Get ready to wave them flegs - Lily Windsor's coming

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

But there are a few who seem happy to ignore large chunks of it

People with gaelic names, who are probably descended from picts, for instance?

The grammar and spelling alone must be shocking.

Don't be slagging off Ulster Scots.

Yes exactly, that could be the case in Scotland, in Scotland you could have Britons/Cumbrics or Norse going around with Gaelic names. In Ireland you might have English, Welsh, Cornish, Frisians (not the cows), French, Normans going around with Gaelic names.

You have Gaels going around with Germanic names.

William Wallace protrayed as a Gael in Braveheart but argued to be a Lowlander by Lowlanders was almost certainly a Cumbric (North Welsh/Briton). Wallace was a Lowland name for Welsh. It seems his family spoke Cumbric up to a generation or two before Williams time, they had adoped Angle culture by his time. It is also likely he could speak Gaelic as the Gaels had a history in his area too.

It is also believe St.Patrick while a Welshman was from modern day Scotland (because he was actuall a North Welshman/Cumbric, not from modern Wales).

Many Norse-Gaels from the Hebridies, Isle of Man and Irish Viking colonies carry Gaelic names.

Gaels from Leinster controlled the South Coast of Wales for a period, so there is a chance that there are Gaels with Welsh names or English names (English heavily infiltrated the same coast later on).

Of course plenty of Gaels with Icelandic names in Iceland.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Sorry again, for the long boring explanation, just interests me.

[Farrandeelin]

So basically we're all one big happy family then??

[Rossfan]

And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County 

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County 

You saying Roscommon can't play football, acceptance is the first step.

[Lar Naparka]

And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County 

There  ya are! I fixed it for ya.

[lawnseed]

And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County 

There  ya are! I fixed it for ya.

i think norman came to keady about 1986 he hadnt great english at the time so you had to point to the menu, the sons there now and hes picked up a lurgan accent.. the indians have arrived and are forcing normans to cut their prices, as far as i know neither crowd have intermarried with the locals yet..

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County 

There  ya are! I fixed it for ya.

i think norman came to keady about 1986 he hadnt great english at the time so you had to point to the menu, the sons there now and hes picked up a lurgan accent.. the indians have arrived and are forcing normans to cut their prices, as far as i know neither crowd have intermarried with the locals yet..

The Norman who arrived in 1986, was that the lad from Rouen or the bloke from Le Harve? That Kingdom of Meath lad, Setanta, has he settled in yet?

[lawnseed]

And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County 

There  ya are! I fixed it for ya.

i think norman came to keady about 1986 he hadnt great english at the time so you had to point to the menu, the sons there now and hes picked up a lurgan accent.. the indians have arrived and are forcing normans to cut their prices, as far as i know neither crowd have intermarried with the locals yet..

The Norman who arrived in 1986, was that the lad from Rouen or the bloke from Le Harve? That Kingdom of Meath lad, Setanta, has he settled in yet?

norman came from canton province in china, some folk in transits have arrived from the midlands and they have thus far fitted right in to keady living. they seemed to be nocturnal preferring to go out hunting at night this sets them apart from the keadonians who are mostly in the monday club since the bakery closed.. as yet i dont think any of the keadonians have mated with the transit van people but they are notorious breeders and history will record that they were both very loyal to the dept of health and social services

[AQMP]

Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA

That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968...you'd be surprised how people reacted.

You really need to study History before coming up with bilge like that.

For the settlement of 1921 was originally only designed to be temporary, prior to an (assumed) United Ireland at some future stage.

Plus the War of Independence spilled over into NI in the following years.

The IRA were active both in NI and GB during WWII, in their alliance with the Nazis.

And there was a further Border Campaign between 1956 and 1962.

And all the while this was going on, the Free State/Eire/Republic was claiming jurisdiction over NI, whilst their friends in eg Irish-America and the British Labour Party etc were agitating for a United Ireland.

None of which may excuse discrimination etc against Nationalists in NI, but it does go some way towards explaining it.

