Scottish Independance and a United Ireland

[Hardy]

The question is not why Ireland should be reunited. The question is why should it not be? Until 90 years ago, Ireland had been viewed as a single country from early days. The Romans called us Hibernia, not Res Publica Hibernia or Hibernia Borealis. We were divided at the behest of a national minority which ignored the democratic wishes of the rest of the people of this island, as well as the wishes of the government of the UK which wanted to grant Ireland Home Rule at that time. A group which constituted a majority in only 3, maybe 4, counties on this island was then permitted to establish a state which included 2 other counties with nationalist majorities. This state has existed for 90 years and has demonstrably failed economically, politically and socially. The numbers of the national minority which established the state have shrunk to the extent where they will soon be a minority even within their own artificially created border. I repeat, the question should not be why Ireland should be reunited, but rather, why does Northern Ireland still exist?

Because the majority within the six counties want it to exist as demonstrated by the fact there are more unionists than nationalists in Stormont. As demographics change Stormont will change and there will be a United Ireland.

And why should a majority within the 6 counties trump a majority in the 32?

You've heard about the Good Friday Agreement?

What about the Good Friday Agreement? Like many others, I voted in favour of it, as it was the best deal on offer at the time and a way of ending the political violence on our streets. That doesn't mean that I gave up my right to want a reunited Ireland, or to believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island.

You asked why a majority within the six counties should trump a majority in the 32. That question seemed to ignore the current reality that the Agreement is the way forward approved by a huge majority in the six, the twenty-six and the thirty-two. It doesn't include any clause that limits your right to "want a reunited Ireland" or any provision that restricts your right to "believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island".

[Myles Na G.]

The question is not why Ireland should be reunited. The question is why should it not be? Until 90 years ago, Ireland had been viewed as a single country from early days. The Romans called us Hibernia, not Res Publica Hibernia or Hibernia Borealis. We were divided at the behest of a national minority which ignored the democratic wishes of the rest of the people of this island, as well as the wishes of the government of the UK which wanted to grant Ireland Home Rule at that time. A group which constituted a majority in only 3, maybe 4, counties on this island was then permitted to establish a state which included 2 other counties with nationalist majorities. This state has existed for 90 years and has demonstrably failed economically, politically and socially. The numbers of the national minority which established the state have shrunk to the extent where they will soon be a minority even within their own artificially created border. I repeat, the question should not be why Ireland should be reunited, but rather, why does Northern Ireland still exist?

Because the majority within the six counties want it to exist as demonstrated by the fact there are more unionists than nationalists in Stormont. As demographics change Stormont will change and there will be a United Ireland.

And why should a majority within the 6 counties trump a majority in the 32?

You've heard about the Good Friday Agreement?

What about the Good Friday Agreement? Like many others, I voted in favour of it, as it was the best deal on offer at the time and a way of ending the political violence on our streets. That doesn't mean that I gave up my right to want a reunited Ireland, or to believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island.

You asked why a majority within the six counties should trump a majority in the 32. That question seemed to ignore the current reality that the Agreement is the way forward approved by a huge majority in the six, the twenty-six and the thirty-two. It doesn't include any clause that limits your right to "want a reunited Ireland" or any provision that restricts your right to "believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island".

It was approved by a huge majority throughout the island as the best of what was on offer at that time, but the reality is that the GFA was a bit of a Henry Ford type offer i.e the people could have any colour of car they wanted so long as it was black. There was no option in the GFA to vote for a 32 county, independent Ireland. A partitionist solution was the only game in town, proof if ever it was needed that the Provos lost their so called long war. But that brings me back, in a roundabout way, to my question:the fact that the only option offered to people was a partitionist one demands an explanation. Why are the wishes of a group of people clustered in 3 or 4 counties of the island forever elevated above the wishes of all other citizens? Would this have been allowed to happen in the Scottish referendum? If not, what's the difference?

[OakleafCounty]

It wouldn't be allowed to happen in the Scottish referendum because the British government have no doubt learned their lesson from doing it in the past. I'm sure that most people in Britain and Ireland bar NI unionists would agree that partition didn't work economically and plenty would also say it was morally wrong and illegal but the reality is that it was almost a century ago and the only way for it to happen now is through the majority in the 6 counties wanting it.

