather closer to home, if you like, more "Wexford shore" than "Jersey shore"!  ;)

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 07:23:41 PM
I see nothing in the GFA that says that I have to "respect" unionism in the sense of declaring that it's a perfectly valid political argument worthy of my support. All I see is that I give it enough recognition as a view that is held by a significant section of the population and that they are entitled to have that view. So you're entitled to your opinion that unionism is a valid position, and I'm entitled to my view that it's an immoral one. But in the interests of building a stable society we both agree to disagree on that issue for the time being.

But, tomorrow's another day!

I have quoted the clear and unambiguous terms whereby the Participants to the GFA confirm that they respect all political, religious and cultural Irish traditions equally, including that of the British community in Ireland, Unionism.

Of course you do not have to respect Unionism, never mind give it your support.

But like eg Nally Stand on another thread, you cannot "have your cake and eat it" i.e. claim to support the GFA, whilst simultaneously disregarding those most basic premises which you don't like.

As a Unionist, I dislike eg the requirement that there be coalition government as of right for all parties. And I abhor the provision that permitted paramilitary prisoners (both sides, btw) to be released early, often after only serving minimal sentences for the most heinous of crimes etc.

But if I am going to benefit from those provisions of the Agreement with which I agree, I have to accept those with which I do not agree, not just in the letter, but in the spirit.

Therefore, whilst there are eg many Nationalist/Republican politicians whom I personally dislike (and not a few so-called "Loyalist" ones, too), I would never disparage Nationalism/Republicanism in the way you do Unionism.

As the GFA clearly states, and I am happy to aver, each is equally valid and worthy of respect.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 07:32:07 PMIncidentally, what's up with the sic  thing up there when you talk about reunification? Are you saying it was never unified?

No.
It was merely a reference, albeit oblique, to the fact that a (Re)United Ireland on your terms would be anything but united* for people like me.


* - In the sense of agreement, harmony and mutual respect etc

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 07:32:07 PMWe'll leave aside the Ard Ri and Brian Boru and the comparison with England which wasn't united until under Henry VII in 1485 for a minute, but youse boys are fond of telling us that Ireland was only united under the British. Well if the British saw fit to have the place run as a single entity with its own devolved parliament for so long (and the Orange Order were leading campaigners against the abolition of what they called "our Irish Parliament") then that kinda holes your little 'sic' below the waterline, wouldn't you say? 

Oh dear.
It seems your understanding of history is about as reliable as that of the term "unity". Brian Boru indeed... ::)

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 07:32:07 PMIn fact to this day it's not uncommon to hear planters like yourself say that you'd be okay with the Free State rejoining the UK, and with Ireland being united under those circumstances.

Hang on a minute. What's this talk of "Planters"?
I thought that in the utopian all-Ireland Republic of your dreams we'd be neither Planter nor Gael, Protestant nor Catholic, Unionist nor Nationalist, but simply "Irish" (including even those with Planter names like Adams or Hume etc)?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 07:32:07 PMThat tells me that deep down you don't really believe your own propaganda about the sick county state being a nation in its own right. If you did, why would you want to reunite with these "foreigners" south of the border?

We are a forgiving people and doesn't the Bible say something about welcoming back the Prodigal Son who has strayed?
Go on, just admit your mistake and there'll be a fatted calf for everyone who returns to the "New & Improved Super United Kingdom (Now with Added Taigs)"  ;)

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 05:04:58 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 07:32:07 PMIncidentally, what's up with the sic  thing up there when you talk about reunification? Are you saying it was never unified?

No.
It was merely a reference, albeit oblique, to the fact that a (Re)United Ireland on your terms would be anything but united* for people like me.


* - In the sense of agreement, harmony and mutual respect etc

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 07:32:07 PMWe'll leave aside the Ard Ri and Brian Boru and the comparison with England which wasn't united until under Henry VII in 1485 for a minute, but youse boys are fond of telling us that Ireland was only united under the British. Well if the British saw fit to have the place run as a single entity with its own devolved parliament for so long (and the Orange Order were leading campaigners against the abolition of what they called "our Irish Parliament") then that kinda holes your little 'sic' below the waterline, wouldn't you say? 

In fact to this day it's not uncommon to hear planters like yourself say that you'd be okay with the Free State rejoining the UK, and with Ireland being united under those circumstances. That tells me that deep down you don't really believe your own propaganda about the sick county state being a nation in its own right. If you did, why would you want to reunite with these "foreigners" south of the border?

Oh dear.
It seems your understanding of history is about as reliable as that of the term "unity". Brian Boru indeed... ::)

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 07:32:07 PMIn fact to this day it's not uncommon to hear planters like yourself say that you'd be okay with the Free State rejoining the UK, and with Ireland being united under those circumstances.

Hang on a minute. What's this talk of "Planters"?
I thought that in the utopian all-Ireland Republic of your dreams we'd be neither Planter nor Gael, Protestant nor Catholic, Unionist nor Nationalist, but simply "Irish" (including even those with Planter names like Adams or Hume etc)?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2011, 07:32:07 PMThat tells me that deep down you don't really believe your own propaganda about the sick county state being a nation in its own right. If you did, why would you want to reunite with these "foreigners" south of the border?

We are a forgiving people and doesn't the Bible say something about welcoming back the Prodigal Son who has strayed?
Go on, just admit your mistake and there'll be a fatted calf for everyone who returns to the "New & Improved Super United Kingdom (Now with Added Taigs)"  ;)

Sure we are waiting for you lot to return to the fold and stop hanging around with the troublemakers down the road.

Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 07:57:48 PM
Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.

I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

Therefore in the (entirely hypothetical*) instance of the people (or majority) of the ROI deciding they wished to be part of the UK once more, then that wish should be respected. Accordingly, if that were to be on the basis that the present-day ROI became the 5th of the nations making up the UK, then that would be fine by me.

Alternatively, should they opt to reunite with present-day NI as a member of the UK, that would be equally fine. Of course, such a "reunited" Ireland would assume a different character from that of NI.

But I could live with that, just as, for instance, the people of Scotland presently accommodate regional differences (eg Lowland vs Highland, East of Scotland vs West of Scotland, Nationalist vs Unionist, Protestant vs Catholic etc, Glasgow vs Edinburgh) within their constituent nation of the UK. For as I have always acknowledged, whilst the people of NI and ROI may have many differences, there are also many other similarities**, deriving from the fact that we have been sharing the island for hundreds of years.

So for better or worse, there is my direct answer to your question.

Is there any chance you could now give me a direct answer to the question I posed to you earlier? Namely, all adherents of the Good Friday Agreement publicly affirm that they respect equally all political traditions in Ireland, including Unionism, these traditions all being completely legitimate and entitled to be adhered to by any or all of the people of Ireland.

Yet you have frequently said that you do not respect Unionism and do not accept its legitimacy. Fair enough, that is your right. But that being the case, how can you say you support the GFA, whilst at the same time denying the fundamental basis upon which it is constructed?

"Answer the question, E1"  ::)




* - Btw, when Unionists talk of reuniting Ireland under the Crown etc, it is invariably a tongue-in-cheek riposte to Nationalist talk of reuniting Ireland free of the Crown. No Unionist I know thinks there is any serious chance whatever of it happening.

** - Such as our common affection for the British Royal Family... ;)

Throughout this thread, I have argued that the Union is safe for the foreseeable future, since under the GFA, the only way NI may leave the UK is following a 50%+1 vote in a Referendum, and I see no sign of any such majority emerging.

Of course, many Nationalists argue that the Prod/RC demographics of NI mean that such a majority is inevitable, sooner or later within the foreseeable future. Now it is true that ever since the foundation of NI, the demographics have been moving in the RC favour, with a corresponding increase in support for Nationalist parties. However, whilst that demographic trend continues to this day, the political trend clearly stalled somewhere around the end of the 1990's at the 40-43% mark, where it has stubbornly remained since.

Therefore I concluded that this can only mean that RC's are no longer automatically voting for Nationalist Parties in the way they formerly did. I personally would ascribe this new divergence between the demographic and political to the increasing peace, security and equality etc brought about in NI by the GFA, plus a narrowing of the economic gap between NI and ROI following the death of the Celtic Tiger.

Of course, the voting habits in elections cannot be a perfect guide to how people would vote in any Referendum i.e. it is possible that RC's who no longer automatically turn out to vote for a Nationalist Party might still vote for a UI in a Referendum*. However someone referred in another thread to a Survey which casts a very interesting light on this particular aspect of the question. I must confess that this had slipped by me until now - I don't know Unionists don't publicise it much more widely (though I can see why Nationalists would be desperate to keep it under wraps!).

According to a 2009 Survey of Political Attitudes - http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2009/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html - not only do 69% of all the people of NI believe that NI should remain within the UK "in the long term", but this figures encompasses a whopping 47% of RC's who favour this. Indeed, when you allow for the 13% of RC's who opted for Independence/Other/Don't Know, this leaves just 40% of RC's in NI who favour a UI.

Moreover, this Survey was conducted some time in 2009 i.e. before the depth of the ROI's economic problems became apparent, never mind began to bite.

As a consequence, whilst before I would have put the "Yes" vote in a UI Referendum somewhere between 40-45% but no higher, in the light of the Survey, I wouldn't now expect the Yes vote even to reach 40%.

Happy Days!  ;)


* - I actually feel that when you factor in the personal risk to Jobs, Health, Education and Pensions etc, RC's might be more  rather than less likely to reject a UI in a Referendum, than is reflected in the performance of Nationalist parties in elections. The above Survey would appear to back up this contention.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 21, 2011, 05:58:49 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 07:57:48 PM
Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.
I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

interesting that you put all your eggs in this basket.
unionist/loyalist indoctrination down the years to their kids has built this up I suppose - they like to gloss over the reality that the MAJORITY of Ireland pre-partition wanted to remain a unified country - maybe it didnt have its own government, but they were peacefully lobbying for this. When it looked likely that this was going to happen, surprisingly enough the violence started and the 'home rule leaders' were always arrested and the movement villified or proclaimed illegal !

so the break up of the state was 'illegal' under your own terms !

as for the reunification - you are again refusing to focus on the other larger factors in the equation - that the northern state wont have much of a choice eventually- as the British gov pulls jobs and benefits etc as much as possible from the six counties until people are either forced to move to England or will vote for a better economic existence- the one in conjunction with a reunified Ireland. We all know that the unionists/loyalists throw away their principles for the lure of money - as seen in the last rush south for jobs/money in the Celtic Tiger !

this is inevitable - so best get used to it and swallow the bitterness for the impending reunification undong he illegal breakup of the state that so many Irishmen Dev, collins etc fought over !!!