Anyhow, MayoGodHelpUs has hit upon a very pertinent point, which is that if people (all sides) do not feel coerced, they will generally be open to reason.

Which is actually at the very root of the conundrum facing Irish Republicanism i.e. the more they attempt to pressurise Unionists towards a UI, whether by political or (esp) paramilitary means, the more Unionists are liable to resist.

Indeed, if a United Ireland is the logical and natural outcome for the island, leading towards peace and prosperity for all, then the best thing Republicans could do would be just to keepm quiet and let Unionists figure it out for themselves.

Of course, the flaw in that particular argument will be if a United Ireland isn't, in fact, the best outcome for all - for Unionists, at least.

On which point, I would be interested to hear from the Republicans on this Board just exactly what it is they think there is about a UI which should appeal to Unionists?

For as a Unionist who is not totally averse to the idea in principle, neither can I see anything especially positive in it for me.

Before you went off on one, I think you missed this bit in my post EG... .  Though judging by your post I'd say you'd know bilge when you saw it alright

[Banana Man]

Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA

That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968...you'd be surprised how people reacted.

You really need to study History before coming up with bilge like that.

For the settlement of 1921 was originally only designed to be temporary, prior to an (assumed) United Ireland at some future stage.

Plus the War of Independence spilled over into NI in the following years.

The IRA were active both in NI and GB during WWII, in their alliance with the Nazis.

And there was a further Border Campaign between 1956 and 1962.

And all the while this was going on, the Free State/Eire/Republic was claiming jurisdiction over NI, whilst their friends in eg Irish-America and the British Labour Party etc were agitating for a United Ireland.

None of which may excuse discrimination etc against Nationalists in NI, but it does go some way towards explaining it.

Anyhow, MayoGodHelpUs has hit upon a very pertinent point, which is that if people (all sides) do not feel coerced, they will generally be open to reason.

Which is actually at the very root of the conundrum facing Irish Republicanism i.e. the more they attempt to pressurise Unionists towards a UI, whether by political or (esp) paramilitary means, the more Unionists are liable to resist.

Indeed, if a United Ireland is the logical and natural outcome for the island, leading towards peace and prosperity for all, then the best thing Republicans could do would be just to keepm quiet and let Unionists figure it out for themselves.

Of course, the flaw in that particular argument will be if a United Ireland isn't, in fact, the best outcome for all - for Unionists, at least.

On which point, I would be interested to hear from the Republicans on this Board just exactly what it is they think there is about a UI which should appeal to Unionists?

For as a Unionist who is not totally averse to the idea in principle, neither can I see anything especially positive in it for me.

Before you went off on one, I think you missed this bit in my post EG... .  Though judging by your post I'd say you'd know bilge when you saw it alright

[Rossfan]

And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County 

There  ya are! I fixed it for ya.

Have a bit of respect for the real capital of Ireland ( Cruachán/Rathcroghan) before all those unwashed interlopers took over our land.

[Evil Genius]

Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA

That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968...you'd be surprised how people reacted.

You really need to study History before coming up with bilge like that.

For the settlement of 1921 was originally only designed to be temporary, prior to an (assumed) United Ireland at some future stage.

Plus the War of Independence spilled over into NI in the following years.

The IRA were active both in NI and GB during WWII, in their alliance with the Nazis.

And there was a further Border Campaign between 1956 and 1962.

And all the while this was going on, the Free State/Eire/Republic was claiming jurisdiction over NI, whilst their friends in eg Irish-America and the British Labour Party etc were agitating for a United Ireland.

None of which may excuse discrimination etc against Nationalists in NI, but it does go some way towards explaining it.

Anyhow, MayoGodHelpUs has hit upon a very pertinent point, which is that if people (all sides) do not feel coerced, they will generally be open to reason.

Which is actually at the very root of the conundrum facing Irish Republicanism i.e. the more they attempt to pressurise Unionists towards a UI, whether by political or (esp) paramilitary means, the more Unionists are liable to resist.

