Messages

[Big landowners are still protestant]

I you take an overall look at it today

• Big landowners are still protestant
• Protestants would still own a lot of the wealth in the north
• The majority of Catholics aged 30-40 have been left with large student loans

Nothing is going to change anytime soon.

There's very much a slide the other way where I'm from, some historically Protestant owned and farmed land has moved into Catholic hands, the spuds taste the same though.

I'd say if the details were available high ranking Civil servants, cops and private business owners are very much weighted towards the protestant faiths and change will be slow there too.

Plenty of SF and SDLP ministers in government these days, ideally placed to address any employment imbalances in their departments.

I did find this funny.

CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.

There are plenty of irish who've never set foot on the island. Are they discounted?

If they haven't bothered their arse paying a visit then yes, they should be discounted.

That's the republic's football team bollixed, then. 

John Hume virtually ignored.

Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire

Seamus Mallon was representing the SDLP - maybe he should've emphasised Hume's contribution a bit more. John, unfortunately, isn't able to speak up for himself these days.

'No reform short of its abolition can remedy the fundamental injustice of the six county state.'

An Phoblacht, 26 August 1993

Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".

That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.

The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation.  The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland. 

Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.

Perhaps you think that Scotland is comprised of two nations also, given that 45% of the people voted for an independent Scotland outside the union, while 55% opted to remain British? Maybe Glasgow and Dundee should be given federal status, or become self governing cantons? Also, northern unionists were not able to exercise self determination. Their 'country' was carved out for them by the British government and imposed by threat of force. Had they been left to themselves, they would've been unable to hold on to more than 3 counties at best. In all likelihood, they would've had to have reached some sort of negotiated settlement with their fellow citizens of this island. They may have argued for and obtained some sort of northern parliament for themselves, but the wishes of the majority of the island would have been respected and the integrity of Ireland as a country would've been maintained. Also, the GFA has not made the argument defunct. The agreement was ratified by both parts of the island as the best deal available at present, but noone said that it was a full and final settlement.

Not a new argument. Remember getting my eyes opened on OWC a few years ago on the Unionist take on things, something I'd never considered before and their position was entirely understandable.

I can understand why unionists would make the 'two nations' argument, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Presumably the Irish are one of the nations, but who is the other? It can't be the British nation, as Britain consists of more than one country. It can't be the 'Northern Irish', at least not according to census data, which shows that only a minority of people from the 6 counties classify themselves in that way. Ulster-British? Ulster-Scots? Irish-British? How can a claim for nationhood be made when the people making the claim aren't sure what nationality they are? Any ideas, Tonto? Genuine question.

Of course it's British. Chris Froome born & raised in Kenya of English parents gave a great description / explanation of how he feels British (to Paul Kimmage). Not English, Welsh, Scotch or Northern Irish but British http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-1-30391816.html

Significant that his parents are English. For most English I've met, British and English are the same thing - it's just the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish who struggle with the concept. But let's assume you're right and that the two nations on this island are the Irish and the British. How then does that square with Tonto's assertion that partition was an exercise in self determination on the part of unionists? Britain already had self determination, complete with its own parliament, own flag, own anthem, etc etc. The action of unionists, therefore, could not be an act of British self determination, or an assertion of nationhood, as these things had already taken place. It was rather a desire on the part of some British people to retain a particular piece of land under British control, a desire which flew in the face of their own parliament, which had already passed the Home Rule bill. 

[And this justifies bombing people in the '70s & '80s ?]

"That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused."


And this justifies bombing people in the '70s & '80s ?

If peaceful campaigning was followed, the UK would be forced to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Catholic community: by international public opinion.

I didn't say that. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in the very same post, if you want to go back and read it again.

Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".

That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.

The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation.  The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland. 

Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.

Perhaps you think that Scotland is comprised of two nations also, given that 45% of the people voted for an independent Scotland outside the union, while 55% opted to remain British? Maybe Glasgow and Dundee should be given federal status, or become self governing cantons? Also, northern unionists were not able to exercise self determination. Their 'country' was carved out for them by the British government and imposed by threat of force. Had they been left to themselves, they would've been unable to hold on to more than 3 counties at best. In all likelihood, they would've had to have reached some sort of negotiated settlement with their fellow citizens of this island. They may have argued for and obtained some sort of northern parliament for themselves, but the wishes of the majority of the island would have been respected and the integrity of Ireland as a country would've been maintained. Also, the GFA has not made the argument defunct. The agreement was ratified by both parts of the island as the best deal available at present, but noone said that it was a full and final settlement.

Not a new argument. Remember getting my eyes opened on OWC a few years ago on the Unionist take on things, something I'd never considered before and their position was entirely understandable.