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 21, 2011, 05:58:49 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 07:57:48 PM
Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.

I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

Just like the wishes of the majority of folk in Fermanagh and Tyrone (who did not wish to be part of the new northern statelet) were honoured at partition. Yeah, right.


Yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but, yeah...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 10:09:18 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 21, 2011, 05:58:49 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 07:57:48 PM
Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.
I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

interesting that you put all your eggs in this basket.

Yes, I am content to leave it entirely to the will of the majority - it's called democracy.

Or are there additional non-democratic methods you feel I might espouse in order to protect my position?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 10:09:18 AMunionist/loyalist indoctrination down the years to their kids has built this up I suppose - they like to gloss over the reality that the MAJORITY of Ireland pre-partition wanted to remain a unified country - maybe it didnt have its own government, but they were peacefully lobbying for this. When it looked likely that this was going to happen, surprisingly enough the violence started and the 'home rule leaders' were always arrested and the movement villified or proclaimed illegal !

so the break up of the state was 'illegal' under your own terms !

If you want my take on the events of the early 20th Century, here it is.

By around 1920, we had got to the situation whereby the clear majority in one part of Ireland were determined upon Independence from the Crown, whilst the clear majority in the other part of Ireland were equally determined to oppose it.
Each was prepared to fight its corner, so Partition was devised as the best (least worst?) solution, both pragmatically and in principle.

Of course, I regret that the majority in the South desired to breakaway, but I regret even more that they were forced to fight to realise that desire.

Equally, I am glad that the majority in the North were not ultimately forced to fight to remain in the UK, since had we been denied this right, I have no doubt that Unionism would have mounted armed resistance, such that if not accepted back into the UK, we would have opted for an independent NI and (imo) would surely have succeeded (albeit at enormous cost in lost lives and destruction etc).

As for your argument that a majority on the island favoured Independence, I can easily counter that by pointing out that a clear majority in the UK were equally opposed to Irish Independence. Where do you draw the line? Well the "salt-water" argument has a certain attraction, I suppose, except that when it comes to such matters, I firmly believe that People should take priority over Geography. Or are you eg going to tell the Scottish or Welsh Nationalists that they may not ever have Independence, on the basis that they are all part of the same island as England?  ;)

Anyhow, that is my take on the historical situation; whether you, with your (non-indoctrinated  ::)) mindset, agree or not is up to you.

And in any case, much more important than the Past is the Present, on which point the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland, both North and South, recognised the ligitmacy of Partition in the 1998 GFA, with the further proviso that Partition cannot be overturned unless or until the democratic majority in NI so decide.

And that is quite good enough for me.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 10:09:18 AMas for the reunification - you are again refusing to focus on the other larger factors in the equation - that the northern state wont have much of a choice eventually- as the British gov pulls jobs and benefits etc as much as possible from the six counties until people are either forced to move to England or will vote for a better economic existence- the one in conjunction with a reunified Ireland. We all know that the unionists/loyalists throw away their principles for the lure of money - as seen in the last rush south for jobs/money in the Celtic Tiger !

this is inevitable - so best get used to it and swallow the bitterness for the impending reunification undong he illegal breakup of the state that so many Irishmen Dev, collins etc fought over !!!

I like to think that I am a rational individual, such that if presented with a compelling case for Irish Political Unity, I could be persuaded.

But you should know that whatever arguments others might put forward, I think your efforts to be pure garbage.

P.S. When I say "garbage", I actually mean  s h i t e, pure  s h i t e... ::)

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 23, 2011, 10:20:51 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 21, 2011, 05:58:49 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 07:57:48 PM
Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.

I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

Just like the wishes of the majority of folk in Fermanagh and Tyrone (who did not wish to be part of the new northern statelet) were honoured at partition. Yeah, right.


Yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but, yeah...

In my reply to Lynchbhoy (preceeding), I outlined my opinion on, and rationalisation for, Partition.

Note that I did not claim that Partition was a perfect solution, leaving as it did, problems such as you allude to. That said, I am given to understand that by 1921, such was the overriding need to come up with a solution, however imperfect, some aspects of the Treaty remained to be finalised. One such was the exact placing of the border. However, by the time the Boundary Commission got round to it a few years later, such were the difficulties raised by further adjustments, that the three Governments in London, Belfast and Dublin* agreed that it was better to leave things as they were.



* - Something else for "Nordies" to mope about to "Free Staters, Blue Shirts, West Brits" and the rest ...  :D

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 02:10:20 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 10:09:18 AM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 21, 2011, 05:58:49 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 07:57:48 PM
Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.
I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

interesting that you put all your eggs in this basket.

Yes, I am content to leave it entirely to the will of the majority - it's called democracy.

Or are there additional non-democratic methods you feel I might espouse in order to protect my position?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 10:09:18 AMunionist/loyalist indoctrination down the years to their kids has built this up I suppose - they like to gloss over the reality that the MAJORITY of Ireland pre-partition wanted to remain a unified country - maybe it didnt have its own government, but they were peacefully lobbying for this. When it looked likely that this was going to happen, surprisingly enough the violence started and the 'home rule leaders' were always arrested and the movement villified or proclaimed illegal !

so the break up of the state was 'illegal' under your own terms !

If you want my take on the events of the early 20th Century, here it is.

By around 1920, we had got to the situation whereby the clear majority in one part of Ireland were determined upon Independence from the Crown, whilst the clear majority in the other part of Ireland were equally determined to oppose it.
Each was prepared to fight its corner, so Partition was devised as the best (least worst?) solution, both pragmatically and in principle.

Of course, I regret that the majority in the South desired to breakaway, but I regret even more that they were forced to fight to realise that desire.

Equally, I am glad that the majority in the North were not ultimately forced to fight to remain in the UK, since had we been denied this right, I have no doubt that Unionism would have mounted armed resistance, such that if not accepted back into the UK, we would have opted for an independent NI and (imo) would surely have succeeded (albeit at enormous cost in lost lives and destruction etc).

As for your argument that a majority on the island favoured Independence, I can easily counter that by pointing out that a clear majority in the UK were equally opposed to Irish Independence. Where do you draw the line? Well the "salt-water" argument has a certain attraction, I suppose, except that when it comes to such matters, I firmly believe that People should take priority over Geography. Or are you eg going to tell the Scottish or Welsh Nationalists that they may not ever have Independence, on the basis that they are all part of the same island as England?  ;)

Anyhow, that is my take on the historical situation; whether you, with your (non-indoctrinated  ::)) mindset, agree or not is up to you.

And in any case, much more important than the Past is the Present, on which point the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland, both North and South, recognised the ligitmacy of Partition in the 1998 GFA, with the further proviso that Partition cannot be overturned unless or until the democratic majority in NI so decide.

And that is quite good enough for me.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 10:09:18 AMas for the reunification - you are again refusing to focus on the other larger factors in the equation - that the northern state wont have much of a choice eventually- as the British gov pulls jobs and benefits etc as much as possible from the six counties until people are either forced to move to England or will vote for a better economic existence- the one in conjunction with a reunified Ireland. We all know that the unionists/loyalists throw away their principles for the lure of money - as seen in the last rush south for jobs/money in the Celtic Tiger !

this is inevitable - so best get used to it and swallow the bitterness for the impending reunification undong he illegal breakup of the state that so many Irishmen Dev, collins etc fought over !!!

I like to think that I am a rational individual, such that if presented with a compelling case for Irish Political Unity, I could be persuaded.

But you should know that whatever arguments others might put forward, I think your efforts to be pure garbage.

P.S. When I say "garbage", I actually mean  s h i t e, pure  s h i t e... ::)

Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!
:D

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 02:31:12 PM
Note that I did not claim that Partition was a perfect solution, leaving as it did, problems such as you allude to. That said, I am given to understand that by 1921, such was the overriding need to come up with a solution, however imperfect, some aspects of the Treaty remained to be finalised. One such was the exact placing of the border. However, by the time the Boundary Commission got round to it a few years later, such were the difficulties raised by further adjustments, that the three Governments in London, Belfast and Dublin* agreed that it was better to leave things as they were.



* - Something else for "Nordies" to mope about to "Free Staters, Blue Shirts, West Brits" and the rest ...  :D

To summarise: plainly undemocratic political arrangements shall be tolerated only where such an arrangement favours ourselves [unionists]; and where there might arise questions of democratic integrity those are invariably attributable to someone or other else, never, ever ourselves.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 23, 2011, 03:05:50 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 02:31:12 PM
Note that I did not claim that Partition was a perfect solution, leaving as it did, problems such as you allude to. That said, I am given to understand that by 1921, such was the overriding need to come up with a solution, however imperfect, some aspects of the Treaty remained to be finalised. One such was the exact placing of the border. However, by the time the Boundary Commission got round to it a few years later, such were the difficulties raised by further adjustments, that the three Governments in London, Belfast and Dublin* agreed that it was better to leave things as they were.



* - Something else for "Nordies" to mope about to "Free Staters, Blue Shirts, West Brits" and the rest ...  :D

To summarise: plainly undemocratic political arrangements shall be tolerated only where such an arrangement favours ourselves [unionists]; and where there might arise questions of democratic integrity those are invariably attributable to someone or other else, never, ever ourselves.

That is not a "summary", it is your heavily-loaded attempt to "paint me into a corner".

I made my opinion pretty clear - it is for you to agree or disagree with it, as you wish.

I don't see what you think you're gaining by distorting my argument, since whatever you hope to gain in "points scored" must surely be outweighed by the exposure of the pettiness of your debating tactics.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 23, 2011, 03:05:50 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 02:31:12 PM
Note that I did not claim that Partition was a perfect solution, leaving as it did, problems such as you allude to. That said, I am given to understand that by 1921, such was the overriding need to come up with a solution, however imperfect, some aspects of the Treaty remained to be finalised. One such was the exact placing of the border. However, by the time the Boundary Commission got round to it a few years later, such were the difficulties raised by further adjustments, that the three Governments in London, Belfast and Dublin* agreed that it was better to leave things as they were.



* - Something else for "Nordies" to mope about to "Free Staters, Blue Shirts, West Brits" and the rest ...  :D

To summarise: plainly undemocratic political arrangements shall be tolerated only where such an arrangement favours ourselves [unionists]; and where there might arise questions of democratic integrity those are invariably attributable to someone or other else, never, ever ourselves.

looks like what you say above is 100% correct.

the noise of those violins are getting louder though .... ::) :D

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!
:D

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.

Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?

(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  ;))

P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those?  ::)

Actually, I find Fear's synopsis of the situation beautifully succinct and accurate, pointing to the "doublethink" mentality of some unionists today, i.e. the espousal of two equal and opposite views while believing both of them.