[Aerlik]

Yet again I find myself agreeing with Myles na G.  By a process of iteration there are many in 26 counties of our country who believe that the current status quo is "acceptable".  That is precisely what the puppet masters have aimed for.  Artificial borders created 100 years ago, whether they be in Ireland, Africa or wherever have been proven to be a disaster. 

[Mike Sheehy]

The question is not why Ireland should be reunited. The question is why should it not be? Until 90 years ago, Ireland had been viewed as a single country from early days. The Romans called us Hibernia, not Res Publica Hibernia or Hibernia Borealis. We were divided at the behest of a national minority which ignored the democratic wishes of the rest of the people of this island, as well as the wishes of the government of the UK which wanted to grant Ireland Home Rule at that time. A group which constituted a majority in only 3, maybe 4, counties on this island was then permitted to establish a state which included 2 other counties with nationalist majorities. This state has existed for 90 years and has demonstrably failed economically, politically and socially. The numbers of the national minority which established the state have shrunk to the extent where they will soon be a minority even within their own artificially created border. I repeat, the question should not be why Ireland should be reunited, but rather, why does Northern Ireland still exist?

Because the majority within the six counties want it to exist as demonstrated by the fact there are more unionists than nationalists in Stormont. As demographics change Stormont will change and there will be a United Ireland.

And why should a majority within the 6 counties trump a majority in the 32?

You've heard about the Good Friday Agreement?

What about the Good Friday Agreement? Like many others, I voted in favour of it, as it was the best deal on offer at the time and a way of ending the political violence on our streets. That doesn't mean that I gave up my right to want a reunited Ireland, or to believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island.

You asked why a majority within the six counties should trump a majority in the 32. That question seemed to ignore the current reality that the Agreement is the way forward approved by a huge majority in the six, the twenty-six and the thirty-two. It doesn't include any clause that limits your right to "want a reunited Ireland" or any provision that restricts your right to "believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island".

It was approved by a huge majority throughout the island as the best of what was on offer at that time, but the reality is that the GFA was a bit of a Henry Ford type offer i.e the people could have any colour of car they wanted so long as it was black. There was no option in the GFA to vote for a 32 county, independent Ireland. A partitionist solution was the only game in town, proof if ever it was needed that the Provos lost their so called long war. But that brings me back, in a roundabout way, to my question:the fact that the only option offered to people was a partitionist one demands an explanation. Why are the wishes of a group of people clustered in 3 or 4 counties of the island forever elevated above the wishes of all other citizens? Would this have been allowed to happen in the Scottish referendum? If not, what's the difference?

surely the bit in bold below will give you you are looking for ? Any direct vote at the time of the GFA agreement to unite Ireland would have been rejected overwhelmingly by Unionists by the same margin that any proposal to rejoin the UK would have be rejected by people south of the border. It would have been pointless to include it and it would probably have scuppered
the whole agreement.

Like I said before, true patriots are patient. Learn to live in peace with your neigbours for a few generations then tackle the United Ireland question again.

The Agreement acknowledged:
that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom;
that a substantial section of the people of Northern Ireland, and the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, wished to bring about a united Ireland.

Both of these views were acknowledged as being legitimate.

The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish governments are under "a binding obligation" to implement that choice

[Hardy]

The question is not why Ireland should be reunited. The question is why should it not be? Until 90 years ago, Ireland had been viewed as a single country from early days. The Romans called us Hibernia, not Res Publica Hibernia or Hibernia Borealis. We were divided at the behest of a national minority which ignored the democratic wishes of the rest of the people of this island, as well as the wishes of the government of the UK which wanted to grant Ireland Home Rule at that time. A group which constituted a majority in only 3, maybe 4, counties on this island was then permitted to establish a state which included 2 other counties with nationalist majorities. This state has existed for 90 years and has demonstrably failed economically, politically and socially. The numbers of the national minority which established the state have shrunk to the extent where they will soon be a minority even within their own artificially created border. I repeat, the question should not be why Ireland should be reunited, but rather, why does Northern Ireland still exist?

Because the majority within the six counties want it to exist as demonstrated by the fact there are more unionists than nationalists in Stormont. As demographics change Stormont will change and there will be a United Ireland.

And why should a majority within the 6 counties trump a majority in the 32?

You've heard about the Good Friday Agreement?