I can understand why unionists would make the 'two nations' argument, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Presumably the Irish are one of the nations, but who is the other? It can't be the British nation, as Britain consists of more than one country. It can't be the 'Northern Irish', at least not according to census data, which shows that only a minority of people from the 6 counties classify themselves in that way. Ulster-British? Ulster-Scots? Irish-British? How can a claim for nationhood be made when the people making the claim aren't sure what nationality they are? Any ideas, Tonto? Genuine question.

[But the nationalist peoples of the 6 counties have got what they alwYs wanted and needed!]

I've said it before on here but the goal of republicans was to stop the persecution and discrimination - violent and physical - as well as bringing Irish/nationalist/catholic / working class up to parity and no longer second class citizens in relation to the unionist/loyalist/prod/ planters.

Ireland's reunification was then seen as the ultimate way to get this , so became the mantra.

Sunningdale is v similar to gfa - but back then it would have never worked - it wasn't practical as neither side would adhere to it.

It was a jump too far for unionist/loyalists and sunningdale didn't dictate how it could enforce changes on them.

Ireland is an Island country - it once was, so at some point it will be again.
Since gfa people are content now to be able to live normal lives so reunification will happen more slowly.
It's all down to money, economy and then the voting majority will go for it both side of the border.

Without their British army leaders, the unionist/loyalist violent groups haven't the about to mount anything more than a short riot.
These will have no effect or long term issue after reunification.

Bigger issue is healthcare, dole , jobs etc

The subsidy money  from Brit gov to take the 6 counties off their hands will only stretch do far.

No one wins wars. But the nationalist peoples of the 6 counties have got what they alwYs wanted and needed!

This particular nationalist person from the 6 counties begs to differ. I'd like a 32 county Ireland independent of Great Britain, please.

Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".

That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.

The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation.  The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland. 

Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.

Perhaps you think that Scotland is comprised of two nations also, given that 45% of the people voted for an independent Scotland outside the union, while 55% opted to remain British? Maybe Glasgow and Dundee should be given federal status, or become self governing cantons? Also, northern unionists were not able to exercise self determination. Their 'country' was carved out for them by the British government and imposed by threat of force. Had they been left to themselves, they would've been unable to hold on to more than 3 counties at best. In all likelihood, they would've had to have reached some sort of negotiated settlement with their fellow citizens of this island. They may have argued for and obtained some sort of northern parliament for themselves, but the wishes of the majority of the island would have been respected and the integrity of Ireland as a country would've been maintained. Also, the GFA has not made the argument defunct. The agreement was ratified by both parts of the island as the best deal available at present, but noone said that it was a full and final settlement.

Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".

That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.

Those in receipt of Public Service pensions are hardly ordinary people, more a cosseted bunch of inefficient workers.

If they're getting pensions they are no longer workers.
As for cossetted and inefficient - try driving an ambulance, working in an A & E or  teaching 4 year olds instead of repeating oul broad stroke cliches.

I am not denying that many of those you have mentioned do good work and are deserving of the rewards. But that hardly makes them ordinary people. Many in the public sector are over paid. The public sector is too large and we cannot afford it. The health service has far too many managers and not enough frontline staff. There is too much overlap between Govt Depts many working at odds. So if SF recognise this then thats a sign of their maturing as a political party. The publc service is inefficient and there needs to be equality. If a teacher is ordinary, how can they retire at 50 take a full pension and then return as a sub?

educate yourself before you come on spouting nonsense:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/extras/publicsectorpensions.pdf

Hardly a balanced view!

Whereas you throw in myths and legends that would embarrass the Daily Mail and expect to go unchallenged? You quote a line from the Irish News, but then proceed to summarise in your own words, so really we're none the wiser what that article says. Whatever, I can assure you that the average wage in the public sector is nowhere near £40k. Are there too many managers in the health service? Quite possibly, but whose fault is that? Successive governments have taken target setting in education and health to extremes, and when you have targets, you need people to monitor, measure and report on them. You also need squads of people to monitor, measure and report on the budgets that fund all this. And then you end up with organisations that forget what they're about - schools that exclude difficult young people, because they want to climb the school league tables, hospitals that turf sick people out too quickly in order to meet their time targets.

Those in receipt of Public Service pensions are hardly ordinary people, more a cosseted bunch of inefficient workers.

If they're getting pensions they are no longer workers.
As for cossetted and inefficient - try driving an ambulance, working in an A & E or  teaching 4 year olds instead of repeating oul broad stroke cliches.