I laud the GFA, of course, but am amused at unionism's new-found faith in and defence of democracy.  EG, your nimble-footed dance explaining the rationale for ignoring democracy at the time of Partition (worse, willing to die rather than yield to it) followed by your elegant support of it as embodied in the GFA is, it seems to me, a bare-footed dance on hot coals. 
Your mentioning what the rest of the UK thought at the time is a red herring.  In fact, having spent years in England, I have found that most English people don't give a rat's ass about the Irish question, nor indeed know a damn thing about it.

So, to return to Fear's pithy analysis.  In the GFA, the people of Ireland, that is the south and the north (not Lancashire or Lanarkshire), agreed democratically to uphold certain agreed upon principles.  Back in the day, though, when democracy didn't suit them, unionists said to hell with democracy, let discrimination be unconfined, and established an enclave whose daily existence for years flouted all things democratic. 

So, again, though I celebrate unionism's new-found discovery of democracy, I just wish it had happened many many years ago. 

And though it won't happen, I'd like a mea culpa, loosely translated as a "we screwed you big time." So, yes, the man from Strabane in his straightforward summary is simply calling a spade a spade, and not an agricultural implement. 

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 04:24:00 PM
Actually, I find Fear's synopsis of the situation beautifully succinct and accurate, pointing to the "doublethink" mentality of some unionists today, i.e. the espousal of two equal and opposite views while believing both of them.

I laud the GFA, of course, but am amused at unionism's new-found faith in and defence of democracy.  EG, your nimble-footed dance explaining the rationale for ignoring democracy at the time of Partition (worse, willing to die rather than yield to it) followed by your elegant support of it as embodied in the GFA is, it seems to me, a bare-footed dance on hot coals. 
Your mentioning what the rest of the UK thought at the time is a red herring.  In fact, having spent years in England, I have found that most English people don't give a rat's ass about the Irish question, nor indeed know a damn thing about it.

So, to return to Fear's pithy analysis.  In the GFA, the people of Ireland, that is the south and the north (not Lancashire or Lanarkshire), agreed democratically to uphold certain agreed upon principles.  Back in the day, though, when democracy didn't suit them, unionists said to hell with democracy, let discrimination be unconfined, and established an enclave whose daily existence for years flouted all things democratic. 

So, again, though I celebrate unionism's new-found discovery of democracy, I just wish it had happened many many years ago. 

And though it won't happen, I'd like a mea culpa, loosely translated as a "we screwed you big time." So, yes, the man from Strabane in his straightforward summary is simply calling a spade a spade, and not an agricultural implement.

Is Unionisms willingness to fight against Home rule in 1922 and their acceptance of democracy today any more remarkable than Republicanisms willingness to fight for Independence in 1921 and accept democracy today?

IMO his mention of a British Isles wide vote was asking at what level Governance the democratic majority works? To me it appeared he was challenging the current recognised viewpoints:
Republican: The vote on Irish Unification should be on a 32 County basis (all or nothing) as that is the basis on which the war of Independence was fought. The 6 Counties are part of that Geographical unit.

Unionist: The Vote should be on a 6 County basis (first!) as 3-6 Counties would have seceded from the newly Independent Ireland, a war avoided by the messy compromise of partition.

EG: The Vote should have been on a British Isles wide as the Island of Ireland was just one part of the larger geographical unit.

Alternatively he could have asked should the vote to secede from the Union be (or have been) on a County by County, or Council by Council basis?

Not publishing the Boundary commission report has a lot to answer for. >:( but we have what we have.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 03:37:32 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!
:D

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.

Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?

(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  ;))

P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those?  ::)

good one !
you go off topic when well beaten !!  :D

keep digging !!

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 04:24:00 PM
Actually, I find Fear's synopsis of the situation beautifully succinct and accurate, pointing to the "doublethink" mentality of some unionists today, i.e. the espousal of two equal and opposite views while believing both of them.

No inconsistency at all. As LeoMc avers, the question is not whether we should bow to the will of the majority but rather where we should draw the boundary, within the confines of which we conduct the count.

I have already already asserted that I know of no overriding Law of Nature which automatically determines where the Boundary should have been in the Irish context; therefore I take the pragmatic approach that we must choose that which will lead to the least bloodshed and destruction etc. Of course, this approach is open to the charge of encouraging the men of violence and giving them a veto etc. But in Ireland in 1920, both sides were already using (or prepared to use) violence, with each equally certain that it was justified in doing so.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 04:24:00 PMI laud the GFA, of course, but am amused at unionism's new-found faith in and defence of democracy.  EG, your nimble-footed dance explaining the rationale for ignoring democracy at the time of Partition (worse, willing to die rather than yield to it) followed by your elegant support of it as embodied in the GFA is, it seems to me, a bare-footed dance on hot coals. 
Your mentioning what the rest of the UK thought at the time is a red herring.  In fact, having spent years in England, I have found that most English people don't give a rat's ass about the Irish question, nor indeed know a damn thing about it.

So, to return to Fear's pithy analysis.  In the GFA, the people of Ireland, that is the south and the north (not Lancashire or Lanarkshire), agreed democratically to uphold certain agreed upon principles.  Back in the day, though, when democracy didn't suit them, unionists said to hell with democracy, let discrimination be unconfined, and established an enclave whose daily existence for years flouted all things democratic. 

I did not "ignore" democracy, rather I took a different view of what the consequences of Democracy should have been for the people of Ireland to you.
Namely, that just as it was wrong to force a clear majority in one part of the island to accept a situation which they did not accept (i.e. the UK for southern Nationalists), it would have been equally wrong to have forced an unacceptable outcome on the clear majority in the other part of the island (i.e. a UI for northern Unionists).
You may not like that, or may propose what is (for you) a better alternative; however you may not reasonably dismiss it as being worthless or untenable (imo).

As for your experience in England etc, was this gained during the first two decades of the 20th Century, by any chance? For there is clear evidence to suggest that following the Unionist sacrifice on behalf of Britain at eg the Somme in 1916, so soon after Republican "treachery" towards Britain during the Rising etc, there was considerable sympathy for the former amongst the general population in GB (as well as much greater consciousness).

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 04:24:00 PMSo, again, though I celebrate unionism's new-found discovery of democracy, I just wish it had happened many many years ago.

Well, I'm afraid I wasn't around in the 1920's, 30's, 40's and 50's etc, so I can't really comment.

But I wouldn't have minded a conversion to democracy by eg SF/IRA, somewhat earlier than 10th April, 1998...

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 04:24:00 PMAnd though it won't happen, I'd like a mea culpa, loosely translated as a "we screwed you big time."

Could you make room for a pound of flesh, too, by any chance?  ::)

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 04:24:00 PMSo, yes, the man from Strabane in his straightforward summary is simply calling a spade a spade, and not an agricultural implement.

In that case, he should be advised that it's better used for digging than stirring... ;)

I'm of the school of opinion, EG, that believes that democracy, by definition, entails bowing to the will of the majority, not acquiescing to the tyranny of the minority. 

Talking of tyranny, I'm surprised that because you didn't live though the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, you feel unable to comment on the abomination that masqueraded as democracy in NI at that time, one like you so versed in history.  I thought that you might be amused to see a group (unionists) so warmly embrace democracy today, who for half a century shunned everything to do with it when it didn't suit them, Fear on Srath Ban's very point.

I am, however, more than a little irked by your following remark: "But I wouldn't have minded a conversion to democracy by eg SF/IRA, somewhat earlier than 10th April, 1998.."  You see, if Unionists had treated Nationalists even with a film of respect, according them even minimal democratic and social rights, even within the hall of distorted mirrors that was NI, then there never would have been an IRA/SF.  Unionists kicked the crap out of the dog, and what do you know, it snapped. 

Or, since you allude to The Merchant of Venice," I suggest the following quote:   
"If you p***k us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

I abhor what the IRA did, but it was just about inevitable given unionism's long-standing love affair with democracy.
Still, I'm happy that we have the GFA, that unionism at last thinks democracy is a good thing, and that perhaps a United Ireland will occur some day, though sadly not in my lifetime, I fear.

Fine replies Oraisteach, no doubt EG will now disappear for a while until your posts are buried, that's the normal tactic.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 04:24:00 PM
And though it won't happen, I'd like a mea culpa, loosely translated as a "we screwed you big time." So, yes, the man from Strabane in his straightforward summary is simply calling a spade a spade, and not an agricultural implement.

Thanks Oraisteach  ;)

Though for all the thanks I get trying to distil your man's posts into something easily digestible!  :D

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 06:02:46 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 03:37:32 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!
:D

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.

Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?

(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  ;))

P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those?  ::)

good one !
you go off topic when well beaten !!  :D

keep digging !!

Whatever you say.

In the meantime, is there any chance you might show me which of my past posts include the "admission" by me that Irish Unity "most likely WILL happen!!"

There's no hurry, btw, but like Donagh Ulick and his claim about Alliance voters etc, the more you keep dodging, the more I'll keep reminding you.  ;)

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 07:32:50 PM
I'm of the school of opinion, EG, that believes that democracy, by definition, entails bowing to the will of the majority, not acquiescing to the tyranny of the minority.

Where have I ever opposed the notion that in a democracy, the view of the majority should prevail?

It seems to me that, like our Strabane friend, you either don't understand, or wilfully ignore, the real crux of this dispute, which is what should be the boundary within which the majority is counted.

You and FSB both point to the majority within Ireland as a whole, whereas I point to the majorities within the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

I don't imagine we'll ever agree as to the legitimacy of my preference as it applied in 1921(!), but you cannot deny its legitimacy in the present day i.e. since the GFA, which unambiguously and explicitly recognises Partition, and received the overwhelming (ahem) majority  of votes in every part of Ireland.  ;)

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 07:32:50 PMTalking of tyranny, I'm surprised that because you didn't live though the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, you feel unable to comment on the abomination that masqueraded as democracy in NI at that time, one like you so versed in history.  I thought that you might be amused to see a group (unionists) so warmly embrace democracy today, who for half a century shunned everything to do with it when it didn't suit them, Fear on Srath Ban's very point.

If you have ever read any of my other posts on the matter, you should have noted that I have never denied/condoned/defended the discrimination etc which went on during the (old) Stormont years. However, neither can I be held in any way responsible for it, either, any more than eg the present generation of Germans may be held accountable for what their forebears did.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 07:32:50 PMI am, however, more than a little irked by your following remark: "But I wouldn't have minded a conversion to democracy by eg SF/IRA, somewhat earlier than 10th April, 1998.."  You see, if Unionists had treated Nationalists even with a film of respect, according them even minimal democratic and social rights, even within the hall of distorted mirrors that was NI, then there never would have been an IRA/SF.  Unionists kicked the crap out of the dog, and what do you know, it snapped. 