Indeed, if a United Ireland is the logical and natural outcome for the island, leading towards peace and prosperity for all, then the best thing Republicans could do would be just to keepm quiet and let Unionists figure it out for themselves.

Of course, the flaw in that particular argument will be if a United Ireland isn't, in fact, the best outcome for all - for Unionists, at least.

On which point, I would be interested to hear from the Republicans on this Board just exactly what it is they think there is about a UI which should appeal to Unionists?

For as a Unionist who is not totally averse to the idea in principle, neither can I see anything especially positive in it for me.

Before you went off on one, I think you missed this bit in my post EG... .  Though judging by your post I'd say you'd know bilge when you saw it alright

"Missed this bit in [your] post"?

Actually I was responding directly to it.

That is, MGHU was making the (imo valid) point that if Irish Republicanism were to take a reasonable, non-threatening approach in their dealings with Unionists, they might expect to receive a similarly reasonable and non-threatening response in return.

I then took your comment ("That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968") to be a (sarcastic) claim that the Irish Republican strategy in those years was  reasonable and non-threatening etc.

Either I misunderstood your comment, or it was bilge.


P.S. This discussion reminds me once more of the old chestnut where a Republican asks a Loyalist: "When are you going to drop your siege mentality?"
"When you raise the siege", came the reply...

[Rossfan]

And of course the absolute prejudiced keep the Taigs in their place bigotry and hatred displayed towards most Catholics in the 6 Cos between 1921 to 1968 and beyond had nothing to do with anything   
Take off the blinkers EG ( although you're not the worst of them).

6 Co Catholic to 6 Co Prod .. " When are you going to trat me like a human being"
Prod " When you become like us"
(Plagurised from Capt Terence o'Neill)

[Evil Genius]

And of course the absolute prejudiced keep the Taigs in their place bigotry and hatred displayed towards most Catholics in the 6 Cos between 1921 to 1968 and beyond had nothing to do with anything   

I never claimed that (or anything like it).

MGHU originally made the point that if you treat people reasonably and in a non-threatening manner, they will usually reciprocate.
AQMP then implied that this had been the (sole) approach of Nationalism/Republicanism in NI between 1921 and 1968.
This caused me to point out, with references, that Nats/Reps/Various Others had actually been "threatening" NI (both politically and militarily) for virtually all of that period.

The only reference I made to discrimination against Nats/Reps etc was in post #386, where I agreed that it (discrimination) was not justified by agitation by Nats/Reps against the existence of NI.

Take off the blinkers EG

You might be advised to take off your "blinkers" when reading my posts - that way, you might avoid getting the wrong end of the stick from what it is I actually write.

( although you're not the worst of them).

Gee Thanks.

6 Co Catholic to 6 Co Prod .. " When are you going to trat me like a human being"
Prod " When you become like us"
(Plagurised from Capt Terence o'Neill)

If seeking an unreconstructed bigot amongst the ranks of Ulster Unionism, O'Neill would hardly be my first choice:

"After an eighty-year record of remarkable unity in the face of threats from Irish Nationalism, Ulster Unionism suddenly fragmented in the late 1960s. This has been explained by reference both to the fissile nature of the Unionist pan-class alliance and to fundamental divisions over identity. Though important, these were not new factors and were compatible with a high degree of organizational unity. What ruptured the movement was Terence O'Neill's ambition to draw Catholics into the Unionist alliance, even at the expense of alienating some Protestant traditionalists. Increasingly, assimilatory Unionism, dominant in the Civil Service and civil society, confronted segregatory Unionism ensconced in the structures of the Unionist Party. This strategic dichotomy reached a climax with vicious Unionist in-fighting during the 1969 Crossroads election. O'Neill's assimilation-ism ultimately collapsed both because it was unconvincing to the ranks of Ulster Unionism, and because it failed in its primary aim of making inroads into Catholic support. O'Neill underestlimated the tenacity of both traditional Unionism and traditional Nationalism."
http://tcbh.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/3/284.abstract