I am not denying that many of those you have mentioned do good work and are deserving of the rewards. But that hardly makes them ordinary people. Many in the public sector are over paid. The public sector is too large and we cannot afford it. The health service has far too many managers and not enough frontline staff. There is too much overlap between Govt Depts many working at odds. So if SF recognise this then thats a sign of their maturing as a political party. The publc service is inefficient and there needs to be equality. If a teacher is ordinary, how can they retire at 50 take a full pension and then return as a sub?

educate yourself before you come on spouting nonsense:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/extras/publicsectorpensions.pdf

I do also subscribe to the theories that God has an elect and predestination.Sadly many will deny the existence of God for all their days and pay a heavy price.God surely knows the ultimate fate of every man and woman prior to their birth and I thank him for his benevolence to me personally in this regard.

Muppet Jesus said to Peter you are the rock upon whom I will build by church,so Peter was effectively the first Pope and the present Pope can trace a direct lineage to him,so for this reason the Catholic Church can claim him as its founder

Predestination? So we don't have free will, then? And the fact that God 'knows the ultimate fate of every man and woman prior to their birth' is surely evidence of his supreme cruelty, is it not? What sort of being creates a sentient creature knowing that this creature is destined for eternal torture?

We messed up? Surely if God created us, he's the one who messed up, since he created something capable of sin? What's more, even as he was in the act of creating us, he must've known that he was creating a sinful creature, since he's omniscient. And if he knew that he was creating a sinful creature, he also knew that he was creating many of us to burn in eternal hell fire, no? And if he knew that, why did he continue? Why create mankind when he must've known that many of his 'children' would end up in hell?

Being all knowing and all controlling are two different things Myles. God created us. He didn't create us to be evil or to sin. That's on us. We have the ability (through free will) to choose Him or reject Him. To love him sincerely or out of fear or not at all. Without free will we would just be machines. Not humans. Even Satan cannot make us sin - he tempts us to sin but the choice is always ours.

Should God not have bothered at all knowing that some people would choose sin and choose hell? Is that what you are asking?

Do you know why God created the world? Or what the Church teaches or what Catholics believe?
That the world was created to show every aspect of God's character fully. His loving kindness, His creative Power, His justice, His mercy, His wrath...

I sometimes think you ask the questions without thinking about them and what the response might be.

If he knows all things, he created us in the full knowledge that he was creating a flawed creature. He created us knowing that many of us were destined for eternal punishment. So why bother? If I leave a group of 6 year olds in a room containing bowls of sweets and chocolates, after telling them not to eat any, who's to blame if some of the kids can't resist temptation and end up eating a sweet or two? I could say that the kids have free will and chose to disobey me, but I don't think many people would support me if I decided to inflict a catastrophic punishment on those kids who 'sinned'.

You are over simplifying it for your own argument.  God isn't inflicting catastrophic punishment on 6 year-old's for eating sweets. We have multiple opportunities in our life to repent - until our last breath. There are many sins and they aren't all as appealing as a bowl of sweets - unless you are one of the few who enjoy killing.....

I'm not sure I am over simplifying things by using an adult / child analogy. In fact, I'm possibly understating things, given that the gap between ourselves and the creator of the cosmos is far greater than the intellectual distance between an adult and a child. I don't think I'm over stating things in terms of proportionality, either. Any sense of injustice at the idea of me severely punishing a 6 year old is nothing compared to the notion of an all powerful, all knowing being inflicting eternal torment on mere mortals. As for repentance - if anyone has cause to repent, it surely has to be the architect of this flawed creation, the being who created mankind, gave him free will, then decided to punish him when he exercised it.

We messed up? Surely if God created us, he's the one who messed up, since he created something capable of sin? What's more, even as he was in the act of creating us, he must've known that he was creating a sinful creature, since he's omniscient. And if he knew that he was creating a sinful creature, he also knew that he was creating many of us to burn in eternal hell fire, no? And if he knew that, why did he continue? Why create mankind when he must've known that many of his 'children' would end up in hell?

Being all knowing and all controlling are two different things Myles. God created us. He didn't create us to be evil or to sin. That's on us. We have the ability (through free will) to choose Him or reject Him. To love him sincerely or out of fear or not at all. Without free will we would just be machines. Not humans. Even Satan cannot make us sin - he tempts us to sin but the choice is always ours.

Should God not have bothered at all knowing that some people would choose sin and choose hell? Is that what you are asking?

Do you know why God created the world? Or what the Church teaches or what Catholics believe?
That the world was created to show every aspect of God's character fully. His loving kindness, His creative Power, His justice, His mercy, His wrath...

I sometimes think you ask the questions without thinking about them and what the response might be.

If he knows all things, he created us in the full knowledge that he was creating a flawed creature. He created us knowing that many of us were destined for eternal punishment. So why bother? If I leave a group of 6 year olds in a room containing bowls of sweets and chocolates, after telling them not to eat any, who's to blame if some of the kids can't resist temptation and end up eating a sweet or two? I could say that the kids have free will and chose to disobey me, but I don't think many people would support me if I decided to inflict a catastrophic punishment on those kids who 'sinned'.