I abhor what the IRA did, but it was just about inevitable given unionism's long-standing love affair with democracy.

If you say that Unionist excesses were liable, even inevitably so, to produce a reaction by Nationalists, then you'll get little argument from me.

I just hope that you do not think that insofar as that reaction was manifested in the Provos' terror campaign, it was justified and proportionate.  :o

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 07:32:50 PMStill, I'm happy that we have the GFA, that unionism at last thinks democracy is a good thing, and that perhaps a United Ireland will occur some day, though sadly not in my lifetime, I fear.

Well at least we can agree on the value of the GFA, even if I see its chief merit as being the way it casts the prospect of a UI further away than ever.  :D

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2011, 07:32:50 PMOr, since you allude to The Merchant of Venice," I suggest the following quote:   
"If you p***k us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

"The devil can cite scripture for his purpose".  (Act 1, Scene III) ;)

Quote from: bennydorano on May 23, 2011, 07:40:09 PM
Fine replies Oraisteach, no doubt EG will now disappear for a while until your posts are buried, that's the normal tactic.

Jeez, I've been accused of a few things on this Board, but ducking an argument is a new one!  :D

Anyhow, sorry to disappoint you...  ;)

So, EG, you resort to" either/or" name-calling.  Nothing like a bit of the ole "ad hom," you who have been praised for playing only the ball, not the man. I am either too stupid to understand the nuances of your logic or so horribly entangled by it that I remain deliberately evasive.  How about door number three?  I may be right, and you, deep breath, may be wrong.

And, yes, I do question your belief in democracy since you persist in defending the creation and existence of a state whose very being gives the finger to the democratically expressed wishes of the majority of people living in Ireland, yes all of Ireland, a desire expressed before the formation of NI.  And if you accept the democratically stated wishes of the people of Ireland to endorse the GFA, you should then be outraged that the wishes of a significant majority of Ireland were blatantly ignored in the very birth of the statelet.  So, it is you who speak with forked tongue, not I.  You and your unionist antecedents are, in sum, the beneficiaries of an ill-gotten gain and if of good conscience, as I think you are, you really should be advocating the righting of a wrong, not supporting its continuance.  Still, though I do concede NI's current legitimacy as expressed in the GFA, because I am a democrat, your position does not suddenly become more tenable ex post facto.

Further, you say that I have not read your other posts.  Of course I have.  Had you read one of mine you would have noted that I commended your presence on this board as a fair-minded unionist, so of course I know that you despise discrimination.  If you didn't, I would not waste my time responding to you.  You will perhaps then understand my irritation at your writing, "I just hope that you do not think that insofar as that reaction was manifested in the Provos' terror campaign, it was justified and proportionate.   "  I wrote that "I abhor" what the IRA did.  What is equivocal about the word "abhor"? (Sorry that I don't speak Emoticon). Remember too that  your political predecessors are the ones who opened Pandora's box, after all.

And so, though you cannot be held responsible for the evil, yes evil, that was the old Stormont regime, you can be chastised for defending that very state's anti-democratic existence.

In an earlier post, you wrote about being painted into a corner, and I think that's quite a fair metaphor for the plight or condition of current unionism.  As I remarked earlier on this board, the essence of unionism is undergoing redefinition, it seems to me, a point exemplified by your choosing the NI flag as your emblem, not the Union Jack.  It is, I believe, a recognition of unionism's wilting connection to Britain and its acceptance of its own identity within Ireland, and though I agree with you that a UI is not in the near future, come it will.  You do, I notice, derive comfort from the electoral stagnation that you identify.  My own fears lie mostly south of the border.  Still, perhaps faced with NI's eventual and inevitable demise, your descendents will strive to stall its eventuality by redrawing boundaries around North Down, North Armagh, chunks of Tyrone and Derry, most of Antrim, except where they play hurling, and call it NorthEastern Ireland or Greater Rathlin, of course supported democratically by the majority of people living within those regions. 

Or perhaps, instead, they will recognize that their concerns about a UI have been lifted,  that their unionist identity has been safeguarded, in terms of an Irish subculture and not a vestigial British one, and that they really have a whole lot more in common with Ciaran from Cork than Betty from Brighton.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 11:46:54 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 06:02:46 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 03:37:32 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!
:D

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.

Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?

(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  ;))

P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those?  ::)

good one !
you go off topic when well beaten !!  :D

keep digging !!

Whatever you say.

In the meantime, is there any chance you might show me which of my past posts include the "admission" by me that Irish Unity "most likely WILL happen!!"

There's no hurry, btw, but like Donagh Ulick and his claim about Alliance voters etc, the more you keep dodging, the more I'll keep reminding you.  ;)

....and contnue to dodge the point by waffling on with rubbish as seen by your above posts -
yes, the separation of Ireland was undemocratic, your stance on that is now contrary to what you are now epousing for unionists/loyalists and reunification.

its nt the first time you have been flip/flopping and inconsistent.

you were accepting of the enevitible reunification but stating that it wouldnt happen in 'your lifetime' but since start of April (ish- from memory) your stance changed as you decided that you were not going to 'give in' to the taigs and dispute what is undoubtedly going to happen and brought up all sorts of (some factual) ut a lot of tangents and all round guff - making sure to miss out the real points - inc that the British gov want to get rid of the money pit - cost is cost no matter how 'little' and jobs are jobs !
- England needs them !

a quick search shows one example of your statement that there will most likely be a reunification (there is no strong denial in there that is your mantra this past couple of months at least)
go search your own posts - I know we have exposed you for having a short if not blinkered memory on here befor, so not surprising that you have 'forgotten ' - go recheck your own posts...there are a good few examples of this i'd reckon !

you wrote:....
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=18334.135
"However, I am confident that such an eventuality will not come about during my lifetime - and I hope to live a brave while longer yet!"

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 24, 2011, 12:52:17 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 11:46:54 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 06:02:46 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 03:37:32 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!
:D

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.

Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?

(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  ;))

P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those?  ::)

good one !
you go off topic when well beaten !!  :D

keep digging !!

Whatever you say.

In the meantime, is there any chance you might show me which of my past posts include the "admission" by me that Irish Unity "most likely WILL happen!!"

There's no hurry, btw, but like Donagh Ulick and his claim about Alliance voters etc, the more you keep dodging, the more I'll keep reminding you.  ;)

....and contnue to dodge the point by waffling on with rubbish as seen by your above posts -
yes, the separation of Ireland was undemocratic, your stance on that is now contrary to what you are now epousing for unionists/loyalists and reunification.

its nt the first time you have been flip/flopping and inconsistent.

you were accepting of the enevitible reunification but stating that it wouldnt happen in 'your lifetime' but since start of April (ish- from memory) your stance changed as you decided that you were not going to 'give in' to the taigs and dispute what is undoubtedly going to happen and brought up all sorts of (some factual) ut a lot of tangents and all round guff - making sure to miss out the real points - inc that the British gov want to get rid of the money pit - cost is cost no matter how 'little' and jobs are jobs !
- England needs them !

a quick search shows one example of your statement that there will most likely be a reunification (there is no strong denial in there that is your mantra this past couple of months at least)
go search your own posts - I know we have exposed you for having a short if not blinkered memory on here befor, so not surprising that you have 'forgotten ' - go recheck your own posts...there are a good few examples of this i'd reckon !

you wrote:....
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=18334.135
"However, I am confident that such an eventuality will not come about during my lifetime - and I hope to live a brave while longer yet!"

FFS If you're going to quote someone, then at least get the context of their post correct.... What EG actually said was

QuoteI have no desire to see NI subsumed into a single unitary Irish Republic, but would accept it if that were to be the will of the majority of people in NI.

However, I am confident that such an eventuality will not come about during my lifetime - and I hope to live a brave while longer yet!

That post in no way implies that EG accepts there will eventually be a UI. What it does show is that EG is willing to accept the will of the people of NI to democratically decide if they wish to become part of a UI.
What you, and several other posters, seem to forget is that no matter what the rest of the island of Ireland wants, if the majority of NI want to remain part of the UK, the that is the way it's going to be. End of...








Opens popcorn and awaits the tirade of abuse.....  ;)

Quote from: Ball DeBeaver on May 24, 2011, 01:13:00 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 24, 2011, 12:52:17 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 11:46:54 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 06:02:46 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 03:37:32 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 23, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!
Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!
:D

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.
Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?
(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  ;))
P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those?  ::)

good one !
you go off topic when well beaten !!  :D
keep digging !!

Whatever you say.

In the meantime, is there any chance you might show me which of my past posts include the "admission" by me that Irish Unity "most likely WILL happen!!"
There's no hurry, btw, but like Donagh Ulick and his claim about Alliance voters etc, the more you keep dodging, the more I'll keep reminding you.  ;)

....and contnue to dodge the point by waffling on with rubbish as seen by your above posts -
yes, the separation of Ireland was undemocratic, your stance on that is now contrary to what you are now epousing for unionists/loyalists and reunification.

its nt the first time you have been flip/flopping and inconsistent.

you were accepting of the enevitible reunification but stating that it wouldnt happen in 'your lifetime' but since start of April (ish- from memory) your stance changed as you decided that you were not going to 'give in' to the taigs and dispute what is undoubtedly going to happen and brought up all sorts of (some factual) ut a lot of tangents and all round guff - making sure to miss out the real points - inc that the British gov want to get rid of the money pit - cost is cost no matter how 'little' and jobs are jobs !
- England needs them !
a quick search shows one example of your statement that there will most likely be a reunification (there is no strong denial in there that is your mantra this past couple of months at least)
go search your own posts - I know we have exposed you for having a short if not blinkered memory on here befor, so not surprising that you have 'forgotten ' - go recheck your own posts...there are a good few examples of this i'd reckon !

you wrote:....
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=18334.135
"However, I am confident that such an eventuality will not come about during my lifetime - and I hope to live a brave while longer yet!"

FFS If you're going to quote someone, then at least get the context of their post correct.... What EG actually said was

QuoteI have no desire to see NI subsumed into a single unitary Irish Republic, but would accept it if that were to be the will of the majority of people in NI.

However, I am confident that such an eventuality will not come about during my lifetime - and I hope to live a brave while longer yet!