What about the Good Friday Agreement? Like many others, I voted in favour of it, as it was the best deal on offer at the time and a way of ending the political violence on our streets. That doesn't mean that I gave up my right to want a reunited Ireland, or to believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island.

You asked why a majority within the six counties should trump a majority in the 32. That question seemed to ignore the current reality that the Agreement is the way forward approved by a huge majority in the six, the twenty-six and the thirty-two. It doesn't include any clause that limits your right to "want a reunited Ireland" or any provision that restricts your right to "believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island".

It was approved by a huge majority throughout the island as the best of what was on offer at that time, but the reality is that the GFA was a bit of a Henry Ford type offer i.e the people could have any colour of car they wanted so long as it was black. There was no option in the GFA to vote for a 32 county, independent Ireland. A partitionist solution was the only game in town, proof if ever it was needed that the Provos lost their so called long war. But that brings me back, in a roundabout way, to my question:the fact that the only option offered to people was a partitionist one demands an explanation. Why are the wishes of a group of people clustered in 3 or 4 counties of the island forever elevated above the wishes of all other citizens? Would this have been allowed to happen in the Scottish referendum? If not, what's the difference?

The reason the wishes of a group of people clustered in 3 or 4 counties of the island were elevated a century ago above the wishes of all other citizens is simple. They threatened mayhem and violence if they were forced into a united Ireland. The reason their wishes continue to prevail is the same.

The Good Friday Agreement took four years or so to hammer out and clearly represents the acceptance of this state of affairs as the reality, however much we would wish it to be otherwise. I know that there's a wider consensus that's also been accepted - that even if there were no threat of violence, these days it's unreasonable, unworkable and counter-productive to force a large section of the population into a constitutional arrangement they don't want. That's leaving aside whether it's reasonable to force another large section of the population to remain in a constitutional arrangement THEY don't want.

Whether or not it (the unionist veto, with its implicit threat of violence) is "acceptable" is moot, depending on your definition of acceptability. One definition would be that the democratic decision of the people defines acceptability. We've accepted it. There you are.

I'm not sure, though, that large swathes of unionism have REALLY accepted the corollary that they signed up to. We'll find out if a referendum ever mandates unification.

[BennyCake]

The question is would Northerners want an United ireland? Household charges, medical bills, prescriptions, water charges among other things. Like the Scots, people will vote with their pockets.

[Myles Na G.]

The question is not why Ireland should be reunited. The question is why should it not be? Until 90 years ago, Ireland had been viewed as a single country from early days. The Romans called us Hibernia, not Res Publica Hibernia or Hibernia Borealis. We were divided at the behest of a national minority which ignored the democratic wishes of the rest of the people of this island, as well as the wishes of the government of the UK which wanted to grant Ireland Home Rule at that time. A group which constituted a majority in only 3, maybe 4, counties on this island was then permitted to establish a state which included 2 other counties with nationalist majorities. This state has existed for 90 years and has demonstrably failed economically, politically and socially. The numbers of the national minority which established the state have shrunk to the extent where they will soon be a minority even within their own artificially created border. I repeat, the question should not be why Ireland should be reunited, but rather, why does Northern Ireland still exist?

Because the majority within the six counties want it to exist as demonstrated by the fact there are more unionists than nationalists in Stormont. As demographics change Stormont will change and there will be a United Ireland.

And why should a majority within the 6 counties trump a majority in the 32?

You've heard about the Good Friday Agreement?

What about the Good Friday Agreement? Like many others, I voted in favour of it, as it was the best deal on offer at the time and a way of ending the political violence on our streets. That doesn't mean that I gave up my right to want a reunited Ireland, or to believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island.

You asked why a majority within the six counties should trump a majority in the 32. That question seemed to ignore the current reality that the Agreement is the way forward approved by a huge majority in the six, the twenty-six and the thirty-two. It doesn't include any clause that limits your right to "want a reunited Ireland" or any provision that restricts your right to "believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island".

It was approved by a huge majority throughout the island as the best of what was on offer at that time, but the reality is that the GFA was a bit of a Henry Ford type offer i.e the people could have any colour of car they wanted so long as it was black. There was no option in the GFA to vote for a 32 county, independent Ireland. A partitionist solution was the only game in town, proof if ever it was needed that the Provos lost their so called long war. But that brings me back, in a roundabout way, to my question:the fact that the only option offered to people was a partitionist one demands an explanation. Why are the wishes of a group of people clustered in 3 or 4 counties of the island forever elevated above the wishes of all other citizens? Would this have been allowed to happen in the Scottish referendum? If not, what's the difference?