That post in no way implies that EG accepts there will eventually be a UI. What it does show is that EG is willing to accept the will of the people of NI to democratically decide if they wish to become part of a UI.
What you, and several other posters, seem to forget is that no matter what the rest of the island of Ireland wants, if the majority of NI want to remain part of the UK, the that is the way it's going to be. End of...
Opens popcorn and awaits the tirade of abuse.....  ;)

jeez, when evil edna is getting hammered in his/her jbc - along comes another compadre to add their shovel to the 'digging' !! :D

if you are waiting for verbal abuse, then it will have to wait for evil edna to come on dishing it out again as per usual !

context???
sure thats exactly what was written - a stark contrast to the out and out refutal in all his posts on this thread for example - a big change in tack ! Evil inconsistency i'd say !  :D

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AM
So, EG, you resort to" either/or" name-calling.  Nothing like a bit of the ole "ad hom," you who have been praised for playing only the ball, not the man.

Care to quote where I have been ad hominem  towards you in my posts?  ???

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMI am either too stupid to understand the nuances of your logic or so horribly entangled by it that I remain deliberately evasive.

There are one or two other posters who seem to me to be, how shall I put it, "a bit thick", but you certainly aren't one of them.
Rather, it's precisely because I don't  consider you stupid that I conclude your reluctance to address, or sometimes even acknowledge what I post, denotes evasiveness. (I am referring to my contention that the will of the majority in one part of the island deserves as much respect as eg the will of the majority in the whole of Ireland, or the majority in the whole of the British Isles, for that matter)

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMHow about door number three?  I may be right, and you, deep breath, may be wrong.

Of course you may be right. It's just you haven't managed to persuade me that you are. Maybe I'm the stupid one? Or too deeply "indoctrinated", as Lynchbhoy likes to claim?  :D

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMAnd, yes, I do question your belief in democracy since you persist in defending the creation and existence of a state whose very being gives the finger to the democratically expressed wishes of the majority of people living in Ireland, yes all of Ireland, a desire expressed before the formation of NI.  And if you accept the democratically stated wishes of the people of Ireland to endorse the GFA, you should then be outraged that the wishes of a significant majority of Ireland were blatantly ignored in the very birth of the statelet.  So, it is you who speak with forked tongue, not I.

You've already made this point, forcefully and more than once. I do not deny its logic, or your right to hold to it, it's just I simply do not agree with it, for the reasons stated previously.
I'm not sure what else I can add on this particular matter.  ???

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMYou and your unionist antecedents are, in sum, the beneficiaries of an ill-gotten gain and if of good conscience, as I think you are, you really should be advocating the righting of a wrong, not supporting its continuance.

Hang on. Whilst I defend the setting-up of NI in 1921, I have also acknowledged that there subsequently was unacceptable Discrimination etc under the Stormont administration (Discrimination which incidentally actually harmed  the Unionist cause much more than it helped it, imo).
And I wholeheartedly commit to the present new arrangements, which avoid the old past controversies. What more do you expect of me in "righting of wrongs"? That I should power up the old De Lorean and fly Back to the Future?

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMStill, though I do concede NI's current legitimacy as expressed in the GFA, because I am a democrat, your position does not suddenly become more tenable ex post facto.

Nor any less  tenable.

I have made my case for Partition. The fact that the Unionist Government may subsequently have bolloxed things up does not negate my case.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMFurther, you say that I have not read your other posts.  Of course I have.  Had you read one of mine you would have noted that I commended your presence on this board as a fair-minded unionist, so of course I know that you despise discrimination.  If you didn't, I would not waste my time responding to you.

Noted.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMYou will perhaps then understand my irritation at your writing, "I just hope that you do not think that insofar as that reaction was manifested in the Provos' terror campaign, it was justified and proportionate.   "  I wrote that "I abhor" what the IRA did.  What is equivocal about the word "abhor"? (Sorry that I don't speak Emoticon).

We both abhor the Provo campaign and we both accept that the greater the Discrimination etc, the more likely it was to erupt. And it is clear that we both believe it to have been unjustified.
But it's over now, so why do you insist on bringing it up again? What does it actually add to the debate?  ???

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMRemember too that  your political predecessors are the ones who opened Pandora's box, after all.

And so, though you cannot be held responsible for the evil, yes evil, that was the old Stormont regime, you can be chastised for defending that very state's anti-democratic existence.

Jaysus, you really do want that pound of flesh, don't you?

Well I would remind you that in the end, the Merchant was disappointed!  ;)

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMIn an earlier post, you wrote about being painted into a corner, and I think that's quite a fair metaphor for the plight or condition of current unionism.  As I remarked earlier on this board, the essence of unionism is undergoing redefinition, it seems to me, a point exemplified by your choosing the NI flag as your emblem, not the Union Jack.

Actually it was an attempt  (unsuccessful, btw) to paint me into a corner, but that's by-the-by.

For as a Fermanaghman, I have always preferred the approach of the Enniskilleners in 1689, to that of the Derry folk, when they (Enniskilleners) resolved: "WE STAND UPON OUR GUARD, AND DO RESOLVE BY THE BLESSING OF GOD RATHER TO MEET OUR DANGER THAN EXPECT IT." ( www.libraryireland.com/Derry1689/VI-5.php )

On which point I welcome  the redefinition of Unionism which you correctly identify, for if you try to stand still, you inevitably end up getting overtaken.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMIt is, I believe, a recognition of unionism's wilting connection to Britain and its acceptance of its own identity within Ireland,

The reason why the UK has survived so successfully for over 300 years is because it has continually updated and redefined itself.

I now see signs - albeit embryonic - that Unionism is alert to the latest developments and has the wherewithal to respond. If I'm correct, then I see this as cementing  our place in the Union, not weakening it.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AM... and though I agree with you that a UI is not in the near future, come it will.  You do, I notice, derive comfort from the electoral stagnation that you identify.  My own fears lie mostly south of the border.  Still, perhaps faced with NI's eventual and inevitable demise,

Have I got this straight? You acknowledge that the Nationalist vote in NI is "stagnant", you fear for Nationalism (or more correctly, anti-Partitionism) in the Republic and you seem to accept that the Unionists of NI aren't any more amenable to unity than previously (i.e. by your reference to re-partition, below).

Yet still you insist that a UI is "inevitable".  ???

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AM... your descendents will strive to stall its eventuality by redrawing boundaries around North Down, North Armagh, chunks of Tyrone and Derry, most of Antrim, except where they play hurling, and call it NorthEastern Ireland or Greater Rathlin, of course supported democratically by the majority of people living within those regions. 

Of the four broadly possible outcomes for NI which I can conceive - Status Quo, a UI, Independence for NI, or re-Partition -  I believe re-Partition to be the least likely. By some way.


P.S. Speaking for myself, I would say re-Partition is also the least desirable.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 04:35:44 AMOr perhaps, instead, they will recognize that their concerns about a UI have been lifted,  that their unionist identity has been safeguarded, in terms of an Irish subculture and not a vestigial British one, and that they really have a whole lot more in common with Ciaran from Cork than Betty from Brighton.

Whilst some of our concerns have been lifted (essentially the political), they have now been replaced by new ones (essentially economic).

And in any case, I personally would rather Unionism ("Northern Irishness", actually) endure as a distinct culture within the UK, than as a sub-culture within a UI, ideally without causing offence for either Ciaran or Betty...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 24, 2011, 03:25:33 PMjeez, when evil edna is getting hammered in his/her jbc - along comes another compadre to add their shovel to the 'digging' !! :D

if you are waiting for verbal abuse, then it will have to wait for evil edna to come on dishing it out again as per usual !

context???
sure thats exactly what was written - a stark contrast to the out and out refutal in all his posts on this thread for example - a big change in tack ! Evil inconsistency i'd say !  :D

Help me out here, folks.

Does anyone, anywhere, have any idea just what the fcuk any of that might mean?

Because I'm blowed if I do...  :D

First, I'm more and more convinced, EG, that your full-time employment is as PRO for SNIB (Saving Northern Ireland's Britishness).  Your fecundity is greater than that of a rabid/rabbit Papist.  Is there a Ms./Mrs./Mr. Genius?  If so, he or she must be doing time or be a Carmelite nun to tolerate such devotion to the cause.  Just like the rest of unionism, even the old "No Surrender" is getting a facelift, I suppose.  And a good thing too.

OK, I accused you of using an "ad hom" because instead of simply addressing my argument, you poisoned the well at the outset by suggesting that I was either thick or sneaky.  Either constitutes a personal attack rather than a rhetorical one, hence "ad hom."

Ok, dead horse flagellation time.  You are irritated by what you perceive to be my indifference to the feelings of the majority in one part of the island—again, a wonderfully Orwellian notion—only in N. Ireland could a minority be considered a majority.  Recall, once more, that that majority was actually outvoted significantly by a real majority, but in the spirit of democracy that characterized later unionists in power (crap, there I go again) anticipated the words of eminent philosopher Bob Geldof , "I'm all right, Jack, lookin' after number one." 

So, then I contest what you describe as the crux of the argument—the drawing of boundaries.  You are a democrat, perhaps a latter-day one, and as such, in my view, you ought to be decrying the existence of a place formed on wholly anti-democratic principles.  The argument, at least as it pertains to NI, is not at all about the drawing of boundaries but about their removal.

On the stagnation question, I don't know that things are as you characterize them, not being a full-time employee of SNIB, with the time to do the necessary excavation, but I have no reason to doubt you.  I think now that a UI is farther off than I had hoped, not having a very strong faith in the commitment to it of so-called Nats on either side of the border.  I do agree with you that economics will determine when or if a UI occurs.  Damn that gluttonous Celtic Tiger.  A colossal if, but had the southern economy continued to thrive as it was, mutual economic benefit would have disintegrated Derry's walls making a UI an inevitable and imminent by-product.  That is now on hold, for the time being, but over time cross-border economic inter-dependency, not tinged with the bias of hue, will necessitate a UI, providing formality to what will be its de facto existence.

You also berate me for bringing up the ghosts of the past, over whose actions you have no control.  But that isn't entirely true.  We've both acknowledged that the violence of the IRA was awful, and you even accept unionism's role in its creation, but from time to time you can be a tad ghostly yourself.  For example, your systematic assaults on SF and the GAA suggest the ghosts of Paisley Past.  In the spirit of the GFA, you ought to be ecstatic that the IRA has renounced the bullet and instead entered the democratic political arena, but what I read are little pot shots, reminiscent of the DUP insisting on the label Sinn Fein-IRA, or your own hybrid version, the Donagh-Ulick tic.

Further, rather than extolling the actions of the GAA to make Ireland a warmer house for unionists, you focus on a handful of county reps. who declined peacefully mind you, to pay homage to the embodiment of an empire and system, wholly irrelevant and inappropriate in the twenty-first century, an entity for which you admit a quaint affection, despite the ardor with which you wave the NI flag.

Finally, once more into the breach of "The Merchant of Venice."  You do recall, don't you, that the merchant in the play is Antonio, not Shylock, who endures excruciating hardship and the unyielding no-surrenderdom of Shylock, saved in the end by Portia, not DeLorean.  And you'll recall too, that all seems lost for Antonio, like a UI in your perspective, but at last, in time, some of Antonio's ships do in fact make it.  So, in short, all's well that ends well.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 07:56:57 PM
OK, I accused you of using an "ad hom" because instead of simply addressing my argument, you poisoned the well at the outset by suggesting that I was either thick or sneaky.  Either constitutes a personal attack rather than a rhetorical one, hence "ad hom."

Hang on a minute.
I posted the following (# 219): "It seems to me that, like our Strabane friend, you either don't understand, or wilfully ignore, the real crux of this dispute, which is what should be the boundary within which the majority is counted."
From that you conclude that I was suggesting you are "thick" or "sneaky".
Moreover, despite my clarifying in post #225 that: "There are one or two other posters who seem to me to be, how shall I put it, 'a bit thick', but you certainly aren't one of them. Rather, it's precisely because I don't  consider you stupid that I conclude your reluctance to address, or sometimes even acknowledge what I post, denotes evasiveness", you still  come back to this point.
If something so relatively mild as this constitutes "poisoning the well", I don't know how this forum survives, since just about every thread has much more robust comment as a matter of routine. (Oh, and it wasn't "from the outset" -  my first exchange with you was post #214)
Therefore I can only conclude that as members of this sort of forum go, you are unusually "touchy".
Which will probably set you off again...  ::)

And I am also amused that you open your post with:
"First, I'm more and more convinced, EG, that your full-time employment is as PRO for SNIB (Saving Northern Ireland's Britishness).  Your fecundity is greater than that of a rabid/rabbit Papist.  Is there a Ms./Mrs./Mr. Genius?  If so, he or she must be doing time or be a Carmelite nun to tolerate such devotion to the cause.  Just like the rest of unionism, even the old "No Surrender" is getting a facelift, I suppose.  And a good thing too."
Now so that there be no misunderstanding, I should say that I do not take any offence at 'knockabout' stuff like that, but the fact that you could then follow with a repetition of your complaint about me being ad hominem towards you etc, suggests to me that not only are you "a tad precious", but you also lack a sense of irony.  :D
Which will also  probably set you off once more...

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 07:56:57 PMOk, dead horse flagellation time.  You are irritated by what you perceive to be my indifference to the feelings of the majority in one part of the island—again, a wonderfully Orwellian notion—only in N. Ireland could a minority be considered a majority.  Recall, once more, that that majority was actually outvoted significantly by a real majority, but in the spirit of democracy that characterized later unionists in power (crap, there I go again) anticipated the words of eminent philosopher Bob Geldof , "I'm all right, Jack, lookin' after number one." 

So, then I contest what you describe as the crux of the argument—the drawing of boundaries.  You are a democrat, perhaps a latter-day one, and as such, in my view, you ought to be decrying the existence of a place formed on wholly anti-democratic principles.  The argument, at least as it pertains to NI, is not at all about the drawing of boundaries but about their removal.

It's quite simple.
I believe that Partition was the best (or least-worst) response to the crisis in Ireland in 1921, you don't. Fine. Consequently there is no way we can agree on the "Democracy/Majority" issue which follows from that.
But if you feel that you have "won" this particular point, go ahead, I'm not bothered.  8)

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 07:56:57 PMOn the stagnation question, I don't know that things are as you characterize them, not being a full-time employee of SNIB, with the time to do the necessary excavation, but I have no reason to doubt you.  I think now that a UI is farther off than I had hoped, not having a very strong faith in the commitment to it of so-called Nats on either side of the border.  I do agree with you that economics will determine when or if a UI occurs.  Damn that gluttonous Celtic Tiger.  A colossal if, but had the southern economy continued to thrive as it was, mutual economic benefit would have disintegrated Derry's walls making a UI an inevitable and imminent by-product.  That is now on hold, for the time being, but over time cross-border economic inter-dependency not tinged with the bias of hue, will necessitate a UI, providing formality to what will be its de facto existence.

Regarding the point [in bold], I do not see why economic interdependency between NI and ROI must inevitably necessitate a political union.
Under EU Law, we already have extensive cross-border free trade, Northerners may eg fly abroad from Dublin Airport or Southerners may do their Christmas shopping in Newry etc, pretty much without let or hindrance.
Of course, there remain complicating issues such as differing Corporation Tax Rates, or the £/€ Exchange Rate etc, but exactly the same issues complicate relations between other EU states whose economies are also heavily interdependent, but nobody is suggesting that eg Denmark and Germany, or Spain and Portugal, should merge.
Indeed, as one of the younger posters (from Derry?) remarked on another thread, since the GFA now means he can be as "Irish" as he likes, the Border isn't really an issue for him politically, never mind economically. 

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 07:56:57 PMYou also berate me for bringing up the ghosts of the past, over whose actions you have no control.  But that isn't entirely true.  We've both acknowledged that the violence of the IRA was awful, and you even accept unionism's role in its creation, but from time to time you can be a tad ghostly yourself.  For example, your systematic assaults on SF and the GAA suggest the ghosts of Paisley Past.  In the spirit of the GFA, you ought to be ecstatic that the IRA has renounced the bullet and instead entered the democratic political arena, but what I read are little pot shots, reminiscent of the DUP insisting on the label Sinn Fein-IRA, or your own hybrid version, the Donagh-Ulick tic.

I was merely making the point that whatever one thinks of the old Stormont etc, it is now long dead, and with it its architests and movers. Moreover, we are not going back there, so I simply do not see the point of "raking over the coals".
As for my "systematic assaults" on SF, they are still very much an active player in the present set-up, so must be entirely fair-game for criticism.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 07:56:57 PMFurther, rather than extolling the actions of the GAA to make Ireland a warmer house for unionists, you focus on a handful of county reps. who declined peacefully mind you, to pay homage to the embodiment of an empire and system, wholly irrelevant and inappropriate in the twenty-first century, an entity for which you admit a quaint affection, despite the ardor with which you wave the NI flag.

My view on the GAA is quite simple.

It is not for me, a non-member, to tell the GAA what sort of organisation it must be - only its members may do that. Therefore if it wants to remain both a (Nationalist) political organisation, as well as a sporting and cultural one, then notwithstanding my own instinctive dislike for the unnecessary mixing of sport and politics, it may do so.
However, one of the consequences of retaining its Nationalist ethos must inevitably be that it remains "off-limits" to Unionists.
Which is where my chief criticism comes in, namely that they (GAA) cannot "ride both horses at the same time".

Of course, there are efforts being made by many (no-doubt sincere and committed) individuals to bring GAA sports to the Unionist community (schools initiatives and the like) and I both acknowledge and welcome these. However, when you consider the actual record, with abject actual participation levels of Unionists eg in any of the Ulster County teams, all ages, on any weekend of the season, it seems to me that those efforts must amount to little more than a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Which causes me to ask why those efforts are failing. Personally I can think of two major barriers to Unionist participation. The first was summed up for me by 'Applesisapples' on another thread, when he posted:
"EG you have hit the nail on the head because to many GAA members in Ulster its is of no real consequence whether Unionists wish to engage or not and that is sad. The GAA is an organisation founded to promote Nationalist ethos and Irish culture..."

And the second seems to me to be even more invidious than indifference, in that in some quarters of the GAA, there is active opposition to any removal or diminution of the Nationalist ethos. Sadly, that opposition is most entrenched in the very counties where it does most harm i.e. Ulster. Worse, whatever the views of the ordinary members on the ground (and I am sure most are only interested in playing sport and having a bit of crack etc), it seems that this opposition has a particular hold in the people who control the counties, hence the recent snub to the Queen.

Of course, i expect the above to provoke a spate of replies accusing me of begrudgery etc, and berating me for refusing to acknowledge the movement which has taken place etc.

But ultimately the proof of the pudding must be in the eating. And despite the GAA publicly proclaiming, for as long as I can remember, that they want Unionists to be involved in their organisation, participation rates are and have been pitiful. I see no sign that this will change significantly in the future.

That's it, really.

Quote from: Oraisteach on May 24, 2011, 07:56:57 PMFinally, once more into the breach of "The Merchant of Venice."  You do recall, don't you, that the merchant in the play is Antonio, not Shylock, who endures excruciating hardship and the unyielding no-surrenderdom of Shylock, saved in the end by Portia, not DeLorean.  And you'll recall too, that all seems lost for Antonio, like a UI in your perspective, but at last, in time, some of Antonio's ships do in fact make it.  So, in short, all's well that ends well.

This metaphor has been stretched beyond breaking point.
Time to let it rest, I'd say.

evil f (dont want to have to say that a lot of your last post was lovely prose but carried very little point...but :D)
you have been put right on here by many who have outlined that the GAA is not political.
However last weeks meeting with the queen of england would imo have been a political event !
but other than this we are not a political organisation - no matter how much you want to try and make it out to be.

You and others will never agree that GAA are making any efforts to 'reach' unionism. We believe we are, and it would appear to be way
more effective than the soccer for all initiative in the north that has done a bit but falls well short for most
nationalist/catholic/Irish etc.

It has also been discussed on here regarding the 'token' mention of 'nationalist ethos' - there is no 'poliitcal' drive in this, it is
imo and the opinion of many others a reference to the old mantra but the modern day ideal is that we are an organisation for the
Country of Ireland - as this was an island nation, and I believe will be again for many reasons - reasons you disagre with but its
all about opinions.

I also dont think your explanation of why the undemocratic of the partition of Ireland back then , and the requirement for
democratic reunification are 'different' - makes any sense. there can be no possible way to square that!
However the reality is, it will be referendum, consent and finally the economy (I see you finally are in agreement with my
long time held views and statements that this is going to be a big factor when the time comes).
Finally - one aspect that was not mentioned previously - people in the north of Ireland would have their wages increased
to match those in the south by reunification. That lure of more money heavly influenced unionists/loyalists to drop
their long held 'principles' (never neve never cross the border or deal with southerners/Dublin) before- and I would expect it
will do so again !

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 26, 2011, 09:45:43 AM
evil f (dont want to have to say that a lot of your last post was lovely prose but carried very little point...but :D)
you have been put right on here by many who have outlined that the GAA is not political.
However last weeks meeting with the queen of england would imo have been a political event !
but other than this we are not a political organisation - no matter how much you want to try and make it out to be.

You and others will never agree that GAA are making any efforts to 'reach' unionism. We believe we are, and it would appear to be way
more effective than the soccer for all initiative in the north that has done a bit but falls well short for most
nationalist/catholic/Irish etc.