The reason the wishes of a group of people clustered in 3 or 4 counties of the island were elevated a century ago above the wishes of all other citizens is simple. They threatened mayhem and violence if they were forced into a united Ireland. The reason their wishes continue to prevail is the same.

The Good Friday Agreement took four years or so to hammer out and clearly represents the acceptance of this state of affairs as the reality, however much we would wish it to be otherwise. I know that there's a wider consensus that's also been accepted - that even if there were no threat of violence, these days it's unreasonable, unworkable and counter-productive to force a large section of the population into a constitutional arrangement they don't want. That's leaving aside whether it's reasonable to force another large section of the population to remain in a constitutional arrangement THEY don't want.

Whether or not it (the unionist veto, with its implicit threat of violence) is "acceptable" is moot, depending on your definition of acceptability. One definition would be that the democratic decision of the people defines acceptability. We've accepted it. There you are.

I'm not sure, though, that large swathes of unionism have REALLY accepted the corollary that they signed up to. We'll find out if a referendum ever mandates unification.

So in order to avoid the murder and mayhem, the British government chose to go down a road which led to the War of Independence, the Civil War and 25 years of the troubles. Some might say that they didn't do a very good job of avoiding the murder and mayhem! Moreover, establishing a state on the basis of threats of violence from a minority of a country's population is hardly the way to guarantee long term stability. Had NI proven to be successful, I would be inclined to say let it run, but no matter which way you look at it, it's a failed state. It can't pay it's own way in the world and, given its size and its position on the periphery of the UK, is unlikely ever to do so. It has a political system which only functions through a series of checks and balances which guarantee that nothing ever gets passed; it has a population which continues to live separately, go to school separately and which still requires scores of so called peace walls to keep people apart. Northern Ireland as a state doesn't work, and yet the British government continues to hand a veto to the people who stand in the way of real change which could transform the lives of everyone on this island. 44% of the Scottish electorate wanted an independent Scotland, but they had to accept that a slightly larger number wanted to stay within the UK. That's democracy. Can we have some please?

[muppet]

The question is would Northerners want an United ireland? Household charges, medical bills, prescriptions, water charges among other things. Like the Scots, people will vote with their pockets.

I'd say you are a glass half empty man. You'd need to stop viewing the 26 through the eyes of Gerry Adams and Joe Higgins.

The standard of living in the 26 counties is still higher than most of the UK and is certainly far higher that the 6. The Republic has gone from being the poorest part of Europe to one of the richest (GDP/GNP issues accepted) since it left the UK. The North is on life support from London, along with much of the UK, due to the crazy imbalance in the UK economy. The UK 'recovery' is simply due to printing Sterling, a short term cure that will definitely cause serious long term problems, yet to arrive in the UK. When in a few years time,  interest rates are much higher than in the EuroZone you will understand (although Draghi is now talking about printing money).

The 26 counties recovery is certainly partially based on some massaged stats, but the outlook is far better as the UK will despite everything, be running a bigger deficit than us in the near future.

It is incredible the logical lengths people will go to to avoid acknowledging their fear of change.

If you wish to stay in the UK, fine. That is your choice. But don't pretend that (outside of the South-East) that things are somehow better than in the Republic. They most certainly aren't.

[Aerlik]

Let's not forget that 100 years ago there was the small item of the House of Saxe-Coburg/Romanov having a bit of a disagreement and the resulting tiff was more than just that, a tiff.  We were seen as an easy supply of fodder, as were the Aussies and Kiwis.  Pre-1914 we were won the point of gaining our liberation, but the above war saw the British needing pawns.  Us.  And the ANZACs.  Effectively we were bribed into participation and the resultant Loyalist uproar led to the sorry state we are in today.  Damn those Serbians.  Just last week in Albany, Western Australia, there was a commemoration of the departure of 15,000 soldiers to the war in Europe.  I have often reminded the Aussies that whilst the sacrifice of the men was commendable, the false premise that they were lured to war under was not.  And they still want a foreign head of state?  Pfft.