It has also been discussed on here regarding the 'token' mention of 'nationalist ethos' - there is no 'poliitcal' drive in this, it is
imo and the opinion of many others a reference to the old mantra but the modern day ideal is that we are an organisation for the
Country of Ireland - as this was an island nation, and I believe will be again for many reasons - reasons you disagre with but its
all about opinions.

I also dont think your explanation of why the undemocratic of the partition of Ireland back then , and the requirement for
democratic reunification are 'different' - makes any sense. there can be no possible way to square that!
However the reality is, it will be referendum, consent and finally the economy (I see you finally are in agreement with my
long time held views and statements that this is going to be a big factor when the time comes).
Finally - one aspect that was not mentioned previously - people in the north of Ireland would have their wages increased
to match those in the south by reunification. That lure of more money heavly influenced unionists/loyalists to drop
their long held 'principles' (never neve never cross the border or deal with southerners/Dublin) before- and I would expect it
will do so again !

There is after all so much in the pot to go round.  ::)
I hope we are not depending on playing the mythical "The UK will pay to be rid of NI" card!
When the Government of Ireland act passed the bill went the other way with the fledgling Free state having to pick up the aditional costs, a bill quietly forgotton about providing a blind eye was turned to the border commission.
It is more likely a drop in wages and benefits aross the board to fit the financial realities.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 26, 2011, 09:45:43 AM
evil f (dont want to have to say that a lot of your last post was lovely prose but carried very little point...but :D)
you have been put right on here by many who have outlined that the GAA is not political.
However last weeks meeting with the queen of england would imo have been a political event !
but other than this we are not a political organisation - no matter how much you want to try and make it out to be.

You and others will never agree that GAA are making any efforts to 'reach' unionism. We believe we are, and it would appear to be way
more effective than the soccer for all initiative in the north that has done a bit but falls well short for most
nationalist/catholic/Irish etc.

It has also been discussed on here regarding the 'token' mention of 'nationalist ethos' - there is no 'poliitcal' drive in this, it is
imo and the opinion of many others a reference to the old mantra but the modern day ideal is that we are an organisation for the
Country of Ireland - as this was an island nation, and I believe will be again for many reasons - reasons you disagre with but its
all about opinions.

I also dont think your explanation of why the undemocratic of the partition of Ireland back then , and the requirement for
democratic reunification are 'different' - makes any sense. there can be no possible way to square that!
However the reality is, it will be referendum, consent and finally the economy (I see you finally are in agreement with my
long time held views and statements that this is going to be a big factor when the time comes).
Finally - one aspect that was not mentioned previously - people in the north of Ireland would have their wages increasedto match those in the south by reunification. That lure of more money heavly influenced unionists/loyalists to drop
their long held 'principles' (never neve never cross the border or deal with southerners/Dublin) before- and I would expect it
will do so again !

Aye, but the feckers would then start charging us a fiver for a pint.

Quote from: LeoMc on May 26, 2011, 11:23:27 AM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 26, 2011, 09:45:43 AM
evil f (dont want to have to say that a lot of your last post was lovely prose but carried very little point...but :D)
you have been put right on here by many who have outlined that the GAA is not political.
However last weeks meeting with the queen of england would imo have been a political event !
but other than this we are not a political organisation - no matter how much you want to try and make it out to be.

You and others will never agree that GAA are making any efforts to 'reach' unionism. We believe we are, and it would appear to be way
more effective than the soccer for all initiative in the north that has done a bit but falls well short for most
nationalist/catholic/Irish etc.

It has also been discussed on here regarding the 'token' mention of 'nationalist ethos' - there is no 'poliitcal' drive in this, it is
imo and the opinion of many others a reference to the old mantra but the modern day ideal is that we are an organisation for the
Country of Ireland - as this was an island nation, and I believe will be again for many reasons - reasons you disagre with but its
all about opinions.

I also dont think your explanation of why the undemocratic of the partition of Ireland back then , and the requirement for
democratic reunification are 'different' - makes any sense. there can be no possible way to square that!
However the reality is, it will be referendum, consent and finally the economy (I see you finally are in agreement with my
long time held views and statements that this is going to be a big factor when the time comes).
Finally - one aspect that was not mentioned previously - people in the north of Ireland would have their wages increased
to match those in the south by reunification. That lure of more money heavly influenced unionists/loyalists to drop
their long held 'principles' (never neve never cross the border or deal with southerners/Dublin) before- and I would expect it
will do so again !

There is after all so much in the pot to go round.  ::)
I hope we are not depending on playing the mythical "The UK will pay to be rid of NI" card!
When the Government of Ireland act passed the bill went the other way with the fledgling Free state having to pick up the aditional costs, a bill quietly forgotton about providing a blind eye was turned to the border commission.
It is more likely a drop in wages and benefits aross the board to fit the financial realities.

forgot tomention above that in that referendum , the southern voters were told that by getting rid of articles 2 and 3, we would pave the way for an easier integration of the reunification.

you and a few others hold the concept of the british gov wanting to get rid of the money/jobs pit that is the north of Ireland, but this is very real. Blair said it somewhere, plus it has been an increasing mantra ever since the time of thatchers government and even before perhaps (though I cant really remember too much about things prior to then).

Ireland inc are hamstrung by th ebanks. Our services and companies, expeors etc are booming. We would be exceding celtic tiger (minus property rubbish) if we had not been handcuffed by our gov to bail out the gamblers !

companies that have offices in the north are being hit on a near daily bsis for wage increases because 'the contemporaries in the Dublin office are getting x% more !
Whil ethe companies are making money, do you think that with reunification, the wages will be revised DOWNWARDS!! CFO's might love that, but in reality that wont happen.
Rem the majority of the people are in the south !
Majority rules - something you will hear more of in the future !!
Pity it wasnt used too much around 1914 - 1922

but yes, there will also be a payoff to Irish gov for taking on the people in the north, but thismoney will go towards changing healthcare system etc.
Wages are expected to be funded by the private companies - thats how commerce and business works i'd have thought !!

Quote from: saffron sam2 on May 26, 2011, 11:29:09 AM
Aye, but the feckers would then start charging us a fiver for a pint.

yes - but you prob dont realise how much the costs of stuff up there has actually gradually increased- thats why there are not so many people heading north of the border these days to shop - let alone drink!
last time I was up and ordered booze, I recall thinking to myself that there wasnt much difference in the price of the drink these days once you convert the currency.
Also , in general the quality of your food and drink in th enorth is inferior to what we get down here !
in the past 6 months, your egg farm producers have changed their quality standards and gor rid of the British standard to come in under the higher quality Irish standard - Acronym I cannot recall.
Anyhow, ours are a lot more stringent. I'd still be cautious about buying eggs, meat and dairy in the north - even though the eggs should be nearly our standards now. the meat and dairy I woudlnt touch.
False economy SS2 !!  :D

In the early part of the 20th century, there were a number of concerns about Irish independence.

Firstly people did not know what was ahead, there wasn't a model then.
While a UI will not be just the ROI, it will probably be between NI and ROI models.

Protestants may have had concerns on religious grounds and pretty much ensured that those concerns would arise to some extent by associating non Catholics with colonialism.
There is no concern about this sort of thing anymore.

People in the industrialised North had concerns about tariffs etc and that the less industrialised South would pursue tax policies re agriculture and industry that wouldn't suit them.
There aren't those difference between the economies now and the EU model ensures that trade with Britain or elsewhere wouldn't be affected one way or the other.

People in the North worried about being associated with a less prosperous South, and that taxes would divert money from North to South.
Now, of course, Ulster enterprise is gone and the North sees itself as needing money to keep it going.

Finally unionists had been giving it for hundreds of years, they may have wondered if the shoe was going to be on the other foot now.
The GFA models have sorted this one.

Those proposing a UI were always potentially on the hind foot in the 20th century as the ROI was less prosperous than the UK, this is no longer the case and will no longer be the case.

Unionism has a choice, it can cling to a sectarian 17th century colonial vision which Britain has now basically apologised for. It can stay in a union where the other partner couldn't care less and even despises their regressive political philosophy. It can continue in the present, rather sad, situation where any sign of economic progress North or South is unwelcome as it might undermine the good Union.  Or people of British heritage can make their way in 21st century Ireland just as people from Poland, China, Brazil and Nigeria do.

Quote from: armaghniac on May 26, 2011, 11:48:42 PM
In the early part of the 20th century, there were a number of concerns about Irish independence.

Firstly people did not know what was ahead, there wasn't a model then.
While a UI will not be just the ROI, it will probably be between NI and ROI models.

Protestants may have had concerns on religious grounds and pretty much ensured that those concerns would arise to some extent by associating non Catholics with colonialism.
There is no concern about this sort of thing anymore.

People in the industrialised North had concerns about tariffs etc and that the less industrialised South would pursue tax policies re agriculture and industry that wouldn't suit them.
There aren't those difference between the economies now and the EU model ensures that trade with Britain or elsewhere wouldn't be affected one way or the other.

People in the North worried about being associated with a less prosperous South, and that taxes would divert money from North to South.
Now, of course, Ulster enterprise is gone and the North sees itself as needing money to keep it going.

Finally unionists had been giving it for hundreds of years, they may have wondered if the show was going to be on the other foot now.
The GFA models have sorted this one.

Those proposing a UI were always potentially on the hind foot in the 20th century as the ROI was less prosperous than the UK, this is no longer the case and will no longer be the case.

Unionism has a choice, it can cling to a sectarian 17th century colonial vision which Britain has now basically apologised for. It can stay in a union where the other partner couldn't care less and even despises their regressive political philosophy. It can continue in the present, rather sad, situation where any sign of economic progress North or South is unwelcome as it might undermine the good Union.  Or people of British heritage can make their way in 21st century Ireland just as people from Poland, China, Brazil and Nigeria do.

+1

Quote from: armaghniac on May 26, 2011, 11:48:42 PM
In the early part of the 20th century, there were a number of concerns about Irish independence.

Firstly people did not know what was ahead, there wasn't a model then.
While a UI will not be just the ROI, it will probably be between NI and ROI models.

Protestants may have had concerns on religious grounds and pretty much ensured that those concerns would arise to some extent by associating non Catholics with colonialism.
There is no concern about this sort of thing anymore.

People in the industrialised North had concerns about tariffs etc and that the less industrialised South would pursue tax policies re agriculture and industry that wouldn't suit them.
There aren't those difference between the economies now and the EU model ensures that trade with Britain or elsewhere wouldn't be affected one way or the other.

People in the North worried about being associated with a less prosperous South, and that taxes would divert money from North to South.
Now, of course, Ulster enterprise is gone and the North sees itself as needing money to keep it going.

Finally unionists had been giving it for hundreds of years, they may have wondered if the shoe was going to be on the other foot now.
The GFA models have sorted this one.

Those proposing a UI were always potentially on the hind foot in the 20th century as the ROI was less prosperous than the UK, this is no longer the case and will no longer be the case.

Unionism has a choice, it can cling to a sectarian 17th century colonial vision which Britain has now basically apologised for. It can stay in a union where the other partner couldn't care less and even despises their regressive political philosophy. It can continue in the present, rather sad, situation where any sign of economic progress North or South is unwelcome as it might undermine the good Union.  Or people of British heritage can make their way in 21st century Ireland just as people from Poland, China, Brazil and Nigeria do.

I think the reverse may now be the bigger barrier.
To quote Lynchboy
"Ireland inc are hamstrung by th ebanks. Our services and companies, expeors etc are booming. We would be exceding celtic tiger (minus property rubbish) if we had not been handcuffed by our gov to bail out the gamblers !"
The people of Ireland will be paying these gambling debts for a generation. With 15% unemployment why would the Taxpayers of Ireland want to take on an additional 1.8m people and an economy with a 60% reliance on state funded "jobs" and minimal private sector where the GDP is only 70% of the rest of Ireland?
IMO the majority of people North and South are apathetic towards a UI, a roof over the head and food on the table is a bigger sway than the romantic notion of the Irish nation.
At the end of the day it comes down to who you pay your taxes to, the warmongers in Westminister or the gombeens / gamblers in the Dail, I would not trust either to run an u-14 blitz without either invading another club for streategic access to their nets or selling the pitch from under my feet to a develoer.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 26, 2011, 11:55:24 AM

Quote from: saffron sam2 on May 26, 2011, 11:29:09 AM
Aye, but the feckers would then start charging us a fiver for a pint.

yes - but you prob dont realise how much the costs of stuff up there has actually gradually increased- thats why there are not so many people heading north of the border these days to shop - let alone drink!
last time I was up and ordered booze, I recall thinking to myself that there wasnt much difference in the price of the drink these days once you convert the currency.
Also , in general the quality of your food and drink in th enorth is inferior to what we get down here !
in the past 6 months, your egg farm producers have changed their quality standards and gor rid of the British standard to come in under the higher quality Irish standard - Acronym I cannot recall.
Anyhow, ours are a lot more stringent. I'd still be cautious about buying eggs, meat and dairy in the north - even though the eggs should be nearly our standards now. the meat and dairy I woudlnt touch.
False economy SS2 !!  :D

Pure drivel, it's the exact same as most likely it from all the same suppliers. Without going into it or knowing much about it, I'd assume the suppliers need to have the Irish Standard in order to supply to the south. Simple economics. Do you think people where keeling over dead 30/40 years ago without these standards? Christ some people take the whole nostalgic bullshi1t with Ireland too seriously.

If you knew anything about the dodgy food practices/cover ups in food industry in Ireland over the last 30/40 years, you'd soon change your tune. It's only really in the last 10 or 15 years it's started to become properly regulated, before that the regulators were as useful as the banking regulators.

I know a few people at one of the big processors in Ireland and the UK and they all say the same, their UK operations are far superior and at the cutting edge of technologies than their Irish  operations. In fact the best beef they buy is from south America and lately north America. The quality of Irish produce is myth.

Quote from: thebigfella on May 27, 2011, 10:36:45 AM
In fact the best beef they buy is from south America and lately north America. The quality of Irish produce is myth.

Grain fed cattle from the Americas? No way on earth is that superior to grass fed cattle, not a prayer.

Quote from: LeoMc on May 27, 2011, 09:43:04 AM
I think the reverse may now be the bigger barrier. To quote Lynchboy
"Ireland inc are hamstrung by th ebanks. Our services and companies, expeors etc are booming. We would be exceding celtic tiger (minus property rubbish) if we had not been handcuffed by our gov to bail out the gamblers !"
The people of Ireland will be paying these gambling debts for a generation. With 15% unemployment why would the Taxpayers of Ireland want to take on an additional 1.8m people and an economy with a 60% reliance on state funded "jobs" and minimal private sector where the GDP is only 70% of the rest of Ireland?
IMO the majority of people North and South are apathetic towards a UI, a roof over the head and food on the table is a bigger sway than the romantic notion of the Irish nation.
At the end of the day it comes down to who you pay your taxes to, the warmongers in Westminister or the gombeens / gamblers in the Dail, I would not trust either to run an u-14 blitz without either invading another club for streategic access to their nets or selling the pitch from under my feet to a develoer.

there would be more potential investment from US & EU after reunification - companies are still wary of locating in the north - despite the massive investNI funds) which would ease this 'problem' very quickly!

cant see too many governments covering themselves in glory these days so ours and the british are no worse really ! sadly!

Would completely agree with Armaghaniac's great post !

Quote from: thebigfella on May 27, 2011, 10:36:45 AM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 26, 2011, 11:55:24 AM

Quote from: saffron sam2 on May 26, 2011, 11:29:09 AM
Aye, but the feckers would then start charging us a fiver for a pint.

yes - but you prob dont realise how much the costs of stuff up there has actually gradually increased- thats why there are not so many people heading north of the border these days to shop - let alone drink!
last time I was up and ordered booze, I recall thinking to myself that there wasnt much difference in the price of the drink these days once you convert the currency.
Also , in general the quality of your food and drink in th enorth is inferior to what we get down here !
in the past 6 months, your egg farm producers have changed their quality standards and gor rid of the British standard to come in under the higher quality Irish standard - Acronym I cannot recall.
Anyhow, ours are a lot more stringent. I'd still be cautious about buying eggs, meat and dairy in the north - even though the eggs should be nearly our standards now. the meat and dairy I woudlnt touch.
False economy SS2 !!  :D

Pure drivel, it's the exact same as most likely it from all the same suppliers. Without going into it or knowing much about it, I'd assume the suppliers need to have the Irish Standard in order to supply to the south. Simple economics. Do you think people where keeling over dead 30/40 years ago without these standards? Christ some people take the whole nostalgic bullshi1t with Ireland too seriously.

If you knew anything about the dodgy food practices/cover ups in food industry in Ireland over the last 30/40 years, you'd soon change your tune. It's only really in the last 10 or 15 years it's started to become properly regulated, before that the regulators were as useful as the banking regulators.

I know a few people at one of the big processors in Ireland and the UK and they all say the same, their UK operations are far superior and at the cutting edge of technologies than their Irish  operations. In fact the best beef they buy is from south America and lately north America. The quality of Irish produce is myth.

i'd agree that its a bit rich to say the above when its only in the past 20 years that Ireland have brought up their standards to become a high level - when we were pretty poor before that.

however what I say is  imo pretty correct, check out the example of the switching of standards authorities by the egg producers in the north !
south american beef is no better than our top quality produced beef in Ireland.
Irish beef - if you watch the foodie programmes - is venerated by top London and Parisien & Roman restaurants.
Grain used to be the cheaper , quicker fattening way to feed livestock.
Grass is always much better as FOSB says - or so taught to us in my agricultural science lessons for leaving cert !!

so better food, higher wages, more options for jobs (non civil service) - as well as undoing an illegal undemocratic partition- theres a few answers for Hardy as to why the alaskans are better off in a reunification !! :D

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 27, 2011, 10:42:04 AM

Quote from: thebigfella on May 27, 2011, 10:36:45 AM
In fact the best beef they buy is from south America and lately north America. The quality of Irish produce is myth.

Grain fed cattle from the Americas? No way on earth is that superior to grass fed cattle, not a prayer.

Not all the cattle is grain fed or finished (I believe they call it).

Quote from: armaghniac on May 26, 2011, 11:48:42 PMUnionism has a choice, it can cling to a sectarian 17th century colonial vision which Britain has now basically apologised for.

That would be the same 17th century Unionism which has embraced the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, then?  ::)

Quote from: armaghniac on May 26, 2011, 11:48:42 PMIt can stay in a union where the other partner couldn't care less and even despises their regressive political philosophy.

"I will never be neutral when it comes to expressing my support for the Union" - David Cameron, in a speech to Unionists, Belfast, Dec. 2008

Quote from: armaghniac on May 26, 2011, 11:48:42 PMIt can continue in the present, rather sad, situation where any sign of economic progress North or South is unwelcome as it might undermine the good Union.

Have I got this straight?
"Unionists don't want to see NI thrive economically, because that would weaken the Union?"  :o

Quote from: armaghniac on May 26, 2011, 11:48:42 PMOr people of British heritage can make their way in 21st century Ireland just as people from Poland, China, Brazil and Nigeria do.

People of British heritage (or plain "British people") are making their way in 21st Century Northern Ireland  quite happily, as are people from Poland, China*, Brazil and Nigeria etc. And Irish people, too, for that matter.

Once again, you fail to get the point. Unionism doesn't have to do  anything in order to remain in the Union, other perhaps than to continue to contribute towards the good governance of NI, so that the large majority of people (increasingly including people from a Nationalist/Catholic background) are happy to go on living in NI.


* - I don't hear eg Anna Lo demanding Irish Unity too loudly from the platform...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 27, 2011, 11:01:13 AM
so better food, higher wages, more options for jobs (non civil service) - as well as undoing an illegal undemocratic partition- theres a few answers for Hardy as to why the alaskans are better off in a reunification !! :D

Well that's me convinced, then!

Where do I sign up for my place in paradise?

Quote from: thebigfella on May 27, 2011, 11:24:05 AM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 27, 2011, 10:42:04 AM

Quote from: thebigfella on May 27, 2011, 10:36:45 AM
In fact the best beef they buy is from south America and lately north America. The quality of Irish produce is myth.

Grain fed cattle from the Americas? No way on earth is that superior to grass fed cattle, not a prayer.

Not all the cattle is grain fed or finished (I believe they call it).

Off topic, I know, but by far the best steak I have ever had, or ever will have, was in Colorado. It was grass fed (and not at all expensive, either). Despite it being an inch and a half thick, I could have eaten it with a spoon!

By contrast, a couple of years back I was on holiday in Ireland for a few days, first up around Derry, then over in Donegal. I particularly recall a steak I had in a bar/restaurant near Buncrana(?), not for its quality, which was probably OK, but for its price, which they wouldn't have asked in London or Paris! In fact, I was generally shocked by the cost of touring/holidaying in ROI (as opposed to visiting, passing through etc). And it wasn't all down to the £/€ exchange rate, either.

Oh and unlike Lynchbhoy, I didn't notice any great difference in the standard of my breakfast eggs after I crossed the border.